Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [Birding-Aus] Peafowl

To: Peter Shute <>
Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [Birding-Aus] Peafowl
From: Dave Torr <>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 11:48:35 +1100
I was going to check the "rules" on Tony Palliser's website but it is down.
I guess as others have said it is only "important" if you wish to compare
your total with other people - which is meaningless unless you are obeying
the same rules. There are no prizes for the biggest list!

2009/11/27 Peter Shute <>

> Who says they have to be resident?  Don't they just have to be here?  You
> couldn't count a Hudsonian Godwit that was captive, or had escaped from
> captivity, but everyone assumes they've just flown here accidentally because
> that's the most likely thing.
> Same for things like Galahs, which could be escapees.  You just assume they
> aren't, because that's probably true.  It's only with species that are
> likely to be escapees or free roaming pets that there's any need to
> investigate.
> Can you count any waders that have been banded?  They're all escapees,
> aren't they?
> Peter Shute
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  [mailto:
>  On Behalf Of Carl Clifford
> Sent: Friday, 27 November 2009 11:07 AM
> To: John Tongue
> Cc: ; Bill Stent
> Subject: Re: [!! SPAM] Re: [Birding-Aus] Peafowl
> Perhaps "migratory" waders should be regarded as resident species that
> travel elsewhere to breed. Most species of waders seem to spend more time
> out of their breeding range than in it. This could be argued to apply to
> most migratory species.
> Cheers,
> Carl Clifford
> On 27/11/2009, at 10:35 AM, John Tongue wrote:
> The whole question is really quite complex.  Migratory birds can't really
> be considered to have 'maintained' a breeding population here, but we still
> count them.  Then what about waders that turn up periodically - Hudsonian
> Godwit, for example?  Presumably listers are
> still able to tick them?  Then, what about Grey-headed Lapwing?
> Isabelline Wheatear?  And so the complexities multiply.  In terms of one's
> own life list, you just need to be happy with the rules you apply to
> yourself.  And if you want to compare and contrast life lists, then you just
> need to be using 'common' rules.
> Anyway, that's my two bob's worth.
> John Tongue
> Ulvertsone, Tas.
> On 27/11/2009, at 9:55 AM, 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
> >>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU