Volume 67
Number 5
May 1974
A further review of the problem of 'escapes'
M. D. England
INTRODUCTION
During the twelve months ending 31st December 1972, 791,979
birds passed through the hands of the staff of the Royal Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' Hostel for Animals at London
(Heathrow) Airport on arrival from abroad by plane. (Rather less
than 100,000 of these were day-old chicks which are disregarded
in this discussion.)
It must be stressed that this was the number passing through the
Hostel and not the total number of birds arriving at the airport,
since only certain categories of consignments of animals are usually
taken to the Hostel: most of those in transit and for which there may
be considerable delay before a flight is scheduled for the continuance
of their journey (some airlines will accept animals only for a further
'leg' of a journey if they have been checked at the Hostel); those
which the addressee has specifically asked the RSPCA to look after;
those which the airport staff have noticed contain an unusually high
proportion of dead or dying birds or appear especially to need care;
those not claimed within a reasonable time; and those in cages or
boxes which are broken. A small proportion of birds in transit are
transferred to an outgoing flight (especially if it be of the same airline as the flight by which they arrived), without passing through
the Hostel. It should be mentioned in passing that, of those in transit which are destined for Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium,
not a few will be re-exported back to this country. The majority of
those addressed to recipients in Britain are taken direct to the freight
sheds in the cargo centre and are collected by the addressee (or his
agent), again without passing through RSPCA hands. Despite this,
177
178
The problem of 'escapes'
107,859 birds whose journeys terminated in Britain did pass through
the Hostel in 1972, making the (unknown) total for Britain a matter
for the mind to boggle at indeed. The grand total number of birds
arriving at Heathrow Airport during that year is thus also at present
unknown (although it is hoped that such figures may be made
available in the not too distant future), but it can be seen that it is
unlikely to be less than 1,000,000 and may be much greater.
Although Heathrow handles the greater part of the traffic from
overseas, other British airports must not be forgotten. For example,
birds from the Far East intended for north-west England are
usually sent via Manchester, this route often being via Germany
and missing London, and the number is probably higher than it is
usually thought to be. Nowadays few are sent by boat for any great
distance, although some cross the English Channel in this way.
If to this vast annual figure be added the unknown, but obviously
huge, number of birds already in captivity in Britain and also those
in captivity on the Continent (but see later), it is perhaps superfluous to add that there must be a risk of a not inconsiderable number
escaping and surviving in the wild long enough to stand a chance of
being seen by and causing confusion to British birdwatchers. It has
been claimed (Blackwell 1972) that 'each week dozens escape',
although no supporting evidence was given.
The majority of British ornithologists probably have little knowledge of what has unfortunately but aptly been called 'the appalling
bird trade', or indeed of aviculture, and thus find themselves in no
position to assess the likelihood or otherwise of a 'rarity' having
escaped from captivity. The purpose of this paper is to try in some
measure to help by giving an outline of the species and sources of
imported birds and some guidance on assessing particular cases of
suspected escape. A paper on the same subject and covering much
of the same ground has appeared before in this journal (Goodwin
1956). This has been at the same time a help and an embarrassment:
a help for reasons which will be obvious to those familiar with it, an
embarrassment because it has appeared presumptuous to attempt
to 'paint the lily'. Hence the title of the present paper.
It is inevitable that some information, especially that regarding
sources and species, will be out of date even before publication,
because the position changes continually as more exporting countries
impose welcome restrictions and fresh sources open up as a result.
Some species which were readily and cheaply obtainable a year or
two ago are now never seen. Especially to those readers who already
have some knowledge, much of the material may appear redundant
or irrelevant, but it has been included in order to give background
to the subject.
'Assisted passage' has not been dealt with because it is considered
The problem of 'escapes'
*79
to be outside the scope of this paper. However, the 'importation' of
albatrosses by members of the crew of Scandinavian whaling vessels
must be mentioned. Although I have no personal experience of this
and can find no published reference, it is frequently said that
albatrosses and other similar birds are reared as pets while ships are
in southern waters and, proving an embarrassment on arrival at
the home port, are liberated to fend for themselves.
SOURCES AND DESTINATIONS
The birds reaching Britain from abroad—whether for the British
market, for re-export, or in transit—come from all over the world,
but the greatest numbers come from Asia (Bangkok, Calcutta and
Singapore providing immense numbers) and many parts of Africa.
In parentheses it is fair to say, and a matter for congratulation, that
some African countries take considerable trouble to prevent undesirable exploitation of their wild birds for export purposes. For
example, Kenya allows trapping and export only under individual
licence, with the result that birds from that country are rarely to be
acquired in Britain through dealers or on the open market. Unfortunately the neighbours of such enlightened countries are not always
so careful (Boyle 1970) and the number of birds exported from Africa
as a whole is very large indeed. Until recently South America was
among the largest exporters, but during the autumn of 1973 a considerable and very welcome (and it is to be hoped permanent)
reduction took place as a result of some of the better-informed
countries imposing restrictions.
While in many countries trapping and export continue despite
government measures or because officials turn a blind eye, it is
greatly to be deplored that the contrary is true in Thailand (see
Martin 1973). Here the government has recently published a
report entitled Animal Exportation from Thailand in ig62-yi (using the
word 'animals' in its correct sense, to include birds). This is a
horrifying document, as the following brief quotation will show:
'Wild animals make up one of the natural resources of the country
which are of value to the economy . . . In the past, Thailand has
received millions of Baht income from the exportation of wild
animals alone. Many species are in demand and therefore commercial business dealing with wild animals seems to be a real
promising one.' It is understood that a similar situation exists in
North Korea.
As mentioned above, no accurate figures are at present available
of the total number which are intended for sale in Britain and of
those destined for other countries, although the evidence suggests
that the latter greatly exceed the former. While birds which are to
remain in Britain obviously present a much greater escape risk,
i8o
The problem of 'escapes'
those in transit cannot be ignored, because accidents can and do
occur at airports. For example, at a British airport recently, the
driver of a van containing crates of birds en route from plane to
reception sheds noticed that a box was broken and that birds were
escaping from it into the van. On going to report this he left the doors
of the van open, with the result that later examination showed the
box and the van to be almost empty.
