KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, PARKS AND TOURISM
Petition for Species Review
Endangered/ Threatened/ Species-in-Need-of-Conservation Status
Kansas recognizes rare sp ecies by state listing to categories of Endangered*, Threatened**, or
Species-in-Need-of-Conservation (SINC)***. Eve ry 5 years these lists are reviewed as required by
statute (K.S.A. 32-960) . A Threatened and Endang ered Species Task Co mmittee oversees the process
and makes listing recommendations to the Secretary of Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism
(KDWPT). The recommended changes must then be approved by the KDWPT Commission.
In addition, the committee reviews input from other sources regarding listing, delisting, uplisting,
or downlisting of Kansas wildlife vi a a petitioning process. To s ubmit a petition for review, please fully
complete the requested information attached below. Petitioners are strongly encouraged to provide all
substantive biological information with cited references to aid in the review. The inform ation requested
herein will be considered to initiate a review.
At the request of the KDWPT Se
cretary, the Threatened a nd Endangered Species Task
Committee will evaluate all completed petitions and determine if there is sufficient information to justify
a review for the petitioned status change. If the specie s is accepted for further review, there will be public
information meetings conducted in regard to the listing change.
All petitioning documents pertaining to the species will be made available to the public at a l ocal
repository and regional K DWPT office. A notice of the proposed action will also be sent to federal and
state agencies and local and tribal governments that may be affected b y the petitioned species, and to all
individuals and organizati ons that have requested notification. The KDWPT will issue n ews releases
concerning the proposed speci es. In addition, i ndividual petitions and substantiating data will be
distributed to and evaluated by: 1) academia, 2) wildlife agency personnel, 3) other professionals, 4) other
resource agencies (state and federal) and 5) nonprofessionals who have known expertise/experience with
the petitioned species.
Questions concerning the petitioning and review process should be directed to Edwin J. Miller,
Endangered Species Specialist, KDWPT, 5089 CR 2925, Independence, KS 67301
([email protected]).
Completed “Petition for Species Review” forms should be sent to the Office of the Secretary of
Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (see below).
Current members of Threatened and Endangered Species Task Committee:
Wm. Busby, Mark Eberle, Elmer Finck,
Jason Goeckler, David Haukos, Edwin Miller, Daniel Mulhern,
* Endangered Species: any species of wildlife whose continued existence as a viable component of the state’s wild fauna is determined to be in
jeopardy (KSA 32-958c).
**Threatened Species: any species of wildlife which appears likely, within the foreseeable future, to become an endangered species (KSA 32958f).
***Species-in-Need-of-Conservation: (SINC) any species which are highly specialized, whose habitat is very limited in Kansas, or shows a
population decline that warrants data collection concerning its status in Kansas. Conservation efforts focused on this species can prevent future
listing as threatened or endangered. This listing is not defined in the Kansas Statutes.
1
Eskimo Curlew
Species Common Name: _________________________________________________________
Numenius borealis
Species Scientific Name: ________________________________________________________
Currently listed as:
X Endangered ___Threatened ___Species-in-need-of-conservation (SINC) ___ not listed
___
Petitioned to:
X not listed
___ Endangered ___ Threatened ___SINC ___
1) a. Provide a map of the species’ current distribution in Kansas and range wide.
See Attachment B from Channell and Rohweder, 2012. and on pgs: 2 and 3 in attachment D.
b. Is the Kansas population considered connected with the population in an adjoining state?
X
Yes ______ No ______ Don’t know _______
c. If no, what is the distance to the nearest out-of-state population? __________________
d. Is the Kansas population genetically distinct from the core population in other states?
X
Yes _____ No ______ Don’t know _______
See attachment C for all complete citations
Cite references: ________________________________________________________________
2) How and to what magnitude has the species’ distribution changed within Kansas during the
past 35 years?
AccordingtotoNatureserve,
Natureserve,there
therehave
havenot
notbeen
beenany
anyreliable
reliablesightings
sightingssince
since1987.
1987.Therecovery
The
According
strategy
for
the Exkimo
Curlew
in Canada
not in
have
viabledoes
records
sinceviable
the 1960s.A
by
recovery
strategy
for the
Exkimodoes
Curlew
Canada
not have
recordsrecent
since Report
the 1960s.
Channell
and
Rohweder
to
assess
the
data
quality
of
Kansas
species,
found
records
since
1960.
A recent Report by Channell and Rohweder to assess the data quality of Kansas species, found
records since 1960.
No Records
since1960
1960
Globally? No
records since
Cite references: naturserve.org, Environment Canada, 2007. and Channell and Rohweder, 2012
3) Describe the species’ population (not distribution) trend within Kansas during the past 35
years.
Not known if there were populations in Kansas, migrant through Kansas as wintering
groundswere in Argentina, and breeding range in Arctic Canada. Population trend throughout
range has declined to the point of presumed extinction.
Globally? Declined drastically in 1890s, not enough records in the past 35 years to determine
population trends.
Cite references: Environment Canada, 2007
4)
a. What is the Global Rank of this species from NatureServe? GH, Possibly Extinct
b. What proportion of the species’ global population is currently found within Kansas?
None
None
5) What is the species’ current residency status within Kansas (vagrant, migrant, year-round)?
