Martin,
I am not sure that you are right here, "I ALWAYS count species that I have
heard but not seen on my lists so long as i'm dead certain of the ID - but
somehow the wider birding community fails to do so..," unless you add, "for
their personal lists."
My impression is that in surveys people are very happy to count 'heard only'
species. I have never volunteered on a project where they were not counted
and in some places it is the main means of ID. If I could be unequivocal
about a heard record for a lifer I would probably count that too.
Strangely I did not add southern Cassowary to my PNG list although one
walked unseen through our group while we were strung out along the trail and
it deposited a steaming scat. I saw where it had walked on the footprint of
my friend who was no more than 25 metres ahead of me. The only domestic
animals nearby were young ones and this was an adult. To exemplify my point,
I would have added to a survey list but did not to my own.
Regards,
Alan
Alan's Wildlife Tours
2 Mather Road
Yungaburra 4884
Phone 07 4095 3784
Mobile 0408 953 786
http://www.alanswildlifetours.com.au/
-----Original Message-----
From: martin cachard
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2014 8:20 AM
To: Nikolas Haass ; greg clancy ; Laurie Knight ; carl clifford
Cc: Birding Aus
Subject: An unfortunate way to tick a Frogmouth
thanx Nikolas,
yes, I was going to raise the listing of unequivocal signs of presence too
but didn't want to dilute my point
on dead specimens!!
I ALWAYS count species that I have heard but not seen on my lists so long as
i'm dead certain of the ID - but somehow the wider birding community fails
to do so...
this point is just an aside though - I think that the dead specimen/records
issue is an important one that really needs to be reversed by the wider
birding community...
cheers,
martin cachard,
cairns
From:
To: ; ; ;
CC:
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] An unfortunate way to tick a Frogmouth
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 22:08:08 +0000
Hi all,
Coming from a conservation side, I am totally with Greg & Martin! Of
course dead specimens are countable as long you can be sure that it got
there naturally, which can be difficult sometimes. So, certainly a record
and therefore tickable. I have never cared about any listing 'rules' (and
will never), except they would follow scientific thinking. I count dead
specimens and any other unequivocal signs of the presence of a certain
species.
Cheers,
Nikolas
A/Prof Nikolas Haass | Head, Experimental Melanoma Therapy Group
The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute
Level 6 | Translational Research Institute | 37 Kent Street |
Woolloongabba QLD 4102
T: +61 (0)7 3443 7087 | M: +61 (0)424 603 579
F: +61 (0)7 3443 6966
E: | W: www.di.uq.edu.au <http://www.di.uq.edu.au/>
<http://www.di.uq.edu.au/>
...Turning scientific discoveries into better treatmentsŠ
CRICOS Code 00025B
This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private or
confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, you must
take no action based on it, nor show a copy to anyone. Kindly notify the
sender by reply email. Opinions and information in this email which do not
relate to the official business of The University of Queensland shall be
understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University
On 10/06/14 7:50 AM, "martin cachard" <> wrote:
>hi Greg,
>
>it has always amazed me why birders consider a dead specimen to be
>un-tickable.
>I have always counted such records of mine as tickable, but only if I
>consider that it wasn't carried to where it was found by an unnatural
>means...
>
>the simple way that I look at it (& Greg, your Vanuatu Petrel is THE
>perfect example for my point too!!) is if a dead beach-washed specimen is
>good enough to be recorded as a national record, then why then isn't it
>also good enough to be recorded by the finder on their national list as
>one of their records!!!??
>
>I think it's pretty simple really, & I've always been puzzled when
>records of dead seabirds for eg are counted as records but observers in
>the main don't tick them...
>it seems very inconsistent to me - a record is a record, surely!!
>
>cheers ,
>martin cachard,
>cairns
>
>
>
>> From:
>> To: ;
>> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 07:32:30 +1000
>> CC:
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] An unfortunate way to tick a Frogmouth
>>
>> I have a similar dilemma as I found the only specimen of the Vanuatu
>>Petrel
>> ever found in Australia and it constitutes the only record for
>>Australia so
>> can I tick it? It was found dead on the roadside north of Port
>>Macquarie.
>> The only Blue Petrel that I have seen was dead on a beach so it is,
>> similarly, not generally considered tickable. It doesn't really bother
>>me
>> as I am not a lister and although I enjoy seeing new species of birds I
>> don't really know what my life total is.
>>
>> Dr Greg. P. Clancy
>> Ecologist and Birding-wildlife Guide
>> | PO Box 63 Coutts Crossing NSW 2460
>> | 02 6649 3153 | 0429 601 960
>> http://www.gregclancyecologistguide.com
>> http://gregswildliferamblings.blogspot.com.au/
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Laurie Knight
>> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 9:57 PM
>> To: Carl Clifford
>> Cc: Birding Aus
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] An unfortunate way to tick a Frogmouth
>>
>> G¹day Carl
>>
>> That depends on what rules you have established for your patch list.
>>Bear
>> in mind, that list rules, like national constitutions, can have
>>amendments.
>>
>> Regards, Laurie.
>>
>> On 9 Jun 2014, at 7:04 pm, Carl Clifford <>
>>wrote:
>>
>> > I have a guest for the night, a young Tawny Frogmouth which was hit
>>by a
>> > car on the road outside the house. I have rung WIRES, and they are
>>trying
>> > to get here tonight, otherwise, if it lasts the night, I will take it
>>to
>> > the vet in the morning. It is the first TF I have seen on my local
>>patch,
>> > but have a bit of a moral dilemma as to whether I can tick him.
>> >
>> > Carl Clifford
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Birding-Aus mailing list
>>
>> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
>> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>Birding-Aus mailing list
>
>To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
>http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7646 - Release Date: 06/09/14
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
|
