Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020-2026 Amber-List Species (Medium Conservation Concern)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020-2026 Amber-list species (medium conservation concern) Breeding Breeding continued Wintering continued Goosander Swallow Smew Garganey Sand Martin Pintail Spotted Crake Willow Warbler Black-throated Diver European Storm-petrel Starling Great Northern Diver Fulmar Spotted Flycatcher Bittern Manx Shearwater Northern Wheatear Turnstone Gannet Goldcrest Brambling Shag House Sparrow Little Ringed Plover Tree Sparrow Breeding and Wintering Common Sandpiper Greenfinch Mute Swan Mediterranean Gull Linnet Whooper Swan Little Tern Pied Flycatcher Red-breasted Merganser Roseate Tern Western Yellow Wagtail Shelduck Common Tern Tufted Duck Arctic Tern Passage Gadwall Sandwich Tern Cory's Shearwater Wigeon Great Skua Ruff Mallard Black Guillemot Spotted Redshank Teal Common Guillemot Wood Sandpiper Great Crested Grebe Short-eared Owl Little Gull Coot Marsh Harrier Black Tern Red-throated Diver Hen Harrier Wryneck Cormorant Goshawk Tree Pipit Ringed Plover Kingfisher Black-headed Gull Merlin Wintering Common Gull Chough Brent Goose Lesser Black-backed Gull Skylark Barnacle Goose European Herring Gull Bearded Reedling Greylag Goose House Martin Greater White-fronted Goose For more information, please see Gilbert G, Stanbury A and Lewis L (2021), “Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020 –2026”. Irish Birds 43: 1–22 The categorisation of species as breeding, wintering etc. refers to the populations against which BoCCI criteria were applied Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020-2026 Red-list species (high conservation concern) Breeding Breeding continued Wintering continued Quail Ring Ouzel Grey Plover Grey Partridge Common Redstart Bar-tailed Godwit Red Grouse Whinchat Black-tailed Godwit Black-necked Grebe Meadow Pipit Knot Stock Dove Grey Wagtail Purple Sandpiper Nightjar Twite Snowy Owl Swift Yellowhammer Redwing Corncrake Leach’s Storm-petrel Passage Breeding and Wintering Woodcock Turtle Dove Eider Red-necked Phalarope Balearic Shearwater Common Scoter Kittiwake Curlew Sandpiper Pochard Puffin Shoveler Razorbill Wintering Oystercatcher Barn Owl Bewick's Swan Golden Plover Golden Eagle Long-tailed Duck Lapwing White-tailed Eagle Velvet Scoter Curlew Red Kite Goldeneye Dunlin Kestrel Scaup Snipe Wood Warbler Slavonian Grebe Redshank For more information, please see Gilbert G, Stanbury A and Lewis L (2021), “Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland 2020 –2026”. Irish Birds 43: 1–22 The categorisation of species as breeding, wintering etc. refers to the populations against which BoCCI criteria were applied .

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Driven Grouse Shooting
Driven grouse shooting RSPB Council updated our previous policy on driven grouse shooting in October 2020. Our policy is to support licensing of driven grouse shooting across the UK, following expected progress on this issue in Scotland in 2020. Unless substantial progress (including effective licensing, stopping raptor killing, cessation of burning on peat soils, and banning use of lead ammunition) is made in reforming driven grouse shooting by 2025 in line with RSPB principles for sustainable gamebird shooting, we will consequently call on governments to introduce a specific ban on driven grouse shooting. Background Driven grouse shooting is defined as where shooters sit in lines of grouse butts on open moorland, and red grouse are then driven by beaters and dogs over the guns to shoot. The activity usually involves shooting large grouse “bags” (where large numbers of grouse are shot in a day). It is a unique hunting type to the UK (mainly England and Scotland) and shooters will pay large sums of money for a day’s shooting. Typically, gamekeepers are employed to kill predators that eat grouse; heather is burned to create young heather (the main foodplant of red grouse); and other additional management techniques are employed to produce as many red grouse as possible for shooting. The red grouse shooting season opens on the 12 August (“the Glorious Twelfth”). The alternative walked up grouse shooting involves a small number of shooters accompanied by dogs. They generally take small and sustainable numbers of grouse, as walked up shooting is more about the hunting experience. This is much less of a conservation issue for us.
[Show full text]
Hunting in SWEDEN
www.face-europe.org Page 1 of 14 Hunting in SWEDEN SURFACE AREA Total surface area 449,964 km² Woodlands 62 % Farming area 9 % Huntable area n.a. average huntable area n.a. HUNTER/POPULATION Population 9,000,000 Number of Hunters 290,000 % Hunters 3.2 % Hunters / Inhabitants 1:31 Population density inhabitants/km² 22 Source: http:www.jagareforbundet.se, 2005 Handbook of Hunting in Europe, FACE, 1995 www.face-europe.org Page 2 of 14 HUNTING SYSTEM Competent authorities The Parliament has overall responsibility for legislation. The Government - the Ministry of Agriculture - is responsible for questions concerning hunting. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for supervision and monitoring developments in hunting and game management. The County Administrations are responsible for hunting and game management questions on the county level, and are advised by County Game Committees - länsviltnämnd - with representatives of forestry, agriculture, hunting, recreational and environmental protection interests. } Ministry of Agriculture (Jordbruksdepartementet) S-10333 Stockholm Phone +46 (0) 8 405 10 00 - Fax +46 (0)8 20 64 96 } Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket) SE-106 48 Stockholm Phone +46 (0)8 698 10 00 - Fax +46 (0)8 20 29 25 Hunters’ associations Hunting is a popular sport in Sweden. There are some 290.000 hunters, of whom almost 195.000 are affiliated to the Swedish Association for Hunting and Wildlife Management (Svenska Jägareförbundet). The association is a voluntary body whose main task is to look after the interests of hunting and hunters. The Parliament has delegated responsibility SAHWM for, among other things, practical game management work.
[Show full text]
Migratory Birds Index
CAFF Assessment Series Report September 2015 Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index ARCTIC COUNCIL Acknowledgements CAFF Designated Agencies: • Norwegian Environment Agency, Trondheim, Norway • Environment Canada, Ottawa, Canada • Faroese Museum of Natural History, Tórshavn, Faroe Islands (Kingdom of Denmark) • Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki, Finland • Icelandic Institute of Natural History, Reykjavik, Iceland • Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Greenland • Russian Federation Ministry of Natural Resources, Moscow, Russia • Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden • United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska CAFF Permanent Participant Organizations: • Aleut International Association (AIA) • Arctic Athabaskan Council (AAC) • Gwich’in Council International (GCI) • Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) • Russian Indigenous Peoples of the North (RAIPON) • Saami Council This publication should be cited as: Deinet, S., Zöckler, C., Jacoby, D., Tresize, E., Marconi, V., McRae, L., Svobods, M., & Barry, T. (2015). The Arctic Species Trend Index: Migratory Birds Index. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna, Akureyri, Iceland. ISBN: 978-9935-431-44-8 Cover photo: Arctic tern. Photo: Mark Medcalf/Shutterstock.com Back cover: Red knot. Photo: USFWS/Flickr Design and layout: Courtney Price For more information please contact: CAFF International Secretariat Borgir, Nordurslod 600 Akureyri, Iceland Phone: +354 462-3350 Fax: +354 462-3390 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.caff.is This report was commissioned and funded by the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the Biodiversity Working Group of the Arctic Council. Additional funding was provided by WWF International, the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The views expressed in this report are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Arctic Council or its members.