Migrant
Migrant
2
6) Describe the species’ current breeding status within Kansas.
Known Breeding confirmed in Bathurst Peninsula and Near Point Lake, Possibly west to
Alaska.Non-Breeding, South Central Brazil south to Paraguay and Uruguay and Southern
Argentina.Migration through central plains. There are no records of breeding populations
______________________________________________________________________________
from Kansas.
______________________________________________________________________________
Environment Canada,
Cite references: naturserve.org,
naturserve.org, Environment
Canada, 2007
2007.
7) Describe the species’ habitat requirements:
__
Breeding habitat occurred in upland tundra and grassy meadow habitat of the Northwest
Territories (Environment Canada, 2007).
______________________________________________________________________________
Cite references: ________________________________________________________________
Environment Canada, 2007
8) Discuss the species’ degree of specialization with regard to habitat, food, or other life history
factors.
______________________________________________________________________________
Limiting
Factors: few chicks, likely did not breed as yearlings (Environment Canada, 2007)
______________________________________________________________________________
Cite references: _______________________________________________________________
9) Discuss the species’ sensitivity to environmental contaminants and disease, if any, including
known potential problems:
No
References for contaminants or disease.
______________________________________________________________________________
Cite references: ________________________________________________________________
10) To what degree is this species currently vulnerable to consumptive and/or commercial use in
Kansas, and what relationship does that use have on its total population?
______________________________________________________________________________
Consumptive and/or commercial use is negligible, no records from the state in the last 30 years.
Historically the species was a commercial food source and overhunted (Environment Canada,
______________________________________________________________________________
2007), but no records of hunting could be found for Kansas.
______________________________________________________________________________
Cite references: ________________________________________________________________
11) What are the current and imminent threats to the species in Kansas? Please list in priority
order with the highest-ranked threat first.
______________________________________________________________________________
Imminent
threats for the Eskimo Curlew are negligible since we have no recent verifiable records
______________________________________________________________________________
(Channell
and Rohweder, 2012) and cannot currently identify the specific limiting factors in Kansas.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Cite references: ______________________________________________________________
3
12) a. What is the recovery potential of this species?
Excellent _______ Good _______ Fair ______ Poor _____ Unlikely __X___
Explain:_______________________________________________________________________
There
have been no known confirmed breeding events document for over 100 years and the
______________________________________________________________________________
species
is possibly extinct (Environment Canada, 2012).
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
b. List any conservation actions that are currently addressing the needs of this species.
______________________________________________________________________________
None that we are aware of, although the species continues to be protected under the Endangered
______________________________________________________________________________
Species
Act in the U.S., and the Species at Risk Act in Canada. Several states including Kansas,
______________________________________________________________________________
Texas
and Nebraska list it on their state Threatened and Endangered species lists.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
c. List any pending conservation actions that might improve the status of this species.
_
We do not recommend any conservation actions, although we do recommend continued reporting
_______________________________________________________
of
the species per the requirements of our collection permits.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
13) Summarize your reasons for requesting a review of this species:
_ attachment A.
See
________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4
14) Describe your expertise/experience with the species you are petitioning.
Feel free to attach any information you may have pertaining to the status or biology of this
species that will help in its review.
_____________________
Regulatory Ecologist with KDWPT. Duties involve permitting, managing and making
______________________________________________________________________________
recommendations for this species management throughout the state.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Note on citations: It is not necessary to provide ex tensive literature citations . However, any pertinent
data is helpful in determining species status. If ther e is insufficient space for your reply to any of the
informational requests, attach extra sheets. Be sure to reference y our attached material to the appropriate
numbered questions.
The currently-listed Kansas species can be found at:
http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Services/Threatened-and-Endangered-Wildlife/Threatened-and-
Endangered-Species/Statewide-List (Threatened and Endangered)
http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Services/Threatened-and-Endangered-Wildlife/Species-in-Need-of-
Conservation-SINC/Statewide-List (Species in Need of Conservation)
Petitioner(s):
Ecological
Services, Kansas
Department
of Wildlife,
Parks and Tourism
Name: David
_DavidBender,
Bender,
Kansas Department
of Wildlife
Parks and
Tourism_____
512 SE
Address: _512
SE25th
25thAvenue
Avenue_______________________________________
67124
KS
City: Pratt
__Pratt______________________State________KS_________Zip_______67124_____
Phone: ___620-672-0788________________________________________________________
e-mail: [email protected]_____________________________________
Send fully completed petition to:
Office of the Secretary
Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism
1020 S. Kansas Ave, Suite 200
Topeka, KS 66612-1327
5
Attachment A
The Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) was originally listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) in 1967. At that time the USFWS presented no information on the biology of the species,
threats to the population, and no critical habitat has ever been designated by the USFWS. The USFWS
has not developed a recovery plan because according to the review history, (5-Year Review), the
Service’s Eskimo Curlew Advisory Group concluded that there was not enough information to initiate a
formal recovery effort. Although several states including Texas, Nebraska, and Alaska have designated
the curlew as endangered, there are no management recommendations, recovery plans, or habitats
designated to address the bird. In Kansas, the Eskimo Curlew has been on the list since the inception of
our Act. Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism has never issued any permits for collection
or action permits for this species. Since KDWPT has never managed for this species and no permits have
been issued, we recommend removing it from the endangered species list.
