Tony Russell wrote:
To tick a bird you've got to be in the physical presence of the live
> bird and seeing it either with your naked eye or through bins or scope.
Hear, hear. To include sightings where you were not physically present
and saw* the bird is a slippery slope to: "I had brilliant views of all
Australian and New Zealand avifauna in HANZAB this afternoon - 'tick'."
While I realise there's a bit of tongue-in-cheek levity in these debates,
I sincerely hope people don't put political correctness before the real
reason for birdwatching/twitching: the thrill, the adrenaline rush,
the "wow factor". It might be a mega-rarity, or the way the light by
chance catches the feathers of an oiseau ordinaire just so and takes
your breath away. That's what I'm in it for.
* This is where the real fuzzy area lies, in my opinion. For example:
On a pelagic you see a bird - but not all of the necessary field
marks for a positive ID before it disappears behind the waves.
A photographer next to you managed to get a photo, and upon
reviewing the image the field marks are visible. Do you tick the
bird based on the photographic evidence? Discuss.
Paul Taylor Veni, vidi, tici -
I came, I saw, I ticked.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)