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="Mysticete" data-source="post: 3404828" data-attributes="member: 67784">hah...this thread seems to show up yearlyReintroduced birds: Completely different category IMHO than non-native introductions. I won't hesitate to count birds like this, and in fact I have thanks to Tiritiri Matangi island. Same goes for quasi-reintroductions (AKA Takahe), where a species not native to an area is introduced to a region that had a now extinct close relative.Introduced Species: I count introduced birds from populations that are considered established by a regional authority; either a regional birding/scientific body (BOU, ABA, AOU), or in the case of places which don't have a good regularly updated authority, whatever the most updated field guide says (Japan, probably other places). On the rare occasion I will add a bird that I feel should be on there, but bird committees are moving to slow on or are otherwise biased against, but I try to minimize this. If an introduced population was later erradicated or became otherwise extirpated, I would remove it from my list.Honestly, most introduced birds are not "going away"; they are part of the local avian faunas, and will linger around as long as humans are present in the environment. Declining to count them because they don't feel natural is no different (to me) than refusing to count a hummingbird at a feeder. Not to mention their is far too much gray area here: what about species that have expanded their range due to anthropogenic climate change or human-assisted landscape modification?Ship-assisted: I would count, but so far I think I have only one bird on my life list that might fall into that category. Also don't really see it as a huge deal.</blockquote>

Verification