DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Status and Categorisation of Feral Birds on the British List

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review of Status and Categorisation of Feral Birds on the British List Review of status and categorisation of feral birds on the British List Keith Vinicombe, John Marchant and Alan Knox, on behalf of the British Ornithologists' Union Records Committee he principal task of the BOU Records Committee is to maintain the list Tof species and subspecies which have occurred in Britain and Ireland. This work involves not only the assessment of records of birds potentially new to Britain, but also monitoring the status of all species to ensure that categori­ sations remain appropriate. Categorisation was introduced in 1971 to indicate those species for which there were no recent records (category B) and those whose breeding populations had originally been introduced, accidentally or on purpose, by man (category C). Species which have been recorded in an appar­ ently wild state at least once since 1st January 1958 arc placed in category A, which forms the bulk of the British and Irish List (BOU 1971, 1992a). Categorisation has brought its own difficulties in that the allocation of species to one category or another sometimes relics on fragmentary evidence and may depend on the subjective views of Committee members. For some species, more than one category is appropriate. One group which presents problems of categorisation comprises those species which occur fcrally. In the fifth and sixth editions of the BOU's check­ list of the birds of Britain and Ireland (BOU 1971, 1992b), four species were judged to have fallen into two categories and were given dual status. Three of these (Mute Swan Cygnus olor, Greylag Goose Anser wiser and Canada Goose Branta canadensis) were categorised AC because both wild and introduced birds occur or form the basis of our breeding populations. Capcrcaillie Tetrao urogal- his was categorised BC because the current introduced population replaced a wild one which died out in the eighteenth century. This paper discusses the results of a review by the BOURC of the status and categorisation of feral species in Britain (BOU 1993). The origins of the [Bril. Birds 86: 605-614, December 1993] 605 606 Status and categorisation of feral birds review lay in Committee discussions of the sixth checklist (BOU 1992b), fuelled by new information particularly from two important surveys: the Wild­ fowl & Wetlands Trust's 'Introduced Goose Survey' (IGS) in the summer of 1991 (Delany 1993) and the British Trust for Ornithology's New Atlas of Breed­ ing Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988-1991 (Gibbons et al. 1993, referred to below as the 1988-91 Atlas). The review has led to the dualling of categories for several further species, to indicate cither AC or AD4 status, and the addition of others for the first time to category D4. The latter, a subgroup of category D, consists of species that would otherwise appear in Category C except that their feral populations may or may not be self-supporting. Category D4, like the rest of category D, is very much a 'wait-and-see' holding category and docs not form part of the main British and Irish List. During the course of the review, the Committee considered what consti­ tuted a viable self-supporting feral population, fulfilling the qualification for category C. It was agreed that rigid rules should not be applied. There was clearly a difference between, for example, one concentrated breeding popula­ tion of 900 Egyptian Geese Abpochen aegpptiams in East Anglia and a widely scattered population of 900 Barnacle Geese Branta leucopsis with sporadic and isolated breeding attempts. Also, the required population size would be differ­ ent for different species: 160 scattered Snow Geese Anser caerulescens may not be sell-sustaining, whereas 20 pairs of White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetm albicilla in Scotland could be. The populations of many feral species are dynamic: most of the scarcer ones can be expected to increase and perhaps qualify for higher categories in future years. In several cases, recategorisation arose from neither a change in status nor new information, but from new views within the Committee about how the categories should be implemented. For example, there have been no changes for decades in the status of feral Mallards Anas pkityrhymhos and Rock Doves (kdumha livia in Britain. Rather, it is the opinion of the Committee that these and other substantial feral populations deserve recognition and should not be ignored in faunal listings, whether at national or local levels. Species recategorised Pink-footed Goose Anser bmchyrhynchus The IGS (Delany 1993) found 88 at 29 sites. Some of these may have been non-returning winter- visitors. One pair in Lancashire had seven young. The 1988-91 Alias recorded breeding in two 10-km squares and summering in an additional 14. The Rare Breeding Birds Panel recorded two summer records in the UK in 1990 (Spencer et al. 1993). Clearly, this is a species not yet estab­ lished and not qualifying for category 0, but the Committee decided that it marginally justified dual AIM status to encourage further monitoring. Snow Goose A. caemltscem The IGS (bund 182 Snow Geese at 27 sites and at least 12% of those aged were juveniles. Since that survey, the Wildfowl ik Wetlands Trust has grounded 22 free-flying Snow Geese at Slim- bridge, Gloucestershire (Dr M. Owen in litl.