Historically, the Eskimo Curlew likely migrated through Kansas. There have not had any verifiable
records from Kansas since 1902 (Thompson et al, 2011). Likely, the grasslands in Kansas provided
suitable stopover habitat for Eskimo Curlews as they migrated through the state. Although, Kansas has
experienced widespread decline of historical grasslands, the Flint Hills still provide suitable stopover and
foraging habitat for the species, yet no verifiable observations have occurred. According to the current
guidelines for designating critical habitats (Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, 1994) the following
criteria must be met for a migrant species: 1) Is the Candidate area within the listed species’ current
probable range? and 2) Does the candidate area possess those habitat features known to be essential to
support a population of the listed species. In addition, documented records are used to determine the
known frequency the candidate area is utilized by the listed species. Since we cannot determine the
known habitat features, and have no records of Eskimo Curlew within the previous 35 years, we
recommend removing it from the endangered species list.
Attachment B
Figure 37. Maps and figures for the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis).
A. Distribution of records.
B. Spatial and temporal distribution of records.
C. Frequency distribution of records by decade.
* Other figures are not available due to small sample size.
250
A
251
B
252
C
253
Attachment C
Literature Cited
Channell, R. and M. Rohweder. 2012. Evaluating Data Quality for Species Distribution Modeling Final
Report. (T-27-R-1). Kansas Department of Wildlife Parks and Tourism.
Environment Canada. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) in Canada.
Species at risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. V + 10 pp.
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 1994. Current Guidelines for Designating Critical Habitat for
Threatened and Endangered Species.
NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: September
11, 2013).
Thompson, M. C., C. E. Ely, B. Gress, C. Otte, S. T. Patti, D. Seibel and E.A Young. 2011. Birds of
Kansas. Lawrence, Kansas, University Press of Kansas.
Attachment D
Species at Risk Act
Recovery Strategy Series
Recovery Strategy Series
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
(Numenius borealis) in Canada
Eskimo Curlew
© Alan Smith
May 200
About the Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series
What is the Species at Risk Act (SARA)?
SARA is the Act developed by the federal government as a key contribution to the common
national effort to protect and conserve species at risk in Canada. SARA came into force in 2003,
and one of its purposes is “to provide for the recovery of wildlife species that are extirpated,
endangered or threatened as a result of human activity.”
What is recovery?
In the context of species at risk conservation, recovery is the process by which the decline of an
endangered, threatened, or extirpated species is arrested or reversed and threats are removed or
reduced to improve the likelihood of the species’ persistence in the wild. A species will be
considered recovered when its long-term persistence in the wild has been secured.
What is a recovery strategy?
A recovery strategy is a planning document that identifies what needs to be done to arrest or
reverse the decline of a species. It sets goals and objectives and identifies the main areas of
activities to be undertaken. Detailed planning is done at the action plan stage.
Recovery strategy development is a commitment of all provinces and territories and of three
federal agencies — Environment Canada, Parks Canada Agency, and Fisheries and Oceans
Canada — under the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. Sections 37–46 of SARA
(www.sararegistry.gc.ca/the_act/default_e.cfm) outline both the required content and the process
for developing recovery strategies published in this series.
Depending on the status of the species and when it was assessed, a recovery strategy has to be
developed within one to two years after the species is added to the List of Wildlife Species at
Risk. Three to four years is allowed for those species that were automatically listed when SARA
came into force.
What’s next?
In most cases, one or more action plans will be developed to define and guide implementation of
the recovery strategy. Nevertheless, directions set in the recovery strategy are sufficient to begin
involving communities, land users, and conservationists in recovery implementation. Costeffective measures to prevent the reduction or loss of the species should not be postponed for
lack of full scientific certainty.
The series
This series presents the recovery strategies prepared or adopted by the federal government under
SARA. New documents will be added regularly as species get listed and as strategies are
updated.
To learn more
To learn more about the Species at Risk Act and recovery initiatives, please consult the SARA
Public Registry (www.sararegistry.gc.ca) of the Recovery Secretariat
(www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/recovery/default_e.cfm).
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
(Numenius borealis) in Canada
May 2007
© Alan Smith
Recommended citation:
Environment Canada. 2007. Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) in
Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 10 pp.
Additional copies:
Additional copies can be downloaded from the SARA Public Registry (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/).
Cover illustration: Alan Smith
Également disponible en français sous le titre
« Programme de rétablissement du Courlis esquimau (Numenius borealis) au Canada »
© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of the Environment,
2007. All rights reserved.
ISBN 978-0-662-45751-0
Cat. no. En3-4/22-2007E-PDF
Content (excluding the illustrations) may be used without permission, with appropriate credit to
the source.
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
DECLARATION
This recovery strategy has been prepared in cooperation with the jurisdictions responsible for the
Eskimo Curlew. Environment Canada has reviewed and accepts this document as its recovery
strategy for the Eskimo Curlew, as required under the Species at Risk Act. This recovery strategy
also constitutes advice to other jurisdictions and organizations that may be involved in
recovering the species.
It was determined that the recovery of the Eskimo Curlew in Canada is not technically or
biologically feasible at this time. The species still may benefit from general conservation
programs in the same geographic area, and will receive protection through SARA and other
federal, and provincial or territorial, legislation, policies, and programs.
The feasibility determination will be re-evaluated at a minimum, every five years as part of the
report on implementation of the recovery strategy, or as warranted in response to changing
conditions and/or knowledge.
In the spirit of the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk, the Minister of the Environment
invites all responsible jurisdictions and Canadians to join Environment Canada in supporting and
implementing this strategy for the benefit of the Eskimo Curlew and Canadian society as a
whole.
RESPONSIBLE JURISDICTIONS
Environment Canada
Parks Canada Agency
Government of Alberta
Government of Manitoba
Government of New Brunswick
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador
Government of Nova Scotia
Government of Northwest Territories
Government of Nunavut
Government of Ontario
Government of Prince Edward Island
Government of Québec
Government of Saskatchewan
Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board
Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
Sahtu Renewable Resources Board
Wildlife Management Advisory Council - Northwest Territories
i
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
AUTHORS
This recovery strategy was prepared by Cheri Gratto-Trevor (Eskimo Curlew Recovery Team
chair), Renee Franken, and Ray Poulin on behalf of the Eskimo Curlew Recovery Team.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the Eskimo Curlew Recovery Team members (Joe Brazil, Steve Brechtel, Suzanne
Carrière, Thomas Jung, Pierre LaPorte, and Kevin Murphy) for reviewing and providing helpful
comments on the recovery strategy. Advice and suggestions were also generously provided by
Ken Abraham, Madeline Austen, Alan Dextrase, Dave Duncan, Karen Hartley, Bruce
MacDonald, Kevin McCormick, Margaret McLaren, Lindsay Rodger, Mike Setterington, Joanne
Tuckwell, Mary Vallianatos, and Teri Winter. We would also like to thank Al Smith for
providing the Eskimo Curlew drawing on the cover. Thanks also to Canadian Wildlife Service,
Habitat Conservation Section for their advice and Canadian Wildlife Service, Recovery Section
for their advice and efforts in preparing this document for posting.
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is conducted on all SARA recovery planning
documents, in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of
Policy, Plan and Program Proposals. The purpose of a SEA is to incorporate environmental
considerations into the development of public policies, plans, and program proposals to support
environmentally-sound decision making.
Recovery planning is intended to benefit species at risk and biodiversity in general. However, it
is recognized that strategies may also inadvertently lead to environmental effects beyond the
intended benefits. The planning process based on national guidelines directly incorporates
consideration of all environmental effects, with a particular focus on possible impacts on nontarget species or habitats. The results of the SEA are incorporated directly into the strategy itself,
but are also summarized below.
This recovery strategy concludes that recovery for the Eskimo Curlew is not feasible at this time
and suggests that no recovery actions be undertaken. As such, there is no risk for the
implementation of this strategy to inadvertently lead to adverse effects on other species.
RESIDENCE
SARA defines residence as: a dwelling-place, such as a den, nest or other similar area or place,
that is occupied or habitually occupied by one or more individuals during all or part of their life
cycles, including breeding, rearing, staging, wintering, feeding or hibernating [Subsection 2(1)].
Residence descriptions, or the rationale for why the residence concept does not apply to a given
species, are posted on the SARA public registry:
www.sararegistry.gc.ca/plans/showDocument_e.cfm?id=594
ii
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
PREFACE
The Eskimo Curlew is a migratory bird covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994
and is under the management jurisdiction of the federal government. The Species at Risk Act
(SARA, Section 37) requires the competent minister to prepare recovery strategies for listed
extirpated, endangered or threatened species. The Eskimo Curlew was listed as endangered under
SARA in June 2003. The Canadian Wildlife Service – Prairie and Northern Region,
Environment Canada, led the development of this recovery strategy. All responsible jurisdictions
reviewed and acknowledged receipt of the strategy. The strategy meets SARA requirements in
terms of content and process (Sections 39–41).
iii
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The Eskimo Curlew once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, but declined rapidly
in the 1870s to 1890s. There has been no evidence of breeding since 1866, and the last
specimen was obtained in the 1960s. Population estimates are extremely low, and it is
possible that this species has gone extinct in recent years.
• The Eskimo Curlew had only two known breeding locations, both located in the
Northwest Territories. However, breeding likely also occurred in Nunavut, Yukon
Territory, Alaska, and Russia. Breeding habitat included upland tundra.
• In the fall, Eskimo Curlews migrated east to Newfoundland and Labrador and then
south non-stop to South America. They wintered predominantly in the eastern pampas
of Argentina. In spring, they moved up the Pacific coast and across Central America
and the Gulf of Mexico and staged in tall- and mixed-grass areas of Canada and the
United States.
• Overhunting is thought to be the main cause of the Eskimo Curlew’s decline, as the
bird was considered a delicacy and was easy to hunt. Although hunting was banned in
1916, the recovery of the Eskimo Curlew may have been hindered and its decline
exacerbated by its conservative life history strategy and by habitat changes at its
spring migration stopover sites and in its wintering areas.
• Critical habitat for the Eskimo Curlew cannot be identified, because there is very little
information on locations of habitat necessary for survival or recovery. There are only
two confirmed breeding locations for the Eskimo Curlew, and both of these locations
date back to before the 1870s.