Restrictive legislation has been so successfully implemented
in North America that very few birds indeed are imported into this
country from there, although no legislation can prevent migration
and a few North American breeding species are exported from their
winter quarters in Central and South America (see pages 190-192).
This is something for which the assessors of British records may be
very thankful, since North American birds have always been regarded as among the greatest escape/vagrant problems. However, one
cannot be dogmatic even about North American birds, because
smuggling is not unknown and licences are occasionally issued for the
export of certain species: for example, one British aviculturist is
known to have a licence, granted in the United States, to export
Sandhill Cranes Grus canadensis for his own use in Britain.
Although the total is not large, a surprising number of European
birds are imported into Britain and this trade appears to be increasing, if only in a small way. Again, with a few exceptions to be
mentioned later, it is not illegal in British law although it all too
often contravenes the ill-implemented laws of the countries of
origin. Unfortunately from a British record point of view, these are
mainly rare or unusual species: for example, Rollers Coracias garrulus
are popular, as are—surprisingly—small warblers such as the
Subalpine Warbler Sylvia cantillans.
A large proportion of the birds arriving and unloaded at Heathrow Airport—and to some extent at other British airports—are in
transit, a great many being en route for Germany and a surprising
number for Italy. Those whose journey ends in Britain are intended
for zoological gardens, 'wildlife parks', private aviculturists and,
especially, the pet trade.
There are about 4,000 pet shops in Britain. Not all of these sell
many birds (a few, none at all), although some sell nothing else. As
distinct from the shops, there are a large number of dealers whose
premises range from a small spare room or garden shed to stores of
considerable size and accommodating many thousands of birds.
(In one back street in London is an establishment, known to
few save the initiated, which claims with some truth always to have
60,000 birds in stock.) Although irrelevant to this discussion, it is
distressing to note that it is not exclusively the dealers with large
premises who deal in large birds, since it is not unknown for about
The problem of 'escapes'
181
50 cranes to be packed into a room no larger than a bathroom.
Lest the impression be given that all dealers in animals and
their premises are as deplorable as unfortunately many of them are,
it must be added that the Pet Trade Association—with a membership of 800—is striving hard to improve matters and has instituted a
form of voluntary examination which covers not only the housing
and feeding of animals but the law regarding them. It is understood
that they are trying to obtain statutory legislation to control the
animal trade.
IMPORTATION AND THE LAW
In various places in this paper the legality or otherwise of exports
and imports has been mentioned and, at the risk of repetition,
it may be useful to summarise the present position. It does not
seem appropriate here to discuss the taking or keeping of British
birds in Britain, the law regarding which should in any case be well
known.
Briefly, there is at present no ban on importing into England,
Wales or Scotland any species of live bird except ducks, geese, birds
of prey (including owls), partridges, quail, pheasants, guineafowl,
and all domestic fowls and turkeys. A licence is required, specifying
the species and number, for all birds of prey and owls for conservation reasons, and for all the others for health reasons. Quail Coturnix
cotumix are an anomaly in that they come under both headings and
two licences are required for them. A limited number of licences
to import birds of prey are issued to falconers, zoos and private
aviculturists, and in general licences are issued more freely for the
other birds. A ban on the importation of parrots except under
licence, hitherto in force, was unfortunately withdrawn several
years ago. Northern Ireland is rather more enlightened and,
in addition to conservation restrictions in respect of live birds of
prey (including owls) identical to those applicable in Great Britain,
licences are required for health reasons to import almost all species
of live birds from ostriches to hummingbirds.
Britain has therefore a virtually open door, but this of course
does not mean that the birds which enter so freely have left their
country of origin equally within the law. North America and
Kenya have already been mentioned as applying restrictions on
export; a number of other countries attempt to control export of
dieir wildlife in varying degrees ranging from a total ban to expressions of pious hope which are in practice meaningless.
The greater part of the large British trade in birds is therefore
at present within the law. However, on 2nd March 1973 the 'Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora', drafted by the International Union for the
182
The problem of 'escapes'
Conservation of Nature, was signed by representatives of 23 of the
88 countries attending. Others agreed in principle but did not
immediately sign. Unfortunately it does not come into effect until
at least ten nations have ratified it; however, the fact that a number
of countries have already signed it shows at least their eventual
intention of ratifying it, and it is greatly to be hoped that Britain will
be among the early nations to do so.
When it becomes effective, this Convention will control the trade
in three categories of endangered species of animals and plants.
A virtually total ban will be imposed on the export and import of
some 400 species in the first category, except in very special circumstances. Restrictions on trade in species in the second category will
be somewhat less strict, but they will require an export permit
from their country of origin. The third category is to enable any
country to impose restrictions on the export of its own fauna and
flora if those particular species do not come within the first or
second lists.
Few will doubt that the signing and ratification of this Convention by a worthwhile number of countries and its eventual effective
implementation will be a great milestone in the history of conservation. In the context of this paper, however, it must be pointed out
that it is unlikely to have a significant effect on the problem of
escapes.
MEANS OF ESCAPE
While it is quite impossible even to hazard a guess at the number
of birds which escape from captivity in Britain, it is perhaps useful
to discuss briefly how and whence they do so.
Except for those comparatively few which are privately imported
and personally collected at airports, most of the immigrants pass
through a number of hands between the plane which had brought
them to this country and the eventual owner. However carefully
they are packed—and this is by no means always the case, many
packing-cases or cages being very frail—hazards attend almost
every move: removal from aircraft to vehicle, from vehicle to arrival
shed, examination, removal to appropriate depot for collection or
re-embarkation, even well-meant attempts to give food or water, all
may give chances of escape. They may need re-packing at the airport, they will be transported by road either direct to a wholesaler
or to a railway station en route for one. On arrival they will be
unpacked and caged, only to be re-packed again and sent, again by
road or rail, to a dealer or pet shop. Thence they will go, usually
in a small cardboard box, to their eventual owner. The tricky lids of
these boxes present difficulty even to experienced aviculturists,
especially when there is more than one bird in the box, although
The problem of 'escapes'
183
they usually remember to close the windows of the room when
transferring a bird from box to cage, which the inexperienced very
frequently do not.
