[Birding-Aus] Partners

[max...@iinet.net.au]

Hi everyone,

Do all waterfowl (Ducks in particular) pair for life? When I was in the Kakadu NP, on a Yellow Waters afternoon boat tour. The guide told everyone about Radjah Shelducks, $1000 Ducks as he called them.
He explained to us that he calls them $1000 Ducks because if somebody deliberatly kills a Radjah Shelduck there is a $500 fine for it. Sadly, because Radjah Shelducks pair for life, the mate dies. So far no one seems to know why, but most people think it dies, mainly of a broken heart. So now that both of the pair are dead the offender has to pay another $500, thus so giving them the name of $1000 Ducks.

Max.
Sydney...

[Greg & Val Clancy]

Hi Max,

As tourists love to hear stories like the Radjah Shelduck one guides sometimes embellish the facts and I doubt that there is any truth to it. It may be true that some species of birds 'mate for life' but once one bird dies the other one usually finds another mate. That is not to say that a certain amount of 'grief' doesn't occur. I know as a scientist that I shouldn't be talking this way but science's ideas about bird's intelligence and emotions are changing as time proceeds.
I have studied Ospreys and Black-necked (Satin) Storks and have found that both of these species, while apparently 'mating for life' do find new partners in the event of a partner's death. Divorce, although rare, also does occur.
HANZAB states re. the Radjah Shelduck "sustained monogamous; pair bonds probably lifelong."

Greg Clancy

Hi everyone,

Max.
Sydney...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au

[Robyn Charlton]

It is interesting on how we perceive the relationships of other species.
Could it be that those particular birds the Guide talks about, actually did
'die of a broken heart'. I've observed guinea pigs fret or grieve to death
at the lost of a partner. Humans have 'died of a broken heart' due to the
loss of another;while not all guinea pigs or humans do so and do move on to
find other partners. May be there could be a definite case of individuality
in all species.

Rob

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Greg & Val Clancy <gcl...@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

[Gary Davidson]

I found Greg's comments that Osprey 'mate for life', interesting. I live in Nakusp, BC, Canada. We have a good population of local Osprey, that migrate to Central and South America in the winter. Migratory Osprey apparently do not mate for life. They migrate separately and appear to have no deliberate contact during the non-breeding season. In the spring, they return to their breeding territory. Since they are both returning to the same breeding territory, they often do 'continue' their relationship, simply because they are once again in close proximity. This is different to species like Canada Geese and Bald Eagles, that truly do mate for life and remain together all year round. Would I be correct in saying that the Ospreys in Australia are non-migratory? If so they certainly could remain together year round since they remain in the territory. The Osprey living in Florida are apparently non-migratory, but I'm not sure if they exhibit this 'mate for life'
behaviour. I also understand that the Ospreys have recently been 'split' by some authorities. If the Aus species as now distinct from the NA species, perhaps this might explain these behavioural differences?
Gary

Greg & Val Clancy <gcl...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

Hi Max,

Greg Clancy

Hi everyone,

Max.
Sydney...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com

==============================www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au
==============================

---------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

[Douglas Carver]

There is also growing evidence that while certain bird species might "mate
for life", that does not mean that they are faithful to their chosen
partners. Infidelity is pretty common, even amongst bird species who pair
only for the breeding season. There is a great segment in David
Attenborough's "Life of Birds" discussing infidelity amongst Dunnocks in
English gardens.

Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Robyn Charlton <westla...@gmail.com>
wrote:

--
Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.

(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)

-- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)

[Greg & Val Clancy]

Hi Gary,

Yes, our Ospreys are non-migratory and stay together throughout the year.
They were recently split and are now known as the Eastern Osprey Pandion
cristatus. There are two other species, the American and European species.
The split is published in Wink, M., Sauer-Gurth, H. and Witt, H-H (2004)
'Phylogenetic differentiation of the Osprey Pandion haliaetus inferred from
nucleotide sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene.' In Raptors
Worldwide (Editors RD Chancellor and B-U Meyburg) pp. 511-516. WWGBP/MME,
Budapest.

