Scott: I believe the birds observed on the Grand Mesa in 1998 had patagial tags. I don't have that information readily available, but if the tags indicated that those birds were released from captivity, then I think that would disallow them from being countable according to ABA. If the origin of any of those individuals was unknown (e.g., the bird did not have a patagial tag) or if the bird was known to have been hatched in the wild, then it seems like it could be counted under the new rule.
Now then, the Colorado Bird Records Committee does not strictly adhere to ABA's counting rules and California Condor is not on the state list. The CBRC does not have a formal policy on introduced or re-introduced species. However, its actions on such species has been to recognize those with self-sustaining naturalized populations, such as Ring-necked Pheasant and Gambel's Quail, which is consistent with the actions and policies of other state records committees. California Condor does not fit that criteria, so it is unlikely to be added anytime soon and the Grand Mesa birds remain ineligible for state or county listing purposes within CFO's framework. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I have been approached several times about Colorado's lack of a hypothetical list - those native species for which identification is not questionable, but origin is. The arguments for the ABA rule change, namely the lack of distinction between released and wild-hatched birds, would seem to favor that the condor should be considered hypothetical for Colorado. Good birding, Doug Faulkner CBRC, Chair On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Roederer Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > CObirders, > > The ABA changed their rules for counting reintroduced indigenous birds on > 9/27/14. Populations no longer need to be self-sustaining. They only need > to have "successfully hatched young in the wild." This has caused a lot of > discussion on the AZ/NM listserv regarding condors, which are now legal to > count. > > Do I recall correctly that a condor was reported from southwestern CO a > few years ago? If so, would those who chased it and saw it be able to count > it now? > > There is an ABA rule that lets a bird observed in the past "when it was > not considered a valid species" to be counted when it becomes a valid > species. I guess you'd have to determine if there had been successful > hatching of young in AZ before you saw the bird in CO. > > The in-house discussion of the decision to make the rule change is very > interesting, particularly the lone dissenter's statement. It's available > here: > > http://listing.aba.org/rsec-vote-2014-04/ > > Scott Roederer > Estes Park > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Colorado Birds" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/DF0C6D49-9EB8-4AA9-84CA-72AD0144B70B%40estesvalley.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/DF0C6D49-9EB8-4AA9-84CA-72AD0144B70B%40estesvalley.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/CAFDjppWqHcFWA7AOsZA9NzhwMC9NjgNQ%3DAXg3_pOri-324jxUQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
