I was going to check the "rules" on Tony Palliser's website but it is down.
I guess as others have said it is only "important" if you wish to compare
your total with other people - which is meaningless unless you are obeying
the same rules. There are no prizes for the biggest list!
2009/11/27 Peter Shute <>
> Who says they have to be resident? Don't they just have to be here? You
> couldn't count a Hudsonian Godwit that was captive, or had escaped from
> captivity, but everyone assumes they've just flown here accidentally because
> that's the most likely thing.
>
> Same for things like Galahs, which could be escapees. You just assume they
> aren't, because that's probably true. It's only with species that are
> likely to be escapees or free roaming pets that there's any need to
> investigate.
>
> Can you count any waders that have been banded? They're all escapees,
> aren't they?
>
> Peter Shute
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:
> On Behalf Of Carl Clifford
> Sent: Friday, 27 November 2009 11:07 AM
> To: John Tongue
> Cc: ; Bill Stent
> Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [Birding-Aus] Peafowl
>
> Perhaps "migratory" waders should be regarded as resident species that
> travel elsewhere to breed. Most species of waders seem to spend more time
> out of their breeding range than in it. This could be argued to apply to
> most migratory species.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Clifford
>
>
> On 27/11/2009, at 10:35 AM, John Tongue wrote:
>
> The whole question is really quite complex. Migratory birds can't really
> be considered to have 'maintained' a breeding population here, but we still
> count them. Then what about waders that turn up periodically - Hudsonian
> Godwit, for example? Presumably listers are
> still able to tick them? Then, what about Grey-headed Lapwing?
> Isabelline Wheatear? And so the complexities multiply. In terms of one's
> own life list, you just need to be happy with the rules you apply to
> yourself. And if you want to compare and contrast life lists, then you just
> need to be using 'common' rules.
>
> Anyway, that's my two bob's worth.
>
> John Tongue
> Ulvertsone, Tas.
>
>
> On 27/11/2009, at 9:55 AM, 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
> >>
|
