Thaks to the Records Committee for their continuous, largely thankless, but highly important work in keeping Hong Kong's list and records as one of the most up to date and well managed anywhere in the world.
After reading the changes to the list The issue that fgures large in increasing numbers of records is that of cage damage. It would be interesting to have more discussion about the issue of cage damage.
I regularly see birds with damaged feathers, and indeed birds moult their feathers because they do suffer wear and tear, including broken or missing flight and tail feathers.
I am also aware of the study that over 90 % of birds in the bird market showed signs of damage to feathers and bare parts.
But just because most escaped birds are likely to have suffered cage damage does not mean that all birds with damaged feathers are cagebirds.
I fully appreciate that the Records committee has a duty to keen the list as "clean " as possible, but I wonder if the insistence on undamaged plumage, especially for migrant passerines, is keeping good records off the list.
I would be very interested to hear the views of others.
Cheers
Mike K
