Just tick it Mark.
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 9:41 AM
To: Dave Torr
Cc: ; Bill Stent
Subject: Re: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [Birding-Aus] Peafowl
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
> >
|