• Recovery of the Eskimo Curlew is not considered feasible at this time, because no
nests have been located in 140 years and there are very few, if any, individuals left in
existence. We recommend that no recovery action for the Eskimo Curlew be
undertaken at this time other than continued monitoring of reported sightings.
iv
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION................................................................................................................ i
RESPONSIBLE JURISDICTIONS ................................................................................... i
AUTHORS........................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................ii
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ...........................................................ii
RESIDENCE ....................................................................................................................ii
PREFACE ....................................................................................................................... iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................iv
SPECIES ASSESSMENT INFORMATION FROM COSEWIC........................................ 1
1. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Description ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Distribution ........................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Historical Distribution ................................................................................... 2
1.2.2 Current Distribution...................................................................................... 4
1.3 Abundance........................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Needs .................................................................................................................. 5
1.4.1 Biological ..................................................................................................... 5
1.4.2 Habitat ......................................................................................................... 5
1.4.3 Limiting Factors and Threats ....................................................................... 6
1.5 Critical Habitat...................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Protection............................................................................................................. 7
2. RECOVERY ................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Recovery Feasibility............................................................................................. 8
3. REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 9
v
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
SPECIES ASSESSMENT INFORMATION FROM COSEWIC
Date of Assessment: May 2000
Common Name: Eskimo Curlew
Scientific Name: Numenius borealis
COSEWIC Status: Endangered
Reason for Designation: This formerly abundant species suffered enormous declines from
the 1870s to 1890s, largely because of hunting. Possible sightings are occasionally
reported. The current population size is unknown but is certainly extremely small.
Canadian Occurrence: Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Ontario, Québec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia,
Newfoundland and Labrador.
COSEWIC Status History – Designated Endangered in April 1978. Status re-examined
and confirmed Endangered in May 2000. Last assessment based on an update status report.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Description
The Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis) is a small
curlew with a slender, slightly decurved bill and
little to no eye-stripe (Gill et al. 1998). The plumage
of the bird is warm brown, with a solid brown
crown, rusty-yellow belly, and streaking on the sides
of the face and neck. The undersides of the primaries
are unbarred, the wing linings are pale to rich
cinnamon, and the wing-tips cover the tail (Figure
1). Eskimo Curlews weigh 270–454 g. They are 32–37 Figure 1. Eskimo Curlew (adapted from
cm in length and have a wing length of 19–23 cm (Gill photo by Don Bleitz).
et al. 1998). The Eskimo Curlew can be easily
confused with other shorebird species, including Whimbrel (N. phaeopus), Little Curlew
(N. minutus), Long-billed Curlew (N. americanus), Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda),
Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos), and Stilt Sandpiper (C. himantopus). In North America,
Eskimo Curlews would most often be confused with Whimbrels. However, Eskimo Curlews are
only about half to two-thirds of the size of Whimbrels. Whimbrels also differ noticeably from
Eskimo Curlews by having barred primary flight feathers, a well-defined eye-stripe, streaked (as
opposed to V- and Y-shaped) markings on their breast and flanks, and an overall greyish
appearance, as opposed to the overall cinnamon tones of Eskimo Curlews (Gill et al. 1998).
1
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
1.2 Distribution
1.2.1 Historical Distribution
Breeding Range
Nesting was verified from only two sites, both located in the Northwest Territories: the base of
Bathurst Peninsula in the Anderson River area, and the region of Amundsen Gulf / Coronation
Gulf / Coppermine River (Figure 2). The birds are also likely to have bred in the Barren Grounds
throughout much of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, possibly in the Yukon Territory and
Alaska, and perhaps into the Chukchi Peninsula, Russia (Gollop and Shier 1978; Gollop et al.
1986; Gill et al. 1998).
Figure 2. Known historical (black), probable (dark grey), and potential breeding areas (light
grey) of Eskimo Curlews. Adapted from Gollop et al. (1986) and Gill et al. (1998).
2
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
Fall Migration
Eskimo Curlews migrated east from known breeding grounds to Newfoundland and Labrador
and then south non-stop to South America (Figure 3). In Canada, birds were also occasionally
seen in northern Ontario, southern Québec (especially in the Magdalen Islands), New Brunswick,
Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia during the fall.
Figure 3. Historical migration routes of Eskimo Curlews in North America. Adapted from Gollop
et al. (1986) and Gill et al. (1998).
Winter Range
Most winter records of the Eskimo Curlew are from the eastern pampas of Argentina, although it
was also recorded in Uruguay, south-central Chile, and possibly southern Brazil and Patagonia.
Eskimo Curlews were also noted on the Falkland Islands (Gollop et al. 1986; Gill et al. 1998).
3
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
Spring Migration
Birds likely moved from the pampas of Argentina up the Pacific coast to Peru or Ecuador, then
across Central America and the Gulf of Mexico (observed in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and
Mexico) to Texas (Figure 3). In Canada during the spring, a few birds were seen in southern
Manitoba and Alberta, and it was thought that the species was common in Saskatchewan in some
years (Gollop et al. 1986; Gill et al. 1998).
1.2.2 Current Distribution
There have been no confirmed sightings of Eskimo Curlews in the world since the 1960s, and no
evidence of nesting has been recorded since 1866. Although “possible sightings” continue to be
reported, some of these reports may be misidentification of other shorebirds. From 1945 to 1985,
80 possible sightings of Eskimo Curlews were reported from North America (Gill et al. 1998).
