BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="timsg80" data-source="post: 3404341" data-attributes="member: 112901"><p>With birds like the Common Mynas and House Sparrows around Brisbane, both have been in Australia for almost as long as the ancestors of most of our population, so I feel totally comfortable about ticking them. I feel a little less comfortable with some others, especially the Barbary Dove in New Zealand (I am embarrassed to admit that this bird is on my life list as African Collared Dove). The other issue in New Zealand is with re-introduced natives in places like Tiritiri Matangi. I would definitely argue that birds like Goldfinch, Redpoll and California Quail etc. living in NZ are certainly more wild than Tiritiri Matangi's reintroduced natives, which would struggle to survive without massive ongoing conservation efforts. Another interesting question is with where you draw the line with non-natives, for example are species that have only been able to colonise due to human action on the environment (e.g. Welcome Swallow in NZ) actually native? Are they any different to birds that have colonised by ship, like House Crows in East Africa? It's definitely difficult to know where to draw the line, but I'm happy to stick with the country's official list's definitions for what defines a self-sustaining introduced bird. One issue I am a little worried about though is which populations can be deemed 'self-sustaining', for example are the Golden Pheasants on Brownsea Island in the UK tickable? If not, why are they not considered self-sustaining, while similarly dodgy populations are? Any if so, what about the Peacocks there which are considerably more numerous and seem to be thriving as wild birds there? What a great question Bonxie!</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification