George,

Where and when did I come into this equation? I don't remember this 
conversation. Anyway, I found the following on the ABA website:

Rule 2: The bird must have been a species currently accepted by the ABA 
Checklist Committee for lists within its area, by the A.O.U. Check-list for 
lists outside the ABA area and within the A.O. U. area, or by Clements in 
general for all other areas.

    B. Currently accepted by the ABA Checklist Committee means:

            (iv) An indigenous species which is reintroduced into an 
historic range of the species may be counted when the population meets the 
ABA Checklist's definition of being established or when it is not possible 
to reasonably separate the reintroduced individuals from naturally occurring 
individuals.

Rule 3: The bird must have been alive, wild, and unrestrained when 
encountered:

       B. Wild means that the bird's occurrence at the time and place of 
observation is not because it, or its recent ancestors, has ever been 
transported or otherwise assisted by man.

            iii) Birds descendant from escapes or released birds are 
considered "wild" when they are part of a population which meets the ABA 
definition of an established introduced population.

What does this mean? Hell if I know. Actually, I believe that Matt was 
correct in his response. Since these birds are descendants of a reintroduced 
population to a historic range, I believe the guidelines in Rule 2 apply to 
this. I believe that every indication is that these birds are indeed from 
Ontario and they have been accepted by the authorities there as established. 
If that is the case then the birds should be countable here as well. Even 
under Rule 3, established birds of introduced populations, would make these 
birds provided they are recognized as such.

As for the Whistling-Duck, well . . .

Ed Boyd
Westminster, MD

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George M. Jett" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: [MDOSPREY] Trumpeter Swan "countability" (was: Schoolhouse Pond 
conditions & birds)


> Mark
>
> Ed Boyd said you could not count them since they are likely introduced. 
> The PG bird even had a number band on it.
>
> You can count it as a state photo species since the rules are less strict, 
> and likely no one really cares.  Heck, I even counted Paul O'Brien's pet 
> Black-bellied Whistling Duck, "Hallux" (hind toe) on my photo list.
>
> George
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Hoffman, Mark" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [MDOSPREY] Trumpeter Swan "countability" (was: Schoolhouse 
> Pond conditions & birds)
>
>
> Phil - Jim Stasz said I could count them, so I chased the PG bird. 
> Shouldn't that be good enough?  Do we really need to get bogged down in a 
> lot of details??  :)
>
> Mark Hoffman
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Davis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: 
> Subject: [MDOSPREY] Trumpeter Swan "countability" (was: Schoolhouse Pond 
> conditions & birds)
>
> Kurt:
>
> You know the old saying ... "it's your list, you can count anything you 
> want!"
>
> The MD/DCRC has a few reports of Trumpeter Swan, some banded some
> not. When they are reviewed, the odds are (assuming they are not
> hybrid "Trumpling" swans) that they will be found to be "ID OK/Origin
> Questionable" (for the unbanded birds) or some equivalent to "Origin
> Exotic" (for the banded birds). Trumpeter Swan is on the Maryland
> list as an extirpated species due to historical accounts of them
> wintering along the Potomac River in the 1700s.
>
> To my knowledge, the MOS "Locality List" reporting still has no
> defined criteria for counting, except (as the game of bridge)
> ostracism. Now, Norm has reporters over 350 MD species submit their
> list of new species each year for public scrutiny.
>
> So, my personal opinion (and not that of the committee as a body) is
> that all of the Trumpeter Swans in MD are a result of the MANY state
> reintroduction programs in the northeast and midwest and I would not
> count them on any of my lists.
>
> Digging in to the ABA rules, I think you will also not find any
> support for counting these birds.
>
>
> Lots of related links here, especially on the reintroduction programs  ...
>
>         http://www.trumpeterswansociety.org/links.htm
>
> A good historical perspective is here ...
>
>         http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg/nature/swans.html
>
>
> Hope this helps ...
>
> Phil
>
>
>
> At 19:55 09/05/2006, you wrote:
>>What is the countability status of the Trumpeter at Oxbow Lake (and
>>Schoolhouse Pond, for that matter)?
>>It strikes me that by most criteria, they are not countable.  Is the
>>New York population self-reproducing?
>>Yes, I realize that one's list is what one makes it, but would like
>>to adhere to generally-accepted criteria
>>where possible, unless it's something off base, like the Rehoboth
>>Monk Parakeets not being countable.
>>
>>Kurt Schwarz
>>Ellicott City
>>goawaybird at comcast.net
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "jim brighton" 
>><>
>>To: <>
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 5:25 PM
>>Subject: Re: [MDOSPREY] Schoolhouse Pond conditions & birds
>>
>>
>>>In response to Fred's message about School House Pond, I was there
>>>yesterday evening and had 28 Great Egret's and an immature
>>>Black-crowned Night-Heron.  Also, at Oxbow Lake Nature Preserve
>>>there was an immature Little Blue Heron, Great Egret, and a Trumpeter 
>>>Swan.
>>>
>>>Jim Brighton
>>>Oxford, Md
>>>
>
> ===================================================
> Phil Davis, Secretary
> MD/DC Records Committee
> 2549 Vale Court
> Davidsonville, Maryland  21035     USA
> 301-261-0184
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
> MD/DCRC Web site:  http://www.MDBirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html
> ===================================================