The last possible sightings in Canada were a group of three birds in southwestern Manitoba
(Waldon 1996) and one bird in southern Saskatchewan (Pollock 1996) in the spring of 1996 (but
see Gollop 1997 for comments).
1.3 Abundance
The Eskimo Curlew once numbered in the hundreds of thousands, but declined dramatically in
the 1870s to 1890s, after which time it was considered very rare (Banks 1977; Gollop 1988; Gill
et al. 1998). No evidence of nesting has been verified for 140 years, and the last specimen
obtained was shot in the Barbados in 1963 (Bond 1965). There have been scattered sightings
since 1900, primarily during migration (Gollop and Shier 1978; Gollop et al. 1986; GrattoTrevor 1999). No positively identified Eskimo Curlew nests or birds behaving as if they had
nests or young have been found since 1866, even though searches have been carried out in
historical breeding ranges in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s (Gollop et al. 1986; Obst and
Spaulding 1994 as cited in Uriarte 1995; Obst and Spaulding 1994 in Gill et al. 1998). In
addition, no Eskimo Curlews were found during extensive searches in historical wintering areas
of Argentina and Uruguay in 1992–1993 (Blanco et al. 1993).
Population estimates from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s varied from 23 to 100 birds; however,
these were based on guesswork (Gollop and Shier 1978; Gollop 1988; Morrison et al. 1994). It is
possible that this species has since gone extinct.
4
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
1.4 Needs
1.4.1 Biological
Primary foods of the Eskimo Curlew included berries (especially crowberry (Empetrium nigrum)
and blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) before the long non-stop flight to South America in the fall) and
arthropods (including Dipteran larvae and adults, grasshoppers, beetles, and some intertidal
gastropods, isopods, and amphipods). In the prairies in spring, grasshopper eggs and young were
a common food (e.g., Rocky Mountain grasshopper (Melanoplus spretus)), as well as other
insects, earthworms, and berries (Gollop and Shier 1978; Gollop et al. 1986; Gill et al. 1998).
1.4.2 Habitat
Nesting
Nests were apparently initiated from mid to late June, and eggs hatched from early to mid July.
As with most other shorebirds, nests were merely a scrape in the ground. Clutch size was
normally four eggs, and young were presumably precocial, as is the case for other North
American shorebirds. Eskimo Curlews were presumably monogamous, with incubation shared
by both sexes, as for other Numeniini (Gollop and Shier 1978; Gill et al. 1998). Renesting was
probably uncommon, and likely only one brood was raised per season. Age of first breeding is
unknown but was likely delayed, possibly to three years, as for the Whimbrel (Skeel and Mallory
1996).
Breeding
Known breeding habitat consisted of upland tundra, the treeless dwarf shrub–graminoid tundra
complex (“barrens”), and grassy meadow habitat (including polargrass (Arctagrostis latifolia),
Arctic bluegrass (Poa arctica), glaucous bluegrass (P. glauca), glandular birch (Betula
glandulosa), and species of sedge (Carex), cottongrass (Eriophorum), and Dryas) of the
Northwest Territories (Gollop et al. 1986; Gill et al. 1998).
Migration
The birds used a variety of habitats, both coastal and inland, during autumn migration. They
often fed in areas of crowberry, as well as coastal habitats in Labrador, and used ericaceous heath
habitat in Alaska, the Northwest Territories, northern Ontario, southern Québec, Newfoundland
and Labrador, and the Maritime provinces. In Massachusetts, curlews were found in salt grass,
meadows, pastures, old fields, intertidal flats, and sand dunes (Gollop and Shier 1978; Gollop et
al. 1986; Gill et al. 1998). During spring migration, curlews were found in tallgrass and eastern
mixed-grass prairies, often in areas disturbed by recent burns, as well as areas near water
disturbed by grazing bison (Bison bison) and cultivated fields (Gollop et al. 1986; Gill et al.
1998).
5
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
Wintering
In the pampas of Argentina, treeless grasslands with ephemeral and permanent wetlands were
used. Wetter grasslands and intertidal areas of southern Patagonia were also possible wintering
habitats (Blanco et al. 1993).
1.4.3 Limiting Factors and Threats
Hunting
Uncontrolled market hunting was likely the main cause of the decline of this species (Swenk
1915; Bent 1929; Young 1953; Gollop and Shier 1978; Gollop 1988). Eskimo Curlews were
considered a delicacy and were selected by hunters. They were easy to hunt in large numbers in
the United States and Canada due to their aggregation in large flocks, their lack of fear of
humans, and their habit of circling back within gun range when some members of the flock were
shot (Gratto-Trevor 1999). Market hunters in the Great Plains of the United States shot huge
numbers each spring, particularly in the late 1870s and 1880s, as numbers of Passenger Pigeons
(Ectopistes migratorius) decreased (Gill et al. 1998). In some areas, an estimated 2000–5000
birds were shot in less than a few days (see review in Gill et al. 1998). In fall, thousands of
Eskimo Curlews were killed in Labrador, and in some years many thousands were killed in New
England, especially Massachusetts, when birds were forced to land as a result of storms. Because
only a few young are produced per pair per year and they likely did not breed as yearlings,
hunting of this magnitude could have had profound effects on overall numbers (Gratto-Trevor
1999). Research has shown that even slight changes in annual survival can have large effects on
population stability, much greater than the effects of large decreases in productivity (Hitchcock
and Gratto-Trevor 1997).
