cgeoff

Very good photos. There are some even better shots of this individual at Owen's website (www.i-owen.com) that indicate this bird has bill damage at the base of the upper mandible on the right hand side. It is visible in this photo, but is more easily seen in Owen's shots. The type of damage present is strongly suggestive of this bird being of non-natural origin (i.e. having at one stage been in captivity).

GeoffC

cgeoff

Of course I do Owen. Some great photos there! The third of your shots shows well the damage.

Similar damage was shown by the bird at Airfield Road in early 2009.

The moral of the story is that we need to look extremely carefully at some birds. So, in terms of photographs, size does matter !

GeoffC

cgeoff

I must confess, I can't see that any of the birds on OBI definitely has the same bill 'scratches'. One of the photos from Japan shows a bird with marks in that area, but it's not entirely clear what's going on. Mike: pls specify which photos.

My observations of bird-trapping in China suggest that Hawfinch is frequently caught, although largely as by-catch. Other, brighter target species such as rosefinches and siskins come down to seeds laid out as bait, as do Hawfinches.

I agree, it seems unlikely that Hawfinches are attractive as a cage-bird, but I would imagine that there is very little selection carried out before birds are shipped to HK. I wouldn't be surprised if cages of birds are sent here, and then the selection is made in a rather brutal fashion. In otherwords, the sick birds are disposed of (thus no H5N1 cases in the market itself, though plenty in the immediate area!) and unattractive species (either from the point of view of appearance or song) are set free. Hawfinches would come into this category. This may be why we see birds in HK with signs of cage damage (or so it seems), yet few appear in the markets. I checked the Mong Kok market soon after the Hawfinches first appeared, but none were present.

Hawfinch is a real problem species for the RC. It seems very clear that some birds are ex-captive, based on their behaviour, the date of occurrence or plumage or bare part anomalies. Yet, some birds are apparently of natural occurrence, lacking any issues in these areas. The problem is, when a substantial proportion of records comprise the former, how can we assume the latter are OK?

The RC recently discussed this at a meeting (which will be reported on soon), and the majority felt no change was needed. However, we are always open to hearing other arguments, so please post them here if you have a view.

Regards,

GeoffC

[ Last edited by cgeoff at 11/03/2011 11:54 ]

cgeoff

These are different birds, as the pattern of damage on the bill is slightly different, as is the loral pattern.

GeoffC

cgeoff

I have just re-read the description of bird-trapping activities and markets at Beidaihe and Qinhuangdao, Hebei, contained in the Cambridge Ornithological Expedition to China in 1985, of which I was a member. Among the main target species were Brambling, Oriental Greenfinch, Eurasian Siskin and Common Rosefinch.

Of most interest was the finding that Black-tailed and Japanese Hawfinches were the preferred species, especially the latter. Both species sing well, but the latter is apparently valued for its ability to learn tricks, such as flying to take seed from the captor's hand. There was no doubt that Hawfinches were the least favoured species, often simply killed if caught. However, I'm sure some must end up in the bird markets in south China, including HK.

Another favoured species was Mongolian Lark, which could command a price of Y150 per bird, a very large sum of money in the China of 25 years ago!

GeoffC