The non-migratory nature of the Australasian species would likely lead to
stronger pair bonding due to constant reinforcement. The evidence that our
Ospreys pair for long periods, if not for life, is still scanty and it may
be more flexible that it appears at present. Divorce is likely to occur if
one bird of a pair doesn't meet its mate's expectations such as a male that
I observed in New South Wales, Australia. He did not provision the female
with enough food to allow her to breed and even attempted to mate with her
after she had flown out and caught a large mullet for herself. He had been
hit by a motor vehicle and rehabilitated so this may have reduced his
ability to be a good mate. She apparently divorced him and successfully
produced young with a new mate.

Regards

[Belinda Cassidy]

People project too much. Guys who are misogynists, sleep around, or have
issues with pornography addiction are totally into the idea that male birds
can't be faithful. But the facts show us that many birds are faithful for
life. Lets not sully that with your own personal issues, thankyou.

[John Tongue]

Could it be construed as 'projecting' to be WANTING birds to be
'faithful', when clearly many are not?

Granted, there is strong pair-bond fidelity in some, or perhaps many,
species, but even in those species where there is pair fidelity for
one or more seasons, research has shown that there is often also a
high degree of cross-pair sexual interraction.

We might wish all birds were 'faithful', but it is just not so.

John Tongue
Ulverstone, Tas.

[Belinda Cassidy]

I agree John; Many birds do not partner for life, and many do. I am only
commenting on the way some men refuse believe that ANY birds are faithful.
These people are typically projecting in my opinion.

[Andrew Taylor]

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 05:59:24PM +1000, Belinda Cassidy wrote:
> People project too much. Guys who are misogynists, sleep around, or have
> issues with pornography addiction are totally into the idea that male birds
> can't be faithful. But the facts show us that many birds are faithful for
> life. Lets not sully that with your own personal issues, thankyou.

Before paternity testing was possible it was believed pair-fidelity was
the case for almost all passerines. Genetic data has reversed his view
completely. A significant degree of extra-pair paternity is the norm
in passerines and at the extreme offspring fathered by extra-pair males
may be in the majority. There are certainly species where extra-pair
paternity is rare but our view of bird reproductive ecology has been
completed changed by data that has become available in recent years -
not projection.

Andrew

[Kurtis Lindsay]

It is interesting how some people love to personify things be it wanting
their pet dog to wear clothes, and eat like a human or want a wild bird
sitting in a tree to settle down, get married and stay with its partner
"till death do they part".

Who cares if birds are monogamous or not. Yes, it is an interesting
observation from a biological point of view to see a pair of birds
practising monogamy but what difference does it make.

Belinda, you must remember that in the bird world, males don't have access
to pornography nor would any be aware of misogyny or misandry for that
matter. So I can't see the relevance of your examples.

I don't know or understand where you get your information from, nor where
you get the statistics and documentation to prove that "Guys who are

misogynists, sleep around, or have
issues with pornography addiction are totally into the idea that male birds

can't be faithful.".

I hope you don't mind me 'project' my views and state that your examples are
inappropriate and irrelevant to a discussion forum dedicated to Australian
Ornithology.

Kurtis Lindsay

[storm]

Belinda -

The bird who is a good provider for you and your chicks, may not be the one
who's genetic heritage you want to pass on.

DNA analysis on chicks has shown that the females in bird species that raise
in pairs chose to have sex with males other than their pair. As rape is
difficult/impossible in most avian species this is a choice the females are
making.

There is nothing wrong with being attactch to the romantic ideal of fidelity
if it's working in your life but it's a view that is not sustainable when it
comes to free living birds.

cheers

storm

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.20/1452 - Release Date: 17/05/2008
6:26 PM

[Belinda Cassidy]

Hi Kurtis, John, Rosemary, Storm, and everyone,

I must apologise for being so curt. I don't know whats got into me today;
anyway I didn't mean to put everyone off side. Its been an emotional week
for me and I guess I sprung a leak.

I think we all agree that the scientific evidence demonstrates that some
birds pair for life, and some do not. I don't even know why this is being
hotly debated, but like I said, I have my suspicions as to the reasons.
You're right though Kurtis, suspicions are not the same as scientific fact.

Cheers,
Bel

[Rosemary Royle]

Actually it appears that the unfaithfulness is driven primarily by the females who apparently like to increase the odds of breeding successfully by mating occasionally outside the "normal" pair bond. (Not putting all her eggs in one genetic basket?) It is not always clear what benefit this might accrue (except where it means that more than one male might help rear the young) but tests on clutches of eggs for a wide range of species show that more often than not there is more than one male bird involved.

