French Island Report – Indian Peafowl

To: "Philip Veerman" <>
Subject: French Island Report – Indian Peafowl
From: John Tongue <>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 16:02:45 +1000
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,  :)

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>
> </HR>

<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<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