Wire-netting corrodes, leaving holes; aviary doors may be left
open; birds will whisde past one's elbow during feeding or cleaning.
A very frequent source of strangers flying free is the keeper of birds
in unroofed pens who, although he knows that they should all be
permanently pinioned, has merely clipped their wings before the
moult and has put off re-clipping some of them after the moult until
it is too late. Undoubtedly not a few birds are deliberately set free
because their owners have lost interest in them or are unable to
look after them, or because they hope they will remain in the garden
if they are fed. Apart from wildfowl, these are almost always common foreign birds such as waxbills, munias or weavers which are
unlikely to be of significance in die present context, however undesirable the practice may be in the light of possible colonisation.
Some are given partial liberty in order to find suitable food for
young being reared in an aviary (Anon 1969). There have been a
few examples of the release of British species in fresh or deserted
localities (e.g. Nuthatch Sitta europaea in London) and of winter
visitors retained in captivity until after the time of migration in the
hope that they will breed in this country when released (e.g. Redwing Turdus iliacus, Fieldfare T. pilaris).
While it is apparent that there may be many occasions during
the captive life of a bird when escape is possible, the risk of escape
must not be exaggerated. It should be added that it is remarkable
how many birds, having escaped from an aviary, spend a great
deal of their time trying to get back into it, and in a high proportion
of cases it is only when they have moved so far away diat diey have
lost the ability to orientate themselves that they really begin to
wander. Although a still-captive mate or companion obviously
provides an inducement to try to rejoin it, in many cases the
familiar environment of the aviary and its association witii food
will prevent wandering, and perhaps even more so will the desire
to return to an accustomed roost. However, many—probably
most—escapes occur from places where the surroundings are
unfamiliar, and in such cases wandering is inevitable. Sometimes
these birds find a congenial (if unnatural) habitat such as a garden
where food is regularly provided for wild birds, and it is commonplace for them to be reported as being regular visitors over long
periods. Generally, escaped and wandering birds tend to search for
the type of habitat from which they came when wild, although this
is more apparent in the case of large birds (pelicans to estuaries,
storks and cranes to fields or marshes, and so on); during their
wanderings, however, they may turn up in the most unlikely places.
184
The problem of 'escapes'
LOCALITY
Except in the few large areas of Britain uninhabited by man
(or nearly so), birds are kept everywhere and escapes may be seen
anywhere. More often than not it is impossible to trace the origin
of a suspected escape, although there are the exceptional and
obvious cases where, for example, a crane is seen within a few
kilometres of a zoo which has lost one.
Despite this, the locality in which a bird is seen is of relevance
when considering a record. At first sight it may seem that a bird is
likely to be wild if it be recorded, for example, on Fair Isle or in the
Isles of Scilly. It is, however, interesting that a number of known
escapes have turned up in just such extremities of Britain. (This may
be partly due to intensive coverage: few birds which land, for
example, on Fair Isle during the hours of daylight are likely to go
unrecorded.) Goodwin (1956) told of a Barbary Dove Streptopelia
roseogrisea which, having disappeared from his garden in Surrey,
turned up in Co. Wexford at the Tuskar Rock lighthouse a fortnight
later. Escapes may reasonably be expected to appear at such places
while attempting to migrate or while wandering. However, it would
be unreasonable not to regard as at least circumstantially good
evidence for wild origin the fact that Land's End or the Welsh coast
was the place where a certain small North American bird was seen,
or Fair Isle a Siberian one.
Their alleged occurrence in south-east England undoubtedly
added considerably to the plausibility of the 'Hastings Rarities';
would they have been so readily accepted had it been claimed that
they were all 'obtained' near Manchester? Similarly, an eastern
European or Asian vagrant, if it came to Britain, might be expected
to arrive somewhere in the eastern half of the country, although
that is not to say that it will necessarily be first reported from
there. Place is relevant, perhaps important, but certainly not conclusive.
The huge consignments of birds passing through London Airport
and destined for the Continent have already been mentioned. It is
all too easy to think of escapes seen in Britain as originating from
captivity in this country, whereas of course continental dealers
and bird-keepers are hardly likely to be more careful of their
charges, and there is in fact a wider selection of species available
from continental dealers. Further, although the Continent has not
been spread recendy with such a rash of 'wildlife parks' as has
Britain, the large collections in private estates appear to have
survived better over there than here. The Continent of Europe
must therefore be regarded as a most fruitful source of escapes—
especially of larger birds—and the south and south-east coasts of
England are their likely areas of arrival.
The problem of 'escapes'
185
LITERATURE AND INFORMATION
It is remarkably difficult to obtain information about escaped
birds and it is too frequently made more so by the apparently
inevitable time-lag between the bird's being seen a n d requests for
information reaching the right people. There is no publication which
completely bridges this gap, although the weekly magazine Cage
and Aviary Birds probably comes nearest to doing so, a n d its editor
has expressed willingness to publish both losses a n d reports of birds
seen which are doubtfully wild. However, on the occasions when
this has been done little useful has come of it, presumably because
(though most aspects of bird-keeping are occasionally dealt with
in its pages) the majority of the magazine's readers are interested
primarily in canaries, parrots and the common British finches, or in
bird shows, and unfortunately very few indeed are field ornithologists. T o give credit where it is due, it is obviously current editorial
policy to stimulate a greater a n d wider interest by publishing articles
on birds in the wild with increasing frequency.
Unfortunately curators of zoos a n d similar places, with a few
notable and welcome exceptions who have given every possible
assistance, tend to adopt a couldn't-care-less attitude to the effect of
escapes on field records. It is probable also that some escapes go
unreported because of the reluctance of an employee to admit carelessness. T h e Zoo Federation News (published by the Federation of
Zoological Gardens of Great Britain a n d Ireland), despite the cooperation of its editor, is published too infrequently to achieve very
much, although such help as it can give is very welcome. T h e
Avicultural Magazine, published every two months, has already
printed an appeal for help (England 1970) a n d is the journal most
likely to reach the more serious aviculturists. Indeed, its readers
volunteered information about two escaped birds, a Barred Warbler
Sylvia nisoria a n d a Yellow-breasted Bunting Emberiza aureola, neither
of which was recorded in the field!