Rosemary Royle
Wales, UK

----- Original Message -----
From: Belinda Cassidy
To: birdi...@vicnet.net.au

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.16/1448 - Release Date: 16/05/2008 19:42

[Paul & Irene Osborn]

Whoever said rape was not possible in birds, obviously doesn't keep chooks!
Paul Osborn

[Robyn Charlton]

Well said!!!

Rob

[Merrilyn Serong]

Hi Belinda and others,

It is obvious that if a male bird mates with lots of females, he is more
likely to produce a greater number of offspring than if he mates with
only one bird. If his male offspring inherit the behavioural propensity
to mate with lots of females, then the proportion of multiple-mating
males in the population will increase, and so it goes on. Those that
only mate with one female, will be relatively scarce.

If a female bird mates with several males, she will be more likely to
produce young with a wide variety of characteristics (sperm competition
aside). Depending on environmental conditions, this may increase the
number of offspring that survive to sexual maturity. If the survivors
inherit the propensity to mate with several partners, then the chances
of their offspring surviving will also increase, etc.

On the other hand, if a female mates with only one male, even a really
good quality one, if environmental conditions change, then the offspring
might not be well suited to the new conditions and may not survive to
maturity. However, if environmental conditions are unchanging, then
mating with the best (fittest for the current conditions) available male
will produce the greatest number of surviving offspring.

Similarly, under certain circumstances, young will be more likely to
survive if they have more than one carer, i.e. both mother and father
(and sometimes older siblings as well). These survivors will inherit the
capacity to care for young in a socially stable partnership along with
whatever mating system was employed by their parents (single or multiple
partners).

It's all about inheritance and survival.

Cheers,
Merrilyn

[Denise Goodfellow]

And says a lot about the advantages of cooperative breeding. My Kunwinjku
relatives have a similar situation. Hence my son Rowan was made Ngaba,
"little daddy" as a toddler, and then expected to help rear his children.
Denise

[Penny Brockman]

Don't wory yourself on such matters, Belinda, many birds that have more
or less permanent partners, like a bit on the side, just read up on
Superb Fairy-wrens.

[Belinda Cassidy]

Many apologies Graham, Penny, Merrylin, Denise, and everyone else who hasn't
read my former apology!!

I think I blew a fuse last night, nothing to do with birders. I just had an
over the top emotional week and I was triggered by something I read here. I
really am sorry for ticking you and others off. It was really poor thing to
say on my part, and I am totally embarrassed. I just hope the group can
forgive my inappropriate tyrade.

*makes an appointment to get some therapy*

Sincerely,
bel

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Graham Turner <ori...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

> I can't think of any male birders who fit into your narrow stereo-type.
>
> There are many examples that show us that birds are not faithful. And that
> it is the female that sleeps around.
>
> What is the point of your rant?
>
> Graham Turner

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Belinda Cassidy" <

> belinda...@gmail.com>
> To: <birdi...@vicnet.net.au>

> Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2008 5:59 PM
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Partners
>
>

[Douglas Carver]

Belinda --

No worries here (I am worried that my e-mail may have been the unintentional
trigger). The thread tended towards interesting observations on avian
mating behaviours, which, as I continue to learn as I read more about
different species, vary widely. Monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, infidelity,
all are present and all are part of the panoply of wonder that draws us to
these magical, fluttering creatures.

Douglas Carver
Albuquerque, NM

On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Belinda Cassidy <belinda...@gmail.com>
wrote:

--

Dilexi iustitiam et odivi iniquitatem, propterea morior in exilio.

(I have loved justice and hated iniquity, therefore I die in exile.)

-- the last words of Saint Pope Gregory VII (d. 1085)

[Wendy]

Yes, when they start to gang rape their sisters and the other chooks is when
my young roosters have a very close encounter with an axe and become food my
ferrets!
My sister ended up with a couple of (frustrated) Muscovy drakes who used
to try to rape her roosters. The roosters were not impressed!
Wendy

[awaba...@pacific.net.au]

Hi Merrilyn,

Your contribution to this little discussion tangent is deeply appreciated.
I was getting ready to throw a rant into action about the total
undesirability of applying human legal concepts and designated crimes such
as rape to birds or other animals.

Being playful about human/bird connections is one thing, but it's another
entirely when the term "rape" is applied to animal behaviour and there are
a range of very dangerous and dodgy implications that might stem from such
games.