[Show full text]
Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Paul Johnsgard Collection Papers in the Biological Sciences 1983 Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants Paul A. Johnsgard University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard Part of the Ornithology Commons Johnsgard, Paul A., "Hybridization & Zoogeographic Patterns in Pheasants" (1983). Paul Johnsgard Collection. 17. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/johnsgard/17 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Paul Johnsgard Collection by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. HYBRIDIZATION & ZOOGEOGRAPHIC PATTERNS IN PHEASANTS PAUL A. JOHNSGARD The purpose of this paper is to infonn members of the W.P.A. of an unusual scientific use of the extent and significance of hybridization among pheasants (tribe Phasianini in the proposed classification of Johnsgard~ 1973). This has occasionally occurred naturally, as for example between such locally sympatric species pairs as the kalij (Lophura leucol11elana) and the silver pheasant (L. nycthelnera), but usually occurs "'accidentally" in captive birds, especially in the absence of conspecific mates. Rarely has it been specifically planned for scientific purposes, such as for obtaining genetic, morphological, or biochemical information on hybrid haemoglobins (Brush. 1967), trans ferins (Crozier, 1967), or immunoelectrophoretic comparisons of blood sera (Sato, Ishi and HiraI, 1967). The literature has been summarized by Gray (1958), Delacour (1977), and Rutgers and Norris (1970). Some of these alleged hybrids, especially those not involving other Galliformes, were inadequately doculnented, and in a few cases such as a supposed hybrid between domestic fowl (Gallus gal/us) and the lyrebird (Menura novaehollandiae) can be discounted.
[Show full text]
European Red List of Birds
European Red List of Birds Compiled by BirdLife International Published by the European Commission. opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Commission or BirdLife International concerning the legal status of any country, Citation: Publications of the European Communities. Design and layout by: Imre Sebestyén jr. / UNITgraphics.com Printed by: Pannónia Nyomda Picture credits on cover page: Fratercula arctica to continue into the future. © Ondrej Pelánek All photographs used in this publication remain the property of the original copyright holder (see individual captions for details). Photographs should not be reproduced or used in other contexts without written permission from the copyright holder. Available from: to your questions about the European Union Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed Published by the European Commission. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu). Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. ISBN: 978-92-79-47450-7 DOI: 10.2779/975810 © European Union, 2015 Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Printed in Hungary. European Red List of Birds Consortium iii Table of contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................................1 Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................................5 1.
[Show full text]
RED GROUSE and Birds of Prey
RED GROUSE and birds of prey This leaflet is supported ● by 17 voluntary bodies and addresses Illegal killing of birds of prey is limiting the concerns about the impact of predation population and distribution of several of red grouse by birds of prey (raptors). It species. explains how serious habitat loss and degradation have caused ● Management for grouse has helped to long-term declines in grouse bags, and how a high density of birds protect heather moors from forestry of prey can affect bags when grouse densities are low. It details plantations and livestock production, but why killing of birds of prey, illegally or under licence, and setting heavy grazing by sheep and deer is the quotas for birds of prey are not acceptable. It identifies measures main cause of declines in grouse bags. that can be taken to reduce the impact of predation on grouse and ● enhance heather moors for wildlife. ‘It is extremely unlikely that raptors were responsible for either the long-term decline or the fluctuations in grouse bags.’ Joint The concerns Raptor Study, Langholm.11 Conservation groups and the Government are ● ‘The raptor issue should be put on one side concerned because widespread killing of birds of because it is a diversion that has too often prey, especially on upland moorlands managed for resulted in managers taking their eyes off driven grouse-shooting, limits the population and the ball.’ The Heather Trust.25 distribution of several species. Killing birds of prey is ● Habitat management is fundamental to a a criminal activity involving hundreds of birds every long-term recovery of upland wildlife and year; for example: grouse shooting.
[Show full text]
Your Essential Guide to Grouse Shooting and Moorland Management
Your essential guide to grouse shooting and moorland management Who we are The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) is a research and education charity conducting conservation science to enhance the British countryside for public benefit. For over 80 years we have been researching and developing game and wildlife management techniques and have had 135 scientific papers published in peer-reviewed journals on issues relating to upland ecology over the past 46 years. On the basis of our scientific expertise and credibility, we regularly provide advice to such statutory bodies as Defra, Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural England. We also provide practical advice to farmers and landowners on how to manage their land with a view to improving biodiversity. Much of our research is undertaken in collaboration with other institutions and organisations, including the following: Exeter, Imperial College London, Newcastle and Aberdeen Universities, the British Trust for Ornithology, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the RSPB. To help disseminate this knowledge, representatives of the GWCT sat on over 100 external committees in 2015, including the following: Defra’s Upland Stakeholder Forum, Natural England’s main board and the UK Birds of Conservation Concern Panel. Why we support grouse moor management After spending 46 years researching and advising in the uplands we support grouse moor management for three primary reasons: 1. The habitat management undertaken on grouse moors preserves and enhances heather dominated habitats1. 2. The package of management, notably habitat enhancement along with predator control contributes to the conservation of a suite of upland bird species including upland waders2–4.
