I guess you discover a population, monitor it for 10 years (if that is
indeed the magic number) - making sure that no-one releases any new stock in
the area - and then you can count it :-)
2009/11/27 <>
>
> Is there a general consensus on this?
>
> There are 2 populations of this bird on the Northern Beaches which I think
> have been around for that time, but I can't prove that, and which I would
> like to tick, but haven't. But having just ratified my list to be more
> accurate I don't want to tick unless it's a valid tick.
>
> Also, how is the decision made that a certain population at a certain
> location is now tickable?
> And if you know of a population that isn't widely known, how do you get
> that population to be accepted as being there for 10 years so it can be
> ticked?
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> > 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
> > >
|