For instance, what if some human idiot "out there" decides to rid the
world of wren "rapists" based on some half-baked bit of anthropomorphism.
That's all we need. Let alone some human accused launching a defence along
the lines of "If ducks can't help but do it, I rest my case".

best wishes

Craig Williams

[Peter Shute]

So what word/phrase would you use instead of rape?

[Peter Shute]

Thanks, Paul. And saying that instead of "rape" would avoid the
potential problems you describe, Craig?

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul McDonald [mailto:pa...@galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 20 May 2008 3:05 PM
To: Peter Shute
Cc: awaba...@pacific.net.au; Merrilyn Serong;
birdi...@vicnet.net.au
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Partners

The correct terminology in ornithological circles is 'forced
copulation'.

Cheers,
Paul

> ==============================www.birding-aus.org

> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au
> ==============================

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Paul G. McDonald

Centre for the Integrative Study of Animal Behaviour Macquarie
University Sydney, NSW 2109 Australia

Ph: +612 9850 9232 Fax: +612 9850 9231

pa...@galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au
http://galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au/~paul/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Wendy]

And when there are a group of male birds assisting/engaging in the 'forced
copulation' with a single unwilling female bird, an appropriate term would
be -
'gang forced copulation'
pack ....
flock.....
single gender flock .....
???

While this behaviour is common in domestic chooks and so may be dismissed as
behaviour resulting from domestication, I did observe such behaviour
recently with my resident wild/feral sparrows!

Wendy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul McDonald" <pa...@galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au>
To: "Peter Shute" <psh...@nuw.org.au>
Cc: "Merrilyn Serong" <merr...@wirejunkie.com>; <birdi...@vicnet.net.au>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Partners

> The correct terminology in ornithological circles is 'forced
> copulation'.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On 20/05/2008, at 2:58 PM, Peter Shute wrote:
>

> > So what word/phrase would you use instead of rape?
> >

===============================

[awaba...@pacific.net.au]

To be honest, I'm not sure what terms/language fits the bill for the
behaviour, and yes "forced copulation" has an odd "ring" to it as well.
Buggered if I know.

It's just that the term rape involves questions of intent in its
criminological definition - generally speaking - so I just find it rather
creepy to be implying that birds are working with intent to "force" and so
on.

But, hell, if we want it as a term to stick onto avian behaviour, let's
not stop there. Let's put them on trial! And televise the court cases.
That will get birding some publicity.

cheers

Craig

[Robyn Charlton]

How overwhelming all this is........just out of a simple question.....Do
Waterfowls mate for life? Goodness.

Rob

> > http://galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au/~paul/<http://galliform.bhs.mq.edu.au/%7Epaul/>

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ===============================
> www.birding-aus.org
> birding-aus.blogspot.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: birding-a...@vicnet.net.au
> ===============================
>

[Rosemary Royle]

Hi Merrilyn,

Thanks for such a clear description of why it benefits female birds (in some circumstances) to choose more than one partner and how the tendency is therefore passed on if the circumstances are favourable.

I think I knew all this really but you put it altogether so neatly.

Thanks

Rosemary

[storm]

Hey Birders -

I could well be wrong here but my understanding is that species that have a
penis can force copulation.

Other species relay on the female to take up the package of sperm (the
'cloacal kiss'). This is an active process by the female and I can't see how
that could be forced. I can see how a bird in such a species could be mobbed
and forced down but not how the bird could be forcibly impregnated.

I suspect there is a variety of behaviour we are talking about here - and
that it is not analogous to human behaviour.

cheers
storm

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.21/1456 - Release Date: 20/05/2008
6:45 AM

[Graham Turner]

Need to be a bit careful with guides and what they say. When I did the yellow waters cruise we were told that Little Kingfishers were 5cm high, that kingfishers fly head first into termite mounds to dig their nests and that the rivers were overpopulated with fish and that they needed to be culled, by recreational fishing.

Not impressed.

Cheers
Graham Turner

----- Original Message -----
From: max...@iinet.net.au
To: birdi...@vicnet.net.au
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 1:05 PM
Subject: [Birding-Aus] Partners

Hi everyone,

Do all waterfowl (Ducks in particular) pair for life? When I was in the Kakadu NP, on a Yellow Waters afternoon boat tour. The guide told everyone about Radjah Shelducks, $1000 Ducks as he called them.
He explained to us that he calls them $1000 Ducks because if somebody deliberatly kills a Radjah Shelduck there is a $500 fine for it. Sadly, because Radjah Shelducks pair for life, the mate dies. So far no one seems to know why, but most people think it dies, mainly of a broken heart. So now that both of the pair are dead the offender has to pay another $500, thus so giving them the name of $1000 Ducks.