Importers a n d dealers, from whom a large n u m b e r of birds may be
presumed to escape, are—as might perhaps be expected—very
mixed in their attitude to the problem. T h e writer has h a d courteous
but usually negative replies from a few, while requests to others have
been completely ignored. Some withhold information for fear that it
is being sought in order to bring home an infringement of the law
to which, unfortunately, they do not always adhere so carefully as
they should; for example, records of Black Kites Milvus migrans
have been troublesome for this reason. I n any case, even if information were forthcoming from some dealers it would be of doubtful
value because of their inaccuracy in naming the birds which they
offer for sale.
O n the Continent, Paul Vicomte d e la Panouse, Secretary-general
186
The problem of 'escapes'
of the Association Nationale de Pares et Jardins Zoologiques
Prives, has proved helpful and very willing to assist (though so far
negatively); people holding somewhat similar positions in other
countries have, on the whole, been as helpful as they were able;
while Professor Doctor Heinz-Georg Klos, representing the Berlin
zoos, has never failed to respond to appeals for help.
Most unfortunately, again with one or two notable exceptions,
the least helpful of all are breeders of wildfowl, who are not only
responsible for a great many escapes but appear to care little for
their effect on records. Further, it is well known that many favour
deliberate releases, while not infrequently articles are published
advocating the keeping of full-winged 'liberty birds' (see, for
example, D'Eath 1973).
It must in fairness be added that such escapes are not always
deliberate nor due to carelessness. While this paper was in draft
several Ring-necked Ducks Aythya collaris were flying around the
neighbourhood of my home in Norfolk. These came from a local
breeder who is not only aware of, but deplores, the effect of escaped
birds on field records. The Ring-necked Duck is not a very free
breeder in captivity and those which escaped were some of a brood
hatched in a dense reed-bed in one of his pens and which avoided all
attempts to catch and pinion them. Much the same happened with
the American Black Duck Anas rubripes. As their owner said, 'The
only way to stop them confusing the records would be to shoot them,
and would you really want me to do that?'
I am therefore reluctantly of the opinion that, save in very
special circumstances, practically all records of wildfowl can
only be regarded as suspect, because of the very large numbers
being kept and bred in captivity of almost all the species which are
likely to be recorded wild; because the majority of these are kept
in open pens and by no means all are permanently pinioned;
because many are kept free-flying (while still being fed) or are
deliberately released into the wild; and because many breeders of
such birds are not interested in field records.
STATE OF PLUMAGE AND SOFT PARTS
It is often said that a particular bird cannot have escaped from
captivity because it was in perfect plumage when seen. An extension
of this idea is that birds reared in captivity are never the equals
in size, plumage or health of wild ones.
Taking the second point first, it can safely be asserted that it is
a quite unjustified generalisation and is unsafe as a criterion so
far as escapes are concerned. In some cases it is unhappily true;
some Australian 'grass parakeets', for example, have for so many
generations been bred in inadequate conditions or have become so
The problem of 'escapes'
187
inbred that many offered for sale in this country are mere shadows of
their wild relatives. On the other hand, aviary-bred specimens of
some well-known birds look to a field ornithologist almost 'too good
to be true'.
Perfection of plumage is even more unsafe as evidence of wildness
and is an unfortunate indication of ignorance about aviculture. It is,
however, quite reasonable to use the opposite argument, namely
that the state of the plumage of a given bird was so poor that it may
have escaped from captivity, for the following reasons. First, most
wild birds (accidents apart) keep their plumage in remarkably good
condition except at certain times, for example after the stress of
rearing a family or during a heavy moult; indeed they must do so to
survive. There are certain exceptions (see also later), perhaps the
best example being the Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus. In the
wild, the black 'plumes' of this bird always tend to look unkempt,
even immediately after preening, and one might well be excused
for thinking that it has recently escaped from rather squalid captivity.
Second, many escapes take place during or shortly after arrival
in this country. While a very few exporters from other countries
take a great deal of trouble over the birds in their care, as regards
both health and packing for transportation, the majority, unfortunately, care no further than that the birds should arrive alive
(and not always that). As a result freshly imported birds may be in a
very bedraggled state due to sticky food, dirty and overcrowded
boxes, and the 'bird-lime' with which they have been caught and
which is usually lost only after a complete moult. All too often their
lot in the hands of dealers after arrival is little better, although it may
jusdy be said that a few dealers have an enviable reputation for
keeping and supplying birds in first-class order.
Further—and this is one of the safer criteria—a bird showing
wear about the face is more likely to have acquired this through
trying to escape from captivity than in the wild. However, an
experienced observer will beware of applying this, for example,
to bee-eaters at hole-boring time, or to fruit-eaters such as thrushes,
since in both cases the plumage of the face may temporarily get into
a deplorable state, though not usually so much so that loss of
feathers takes place, less still that bare patches will be seen around
the base of the bill. For a detailed discussion of worn or broken
wing-feathers see Goodwin (1956).
It is usually true that a badly worn or bedraggled tail is more
likely to be seen on an escaped bird than on a wild one. It is not
only frightened and closely confined birds which spoil the ends of
their tails in their efforts to escape or from sheer lack of space;
tame or fearless birds in large aviaries frequently break up their
tails through clinging to wire netting in attempting to reach human
188
The problem of 'escapes'
beings whom they know to be potential providers of food. Some
birds, such as rollers, are inveterate wire-clingers and may be the
despair of those who try to keep them in good plumage. This is not
often seen in the wild; broken, loose or missing tail-feathers may
frequently be encountered, but not worn tail ends except in some
immature birds and birds of prey. Not infrequently a photograph of
a wild bird of prey is spoilt because the end of the tail is, to say the
least, untidy. Steppe or Tawny Eagles Aquila rapax and Black Kites,
among others, seem especially prone to this disfigurement.
