Bad typing, I left out a "not". I suggest most of us would not obtain the
same level of satisfaction..............
-----Original Message-----
From: Canberrabirds
On Behalf Of
Philip Veerman
Sent: Friday, 26 February, 2021 5:50 PM
To: 'Peter';
Subject: listing: do you need to see the bird?
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.
Philip
-----Original Message-----
From: Canberrabirds
On Behalf Of Peter
Sent: Thursday, 25 February, 2021 8:55 PM
To:
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?
thanks,
Peter Miller
--
|