Habitat Loss and Degradation
Although market hunting may have been a main initial cause of the decline of the Eskimo
Curlew, changes in its habitat at spring migration staging sites and in wintering areas may have
contributed to its decline and prevented its recovery (Gollop et al. 1986; Bucher and Nores 1988;
Gill et al. 1998). During the second part of the 19th century, North American prairies were
converted to cropland, and prairie fires that had been crucial to the maintenance of grasslands
were suppressed (Samson and Knopf 1994; Gill et al. 1998). In addition, changes in farming
practices, including planting of winter wheat crops, resulted in even less habitat being available
(Davis 1976). Reduction of appropriate feeding habitat may have further concentrated the birds
in restricted areas and facilitated hunting (Gill et al. 1998). Conversion of grasslands to
croplands also resulted in a decrease of an important food source — grasshopper egg pods and
young (Woodard 1980; Gill et al. 1998).
In the late 1800s to early 1900s, rapid agricultural development occurred in Eskimo Curlew
wintering habitat in the pampas of South America. However, this was likely too late to have
played a role in the curlew’s population decline (Canevari and Blanco 1994), although it may
have prevented any population recovery.
6
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
Other Threats and Limiting Factors
Although the Rocky Mountain grasshopper was not the exclusive food of migrating Eskimo
Curlews, localized irruptions of this grasshopper species were thought to be important in
providing an important spring food source (Gill et al. 1998). The Rocky Mountain grasshopper
went extinct in the 1900s, which may have partially contributed to the decline and/or failure of
recovery of the Eskimo Curlew.
Another possible contributing factor to the curlew’s demise is the aggressive Whimbrel, which
benefited from the overall decline of Eskimo Curlews and completely displaced curlews on
Bathurst Peninsula, Northwest Territories (Gollop et al. 1986).
Other factors that may have contributed to the decline of this species include poisoning (e.g.,
pesticides), storms during transoceanic migration, climate change, drought, and volcanic
eruptions that reduced solar radiation (Banks 1977; Gill et al. 1998). These are speculative,
however, and there is little information on whether such factors affected Eskimo Curlew
populations.
Although the primary causes of the rapid decline in this species are believed to be overhunting
and habitat change, the bird’s failure to recover was likely a combination of low population
numbers, continued loss of habitat, and conservative life history traits. The Eskimo Curlew likely
had a low reproductive rate, producing four-egg clutches that would have been subjected to the
vagaries of Arctic weather and predators (Gill et al. 1998). In addition, Eskimo Curlews were
likely a long-lived species, as are other Numeniini, and therefore the population would have been
sensitive to factors affecting adult survivorship and productivity (Gill et al. 1998). Furthermore,
the curlew’s highly social behaviour and its reliance on specific habitats during restricted periods
likely made it more susceptible to overhunting. Finally, the Eskimo Curlew’s migration was long
and demanding (>14 000 km one way), and the birds relied on relatively few traditional stopover
sites, which have since been degraded.
1.5 Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in the Species at Risk Act of Canada as “the habitat that is necessary for
the survival or recovery of a listed wildlife species and that is identified as the species’ critical
habitat in the recovery strategy or in an action plan for the species” [Subsection 2(1)].
There is very little information on the breeding, staging, or migratory habitat necessary for the
recovery or survival of the Eskimo Curlew; therefore, identifying critical habitat for the Eskimo
Curlew is not possible at the current time.
1.6 Protection
Eskimo Curlews have been protected since the early part of the last century under the Canadian
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 (originally enacted in 1917) and the United States
7
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. All shorebirds have been protected by law since 1927 in
Buenos Aires Province, Argentina. Eskimo Curlews are covered under the 1936 Migratory Birds
Convention between the United States and Mexico and are included in the United States
Endangered Species Act of 1973. They are also covered under the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention for the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), with further protection
in non-breeding areas through the 1940 Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife
Preservation in the Western Hemisphere. This species was placed on the U.S. List of Threatened
and Endangered Species in 1967 and designated as Endangered by the Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in 1978. As of June 2003, Eskimo Curlews were
protected under Canada’s Species at Risk Act.
Portions of the historical breeding range in Canada occur within the Anderson River Migratory
Bird Sanctuary. “Probable breeding areas” are found withinTuktut Nogait National Park, and
“potential breeding areas” are found within Ivvavik and Vuntut National Parks and the Kendall
Island and Cape Parry Migratory Bird Sanctuaries. There is also a record of a migratory Eskimo
Curlew in Prince Edward Island National Park. Eskimo Curlews found within the boundaries of
Canadian national parks or other lands administered by the Parks Canada Agency would be
protected under the Species at Risk Act and the Canada National Parks Act and/or measures and
management tools available to the Parks Canada Agency under other legislation.
2. RECOVERY
2.1 Recovery Feasibility
The Species at Risk Act states that “In preparing the recovery strategy, the competent minister
must determine whether the recovery of the listed wildlife species is technically and biologically
feasible. The determination must be based on the best available information, including
information provided by COSEWIC” (Section 40).