}. In 1992, tire British feral population was estimated at 252, with 60 on Mull and Coll, Strathclyde (Evans 1993a). Feral breeding has been reported in a number of places and the population may be self-sustain­ ing (S. Delany in litl., Dr M. A. Ogilvie in litl). The 1988-91 Atlas, however, recorded breeding in only one square and summering in a further ten. The Committee considered that the population may at present be too widely scattered to be Status and categorisation offered birds 607 regarded as fully self-sustaining, and the species was given dual AIM rather than AC status. As with other category assignments, this will be reviewed from time to time. Bar-headed Goose A. indicus The IGS discovered 85, the highest counts being of 19 mine young) at Slraliield Save in Hamp­ shire and 11 at Highiieid I^ake, South Yorkshire. The 1988-91 Atlas records breeding in one square and summering in three more. A pair produced two young in Greater Manchester in 1992 (Mrs A.J. Smith in till). Clearly, the species is not established, but numbers are likely to increase, so the species was added to category D4 to encourage monitoring. Barnacle Goose Branla kumpsis The IGS found a total of 925 summering at 89 sites scattered throughout Britain. The largest flock was of 180 privately owned individuals at Seaview Marsh, Isle of Wight. Oflhose aged, 9% were juveniles, but, if the privately owned flocks are excluded (see below), this ligure rises to 17%. Breeding was noted at 15 sites. This figure of 925 is on a par with the 906 Kgyptian Geese found, and that species has, of course, been in category C since 1971. Barnacle Goose, however, differs in that the population is more widely scattered and 238 were based on three Wildfowl & Wet­ lands Trust reserves, at Slimbridgc, Gloucestershire, Washington, Co. Durham, and Arundel, West Sussex. If these and the Isle of Wight flock are taken out of the total, then the 'feral' popula­ tion becomes 507. The Wiklfowi & Wetlands Trust is aetivelv diminishing its stocks of Barnacle Geese by reducing their breeding success, in some years to nil (Dr M, Oven in till). The 1988-91 Atlas found breeding Barnacle Geese in 17 10-km squares from Hampshire to Northern Ireland and Jura, Strathelyde, in comparison with just two squares in the 1968-72 Atlas (Sharrock 1976). The 1988-91 Atlas notes that this species is 'probably still too scattered for there to be a self-sustaining feral population. If the current increase in breeding records continues, how­ ever, there seems to be no reason to doubt that such a population could become established/ It is also considered that the 1988-91 Atlas map under-represents the range in Britain. Simon Dclany {in lilt.) considers that the Barnacle Goose population is now probably Viable and self-supporting1. Clearly, the species is at least borderline. The Committee decided to exercise caution and con­ sidered thai the population may currently be too scattered to warrant dual category AC status, but there can be little doubt that, unless control measures are taken, the population will continue to increase and it will not be long before AC status may be justified. The species is, therefore, given dual AD4 status, but the position will be reviewed periodically. Muscovy Duck Cairma meschata A feral population of Muscovy Ducks has been present on the River Ouse at PJy, Cam­ bridgeshire, since the early 1980s (1988-91 Atlas). Broods were first noticed in 1987, and in November 1991 the population was estimated at approximately 130 individuals, of which about 60% were thai year's juveniles. The 1988-91 Atlas recorded breeding in four 10-km squares in Britain and summering in one other. The Committee considered that the Cambridgeshire popula­ tion is too recent to be added to category C, but this species obviously should be monitored. The species was therelbre added lo category D4. Gadwall Anas strepem Fox (1988) confirmed that 'there is no doubt that the present Gadwall breeding population in Britain derives largely from introduced stock'. The breeding population has been estimated at 770 pairs in Britain and 30 in Ireland (Gibbons el al. 1993). The winter population reached 7,700 in 1991/92 (Cranswick A al. 1992). In view of the size of this population, dual AC status is clearly overdue. Mallard A. plalyrkynckas The 1971 BOU checklist acknowledged that 'artificial rearing and re-stocking is widely practised' (BOU 1971).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EU Zoo Inquiry Report Findings and Recommendations
    1 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 An evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of animals in zoos. REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Written for the European coalition ENDCAP by the Born Free Foundation 2 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 An evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of animals in zoos. REPORT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS USED ............................................ 04 TERMS USED ............................................................... 04 FOREWORD ................................................................. 05 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 06 EC ZOOS DIRECTIVE 1999/22, SUCCESS, FAILURE – OR WORK IN PROGRESS? ..... 08 THE EU ZOO INQUIRY 2011 FINDINGS 11 INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 12 METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 14 TRANSPOSITION ........................................................ 17 IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 22 ENFORCEMENT ........................................................... 28 COMPLIANCE .............................................................. 30 COUNTRY REPORTS AND UPDATES 41 AUSTRIA............................................................ 42 BELGIUM........................................................... 43 BULGARIA ........................................................ 44 CYPRUS............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Newly Established Breeding Sites of the Barnacle Goose Branta Leucopsis in North-Western Europe – an Overview of Breeding Habitats and Colony Development
    244 N. FEIGE et al.: New established breeding sites of the Barnacle Goose in North-western Europe Newly established breeding sites of the Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis in North-western Europe – an overview of breeding habitats and colony development Nicole Feige, Henk P. van der Jeugd, Alexandra J. van der Graaf, Kjell Larsson, Aivar Leito & Julia Stahl Feige, N., H. P. van der Jeugd, A. J. van der Graaf, K. Larsson, A. Leito, A. & J. Stahl 2008: Newly established breeding sites of the Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis in North-western Europe – an overview of breeding habitats and colony development. Vogelwelt 129: 244–252. Traditional breeding grounds of the Russian Barnacle Goose population are at the Barents Sea in the Russian Arctic. During the last decades, the population increased and expanded the breeding area by establishing new breeding colonies at lower latitudes. Breeding numbers outside arctic Russia amounted to about 12,000 pairs in 2005. By means of a questionnaire, information about breeding habitat characteristics and colony size, colony growth and goose density were collected from breeding areas outside Russia. This paper gives an overview about the new breeding sites and their development in Finland, Estonia, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands and Belgium. Statistical analyses showed significant differences in habitat characteristics and population parameters between North Sea and Baltic breeding sites. Colonies at the North Sea are growing rapidly, whereas in Sweden the growth has levelled off in recent years.I n Estonia numbers are even decreasing. On the basis of their breeding site choice, the flyway population of BarnacleG eese traditionally breeding in the Russian Arctic can be divided into three sub-populations: the Barents Sea population, the Baltic population and the North Sea population.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward Successful Reintroductions: the Combined Importance of Species Traits, Site Quality, and Restoration Technique
    Kaye: Toward Successful Reintroductions Proceedings of the CNPS Conservation Conference, 17–19 Jan 2009 pp. 99–106 © 2011, California Native Plant Society TOWARD SUCCESSFUL REINTRODUCTIONS: THE COMBINED IMPORTANCE OF SPECIES TRAITS, SITE QUALITY, AND RESTORATION TECHNIQUE THOMAS N. KAYE Institute for Applied Ecology, P.O. Box 2855, Corvallis, Oregon 97339-2855; Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 ([email protected]) ABSTRACT Reintroduction of endangered plant species may be necessary to protect them from extinction, provide connectivity between populations, and reach recovery goals under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. But what factors affect reintroduction success? And which matter more: traits inherent to the species, qualities of the site, or reintroduction technique? Here I propose that all three interact. First, reintroduction success will be highest for endangered species that share traits with non-rare native species, invasive plants, and species that excel in restoration plantings as reviewed from the ecological literature. Ten traits are identified as common to at least two of these groups. Second, reintroductions will do best in habitats ecologically similar to existing wild populations and with few local threats, such as non-native plants and herbivores. And third, the methods used to establish plants, such as planting seeds vs. transplants or selecting appropriate microsites, will influence outcomes. For any reintroduction project, potential pitfalls associated with a particular species, site, or technique may be overcome by integrating information from all three areas. Conducting reintroductions as designed experiments that test clearly stated hypotheses will maximize the amount and quality of information gained from each project and support adaptive management.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem-Level Effects of Keystone Species Reintroduction: a Literature Review Sarah L
    REVIEW ARTICLE Ecosystem-level effects of keystone species reintroduction: a literature review Sarah L. Hale1,2 , John L. Koprowski1 The keystone species concept was introduced in 1969 in reference to top-down regulation of communities by predators, but has expanded to include myriad species at different trophic levels. Keystone species play disproportionately large, important roles in their ecosystems, but human-wildlife conflicts often drive population declines. Population declines have resulted in the necessity of keystone species reintroduction; however, studies of such reintroductions are rare. We conducted a literature review and found only 30 peer-reviewed journal articles that assessed reintroduced populations of keystone species, and only 11 of these assessed ecosystem-level effects following reintroduction. Nine of 11 publications assessing ecosystem-level effects found evidence of resumption of keystone roles; however, these publications focus on a narrow range of species. We highlight the deficit of peer-reviewed literature on keystone species reintroductions, and draw attention to the need for assessment of ecosystem-level effects so that the presence, extent, and rate of ecosystem restoration driven by keystone species can be better understood. Key words: ecosystem restoration, ecosystem-level effects, keystone species, population declines, reintroduction species in their ecosystems. Wolves prevent ungulate overpop- Implications for Practice ulation, and in doing so prevent overbrowsing of vegetation • More research into ecosystem-level effects of keystone (McLaren & Peterson 1994), and provide scavengers with car- species reintroduction is required to fully understand if, rion in winters (Wilmers et al. 2003). Sea otters consume sea and to what extent, keystone species act as a restoration urchins (Strongylocentrotus spp.), thereby maintain the integrity tool.
