Hi Mark,
Where are the 2 populations. I am very keen to not tick them for my Northern
Beaches List.
I've previously ticked peafowl in Cairns - please tell me that this is OK.
Regards,
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, 27 November 2009 10:11 AM
To: Dave Torr
Cc: ; Bill Stent
Subject: Re: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [Birding-Aus] Peafowl
Is there a general consensus on this?
There are 2 populations of this bird on the Northern Beaches which I think
have been around for that time, but I can't prove that, and which I would
like to tick, but haven't. But having just ratified my list to be more
accurate I don't want to tick unless it's a valid tick.
Also, how is the decision made that a certain population at a certain
location is now tickable?
And if you know of a population that isn't widely known, how do you get that
population to be accepted as being there for 10 years so it can be ticked?
Regards,
Mark
> Dave Torr <> wrote:
>
> Seems one of the ongoing questions on Birding-Aus is "is xxxx a tickable
> population". There seem to be two easy alternatives - either we count no
> introduced birds or we count them all. That would save a lot of debate I
> guess.... :-)
> Slightly more seriously - I guess it is very hard for anyone to
> determine in
> many cases whether the population has been self-sustaining for the
> required
> period of time (10 years I believe?). How do we know for any of these
> populations whether or not there have been further releases to boost the
> population - I recall that someone reckoned the Melbourne Bayside
> Barbary
> Doves were being replenished by further releases from time to time? Does
> being fed artificially stop them being self-sustaining?
>
>
> 2009/11/27 Bill Stent <>
>
> > I feel somehow that the Melbourne populations aren't tickable, but I'm
> > looking for a good reason why not.
> >
> > I'd be surprised if there were more than a dozen or so, which would
> suggest
> > they might be partially supported by human feeding (although I've got
> no
> > actual evidence for this).
> >
> > Bill
> >
|
