Technically it should be possible Alan - although requirements differ and
states tend to look at strange species without feathers as well. There is
however no good reason that I can see why all the interested parties could
not get together and define a system for at least sharing data - of course
work would be required to actually implement such a system and the big issue
of funding comes into play.
I guess that if the majority of "owners" of such databases could be prepared
to cooperate then we could campaign to make sure that all birders use that
system rather than others who had chosen not to be involved. Of course there
are systems - like eBird which was mentioned in an earlier post - that would
probably still fall outside this system, and there is indeed a serious issue
in that "international" birders would probably (I know I would) like to have
all their records in one place so they can do life lists, rather than having
Aussie records in one system and non-Aussie ones in another - a situation of
course complicated by the varying taxonomies used by different international
systems compared to C&B.
As to why developers are not forced to consult all databases - that is a
separate battle for now - but an important reason why databases should be
"shared".
2010/1/7 Alan Stuart <>
> It is almost beyond comprehension that there is not routine sharing of data
> between the managers of the various databases. Is this a case of empire
> building? It certainly is not to the benefit of birds and the conservation
> of their habitat!
>
> In NSW, I know many people who send in records for the Birds Australia
> database and I also know of people who send them in to the NSW Wildlife
> atlas or to the NSW Bird Atlassers database. All three databases are
> important. Why is there not a way for it all to come together into the one
> place?
>
> In the meantime, the reality is that there is not just a single database of
> bird records. I am therefore surprised that consultants for development
> applications in NSW are referred to the government's database only, when it
> is well known that there are two other important databases. It certainly
> doesn't help the birds. Why are not all three databases routinely utilized
> when important decisions about bird habitat are being taken? It should be
> compulsory that the applicants for a development demonstrate that they have
> consulted all three databases.
>
> Alan Stuart
>
|
