In the end it all comes down to standards. Tickers have a fair bit in
common with collectors.
Birds that are rare or hard to observe are highly prized, and sightings
of these take pride of place on a ticker's list. Feral birds, on the
other hand are like discarded beverage containers that litter the road
side. At best, they go on a separate list, of some minor interest, but
not worthy of addition to the life list. [In my book, ferals are marked
with crosses rather than ticks].
I wonder if ticking ferals is a step down the slippery slope of ticking
caged birds ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Stafford wrote:
>
> Hi Dion and birding-aussers
>
> I wasn't aware of this convention (I won't call it a rule as to a large
> degree birders make their own). My original feeling was if a bird has
> qualified for the Australian list, then I don't see why it can't be added to
> an individual's. In any case, surely there are other ship-assisted birds
> that have been added to the main Australian list - some of the vagrant
> gulls, for example? No one seems to have had any hesitation in ticking
> those! What makes House Crow different?
>
<snip>
|
