Hi Michael,
I love it, sounds like Twitchathon poker! Your full house of Woodswallows
beats my three of Black Cockatoos. Seriously though I think it's a great
suggestion, and falls in with Margaret Cameron's idea of setting targets
"$10 for 5 raptors" and the like. Some areas are better for some types of
birds than others though, so tinkering would be required. For example it's
normal to get 10 raptor species in a day in Broome, but have a go at finding
Acanthizids and you'll be sorely disappointed. And do you rate a freak
twitch, like a Grey-headed Lapwing or something, as better than a really
rare bird that you have a small chance of finding, like a Red Goshawk in
south-east Queensland? I'd be happy to contribute to a discussion on this
kind of system if people wanted to get it off the ground.
Regards,
Chris
On 4/11/07, Michael Todd <> wrote:
I reckon that the twitchathon should be shaken up a bit by providing new
rules and incentives to teams to twitch in different ways some of which
could be more climate- change friendly. Just about all teams would end
up with a Silver Gull on their list. However, not all teams would end up
with Square-tailed Kite. What about a system where different bird
species scored more highly than the abundant ones. What about a bonus
system for getting the full swag of a particular suite of birds- say all
the thornbills? With enough tinkering you could possibly get a system
that would bring the states onto an even basis so that we could have a
true Australian competition (I think Stuart Cooney might have looked at
this with the last twitchathon).
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
