Another important point to consider is that the gov't employees that assess
consultants' reports often only consult the NSW Atlas of Wildlife (and many of
them would never have heard of the BA Atlas or NSW Atlassers).
If records don't end up there, those assessing the consultants / developers
reports may never be aware of threatened species records in an area (and I talk
from experience).
Mick
________________________________
From: Alan Stuart <>
To: ? birding-aus <>
Sent: Thu, 7 January, 2010 5:58:13 PM
Subject: [Birding-Aus] Bird databases
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
|