It is thus safer to use the argument of bad plumage as evidence
of escape than that of good plumage as evidence of wildness, with
certain exceptions. The state of the bill and claws may be useful
points: both may become overgrown in captivity as a result of an
absence of those conditions which lead to wear; and it is not uncommon for small birds which have been caged for a long time to have
claws so long that they experience difficulty in taking off from a
perch. However, excessive growth of the bill, which is relatively easy
to see, is less common than overgrown claws, which may be impossible to note except in the hand. In addition, overgrown and abnormal bills occur in the wild (Pomeroy 1962). Although deformed
toes are not unknown in wild birds (being common, for example, in
feral pigeons Columba livid), birds captured with 'bird-lime' not
infrequendy have distorted digits (sometimes grossly so) with lumps
or swellings on or between the joints. Somewhat similar lesions may
appear as a result of unsuitable food, perches or floor material.
These seldom completely recover. Scaly legs may be seen both
in wild birds (Blackmore and Keymer 1969) and—probably more
commonly—in captive ones, and are usually due to infestation with
a mite, although they may appear with old age.
Hitherto, a messy ventral area or repeated jerky motions of a
bird attempting to defaecate were indications of the likelihood of
unsuitable food in captivity but, although such points should not be
ignored, contamination of the environment has unfortunately rendered them less useful as evidence than formerly.
The colour, as distinct from the quality, of a bird's plumage is
sometimes useful evidence but must be treated with caution. It is
well known that some birds tend to lose the red in their plumage in
captivity; this occurs, for example, in Linnets Acanthis cannabina and
Rose-coloured Starlings Sturnus roseus. Although useful, this is not
completely reliable; as has been mentioned, many birds escape
shortly after being imported when their colours have not had time
to deteriorate. On the other hand, my only experience of the Rosecoloured Starling in the field was of a very tatty-looking specimen
with a complete absence of 'rose'; however, since it was in a clearing
in the Indian forest it was not likely to have escaped.
The problem of 'escapes'
189
APPROACH ABILITY
Tameness, approachability and fearlessness, although similar,
are not necessarily the same and in any case must obviously be considered in relation to the particular species. For example, while a
phalarope would be expected to allow an approach to within ten
metres, a Peregrine Falco peregrinus which did this is hardly likely
to be a healthy wild one. With certain exceptions, and provided
there is no reason to suppose that it has just completed a long flight
across the sea, an alert bird which allows an unreasonably close
approach may be considered to be suspect. However, hunger, exhaustion, sickness and injury must not be forgotten, since they govern
approachability to a great extent, and in my view this is at best
an uncertain guide, although of course it is useful as an addition
to the total of the evidence to be considered.
FAMILIES AND SPECIES IMPORTED
It has been said that, given sufficient financial resources, it would
be possible to obtain in Britain any species of bird in the world.
This is, unfortunately, not far from the truth, although there are
some which would prove very difficult indeed, either because—however good avicultural techniques have become—they are unlikely
to survive the journey from their native land (or indeed survive
captivity at all), or because they are few in number in the wild and
sufficiently localised and well protected to make trapping and export
well-nigh impossible. An obvious example of the latter is the Takahe
Notomis mantelli of New Zealand. However, it must be noted that
rareness, of itself, is no safeguard that a species will not reach Britain
in a captive state: for example, a pair of wild-trapped Siberian
White Cranes Grus leucogeranus, which are, of course, very much
in the 'Red List', were recently imported for a private collection.
However, such birds do not concern us here, and it is almost
certainly true to say that any species likely to cause escape confusion
in Britain is obtainable by a determined importer.
Stated baldly like this, it appears to make the problem of escapes
insoluble and it must hastily be added that, although all may be
possible, fortunately only few are likely.
In attempting to compile a list of species which might be, or
might be mistaken for, wild vagrants and which are imported into
Britain or the adjacent parts of the Continent in numbers sufficient
to make them an 'escape risk', it cannot too often be repeated that
the position is continually changing and that the availability of
species ebbs and flows. The following birds, therefore, are those
currently being imported (or known recently to have been) which
may cause confusion either in their own specific right or because
they may be said to resemble possible immigrants, even though such
i go
The problem of 'escapes'
a mistake appears unlikely in the extreme to an experienced person.
Ducks and geese have been omitted for reasons given above, although
it may not be out of place to repeat the classic warning about
reporting Ruddy Ducks Oxyura jamaicensis, which are now fairly
common in Britain in a feral state, as White-headed Ducks 0.
leucocephala. Species which are imported so seldom, or in such small
numbers, as to make the risk of escape negligible have been omitted,
although this must not be taken to mean that such a thing is
impossible. To avoid constant repetition of such phrases as 'moderate
numbers', 'only occasionally', and so on, the numbers /, 2, 3 and 4
have been used to indicate very roughly the relative numbers being
imported from the area named (/ meaning few, 4 very many),
although it will be appreciated that numbers alone do not accurately
indicate the likelihood of escape. For example, an escape is more
likely from among ten pelicans, which are often only wing-clipped
and kept in open pens, than from four times that number of rollers,
which are always in cages or aviaries. Countries named are probable areas of origin.
Pelicans Pelecanus spp. (America, Africa and Asia 2). Mainly White P. onocrotalus
and Dalmatian P. crispus.
Purple Heron Ardea purpurea (Asia / ) .
Little Egret Egretta garzetta (Asia 2, Africa 1).
Great White Egret Egretta alba (Asia 2, Africa / ) .
Squacco Heron Ardeola ralloides (Africa 1).
Indian Pond Heron Ardeola gravii (Asia 1). More commonly imported than
Squacco, especially out of breeding season. Great care needed to distinguish the
two species.
Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis (Africa and Asia 2).
Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax (mainly Asia 2). It should be noted that there
is a free-flying colony at Edinburgh Zoo.
White Stork Ciconia ciconia (Africa, Asia and Europe 2).
Black Stork Ciconia nigra (Africa and Asia 1).
Spoonbill Platalea leucorodia (Asia 2).
African Spoonbill Platalea alba (Africa 1). Has red face.
Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus (Africa and Asia 2).
Flamingos Phoenicopterus spp. (America, Africa and Asia 3). All species have been
imported, the Greater Flamingo P. ruber quite commonly.