[Show full text]
British Birds
Volume 64 Number 9 September 1971 British Birds North American waterfowl in Europe Bertel Bruun INTRODUCTION The natural occurrence of North American birds in Europe is a well- established fact substantiated by recoveries of ringed birds. The transatlantic crossings of waders and passerines have been excellently treated by Nisbet (1959, 1963) and, more recently, by Sharrock (1971). The waterfowl (Anatidae) have received less attention, however, and no attempt has previously been made to summarise their occurrences in Europe in relation to their migrations and distributions in North America. Analysis of the data on waterfowl is greatly complicated by the many escaped birds encountered so much more often in this family than in any other, which might explain the scanty treatment of trans atlantic vagrancy among this otherwise intensively studied group. Counterweights to the complication of escapes are the fairly large size and easy identification of ducks and geese, the many specimens obtained, and the relatively high rate of ringing returns. In this paper the records of Nearctic waterfowl in Europe are briefly discussed in the light of the distributions, migrations and habits of the species and subspecies concerned in North America. All dated records up to and including 1968 have been considered; undated records and any of birds seriously regarded as escapes have generally been excluded. So far as possible, all the records are listed with refer ences, but in some cases, particularly where there are more than ten in any country, they are summarised or tabulated by the months when they were first reported. Because of the establishment of feral popula tions in Britain and Sweden, the Canada Goose Branta canadensis has been omitted, although since about 1954 there have been a number of records of individuals of one or other of the small subspecies in Ireland (chiefly on the Wexford Slobs) and in Scotland (chiefly in the Hebrides) which seem almost certain to include genuine transatlantic 385 386 North American waterfowl in Europe vagrants.
[Show full text]
Species Included in Categories A, B & C Scientific
Species included in categories A, B & C Scientific name Race Category 1 Mute Swan Cygnus olor -- A / C1 2 Bewick’s Swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii A >> Tundra Swan columbianus -- 3 Whooper Swan Cygnus cygnus -- A 4 Bean Goose Anser fabalis fabilis A >> Tundra Bean Goose rossicus -- 5 Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus -- A 6 White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons flavirostris A >> Russian White-fronted Goose albifrons -- 7 Lesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropus -- A 8 Greylag Goose Anser anser anser A / C1 9 Snow Goose Anser caerulescens caerulescens A / D1 >> Greater Snow Goose atlanticus -- 10 Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii hutchinsii A 11 Canada Goose Branta canadensis canadensis A / C1 >> Todd's Canada Goose interior -- 12 Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis -- A / C1 13 Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota A >> Dark-bellied Brent Goose bernicla -- >> Black Brant nigricans -- 14 Ruddy Shelduck Tadorna ferruginea -- B / D1 15 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna -- A 16 Mandarin Duck Aix galericulata -- C1 17 Wigeon Anas penelope -- A 18 American Wigeon Anas americana -- A 19 Gadwall Anas strepera -- A 20 Baikal Teal Anas formosa -- A / D1 21 Teal Anas crecca crecca A 22 Green-winged Teal Anas carolinensis -- A 23 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos A / C1 24 American Black Duck Anas rubripes -- A 25 Pintail Anas acuta acuta A 26 Garganey Anas querquedula -- A 27 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors -- A 28 Shoveler Anas clypeata -- A 29 Red-crested Pochard Netta rufina -- A 30 Pochard Aythya ferina -- A 31 Redhead Aythya americana -- A 32 Ring-necked
[Show full text]
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM SCIENTIFIC NAME: Coccyzus americanus COMMON NAME: Yellow-billed Cuckoo, Western United States Distinct Population Segment LEAD REGION: Region 1 INFORMATION CURRENT AS OF: June 10, 2004 STATUS/ACTION: Initial 12-month Petition Finding: not warranted warranted warranted but precluded (also complete (c) and (d) in section on petitioned candidate species- why action is precluded) Species assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to Candidate status ___ New candidate X Continuing candidate ___ Non-petitioned X Petitioned - Date petition received: February 9, 1998 X 90-day positive - FR date: February 17, 2000 X 12-month warranted but precluded - FR date: July 25, 2001 Is the petition requesting a reclassification of a listed species? X Listing priority change Former LP: 6 New LP: 3 Latest Date species became a Candidate: July 25, 2001 ___ Candidate removal: Former LP: ___ ___ A - Taxon more abundant or widespread than previously believed or not subject to a degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status. ___ F - Range is no longer a U.S. territory. I - Insufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support listing. ___ M - Taxon mistakenly included in past notice of review. ___ N - Taxon may not meet the Act’s definition of “species.” ___ X - Taxon believed to be extinct. 1 ANIMAL/PLANT GROUP AND FAMILY: Family Cuculidae and Order Cuculiformes HISTORICAL STATES/TERRITORIES/COUNTRIES OF OCCURRENCE: California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, British Columbia, and Mexico.