Max.
Sydney...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Chris Sanderson]

Hi Graham,

Kingfishers do fly headfirst into termite mounds to dig their nests. It's
hilarious to watch. Can't comment on the third, but with the crocodile
culls of a few years back it may have some basis in truth.

Regards,
Chris

On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Graham Turner <ori...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

[Denise Goodfellow]

When on one particular Yellow Waters cruise the guide misidentified birds, I
had to give correct ID's to my birdwatching group. I tried to do this in a
way that wouldn't embarrass the guide eg, by quietly telling one of my
clients and asking them to inform the others in the group.

When others on the boat overheard two of my clients discussing a particular
bird they asked them whether the guide was right, and were referred to me.
It wasn't a pleasant situation.

But Yellow Waters isn't the only problem.

One operator who advertised bird tours was unhappy when clients who booked a
very expensive chauffer-driven trip from Darwin to Alice Springs, turned out
to be "avid" birdwatchers. Their driver-guide's only experience of wildlife
was handling a python in a show put on at a hotel. The operator blamed the
clients.

Another operator feted by the NT Tourist Commission identified a hobby as a
"blackbird" in front of a flabbergasted friend of mine.

Oh, and recently a ranger told me he'd overheard a tour operator pointing
out White Ibis and telling his passengers that these "storks" had "fled
persecution in Afrlica".

I tried to persuade the NT Tourist Commission about 2003 to put together a
simple bird accreditation. No way - the operators "wouldn't like it".

And they wonder why not only international birdwatchers but visiting natural
history enthusiasts of all persuasions avoid tour operators here.

I hope you passed that message onto the powers that be.
Denise

> ==============================www.birding-aus.org

[Jill Dening]

Hi Denise,

The same thing happened to us on a Yellow Waters cruise years ago. We
knew what the bird was, and we didn't give a hoot about scoring points.
But we did care that the guide was giving out incorrect ID to passengers
who deserved better. So afterwards we stayed back to offer the
correction privately, also saying how much we had enjoyed his cruise. He
wouldn't have a bar of it. He was right and we were wrong because we
didn't come from the NT, and that's what they are called there. (It was
a Tawny Frogmouth/Southern Boobook.) So we tactfully withdrew from his
overwhelming ego. Later we checked with a birder in Darwin, who
confirmed that he was talking rubbish.

But the lasting effect of that experience is that we have never again
taken a guided birding tour.

Cheers,

Jill

Denise Goodfellow wrote:
> When on one particular Yellow Waters cruise the guide misidentified birds, I
> had to give correct ID's to my birdwatching group. I tried to do this in a
> way that wouldn't embarrass the guide eg, by quietly telling one of my
> clients and asking them to inform the others in the group.
>
> When others on the boat overheard two of my clients discussing a particular
> bird they asked them whether the guide was right, and were referred to me.
> It wasn't a pleasant situation.
>
> But Yellow Waters isn't the only problem.
>
>

[Penny Brockman]

Some years ago I watched a NZ Sacred Kingfisher working on a nest hole
in a high bank besides the road. It had only made a small indentation
so far in the quite hard soil. It was perching in a tree the other side
of the road and then flying straight at the mark it had made and hitting
it hard with its bill. It tried to hang on and hit again but there was
nothing to purchase on and so it fell back, turned and flew back to the
perching branch to recover. This was repeated again and again and I had
to leave it with still only a small indentation made.

> Hi Graham,
>
> Kingfishers do fly headfirst into termite mounds to dig their nests. It's
> hilarious to watch. Can't comment on the third, but with the crocodile
> culls of a few years back it may have some basis in truth.
>
> Regards,
> Chris
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Graham Turner <ori...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Need to be a bit careful with guides and what they say. When I did the
>> yellow waters cruise we were told that Little Kingfishers were 5cm high,
>> that kingfishers fly head first into termite mounds to dig their nests and
>> that the rivers were overpopulated with fish and that they needed to be
>> culled, by recreational fishing.
>>
>> Not impressed.
>>

===============================