This is a recurring question. I doubt there will be a consensus, there might
not even be a majority view more than 60 / 40 (%).The wording of "whether ...
should be" sort of implies (to me) that this is asked as a moralistic question,
which is overstating it. I suggest it is only a practical or personal
preference question. I always think it is up to whatever the individual wants
to do and they can say I have the "greater spotted dodo" on my list on the
basis "that I heard it". The qualification will always be there. I suggest most
of us would obtain the same level of satisfaction from a heard only one time
observation. Though there are birds for which the hearing is more impressive or
distinctive than the seeing. It doesn't impact anyone else. If people wish to
compete, then use similar answers to these and a range of other questions.
On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: Thursday, 25 February, 2021 8:55 PM
Subject: listing: do you need to see the bird?
My brother-in-law is a bird guide in South Africa. He's taking part in
an online panel discussion organised by Birding SA to discuss whether
"heard only" birds should be included in "lifer" type lists. In the
interest of being informed, he asked me if there was a consensus in
Australia around this question. Clearly, bird surveying relies heavily
on heard birds, but this was more of a listing type question. I heard
the "greater spotted dodo", but didn't want to disturb, so can still
count it on my list....
What do people who keep serious lists here in Canberra think?
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra
Emails posted to the list that exceed 2 MB (2,000 kB) in size, including
attachments, will be rejected.
All emails distributed via the list are archived at
http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds. It is a
condition of list membership that you agree to your contributions being
Canberrabirds mailing list