User talk:Jamiegilardi

Hello, Jamiegilardi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

It is good to have another editor looking at the parrots. I made a few changes to your edits, and since you're new I thought I'd explain them. First off I removed some weasel terms which we should try and avoid. For example some parrots are pests, so adding the word considered bedfore that statement is an error.

thanks for the background. the word 'pests' is a loaded word of course. in most cases, when people have attempted to quantify ag damage done by parrots, it turns out to be trivial or even non existent. also, argentina has used this loophole in their wildlife protection law to export hundreds of thousands of parrots over the past decade (over 50k per year). their head of cites even wrote to the USFWS to say that they didn't consider Amazona aestiva a pest of the citrus groves - yet they continue to trap and export.

i think it would be better to talk about the fact that in very specific cases they consume agricultural crops and leave the loaded words out of it, no?Jamiegilardi 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Yes there are too many instances where they are accused of being pests for no good reason or to justify exploiting them, but they are on occasion genuine pests (I have one figure in front of me of 11 milion dollars in India for one crop). It should be mentioned in the lead and as you say clarified in the main body of the text. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you're missing my central point. millions of people refer to australians as 'crude' people, but of course that doesn't make them so ;-). there is no question that parrots eat agricultural crops, it's a question of whether that makes them 'pests' or not - given that's a value loaded work, i don't think it has a place on something that is meant to be as neutral as wikipedia. but i'm new so maybe misreading this ... Jamiegilardi 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly I took out the bit about the Carolina Parakeet as the section in question was the intro and the strokes you paint should be as broad as possible, leaping from the broad (parrots are found on the following continents) to the narrow (this parrot was once found here and went extinct then) is stylistically undesirable, though the Carolina Parakeet certainly rates a mention in the section on conservation and extinction.

i was wondering about that, but also thought the suggestion that there was more than one species was misleading - would be nice to have a ref to the fact that they got up to the great lakes - many people have a hard time believing that Jamiegilardi 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two species, there was the Thick-billed parrot in Arizona too, and in fact some of the north mexican parrot species are arguably temparate as well. The ref about going as far as the great lakes - I'm sure I read in Birding magazine that they had a core range further south and were more irrgular as far north as the great lakes. At any rate information for the aerticle on the species not the main aprrot article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah, here there's a bit of geography which is important here. north america starts at either the isthmus of panama if you're talking continents, or the skinny bit of mexico - aka the isthmus of tehuanapec - if you're talking regions and include Central America. in either case, temperate north america would include many many species of parrots. the carolina parakeet is off the charts and is THE parrot if you're talking about what was once here. often North America is used incorrectly to refer to the USA in which case there is a case to be made for the thick-bill, but in this context, between the geographical / geopolitical error, and the minor extent to which the thick bill once crossed the border, seems to me the Carolina Parakeet is very much the outlier. Jamiegilardi 17:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I hope you enjoy editing the article further. If you have any questions about bird related articles, drop by at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds.

thanks, will do - been working on parrots for close to 20 years and just today learned that they've been know to prey on seabirds! sumpin new every dayJamiegilardi 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page,

i can't yet figure out how to do that easily - i tried and found all kinds of other stuff there Jamiegilardi 23:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parrots[edit]

I am not aware of a parrot species that is not on appendix 1 or 2 of CITES. Both lists ban export of wild-caught parrots, so trade of "all wild caught parrot" species is banned in member countries. I might be wrong, but you have put "most species" on the parrot page. There are more restrictions and licensing with appendix 1, but both list 1 and 2 ban import, export and trade in wild caught parrots, as far as I am aware.

It would be interesting if you could put something on your user page. The page belongs to the wiki and it is to tell other users a little about yourself, not too much. Have a look at some user pages first. Snowman 23:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i'm a total newbie to this editing process and can't quite figure out how to respond to you .... is this how?

there is something about four tildes, but it doesn't actually say where to put those exactly

it's an incredible resource, so i don't want to screw it up, but some of these details are not terribly intuitive for the newbie like me.

not all parrots are on the CITES appendicies - in fact the Peach-faced Lovebird just got dumped at the last CoP. Like everything done by CITES, it's absurdly Byzantine. Some species like Psittacula are on Appendix III. Most hybrids, if memory serves, are not listed.

But more importantly, CITES Appendix II species may be traded legally. That's what the EU was doing up until 1 July - legally importing hundreds of thousands of App II parrots each year. Many countries still export tens of thousands - notably Argentina, Guyana, Senegal, - check the export quotas on CITES.org for all the details. much of this is moot now that the EU banned imports as they had 93% of the market share.

also note that countries can have 'reservations' about species, which basically means they ignore the appendix I constraints and trade away. there was something like this for Ara macao and Suriname or CH or both, can't remember just now.

in case you're not already aware, in principle, CITES is there to allow trade to continue as long as it doesn't further threaten wild species. most of their actions are very much pro-trade rather than pro-conservation. the most blatant case of this was a proposal which failed to pass which would have bumped the Painted Bunting just to Appendix II so trade would be tracked. Even groups which are traditionally protrade like TRAFFIC/WWF and the IUCN supported the proposal, but CITES shot it down. Again, this wouldn't have stopped trade, just made weak provisions to track it.

thanks and please help out with more tips if you can ... jg Jamiegilardi 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond here or on the talk page of the person that left you the message, but you should perhaps make it clear on your main page that you respond here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if Senegal, Guyana, or Argentina are party to CITES or not, and if they are not party to CITES there might be a tendency for trade in parrots to be unhindered there. I do not know why or how Europe imported parrots until recently - perhaps someone did not know the rules. I will check the wording of CITES appendix II again, but last time I read it I thought it said that appendix II also banned import, export and trade in the listed species.