[Show full text]
Cecal Fermentation in Mallards in Relation to Diet
SHORT COMMUNICATIONS 107 A change in tongue volume with body size could more efficient despite proportionally smaller volumes be accomplished in several ways. If larger birds had of the tongue grooves. longer tongues, volume could be increased by length- This study was supported by National Science ening. A change in volume could also result from a Foundation Grants GB-12344, GB-39940, GB-28956X, change in the dimensions of the grooves in tongues of GB-40108, and GB-19200. We give special thanks to the same length. This appears to be the case for N. the Gilgil Country Club, and especially Ray and Bar- verticalis as compared with N. venusta (fig. 3), bara Terry, for providing a pleasant environment. where tongues are the same length but the smaller venusta has a smaller tongue volume. For the larger LITERATURE CITED N. reichenowi, the greater volume is achieved by a EIILEK, J. M. 1968. Optimal choice in animals. slightly longer tongue with much larger grooves (fig. Am. Nat. 102:385-389. 3). HAISSWORTH, F. R. 1973. On the tongue of a hum- Bill length and morphology appear to be well cor- mingbird: Its role in the rate and energetics of related with corolla length and morphology in nectar- feeding. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 46:65-78. feeding birds (Snow and Snow 1972, Wolf et al. HAINSWORTH, F. R., ANU L. L. WOLF. 1972a. Ener- unpubl. data). This co-evolutionary relationship pre- getics of nectar extraction in a small, high alti- sumably provides for ease in reaching and extracting tude, tropical hummingbird, Selusphorus Pam- nectar at the base of differently shaped flowers.
[Show full text]
Strongylosis Control in Red Grouse
Strongylosis control in red grouse Current best practice guidelines for the management of strongylosis in red grouse www.gct.org.uk Strongylosis and red grouse Introduction The cause of regular crashes in the numbers of red grouse has been of considerable interest for many years to those involved with grouse moor management.The presence of Trichostrongylus tenuis, a parasitic strongyle or threadworm which lives in the gut of red grouse, has been recorded in the literature for more than 100 years. The disease it causes is often referred to as strongylosis. The biology of the parasite and its relationship with the host have been studied in detail. Research has established that the strongyle worm can cause regular and large- scale reductions in the numbers of grouse and the parasite control can be effective in reducing the losses of grouse to disease. To reduce the severity of these population crashes, parasite control is practised on many moors.The Game Conservancy Trust has been conducting research into direct parasite control methods within red grouse since the early 1980s and this pamphlet sets out this knowledge and best practice guidelines for parasite control that are currently available. (Laurie Campbell) 2 Biology and life-cyle of Trichostrongylus tenuis Adult strongyle worms live in the blind-ended part of the gut known as the caeca, which are long, paired tubes. Red grouse have long caeca averaging 70cm, the length being an adaptation to extract nutrients from their poor fibrous diet.This threadworm has a relatively simple life-cycle.The worms mate within the grouse caeca, where each female worm can produce around 110 eggs a day.These eggs are passed out with the caecal droppings.
[Show full text]