Birds of prey. See page 193.
Crane Grus grus (Asia / ) . Surprisingly few imported.
Sarus Crane Grus antigone (Asia 2). Common in captivity.
Demoiselle Crane Anthropoides virgo (Asia 2).
Purple Gallinule Porphyria porphyria (Asia 2, Africa / ) . The Indian race poliocephalus
is the one most commonly imported, but this has a greyish head and is easily
distinguishable from the nominate form.
Allen's Gallinule Porphyrula alleni (Africa / ) .
(Various rails and gallinules are frequently available from Central and South
America and from Asia, most of which are hardly likely to be confused with
species which might occur as genuine vagrants. However, consignments occasionally include such species as Sora Rail Porzana Carolina, even if only in small
numbers.)
The problem of 'escapes'
191
Great Bustard Otis tarda. Private importations only; a few pinioned birds on
Salisbury Plain, Wiltshire.
Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori. A few in captivity (and not expensive in African dealers'
lists), which should be remembered when a possible Great Bustard is seen.
Spur-winged Plover Vanellus spinosus (Asia 2, Africa i). Breeds freely in captivity,
and in Lancashire has been reared by incubator in surprising numbers.
Three-banded Plover Charadrius tricollaris (Africa 1). Might be confused with
Killdeer C. vociferus but is much smaller (size of Ringed Plover C. hiaticula)
and has red eye-ring and very conspicuous red base to bill.
Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus (Asia 2, Africa / ) .
Pratincoles Glareola spp. More imported than might be expected, chiefly from Asia,
though perhaps a few from Africa. Rarely correctly named by dealers, sometimes
called 'Eastern Pratincoles'. Probably chiefly Collared G. pratincole or Eastern
Collared G. maldivarum, but Black-winged G. nordmanni not impossible.
Rufous Turtle Dove Streptopelia orientalis (Asia / ) . Intermittent, often wrongly
named in dealers' lists.
Namaqua Dove Oena capensis (Africa / ) .
(Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus and Ring-necked Parakeet Psittacula krameri.
Colonies of both species breeding at liberty at several places in Britain.)
Owls. See page 193.
Bee-eaters. Various species imported from Africa and India, chiefly those unlikely
to occur wild, although there are quite a number of European Bee-eaters Merops
apiaster in captivity in Britain. The colour of the last-named tends to fade
considerably.
Roller Coracias garrulus (Spain 1).
Indian Roller Coracias benghalensis (Asia 2). Easily confused with Roller, but
adults have reddish, not blue, face and breast; juveniles more difficult.
White-bellied Black Woodpecker Dryocopus javensis (Asia / ) . White belly distinguishes this species from the Black Woodpecker D. martius.
Azure-winged Magpie Cyanopica cyanus (Iberia / ) . Being bred in captivity.
Crested Tit Parus cristatus. Seldom imported, but see next species.
Yellow-cheeked Tit Parus xanthogenys (Asia 3). Might be mistaken for Crested
Tit, but has yellow cheeks and variable black band down belly.
American Robin Turdus migratorius. Very seldom imported.
Whistling Thrush Myophonus caeruleus (sometimes called Blue or Violet WhisUurg
Thrush or even simply Blue Thrush) (Asia 1). Might be mistaken for Blue Rock
Thrush (see below), but is larger, slimmer, and usually appears very dark
except in brilliant light; very shy. Attempted to breed in Upper Weardale, Co.
Durham, in 1970—probably deliberately released (Dr H. M. S. Blair in lift.).
Rock Thrush Monticola saxatilis (Spain, Italy and Africa 1).
Blue-headed Rock Thrush Monticola cinclorhynchus (Asia 2). Has black eyestripe,
rufous rump, white patch on dark wings.
Chestnut-bellied Rock Thrush Monticola rufiventris (Asia 2). Larger than preceding
species, with no rufous on rump and no white in wings. (African rock thrushes
are seldom imported.)
Blue Rock Thrush Monticola solitarius (Asia x). Mostly M. s. pandoo, which is slightly
smaller and darker (less blue) and generally a duller-looking bird than the
nominate European race. See also Whistling Thrush above.
Red-flanked Bluetail Tarsiger cyanurus (Asia /—very few). See also Rainbow
Bunting on page ig2.
Spotted Morning Warbler Cichladusa guttata (Africa 1). Has bred in England
several times. Actually a thrush, and might be confused with some other thrushes,
possibly Hermit Thrush Hylocichla guttata, but has more upright, flycatcher-like
stance.
Red-spotted Bluethroat Luscinia svecica svecica (also L. s. pallidogularis and L. s.
192
The problem of 'escapes'
'robusta' (Asia 2). Throat pattern of males very variable.
Siberian Rubythroat Luscinia calliope. See next species.
Himalayan Rubythroat Luscinia pectoralis (Asia 2). More commonly imported than
Siberian. Has black surrounding the 'ruby' throat.
Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris and Red-breasted Flycatcher Ficedula parva.
Formerly fairly frequent from Asia, less now, but a few included among batches
of small flycatchers (mainly blue with red and brown—e.g. Tickell's Blue Flycatcher Niltava tickeUiae) which are still commonly imported. The females of
some of these are very confusing.
Wagtails Motacilla spp. (Asia 2-3). Some confusing black- and grey-headed
examples. See also next species.
Citrine Wagtail Motacilla citreola (Asia 1).
Shrikes Lanius spp. (Asia 1). Chiefly Great Grey L. excubitor, Bay-backed L. vittatus
and Rufous-backed or Black-headed L. schach: last two should be considered if
unfamiliar shrike is seen.
Rose-coloured Starling Sturmis roseus (Asia 2) Does not deserve its reputation
as 'inevitably an escape', though possible. Dullness or absence of pink not a
sure criterion for captive origin. Not a ready breeder in captivity, so immatures
less suspect.
Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus (America / ) .
Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus (America 2).
Yellow-headed Marsh Blackbird (also known as Yellow-hooded (Marsh) Blackbird)
Agelaius icterocephalus (America 2). Not to be confused with Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus, which is more likely to occur as a vagrant.
Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus (America 1).
Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula (America / ) . Intermittent.
Evening Grosbeak Hesperiphona vespertina (America 2).
Serin Serinus serinus. Very seldom imported, but see next species.
Green Singing Finch Serinus mozambicus (Africa 4). Male differs from Serin in
well-marked facial pattern; female more easily confused. Tail not forked.
Scarlet Rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus (Asia 3).
Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea (America 2).
Summer Tanager Piranga rubra (America / ) .
Red-headed Bunting Emberiza bruniceps (Asia 4).
Black-headed Bunting Emberiza melanocephala (Asia 2).
Yellow-breasted Bunting Emberiza aureola (Asia 1-2).
Rock Bunting (African) Emberiza tahapisi (Africa 2). Dark throat and less barring in
wings than in Rock Bunting E. cia.
Cardinal Richmondena cardinalis (America 2).
Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus (America 2).
Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea (America 2).
Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea (America 2).
Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena (America 2).
Painted Bunting Passerina ciris (America 1).
Rainbow Bunting Passerina lechlancheri (America 2). Has orange breast on arrival,
but this soon fades in captivity (unless bird fed on insects, which is very seldom
the case), and confusion then possible with Red-flanked Bluetail on plumage
characters.
Yellow-throated Sparrow Petronia xanthocollis (Asia 2). Slimmer and neater than
Rock Sparrow P. petronia, but has yellow throat and rather similar body markings.
Bill much finer: looks 'insectivorous' in field.
Domestic Canaries S. canaria are now produced in so many colours
and sizes that they should be remembered when an unrecognisable
The problem of 'escapes*
193
finch- or bunting-like bird is reported. Colour-feeding is common
and colours may range from red and chestnut to green and yellow,
with or without dark markings. Streaking is common and the rump
is often yellow. Various finch hybrids and canary-finch 'mules' are
surprisingly popular and very numerous, but in most a trace of
Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis, Bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula or Linnet
will be apparent (the red'blaze' of the Goldfinch is seldom completely
lost) and snatches of song may reveal the parentage. However, any
of these birds may be puzzling in the field, and those considered
useless for show purposes are not infrequently liberated.
BIRDS OF PREY AND OWLS
Since 1970 it has been illegal to import into Britain, without a licence
from the Home Office specifying the species and number, all birds
of prey and owls. Despite these restrictions a considerable number
are still appearing on the market. However, the Continent is
probably one of the main sources of escapes of such species. The
commonest eagle is almost certainly the Tawny, although some
Spotted Aquila clanga or Lesser Spotted A. pomarina (not necessarily
distinguished1) appear from time to time. Various vultures are in
surprising demand, as are Black Kites, the latter mainly from
Asia though a few are of the African yellow-billed forms.
The two most difficult owls are the Scops Otus scops and Eagle
Owls Bubo bubo. Before the restrictions were imposed, very large
numbers of scops owls of various species and subspecies were imported (one dealer in the Midlands was receiving 100 a week) and the
Continent still receives a number. The main forms involved were
Otus scops (Asia / ) , the White-faced Scops O. leucotis (Africa / ) , the
Bare-toed (or Bare-legged) Scops O. bakkamoena glabripes (South
China and Taiwan / ) , and, commonest of all, other races of 0.
bakkamoena, known as Collared Scops Owls, which are very variable
in colour and might even be mistaken for the Screech Owl 0. asio of
North America. The eagle owls are also very difficult. Many are (or
were) imported and a number are bred in captivity each year.
Several species are involved, not all so easily identifiable as might be
thought. In addition, the Brown Fish-Owl Ketupa zeylonensis came in
from southern Asia in some numbers and was often euphemistically
named 'Great Horned Owl' by dealers.
OTHER GROUPS AND GENERAL COMMENTS
It will be noticed that no divers, grebes or seabirds appear in this
list (although a very small number of gulls are imported and a fair
number—chiefly common species—are kept in some of the larger
collections). Nightjars, swifts and hirundines are also absent,
chiefly because they do not appear very suitable for aviary life,
194
The problem of 'escapes'
although swallows and martins which fall from the nest and are
hand-reared do surprisingly well and may live to a considerable
age. Larks and pipits are not very popular and, most fortunately,
neither waders nor warblers come from America in sufficient
numbers to raise serious doubts, except in a very few species.
Dealers' lists offering birds for sale may be misleading in two
ways. First, because a certain species is listed and priced it does
not necessarily follow that it is actually in stock; it may merely
indicate that it is obtainable on demand, either from its country of
origin or from that avian clearing-house Bangkok or, more likely,
from a wholesaler on the Continent. A very undesirable corollary
to this is the advertiser who offers to obtain to order especially
difficult or rare species. Second, many birds are listed under
euphemistic names (see, for example, Great Horned Owl above),
some in order to make them sound more attractive, others because
the dealer has no idea what they are and has to invent likely-sounding names. (The fact that a particular species is ordered is no
guarantee that the birds which arrive bear any resemblance to what
has been asked for.) Not infrequently males and females of the same
species are listed as two different species; and where the male of a
species is colourful and the female drab, importations often consist
of practically nothing but males (as in the Red-headed Bunting).
It is my opinion that, while in the last resort each suspected
case must be considered on it merits, the risk of vagrants being in
fact escaped birds is not so great as is sometimes imagined, except
in a few cases such as pelicans, herons, egrets, storks, flamingos,
waterfowl and birds of prey. The 'problem of escapes' thus arises
from the fact that the very wide range of imported species necessarily
means that almost every recorded rarity is, to however infinitesimal
a degree, tainted with suspicion, and I do not pretend that I have
been able to remove this suspicion. However, some comfort may be
taken from the fact that, with the exceptions named above, I find
it necessary to question from an escape point of view only a very
small proportion of the records submitted to the Rarities Committee.
A NOTE ON AVICULTURE
It will not have needed much imagination for the reader to have
become aware of the fact that I am very much opposed to the almost
worldwide and to a large extent unrestricted traffic in wild birds.
I might add that I am equally opposed to the keeping of birds in
small cages for any length of time. The advertisement pages of such
a journal as Cage and Aviary Birds cannot fail to appal anyone with
the slightest interest in conservation, nor indeed any thoughtful
person with a conscience at all.