On talk pages you are asked to sign by using for ~~~~, which will automatically put your name and the time after the edit. On article pages you do not have to do this because the edits are automatically listed in the page history. Generally, you can learn a lot by examining the formatting of existing pages, and also by reading the instructions. I am sure you will soon learn the ropes. Snowman 10:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

first, i really do appreciate your patience! second, all these countries are CITES signatories. most counrties are signatories, although angola, for example, is not and this became an issue in the Peach-faced Lovebird discussions at the last CITES CoP. third, the EU folks know the CITES rules as they're all one in the same group of folks all very closely inbred bunch, with intimate ties to protrade NGO's as well. (note that the head of the species pgm at WWF was once the head of the US's Scientific Authority and the Chief Scientist at the CITES Secretariat was once working for TRAFFIC.) Fourth, here's the quote from cites.org on appx II: International trade in specimens of Appendix-II species may be authorized by the granting of an export permit or re-export certificate. No import permit is necessary for these species under CITES (although a permit is needed in some countries that have taken stricter measures than CITES requires). Finally, this is a VERY common misconception, so you're in very good company. However, from a parrot perspective, since so many are on appx II and so many millions have been LEGALLY traded under CITES in recent years, it's a HUGE issue for parrots, their welfare and their conservation. Jamiegilardi 17:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at the CITES website at [1]. It says that an import licence is not needed for parrots on list 2, but the export licence must be shown when they are imported. So, as long as the rules are followed, the trade is restricted for all parrots on appendix II, or have I missed something? Snowman 17:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, you're right. but for major exporting countries like argentina or senegal, they issue these permits by the thousands so their quotas can get filled. so argentina alone exports (or did til the EU ban) over 50,000 parrots per year. so yes, those are the rules, and yes, they're followed to some degree, and yes, it means that huge numbers of CITES Appx II birds are traded annually, so really not banned at all.

Pests[edit]

you're missing my central point. millions of people refer to australians as 'crude' people, but of course that doesn't make them so ;-). there is no question that parrots eat agricultural crops, it's a question of whether that makes them 'pests' or not - given that's a value loaded work, i don't think it has a place on something that is meant to be as neutral as wikipedia. but i'm new so maybe misreading this You are, slightly. Pest is not a value loaded word, it has a clear meaning, it is something considered deleterious to human interest. Some parrots species are agricultural pests means that some parrots species are deletrious to agriculture. They spoil orchards and stuff, and scarers and netting are used to counter them (and poison in the bad old days). In this context using the word is neutral; to deny it would not be accurate or neutral. The important word here for maintaining neutrality is some - as in some parrots, not all, not many, and not just parrots are pests. Some implies a few but not many. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you made my point perfectly when you pointed out that a pest is "something considered deleterious to human interest." Do parrots eat ag grops, yes, no question there, and that's the value-neutral way of making that point. Are they "pests" for doing so, sure by some value systems they are, but that's what makes the statement not value neutral. By the same token, those of us trying to conserve parrots might refer to people as 'pests' because they keep chopping down forests or stealing babies from nests - that's absurd language of course, but it's equally value laden and thereby proves the point (I hope).Jamiegilardi 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting onto semantics here, which is dull. By the same reasoning adding considered before pests is redundant, it makes it that ther are considered considered deletrious. The fact of the matter is that they cause economic damage (some of them) thus they are pests (some of them). As ar a lot of other animals. Value judgements are how bad a pest are they, are they a menace or a nuicance, etc etc etc. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually, this is not semantics (and mind you, lots of folk find actual sematics quite fascinating). 'Considered' in this context would not be redundant, rather it would be an accurate and useful qualifier. I understand your point about how big a pest something might be, but I think here you are confusing the subjective or relative assessment of something which can't be objectively measured with two views which contrast because they're based on entirely novel value systems. I'm afraid there is nothing objective about defining the value of things in the world with respect to human interests.Jamiegilardi 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there is nothing objective about defining the value of things in the world with respect to human interests In the paragraph about the relationship between parrots and humans, in the senetence about the economic aspects of that realtionship, defining the realtionships in terms of human interests in not innapporpriate. (Just as we also talk about the value of humans with respect to parrot interests in teh conservation sections) We gain benefit from parrots for cultural, aesetic and economic reasons and we lose to them when they attack our crops. Your point about defining parrots purely by what they do for/at us would be one hundred percent valid were it in the other three paragraphs, for example in the first line, but in its appropriate section it deals quickly with the fact that some are pests (as in some cause economic damage).Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]