Lifers

[Birding Boy]

4 minutes ago, Charlie Spencer said:

Sandwich Tern, Lockwood Folly Inlet, southeastern NC 

Nice! One of my favorites.

[Connor Cochrane]

Here are some toucans

Collared Aracari

Yellow-throated Toucan

[Clip]

Ruddy Shelduck

[neilpa]

Vaux's Swift -- and I thought swallows were hard to get pictures of.

[DLecy]

10 hours ago, Clip said:

Ruddy Shelduck

Any clue as to why these escaped exotics are being confirmed in eBird? 

[Clip]

4 hours ago, DLecy said:

Any clue as to why these escaped exotics are being confirmed in eBird? 

I think these are the offspring of escapees meaning they have been fruitful and multiplied and are now countable.

[DLecy]

4 hours ago, Clip said:

I think these are the offspring of escapees meaning they have been fruitful and multiplied and are now countable.

Hmmm. Unlikely. Under ABA rules, for a population to be considered established, and therefore “countable,” it needs to have been present for at least 15 years, among other things.

 https://www.aba.org/criteria-for-determining-establishment-of-exotics/

Per eBird, “However, please indicate suspected domestic or escaped birds whenever possible. Note that domestic, exotic, and escaped birds may be marked "Rare" and/or unconfirmed by our reviewers so these birds do not get confused for wild, naturally occurring species in our public database.”

So, is your eBird reviewer new perhaps? I’m kind of shocked that these were accepted. Mainly because these birds are the only accepted Ruddy Shelduck records in all of eBird for the continental US, and they are clearly not naturally occurring. I predict they eventually get wiped from the public database in eBird, but who knows.

[Birding Boy]

18 minutes ago, DLecy said:

Hmmm. Unlikely. Under ABA rules, for a population to be considered established, and therefore “countable,” it needs to have been present for at least 15 years, among other things.

 https://www.aba.org/criteria-for-determining-establishment-of-exotics/

Per eBird, “However, please indicate suspected domestic or escaped birds whenever possible. Note that domestic, exotic, and escaped birds may be marked "Rare" and/or unconfirmed by our reviewers so these birds do not get confused for wild, naturally occurring species in our public database.”

So, is your eBird reviewer new perhaps? I’m kind of shocked that these were accepted. Mainly because these birds are the only accepted Ruddy Shelduck records in all of eBird for the continental US, and they are clearly not naturally occurring. I predict they eventually get wiped from the public database in eBird, but who knows.

While I don’t have an answer to the question, I’ve noticed that pretty much all over Florida, seemingly any waterfowl is accepted, wether it be a Black-necked Swan, obvious released Pochards, or the Tamarac exotic duck pond White-cheeked Pintails. I don’t know why, maybe the reviewers just don’t understand the escapes/releases down there or something. Anyways, while each individual’s life list follows his or her own rules, I’d be cautious counting something like this, even if it has been confirmed. 

[Clip]

1 hour ago, Birding Boy said:

While I don’t have an answer to the question, I’ve noticed that pretty much all over Florida, seemingly any waterfowl is accepted, wether it be a Black-necked Swan, obvious released Pochards, or the Tamarac exotic duck pond White-cheeked Pintails. I don’t know why, maybe the reviewers just don’t understand the escapes/releases down there or something. Anyways, while each individual’s life list follows his or her own rules, I’d be cautious counting something like this, even if it has been confirmed. 

 

2 hours ago, DLecy said:

Hmmm. Unlikely. Under ABA rules, for a population to be considered established, and therefore “countable,” it needs to have been present for at least 15 years, among other things.

 https://www.aba.org/criteria-for-determining-establishment-of-exotics/

Per eBird, “However, please indicate suspected domestic or escaped birds whenever possible. Note that domestic, exotic, and escaped birds may be marked "Rare" and/or unconfirmed by our reviewers so these birds do not get confused for wild, naturally occurring species in our public database.”

So, is your eBird reviewer new perhaps? I’m kind of shocked that these were accepted. Mainly because these birds are the only accepted Ruddy Shelduck records in all of eBird for the continental US, and they are clearly not naturally occurring. I predict they eventually get wiped from the public database in eBird, but who knows.

It is possible they have been present for 15 years and are now countable. There are definitely a number of non-native birds here that are, including parrots, parakeets, peafowl and several ducks.  I would image the ebird admin folks know what they are doing especially since I saw that our District admin visited the Tamarac exotic duck pond recently with and listed all the non-native species herself.

[DLecy]

41 minutes ago, Clip said:

 

It is possible they have been present for 15 years and are now countable. There are definitely a number of non-native birds here that are, including parrots, parakeets, peafowl and several ducks.  I would image the ebird admin folks know what they are doing especially since I saw that our District admin visited the Tamarac exotic duck pond recently with and listed all the non-native species herself.

I think the chances that these birds have existed here as an established feral population for over 15 years and are only now being reported is less than zero.

As it stands, with the reviewer excepting these records, these represent the only Ruddy Shelducks in the entire continent of North America, or in the western hemisphere. There is nothing in the way that they are being reported in eBird that indicate that they are escaped exotic pets aside from the comments in individual lists, which do not factor into the data. If these birds are not wiped from the public data output I would be shocked.  Maybe I’m missing something here, but I think this is worth keeping an ion.