    [Show full text]
  • The Network of Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux in France Bardin & Moret
    The network of Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux in France Bardin & Moret The network of Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux in France and the implementation of the GSPC: results of fifteen years of activities Ph. Bardin and J. Moret Conservatoire Botanique National du Bassin parisien, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France Abstract The Conservatoire Botanique National of the Bassin Parisien: a leading role in plant diversity conservation in the French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development (Departement Ecologie et Gestion de la Biodiversite) In France, the Conservatoires Botaniques Nationaux are responsible for the conservation of plant diversity. The Conservatoire Botanique National of the Bassin Parisien, which comes under the National Museum of Natural History, has five main activities, which are in total accordance with the targets of the GSPC. The communication will present many advancements which have been obtained in these five domains: 1. The ambitious programme of biodiversity inventory: it allows us today to provide a widely accessible list of two thousand known species, with more than three million data items (the seventh GBIF contributor). The database is useful to support public policies for territorial projects including biodiversity 2. The research activity is carried out on very limited size populations and include demographic and genetic studies, the development of protocols and relevant tools for ecological engineering 3. A large programme of ex situ conservation, with a seed bank, an in vitro micropropagation unit and a living collection as a back up for the in situ conservation projects 4. Numerous in situ programmes are carried out: population reinforcement, reintroduction and transplantation. At the same time, an ecological management of habitats is established to protect the ecosystems 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Potential for Species Reintroductions in Canada
    Evaluating the Potential for Species Reintroductions in Canada JAY V. GEDIR, TIAN EVEREST, AND AXEL MOEHRENSCHLAGER Centre for Conservation Research, Calgary Zoo, 1300 Zoo Road NE, Calgary, AB, T2E 7V6, Canada, email [email protected] Abstract: Species reintroductions and translocations are increasingly useful conservation tools for restoring endangered populations around the world. We examine ecological and socio- political variables to assess Canada’s potential for future reintroductions. Biologically ideal species would be prolific, terrestrial, herbivorous, behaviorally simple, charismatic, easily tractable, or large enough to carry transmitters for post-release evaluations, and would have small home range requirements. Sociologically, Canada’s large geographic area, low human density, high urban population, widespread protectionist views towards wildlife, and sound economic status should favor reintroduction success. Canada has implemented legislation to safeguard species at risk and, compared to developing countries, possesses substantial funds to support reintroduction efforts. We support the reintroduction guidelines put forth by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) but realize that several challenges regarding these parameters will unfold in Canada’s future. Pressures from the rates of species loss and climate change may precipitate situations where species would need to be reintroduced into areas outside their historic range, subspecific substitutions would be necessary if taxonomically similar individuals are unavailable,
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Actions
    CHAPTER 4 Conservation Actions Table of Contents Take Action! Get Involved! ................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Background and Rationale ................................................................................................................. 9 Conservation Action Classification System .................................................................................... 11 Conservation Action Description ........................................................................................................ 12 Best Practices for Conservation Actions ............................................................................................. 15 International Conservation Actions ................................................................................................ 15 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Regional Conservation Actions ........................................................................................................ 19 Regional Conservation Needs Program .............................................................................................. 19 Regional Action .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Barnacle Goose Branta Leucopsis Category A, C2, E Rare Migrant and Winter Visitor, 41 Records with Feral Birds Also Recorded
    Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis Category A, C2, E Rare migrant and winter visitor, 41 records with feral birds also recorded. Ticehurst describes the Barnacle Goose as a rare winter visitor to Kent but includes details of one in Folkestone Museum (shot off Hythe sometime prior to 1900). Taylor et al (1980) considered it to be a scarce winter visitor, with nearly 80% of records occurring on the North Kent Marshes, few in east Kent and just one during their review period (1952-76) in south Kent (at Dungeness in November 1969). Barnacle Goose at Nickolls Quarry (Ian Roberts) All of the early Kent records occurred between October and April but from 1966 there were increasingly widespread reports of feral birds in all months of the year. Gibbons et al in the new breeding atlas (1993) stated that “although Kear (1990) notes that this species is now breeding ‘at large’ in Britain, birds are probably too scattered for there to be a self-sustaining population”. However by 2005 the British Ornithologist’s Union had admitted it to category C of the British List (Dudley, 2005). The latest Bird Atlas (Balmer et al, 2013) stated that the birds wintering on the east coast of Britain are largely from the Svalbard population but the naturalised population accounts for many of the inland records, and that the latter population has expanded in range by 88% since the 1988-91 atlas and was thought to number approximately 900 pairs in the mid-2000s. A more recent estimate (Woodward et al, 2020) gave a figure of 1,450 breeding pairs for the naturalised population.
    [Show full text]
  • Finding Correlations Among Successful Reintroduction Programs: an Analysis and Review of Current and Past Mistakes
    Finding Correlations among Successful Reintroduction Programs: An Analysis and Review of Current and Past Mistakes by Jillian Estrada A practicum submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Natural Resources and Environment) at the University of Michigan April 2014 Faculty advisor(s): Professor Bobbi Low, Chair Dr. M. Elsbeth McPhee Abstract In the past half century the world has seen a dramatic decline in species. More and more species are being pushed to brink of extinction. In the past, there have been several methods utilized to mitigate these trends, however with the recent surge of local extinctions, reintroductions have become a growing conservation tool. Despite many disadvantages of developing a reintroduction plan, hundreds have been attempted over the past 40 years, with mixed outcomes. Some conservationists have studied the factors associated with success; however the criteria on which their assessments were based were flawed. I attempted to complete my own assessment of successful programs using detailed program information along with life history traits of focal species. My results illustrate the many obstacles faced by reintroduction biologists. Based on the limitations faced throughout this study, I conclude that conservationists must take a step back and address the many issues with current reintroduction protocols prior to attempting any further assessments. My recommended solutions to some of these issues include defining universal criteria for a reintroduction program to be considered successful; monitoring, logging, and disseminating standardized data; and collaborating with captive facilities that have the ability to offer additional support. ii Acknowledgments Advisors Dr. Bobbi S. Low, Co-Chair, Professor of Natural Resources, School of Natural Resources and the Environment, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Options for a Resident Barnacle Goose Population in Flanders a Comparison of Different Scenarios Using Population Modelling
    Management options for a resident Barnacle Goose population in Flanders A comparison of different scenarios using population modelling Frank Huysentruyt, Pieter Verschelde, Toon Van Daele, Jim Casaer, Axel Neukermans, Tim Adriaens INBO.be natuurenbos.be Authors: Frank Huysentruyt, Pieter Verschelde, Toon Van Daele, Jim Casaer, Axel Neukermans, Tim Adriaens Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Reviewers: Thomas Scheppers The Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) is an independent research institute of the Flemish government. Through applied scientific research, open data and knowledge, integration and disclosure, it underpins and evaluates biodiversity policy and management. Location: INBO Brussel Havenlaan 88 bus 73, B-1000 Brussel www.inbo.be e-mail: [email protected] Way of quoting: Huysentruyt F., Verschelde P., Van Daele T., Casaer J., Neukermans A. & Adriaens T. (2020). Management options for a res- ident Barnacle Goose (Branta leucopsis) population in Flanders. Reports of the Research Institute for Nature and Forest 2020 (1). Research Institute for Nature and Forest , Brussels. DOI: doi.org/10.21436/inbor.17611440 D/2020/3241/003 Rapporten van het Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek 2020 (1) ISSN: 1782-9054 Responsible publisher: Maurice Hoffmann Cover photograph: INBO This research was carried out on behalf of : Agency for nature and forests natuurenbos.be © 2020, Instituut voor Natuur- en Bosonderzoek MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR A RESIDENT BARNACLE GOOSE (BRANTA LEUCOPSIS) POPULATION IN FLANDERS A comparison of different scenarios using population modelling Frank Huysentruyt, Pieter Verschelde, Toon Van Daele, Jim Casaer, Axel Neukermans and Tim Adriaens doi.org/10.21436/inbor.17611440 Acknowledgments/Introduction We would like to thank the Flanders’ Agency for Nature and Forests (www.natuurenbos.be) who ordered this research and provided the necessary permits for field work and trapping.
