Dave,
I have avoided entering this debate but I think you are possibly missing one
important database which comes down to how data is used. The various online
options you mention (Birding-Aus, Birdlines, etc.) might get some of the
rarities but some don't make it until long afterwards or not at all (and the
BARC deals officially with any it receives).
The Birds Australia Atlas is one site for inclusion of records but various of
the State (and the Federal) governments have databases for storing of records.
This is particularly important for Threatened Species legislation. In NSW where
I am based DECCW has the Atlas of NSW Wildlife and when development
applications come in the first source for searching for TS records is this
database - other sources are often (mostly?) used but the minimum that I would
expect is the DECCW Threatened Website and the NSW Atlas. Therefore if you want
records to be useful in the process of government then you will need to submit
to the relevant government authority (if one exists). Data in this database is
also used for many other processes, including determination of offset
conditions, native vegetation approvals, park management and of course
targeting recovery actions.
Governments will always have database (except the ACT which I think uses the
COG bird database) because threatened species other than birds (including
plants, mammals, invertebrates, etc). Ideally there would be agreements between
Birds Australia (and other organisations that have records) and the governments
to exchange data (I think something like this exists in Victoria) but having
been involved in this in the past, this can be very difficult to organise (data
these days can be used as a income stream). I would be surprised if the Lesser
Yellowlegs (as an example) has within the DECCW Atlas, but as a vagrant it is
of limited use for conservation planning (similarly I think there is one record
of the American Golden Plover from Boat Harbour). Records of Painted Snipe
(such as the recent Dubbo record) should be added as these would be used in
planning decisions.
I think the other databases have their place (though the continued
proliferation frustrates me endlessly) but I would say that if you want to see
your records used in making conservation decisions involving government, in NSW
at least, records need to be contributed to the Atlas of NSW Wildlife.
Just my two cents worth (which has been spent a number of times).
Cheers,
Peter
> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:12:03 +1100
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] WA Sightings
> From:
> To:
> CC:
>
> OK - a stab at what I would like to see - but as I don't run any of the
> systems then it is not up to me!
>
> A national birding discussion group - Birding-Aus is clearly the only real
> candidate for that
> Both national and state birdlines - here is where we get into middy waters
> as Eremaea does a good job in the 6 or so state/areas that it covers but is
> lacking in some places. But the Eremaea national birdline seems to get
> little traffic, as people report national rarities more on Birding-Aus.
> Would be nice in my humble opinion if all rare sightings went to Eremaea
> rather then Birding-Aus and the relevant moderators decided whether to
> escalate to the National one.
> And finally a recording database of which the Atlas is the only serious
> contender - again I would love it if Eremaea and Birdpedia moved out of this
> area - but I do think there needs to be more consensus as to what is really
> needed in this area. As I said - subspecies to me are essential. Many
> birders (like myself) want to keep all of their lists in one place and
> whilst the Atlas is great for formal surveys it is less good for "birds I
> saw whilst driving from Melbourne to Canberra" - which are still valid for
> my personal year list but not much good for scientists.
> Finally I wonder about the long term future of any site that is maintained
> and run essentially by one person. In the short history of the internet many
> websites have come and gone. It is I guess my experience that individuals
> are much more likely to have good ideas and implement them quickly than
> organisations, but that organisations (such as BA and BOCA) are much more
> likely to be around in some form or other running whatever passes for a
> website in 50 years time than the excellent sites that today's dedicated
> individuals run. So how does one harness the dedication and drive of the few
> dedicated enthusiasts behind Birding-Aus, Eremaea, Birdpedia and others
> whilst at the same time trying to ensure that their data will be still
> available to researchers in 50 years time when unfortunately some of the
> individuals behind these sites may no longer be as active as they are now!
>
> 2010/1/5 michael norris <>
>
> > Hi Dave
> >
> > But what are the objectives of all these reporting/recording systems?
> >
> > It would be great if you and other people managing them were to set up a
> > private blog or similar to work for greater clarity on what each of you is
> > trying to achieve.
> >
> > For instance, Birdline Vic (on Eremaea) is ".....a site for the reporting
> > of rare or unusual birds outside their normal range, unusually high or low
> > numbers, early or late arrivals or departures for migrant species and
> > interesting behaviour or unusual habitat usage.'
> >
> > So it's like the lists (also moderated and also unauthenticated) printed in
> > the Bird Observer.
> >
> > Quite different from the Atlas which, to my mind, should be regarded as the
> > authoritative archive for monitoring bird distributions (and sites). It
> > also needs to be resourced properly (pay per view?), in the same way that
> > Simon Mustoe proposes an "instant" rarity reporting system would need to be
> > funded.
> >
> > Michael Norris
> >
|
