Radisson - 2010 / Ivy & Princess

[moka]

Am off to work and am anxious to get back to catch up!

Am thinking, the west nest, as I go to the office. 

[Mother Hen]

Just saw Ivy on the WEST Nest.....it is just pass 7 am. Sun is starting to shine so will not be able to see how long he sits on the nest.you sure can tell the difference in size from her to him......Maybe since he is from the Westend he will be inclinded to convince Princess to NEST ON THE WEST

[Kinderchick]

Given the alternative of empty skies over Manitoba, yes, I would prefer to maintain our little family tree here with Ivy this year if Trey isn't going to return ... 

Thanks for the info about bloodlines, etc., TPC. Yes, I see your point of view... Very informative.

[Pam]

...just nothing you could see...can't see through concrete over head...lol

True enough!  Have to get my security guys onside for that one!

[photosbydennis]

...just nothing you could see...can't see through concrete over head...lol

[Pam]

Maybe it was Trey who was the one who was fond of the ledge - I recall Tracy saying that he was hatched on the ledge.  

Saw one bird on the nestbox as I was leaving work, saw absolutely nothing on the east side today.

[bcbird]

Except,... it is Princess who lays the eggs.
TPC, does the male choose the nest with his scrape site, or would the female often choose a different location?

[ballywing]

YES!!!! - At least it looks like we won't have that pesky East Ledge to fret about this year! 

[moka]

WOW! what a lot of info to process.

I agree with Ivy being the ideal substitute. He is a very handsome bird, dark head, lovely white breast, hummm, wonder where he got all his good looks  and best of all, he's one of ours. Also can't forget that he seems to know he should NEST ON THE WEST!

[bccs]

And they don't care about incest.

Lots of species don't - Ivy was paired up with his sister Lucy for a year, Trey was with his mom for a couple.  There a few down south that are half-sibs and nesting mostly happily ... 

Doesn't that warp up the gene pool a bit?

Only if there are problematic recessive genes that are being passed along and "encouraged" so to speak. 

A human example would be hemophilia in the Russian royal family - a nasty recessive gene in a relatively smallish gene pool that wasn't eliminated, but rather reinforced within the pool by marriages between close (not incestuous) family relationships. 

Animal example in the other side of the argument.  Cheetahs are theorized to have been virtually wiped out by a disease (that's what the experts believe), possibly down to one single pregnant female from whom all of today's cheetahs are related.  Cheetahs are for all intents and purposes, clones of one another (note on that at the end).  One proof is that they have found that the cats don't have problem with rejection - skin grafts between captive cheetahs showed no rejection (The Genetic Fortitude of Cheetahs) - other isolated species/subspecies/populations show the same evidence.  There is debate on whether or not this has contributed to their decline, but other large cat species in the same region have suffered similar declines, so the debate rages.  What is known is that as clones they are all equally susceptible to illness which in a normal, genetically diverse population is not a threat to a species survival.  What is interesting (and this is the note at the end) is that cheetahs are evolving - their immune systems are showing resistances to diseases we know they didn't have a couple of decades ago, so they are evolving away from being clones, but how long that will take and if they will have the time/habitat/opportunity to do so is unknown. For a really nice look at cheetah's and their survival, check out The Endangered Cheetah


From TPC: tweaked to include the embedded links ...

[The Peregrine Chick]

You are very welcome, besides, that's what this forum is really all about

Last year, TPC, I also asked the question of hurting the gene pool with inbreeding. You gave a very indepth reply that allayed all my fears about this issue. I'll go back and try to find it, and with your permission, I'd like to post it's reference here.

Feel free - probably easiest to just click on the subject line of the post and then post the URL here, that way folks can jump right to the location in the archives.  Saves you having to try to cut and paste ...

[bccs]

You are very welcome, besides, that's what this forum is really all about

Last year, TPC, I also asked the question of hurting the gene pool with inbreeding. You gave a very indepth reply that allayed all my fears about this issue. I'll go back and try to find it, and with your permission, I'd like to post it's reference here.

[The Peregrine Chick]

You are very welcome, besides, that's what this forum is really all about

[jadoo]

...hadn't thought of it that way, TPC, I was just concerned about too much inbreeding, but it looks like that's covered, at least for now.  Thanks for pointing out another perspective...

[The Peregrine Chick]

...wouldn't it be better for a new bloodline to come in and mingle?  Wouldn't that keep the future hatchings fresh and strong? 

I was actually thinking the same thing, jadoo.

We have new bloodlines pretty regularly - Maud the original Radisson female was from the Multifoods Tower in Minneapolis, the second Radisson female was from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Princess is from the NSP Riverside Plant in Minneapolis and is unrelated to Maud's family, Holly out in Brandon was from Grand Forks, North Dakota, Mufasa the original Brandon Male was a captive bred bird from CWS, Pop, the original Radisson male was another captive-bred male from CWS, Burnsie was a CWS captive-bred female - these make up almost all of our breeding birds in Manitoba since the beginning of our project and genetic lineages unrelated to one another.  And our line is strong, based on the number of chicks having chicks elsewhere ... stronger now than we have ever had in fact!!

Where its advantageous is that we are not on the peregrine flyway, it would be very easy for us to loose all our breeding pairs the way it has happened in Saskatchewan.  Without a bird attached to a territory up here, there is no reason why the bird wouldn't choose a location further south - shorter distance for migration and lots more birds and nest sites to choose from.  We are basically the last stop before the bunker on the rocket range outside of the town of Churchill.  So having birds tied to our location, means that there is a kind of anchor to drag birds back here to nest and which works as an anchor for movement west - to Brandon, then to the new site west of Brandon and off into Saskatchewan (our birds nested in Moose Jaw, Saskatoon and Regina - and more recently in Saskatoon again).

Given the alternative of empty skies over Manitoba, yes, I would prefer to maintain our little family tree here with Ivy this year if Trey isn't going to return ...