    [Show full text]
  • Of the Endangered Species Act
    Wyoming Law Review Volume 1 Number 1 Article 8 January 2001 From Population Segregation to Species Zoning: The Evolution of Reintroduction Law under Section 10(J) of the Endangered Species Act Frederico Cheever Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr Recommended Citation Cheever, Frederico (2001) "From Population Segregation to Species Zoning: The Evolution of Reintroduction Law under Section 10(J) of the Endangered Species Act," Wyoming Law Review: Vol. 1 : No. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/wlr/vol1/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Wyoming Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Cheever: From Population Segregation to Species Zoning: The Evolution of R WYOMING LAW REVIEW VOLUME 1 2001 NUMBER 1 FROM POPULATION SEGREGATION TO SPECIES ZONING: THE EVOLUTION OF REINTRODUCTION LAW UNDER SECTION 10(J) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Federico Cheever I. INTRODUCTION "Recovery" has become the rhetorical focus of the Endangered Species Act and with good reason. The Act defines recovery as "the use of all methods and procedures . .necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to [the Endangered Species Act] are no longer necessary."' Re- covery efforts demonstrate that the Endangered Species Act is not about stopping development, but about saving species; not about maintaining species on the brink of extinction but, instead, "conserving" or "recover- * Associate Professor of Law, University of Denver College of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between an Increasing Barnacle Goose Branta Leucopsis Population and the Number and Size of Colonies in Svalbard
    The relationship between an increasing Barnacle Goose Branta leucopsis population and the number and size of colonies in Svalbard PAAL PRESTRUD, JEFFREY M. BLACK and MYRFYN OWEN This paper documents the current numbers and distribution o f Barnacle Goose colonies in Svalbard, Norway. Using the data from the literature and current censuses we investigate the possibility that the recent increase in numbers in this population is slowing due to a limited number of nesting places and conclude that nesting space per se is not limiting. More likely density dependent effects operate through the interaction between the geese and their food supply on the nesting and brood rearing areas. In two long-term studies on expanding found only on cliff faces and rocky slopes in goose populations evidence of density the mountains (Jourdain 1922, Lovenskiold dependent effects is accumulating. In the 1964). In the 1950s and 60s, the birds began Lesser Snow Goose colony Anser caerules­ to make use of offshore islands mainly in the cens caerulescens at La Perouse Bay. Man­ southern and western parts of Spitsbergen itoba, Canada, the mean clutch size has (Norderhaug 1970, Owen & Norderhaug declined by 16% as the population in­ 1977). In addition to documenting the creased from 3000 to 8000 breeding pairs current numbers and distribution of the (Cooch et al. 1989). The Svalbard Barnacle Barnacle Goose colonies, we investigate G oose Branta leucopsis population has in­ the possibility that the population expan­ creased from 300 individuals in the 1940s to sion is slowing due to a limited number of 12,100 in 1988, but since 1980 the growth nesting places (sensu Owen & N orderhaug rate has slowed considerably (Owen & 1977)" Black 1989, in press a).
    [Show full text]