Quite agree - if people don't record ferals (and I know some people don't)
we will never know if they are spreading or declining.
On 20 September 2014 16:02, John Tongue <> wrote:
> 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> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
> > </HR>
> <BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
> <BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
> <BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit: