Lest Mike Patterson's original point gets lost -- that this eBird
"innovation" is unnecessarily hiding reports that are decades old -- I'd
like to return to that.
Noah Strycker's comment was in the same vein.
I also second Lars Norgren's comment about Burrowing Owls being far more
in need of this kind of protection in Oregon than, say, Painted
Buntings.
My own comment was aimed at pointing out that this innovation also seems
to be ineffective at preventing excessive attention for the handful of
species that it takes into consideration.
Although I'm supportive of the general idea of shielding sensitive birds
from disturbance, I hope that there will be better regional and temporal
calibration, taking into account both the views of state/county editors
and wildlife professionals and organizations who are working on
conservation of these species.
Certainly for Gyrfalcons in Oregon it should be OK to reveal sightings
within a month or two after the report. For Painted Buntings, I can't
imagine that the survival of the species could hinge on postings of
vagrants in Oregon. For other species (especially owls) both on and off
the list, there could be a reasonable justification for obscuring the
detailed locations on a longer-term basis.
Speaking as a reasonably proficient computer programmer, this kind of
thing is not rocket science. They already have my card.
--
Joel Geier
Camp Adair area north of Corvallis
POST: Send your post to obol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
JOIN OR QUIT: //www.freelists.org/list/obol
OBOL archives: www.freelists.org/archive/obol
Contact moderator: obol-moderators@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
