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="Farnboro John" data-source="post: 1644255" data-attributes="member: 36432">As with birds some personal preference will creep in.  Personally I don't see the need to differentiate in Cat C between recent and ancient introductions (come to that I've never seen the need for Cat B in addition to Cat A for birds: if something came here as wild then it only needs to be Cat A, no need to define a greater than 50 year return time as a separate category.)I think the listing thing is almost a red herring.  I am happy to say that I don't go looking for mammals just to get a tick, I don't think many people do.  I want to see them, yes, and knowing your "score" is fun but ultimately doesn't change the price of fish.  I spend a lot of time with animals I've seen lots of times before, sometimes trying to get better pictures: sometimes just watching what they do.  Sometimes just trying to see them better than last time or get any kind of picture at all - I may be off to Ardnamurchan at Christmas after Wildcats again! (This is not yet certain BTW.)The list is mostly a way of giving structure to what I do.  Debating status of animals on here is a way of getting people involved and learning.  Because I enjoy new things, of course one aspect of that is: what have I not seen yet?  But I will go and see Beavers and Skunks because I enjoy watching them, even though at present I don't consider them tickable.John</blockquote>