Back to Search Start Over

Galliform exclusion from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act has produced an alternate conservation path, but no evidence for differences in population status

Authors :
Erik J Blomberg
Beth E Ross
Casey J Cardinal
Susan N Ellis-Felege
Daniel Gibson
Adrian P Monroe
Patricia K Schwalenberg
Source :
Ornithological Applications. 124
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
Oxford University Press (OUP), 2021.

Abstract

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is critical to avian conservation in the United States, both through its protection of migratory birds and as a catalyst for a century of coordinated avian conservation. While more than 1,000 species are protected by MBTA, of extant bird species native to the continental U.S., only 20 species belonging to the order Galliformes are explicitly excluded. Management of galliforms has occurred largely without direct federal oversight, placing this group on a fundamentally different conservation path during the century following MBTA passage. In this paper, we review the historical context and biological justification for exclusion of galliforms from MBTA and synthesize how their present-day conservation differs from that of migratory birds. We find the most prominent difference between the two groups involves the scope of coordination among stakeholders. The U.S. government, primarily via the Department of Interior, acts as de facto coordinating body for migratory bird conservation and plays the central role in oversight, funding, and administration of management in the United States. In contrast, galliform management falls primarily to individual state wildlife agencies, and coordinated conservation efforts have been more ad hoc and unevenly spread across species. Migratory birds benefit from an almost universally greater scope of research and monitoring, scale of habitat conservation, and sophistication of harvest management compared with galliforms. Galliform harvest management plans, in particular, are less likely to use measurable objectives, reporting of uncertainty in population parameters, and explanation of harvest management techniques. Based on a review of species status lists (e.g., the U.S. Endangered Species Act), we found no evidence that galliforms were more frequently listed than migratory species. Regional trend estimates from the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) were more likely to be negative for galliforms over the period 1966–2015, but this was primarily driven by Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Data to assess galliform population status are generally poor, which complicates assessment for roughly half of galliform species. Increased support for coordination among state agencies and other stakeholders, similar to that applied to migratory birds, could help to ensure that galliform conservation is poised to tackle forthcoming challenges associated with global change.

Details

ISSN :
27324621 and 00105422
Volume :
124
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Ornithological Applications
Accession number :
edsair.doi...........56bd7bc45576933f7511321e0778d201