I don't think anyone is saying not to record their presence, just whether or
not to be able to "tick" them on a personal list.
People keep all sorts of records, and for all sorts of reasons, :)
Cheers,
John Tongue
Devonport, Tas.
On 20/09/2014, at 10:26 AM, "Philip Veerman" <> wrote:
> Well done to James to research and provide the information. If all people had
> considered it "not tickable" and considered that was an important criterion
> for keeping records until a certain period of time (or generations), then if
> adhered to, presumably there will be no records of it until after that time.
> Thus we probably would not have a start date from which to measure. This
> would be from "tickers" deciding not to keep records due to some weird logic
> of "non tickability". Logically that could infinitely extend a non-decision.
> The information James sent has indicated that fortunately not everyone goes
> by such arbitrary thoughts. I go by: if something is there it is there, if
> not it is not and records should reflect that. If something is introduced to
> a place and does not survive long term then it was still there. Nonsense
> about "not tickable" removes information. Beyond that, I wonder are Indian
> Peafowl any more interesting on French Island than anywhere else, to want to
> go there for them, compared to other reasons to go there or other easier
> places to see them and why care what "tickable" rules anyone else uses. If
> the species has ecological impacts, surely that is the aspect of far greater
> importance than whether its existence goes on personal tick lists.
>
> Philip
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Birding-Aus On Behalf Of
> John Tongue
> Sent: Saturday, 20 September 2014 8:56 AM
> To: Dave Torr
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] French Island Report – Indian Peafowl
>
>
> I can't recall what the figures are, now, but I'm sure I've heard it as "So
> many years, OR so many generations"
>
> Either way, come to Tassie. We've got tick-able Peafowl…. ;)
>
> Cheers,
> John Tongue
> Devonport, Tas.
>
>
> On 20/09/2014, at 8:16 AM, Dave Torr <> wrote:
>
>> Interesting report James. I have seen a "10 year period" mentioned
>> before when considering whether or not birds are "tickable" and I
>> wonder what the basis for this is - for some small birds this could
>> represent 10 generations I guess, whereas for an Ostrich it might be
>> barely 3 generations. I would personally have thought that 3
>> generations is a reasonable proof of being wild, but this means the
>> criteria would change according to species?
>>
>> <>
>>
>>>
>>> Fueled by that piece of information I shot off a couple of emails to
>>> other Victorian birders who shared the common belief that it is
>>> actually quite probable, but further proof of the ten year wild
>>> status and self-sustainment policy was required.
>
>
> <HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR>
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> </HR>
<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR>
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>
|
