Even if it's looking up?
Seriously, whether you tick it or not hardly matters. And anyway, you
haven't seen them so your lists would be the same no matter how you did
them!
2008/7/9 Evan Beaver <>:
> Maybe seperate birder lists for different ethical standards? Climbers
> differentiate quality of ascent using different variables; Was the
> route bolted? Was it your first attempt? Were they genuine Winter
> conditions or was it just cold?
>
> I'm going for biggest 'traditional' list in Australia, slowly, which
> means no possible ship assisted birds, no 'plastics', only recognised
> native Australian fauna. Other people can tick the crow, or other
> dodgy vagrants if they like, but as far as I'm concerned they're
> competing in a different sport.
>
> The view is good from the moral high-ground.
>
> EB
>
> On 7/9/08, Graham Turner <> wrote:
> > The rules being
> >
> > ".All species counted should be seen alive and in the wild
> > 2.Geography includes Mainland Australia, its Territories
> > or anywhere within the 200 NM limit (excluding Antarctica).
> > 3.Taxonomy should follow Christidis & Boles 2008 .
> > 4.Submissions should be honest, accurate and dated. "
> >
> > So the Peach-faced Lovebird I saw a few years ago is tickable? Being both
> > alive and in the wild?
> >
> > The crow must be as tickable as the magpie in Broome which was designated
> as
> > 'untickable' by at least one well know birder.
> >
> > Graham Turner
> >
> >
|