However, I am an aviculturist and I should indeed be doing a
The problem of 'escapes'
!95
disservice to my fellow aviculturists and to the minority of conscientious dealers were I to write no more than the paragraph above. It
would be difficult to find better words than those used by SethSmith (1964) as a dictionary definition of aviculture. What he wrote
cannot be quoted in full here, but his opening sentences give an
indication of his theme: 'AVICULTURE : term applied to the practice
of keeping birds of wild species in aviaries or enclosures, with
the object of studying their habits and, if possible, inducing them to
breed successfully under conditions as nearly as practicable approaching those found in nature . . . '. It must be admitted that in elaborating his excellent definition he tended to consider the subject
(perhaps properly in the context) only from the point of view of its
advantages and wrote nothing of the fact that a considerable number
of ornithologists and probably more of 'bird-lovers' are opposed to
the keeping of birds in captivity in any circumstances. This is not
the place to embark on a discussion on the ethics of bird-keeping, but
it seems appropriate at least to make some attempt to present briefly
a balanced picture.
It is difficult to understand how anyone can fail to be appalled
at the widespread depletion of wild stock that is going on, or at the
conditions in which birds are trapped and transported. Harrowing
details would be out of place here: suffice it to say that huge numbers
of birds arrive in Europe dead or dying and that a great many more
which are just alive on arrival have suffered so much that they will
shortly die even in the hands of the most expert aviculturist, hands
into which they stand very little chance of falling.
Fortunately the picture is not all black. Some of the better public
zoological collections and a very few private aviculturists import
their birds personally direct from a reputable trapper or dealer in
the country of origin. The birds are ordered—under licence where
necessary—by species and often in pairs only, from people who
are prepared to take trouble to ensure that trapped birds are feeding
properly, are in good health, are properly packed for travelling
(with instructions for feeding) and are despatched by a suitable
route in the care of an airline with a reputation for reliability in the
handling of livestock. In such cases it is the rule rather than the
exception for the birds to arrive in immaculate condition.
Also on the credit side it is not necessary to look further than
Britain—although valuable work is being done on the Continent, in
the United States and elsewhere—to find examples of aviculture so
obviously advantageous as to make sweeping condemnation
ridiculous. The work of Professor W. H. Thorpe and others at
Cambridge on song (e.g. Thorpe 1961) and of the Wildfowl Trust
in saving the apparently doomed Hawaiian Goose Branta sandvicensis
show that it is not going too far to say that, for the full under-
i g6
The problem of 'escapes'
standing of birds and for the ultimate benefit of the avifauna of the
world, a certain amount of aviculture in the true sense of the word
is essential.
Following from this it would be all too easy to adopt a holierthan-thou attitude and suggest that bird-keeping is permissible
only if it serves an immediate and obvious scientific purpose. But
who is to say that it is wrong for a few pairs of common birds to be
kept in an aviary for the sheer pleasure which they give ? Somehow the
decimation must be controlled: rarities must be protected; the
implementation of international legislation is desperately needed to
prevent the recurrence of such events as the arrival in England of
the cranes mentioned above. But there are far worse things which
the owner of the few common birds might be doing and, since he
must already be a lover of birds, it may be only a short step for him
to join the ranks of the conservationists.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
M. H. Whittaker, in charge of the RSPCA Hostel for Animals at Heathrow, has
been most helpful in providing information, and T. P. Inskipp, at present undertaking a survey of the question of imported and captive birds on behalf of the Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds, has allowed full use of his notes and the information which he has so far gathered, and has proved helpful in discussion. B. Riley
has willingly answered many questions about the sources of imported birds. I gladly
express my thanks to a gentleman in the Department of Customs and Excise, who
prefers to remain anonymous, for advising on and checking the section on the law.
To James Ferguson-Lees must go a great deal of the credit for the fact that this
paper was ever completed, since only his continual persuasion overcame the
reluctance to rewrite, time after time, matter which became out of date before it
could be published. I am grateful to Peter Olney for taking considerable trouble
in helping me to avoid mistakes and irrelevancies. Most of all, thanks are due to
Stanley Cramp for reading through more than one draft and making many
invaluable suggestions for improvement.
SUMMARY
The problem of escapes and its magnitude are discussed and some indication
of numbers and sources given. Methods of escape are outlined and various aids
to differentiation between wild and escaped birds are suggested. A list of birds
imported which may occur as wild vagrants, and others which may be confused
with these, is included. There is a brief comment on aviculture.
REFERENCES
ANON, 1969. 'Editorial. Aviculture and the introduction of non-native species'.
Avic. Mag., 75: 70-71.
BLACKMORE, D. K., and REYMER, I. F. 1969. 'Cutaneous diseases of wild birds in
Britain'. Brit. Birds, 62: 316-331.
BLACKWELL, K. 1972. 'Escapes'. Northamptonshire and Soke of Peterborough Bird
Report 1971: 3.
BOYLE, C. L. 1970. 'Control of the importation of wildlife'. Report to ICBP
Conference.
D'EATH, J . O. 1973. 'On keeping free-winged waterfowl'. Avic. Mag., 79: 70-73.
ENGLAND, M. D. 1970. ' "Escapes" '. Avic. Mag., 76: 150-152.
The problem of 'escapes'
197
GOODWIN, D. 1956. 'The problem of birds escaping from captivity'. Brit. Birds,
49= 339-349MARTIN, R. M. 1973. 'The plight of Thailand's birdlife'. Avic. Mag., 79: 131-136.
POMEROY, D. E. 1962. 'Birds with abnormal bills'. Brit. Birds, 55: 49-72.
RICHARDSON, R. A. i960. 'The trade in birds and its effect on British ornithology'.
(Unpublished.)
SETH-SMITH, D. 1964. 'Aviculture' in A New Dictionary of Birds, edited by A.
Landsborough Thomson. London, pp 75-76.
THORPE, W. H . 1961. Bird-Song. Cambridge.
M. D. England, Mashobra, Neatishead, Norwich NOR 37Z