PACT TAG REGIONAL COLLECTION PLANNING MEETING MINUTES
FOR MEETIIYGSI-IELD APRIL17-18,1999 AT PITTSBURGH AZA REGIONAL CONFERENCE
1) Brad-Parks, Public Programs Coordinator for Denver Zoo, officially accepted the role as Education Advisor to the PACT TAG. Brad has prior work experience with Partners in Flight and strong bird and education interests.
2) Peter Luscomb - Honolutu Zoo, distributed copies of a model Species Interest Committee collection planning format/spreadsheet. Peter used Thayer bird inc, software (essentially Sibley and Monroe taxonomy on disk) to generate complete species lists for species covered by his SIC.
3) The suggestion was made that all SICs should standardize the format of their RCP recommendations using a spreadsheet. Once consensus is reached on the format it would be e-mailed by the TAG Chair and then to all SIC chairs. The format could possibly be Peter Luscomb's example with a few added fields e.g. species range.
4) A question was raised about "unofficial studbooks" or "registries", i.e. most species in the RCP should be genetically managed at some level but does this mean official studbooks for all or somethin- short of that? WCMC will be questioning any species recommended as a "mana,-,ed" population in an RCP for which there are small (- < 20) existing captive populations. WCMC will also likely be recommending Studbook/ PMPs for any captive population of over - 50 individuals. No consensus reached about how this impacts the way we should designate species in the PACT RCP.
5) Jim Bonner suggested using screening filters when selecting species for the RCP, such as any that have a "high" ratinc, for any of the agreed upon selection criteria. Cracid TAG used presence/absence in North American colelctions as a first broad filter. Otherwise, using Peter Luscombs example some SICs could have hundreds of species to evaluate.
6) Ken Reininger to ask Martin Vince (manager of ihe AIG web page) if the web page can hold down-loadable files of compiled info - e.g. the SIC goals, objectives and spreadsheets.
7) Some Passeriforme bird species are still not covered by one of the SICs (North American endemics, South American endemics, tropical mockingbirds and thrashers, Zosterops, old world honey-eaters, bowerbirds, Austral/Asia endemics, New Zealand endermics; see Josef Lindholm for more comprehensive draft list). Need to identify these groups and recruit SIC organizers.
8) Each SIC needs to identify goals and outcomes specific to the aroup of birds (e.o,. management goals, husbandry guidelines, bio-profiles, reference lists).
9) PACT TAG Mission Statement Brainstorming Ideas:
Workinc, to demonstrate the roles and importance of PACT TAG species in world ecosystems. Workinc, to demonstrate the roles and importance of PACT TAG species in world ecosystems and to better insure survival in the wild and in AZA institutions and procrams.
To responsibly manage captive populations to demonstrate the roles and importance .... (as above) Fostering appreciation and conservation of PACT TAG species in the world's ecosystems by: responsibly managing sustainable captive populations, fostering public education programs and fostering/supporting in situ conservation programs.
Final Draft PACT TAG Mission Statement: To foster public awareness and support for conservation of PACT TAG species in ecosystems worldwide by promoting responsible management for sustainable populations.
10) Additional species selection issues SIC organizers may need to deal with when
prioritizing/applying selection criteria:
•poorly known or totally unknown husbandry methods
•species poorly
represented in captivity
•species well
established in the private sector
•species poorly
managed in the private sectior
•larger private
sector issues
•selecting species
for biological traits and behaviors in support of educational themes
Selection Criteria Organization and Application Process:
Working Groups Formed to Further Define Two Such Scoring Systems:
Group #1: Mary Jo Willis, Ed Lewins, Jim Bonner, Greg Toffic, Wendy Worth, Ken Reininger
Group #2: James Mejeur, Chris Brown, Fred Beall, Dave Omdorf, Kathy Pringy, Teri Gradzinski, Ted Fox, Joe DeGraw
Propsed the use of a decision tree with more limited use of a scoring toot e.g. only for justifying phase-in species or as a tie-breaker. A rough example of a decision tree was outlined by Scott Barton.
(Used Broadbill Group examples to test both evaluation tools.)
Proposed Species Selection criteria for Phase-In Species - 6 possible justifications for phasing-in a species with no current significant captive NA populations.
Additional Ideas:
a) keep a running "candidate species" list
b) use other rankin- system only as a tie-breaker
c) re-evaluate borderline or candidate species on a periodic basis
Debate: After both Groups presented their ideas on how to structure and apply selection criteria, all PACT TAG members assembled discussed the pros and cons of a scoring evaluation process as opposed to a more subjective species selection process (using broad filters). Also debated was whether all SICs need to use the same evaluation tool.
It was pointed out the REGASP software uses a high/medium/low field for scoring each species selection criteria.
Peter Luscomb recommended/proposed the PACT TAG sponsor a space survey organized by SIC. He suggested requesting information on:
KTR / 20 September, 1999