One of the criteria within the Government of Canada’s Recovery Feasibility Policy for “feasible
recovery” of a species is that “individuals capable of reproduction are currently available to
improve the population growth rate or population abundance.” (Environment Canada 2005).
Because we are not aware of the existence or location of any Eskimo Curlews, recovery is not
feasible for this species at this time.
Recent efforts to locate remaining individuals have been unsuccessful, and it is possible that this
species is extinct. Species-specific research and surveys for Eskimo Curlews are not warranted at
this time, although surveys for shorebirds or waterbirds in potential habitat should include this
species. In addition, reported observations of Eskimo Curlews should be investigated and
confirmed if feasible.
Determination of recovery feasibility will be reevaluated in response to changing conditions
and/or knowledge (i.e., if Eskimo Curlews are located).
8
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
3. REFERENCES
Banks, R.C. 1977. The decline and fall of the Eskimo Curlew, or why did the curlew go extaille?
American Birds 31: 127–134.
Bent, A.C. 1929. Life histories of North American shorebirds. U.S. National Museum Bulletin
146.
Blanco, D., R. Banchs, P. Canevari, and M. Osterheld. 1993. Critical sites for the Eskimo Curlew
(Numenius borealis), and other nearctic grassland shorebirds in Argentina and Uruguay.
Unpublished report prepared by Wetlands for the Americas for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. 86 pp.
Bond, M.W. 1965. Did a Barbados hunter shoot the last Eskimo Curlew? Audubon Magazine 67:
314–316.
Bucher, E.H. and M. Nores. 1988. Present status of birds in steppes and savannas of northern and
central Argentina. Pp. 71–79 in Ecology and conservation of grassland birds. ICBP
Technical Publication No. 7. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge,
U.K.
Canevari, P. and D.E. Blanco. 1994. Literature search for the Eskimo Curlew. Unpublished
report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Conservation International. 65
pp.
Davis, K.S. 1976. Kansas: a bicentennial history. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Environment Canada 2005. Policy on the Feasibility of Recovery (Draft – June 2005). Species
at Risk Act Policy. Environment Canada. Ottawa.
Gill, R.E., J.P. Canevari, and E.H. Iversen. 1998. Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis). In The
Birds of North America, No. 347. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America,
Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 28 pp.
Gollop, J.B. 1988. The Eskimo Curlew. Pp. 383–594 in Audubon wildlife report 1988/1989.
W.J. Chandler, ed. Academic Press, New York.
Gollop, B. 1997. Comments on Eskimo Curlew sightings. Blue Jay 55: 75–78.
Gollop, J.B. and C.E.P. Shier. 1978. Status report on Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in
Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and Canadian
Nature Federation, Ottawa, Ontario. 53 pp.
Gollop, J.B., T.W. Barry, and E.H. Iversen. 1986. Eskimo Curlew: a vanishing species. Special
Publication No. 17. Saskatchewan Natural History Society, Regina, Saskatchewan.
160 pp.
9
Recovery Strategy for the Eskimo Curlew
May 2007
Gratto-Trevor, C. 1999. Status report of the Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis in Canada.
Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Hitchcock, C.L. and C.L. Gratto-Trevor. 1997. Diagnosing a shorebird local population decline
with a stage-structured population model. Ecology 78: 522–534.
Morrison, R.I.G., A. Bourget, R. Butler, H.L. Dickson, C. Gratto-Trevor, P. Hicklin, C. Hyslop,
and R.K. Ross. 1994. A preliminary assessment of the status of shorebird populations in
Canada. Progress Notes No. 208. Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 19 pp.
Obst, J. and A. Spaulding. 1994. Annual report on the Eskimo Curlew (Numenius borealis)
recovery plan project in the Northwest Territories, Canada in 1994: results of the
investigations into an unconfirmed Eskimo Curlew nest site in the Northwest Territories.
Wildlife Management Division, Department of Renewable Resources, Yellowknife,
NWT. Unpublished report. 34 pp.
Pollock, J. 1996. A possible sighting of an Eskimo Curlew. Blue Jay 54: 104–105.
Samson, F. and F. Knopf. 1994. Prairie conservation in North America. Bioscience 44: 418–421.
Skeel, M.A. and E.P. Mallory. 1996. Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus). In The Birds of North
America, No. 219. A. Poole and F. Gill, eds. The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
28 pp.
Swenk, M.H. 1915. The Eskimo Curlew and its disappearance. Proceedings of the Nebraska
Ornithologists’ Union 6: 25–44.
Uriarte, S. 1995. Last of the Eskimo Curlews. Canadian Wildlife 1: 33–35.
Waldon, B. 1996. Possible sighting of Eskimo Curlews (Numenius borealis). Blue Jay 54: 123–
124.
Woodard, D.W., ed. 1980. Selected vertebrate endangered species of the seacoast of the United
States — Eskimo Curlew. Cooperative effort by the National Fish and Wildlife
Laboratory, Office of Endangered Species, and National Coastal Ecosystems Team,
Office of Biological Science, Slidell, Louisiana. 7 pp.
Young, D.E. 1953. Ecological considerations in the extinction of the Passenger Pigeon
(Ectopistes migratorius), Heath Hen (Tympanuchus cupido cupido) and the Eskimo
Curlew (Numenius borealis). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 527 pp.
10