I personally would not count these birds on my life list any more than I would count a random canary that had escaped from someone’s cage. But, as has already been mentioned on this thread, your individual life list is your life list.

Edited June 21, 2021 by DLecy
Typo

[DLecy]

18 minutes ago, Clip said:

I feel like there is just a ton a venom in this response. Why is that?

I’m simply explaining to you why I am shocked and confused that these birds are being allowed in the public output of the eBird database. Maybe I should have just let the data speak for itself from the start instead of trying to explain my reasoning (which you have now labeled as venom).

I’m tapping out of this thread. Cheers.

https://ebird.org/map/rudshe?neg=true&env.minX=&env.minY=&env.maxX=&env.maxY=&zh=false&gp=false&ev=Z&mr=1-12&bmo=1&emo=12&yr=all&byr=1900&eyr=2021#more-map-options

[lonestranger]

3 hours ago, DLecy said:

I think this is worth keeping an ion.

I see what you did there. 

[Clip]

9 hours ago, DLecy said:

I think the chances that these birds have existed here as an established feral population for over 15 years and are only now being reported is less than zero.

They get removed from public view if they are countable. So there is a problem with your logic here. Now I'm out.

[TKbird]

I wonder if there's a chance they're vagrants?  It seems like an odd time of year for vagrants, but I checked the eBird map and the other continent record is in July, and there are also several July and one June record on the westernmost Atlantic island with eBird records.  Nine birds does seem improbable for vagrancy, but the Nunavut record was six and that seems like an odd place for escapees.  I dunno, just wanted to put that out there. ?

[The Bird Nuts]

24 minutes ago, Clip said:

They get removed from public view if they are countable.

Why is that?  I would think they would only hide the observation if it was a sensitive rare species.

Edited June 22, 2021 by The Bird Nuts

[Clip]

8 hours ago, The Bird Nuts said:

Why is that?  I would think they would only hide the observation if it was a sensitive rare species.

This should say uncountable. But, I believe it is probably at least in part so people don't chase these birds to put on their life list because they are not countable due to be escapees from zoos or individual owners.

[IKLland]

On 6/21/2021 at 8:30 AM, DLecy said:

I think the chances that these birds have existed here as an established feral population for over 15 years and are only now being reported is less than zero.

As it stands, with the reviewer excepting these records, these represent the only Ruddy Shelducks in the entire continent of North America, or in the western hemisphere. There is nothing in the way that they are being reported in eBird that indicate that they are escaped exotic pets aside from the comments in individual lists, which do not factor into the data. If these birds are not wiped from the public data output I would be shocked.  Maybe I’m missing something here, but I think this is worth keeping an ion.

I personally would not count these birds on my life list any more than I would count a random canary that had escaped from someone’s cage. But, as has already been mentioned on this thread, your individual life list is your life list.

This. If i saw these in the wild, i wouldn’t report it to Ebird , as they are almost certainly escaped or something like that. Unless there are more reports of the same species at different locations in the area, then it might be that they were introduced. However, since this is the only report, its unlikely. But, how can we be sure these aren’t vagrants?

15 hours ago, Clip said:

They get removed from public view if they are countable. So there is a problem with your logic here. Now I'm out.

Why? I don’t see anything wrong with @DLecy’s statement. 

15 hours ago, TKbird said:

I wonder if there's a chance they're vagrants?  It seems like an odd time of year for vagrants, but I checked the eBird map and the other continent record is in July, and there are also several July and one June record on the westernmost Atlantic island with eBird records.  Nine birds does seem improbable for vagrancy, but the Nunavut record was six and that seems like an odd place for escapees.  I dunno, just wanted to put that out there. ?

Im not sure. 

[TKbird]

49 minutes ago, IKLland said:

Why? I don’t see anything wrong with @DLecy’s statement.

@Clip meant uncountable: I think @Clip was pointing out that until a species is considered established there wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be any confirmed records, so if the shelducks were not previously considered established, reports wouldn't be visible.  In the event that a species did become established, there would finally be a first confirmed report even though the species had been around for 15+ years.

Interestingly, it appears many more shelduck reports in the same spot have been confirmed today, including one with a note that says "Known sire" and one from nearby in April that says, "Consistent sighting at various locations around Ocala," so perhaps a small population really has become estalished there?

I do agree with @DLecy that there are a good number of curious confirmed eBird records out there, and I find myself wondering about some of them! ?

Edited June 22, 2021 by TKbird

[Connor Cochrane]

Thick-billed Seed Finch

[Connor Cochrane]

Two Rare Flycatchers

Sulphur-rumped Flycatcher

Ochre-bellied Flycatcher

[Clip]

On 6/21/2021 at 9:15 PM, Clip said:

They get removed from public view if they are countable. So there is a problem with your logic here. Now I'm out.

If they are "uncountable" is how this should read. I didn't catch the error in time to edit it.

[Aidan B]

Gray Catbird

 

[Connor Cochrane]

Bridled Tern

[Seanbirds]

3 hours ago, Aidan B said:

Gray Catbird

 

Aren’t those pretty uncommon/rare out west? Nice bird!!

[Aidan B]

2 minutes ago, Seanbirds said:

Aren’t those pretty uncommon/rare out west? Nice bird!!

Yeah, they're far from common here in Cali.