[texbirds] Re: Need your knowledge
- From: peter keyel <labtroglodyte@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Texbirds <texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:53:41 -0800 (PST)
I think Bruce Bodson's post is right on the money here. These issues are not
actually about doing good science or following what the science/evidence
suggests. It's about knocking down the data that contradicts your data/what you
want to do so that you can convince people that you are right in doing what you
want to do.
If they came up with a stat claiming that 350' is far enough, you need to knock
that one down. If it's old, if it's in the wrong state/habitat, if there are
new studies, if you can find a couple examples where endangered species/habitat
had problems with the close buffer, etc, these are all things that will help
knock it down.
If they attack eBird data, the data can and need to be defended. While there
are some known caveats to eBird data, there are caveats on all databases and it
remains the premier database on bird sightings. What would probably be very
helpful would be to contact the eBird staff and see if they have statements
highlighting the science (ie # of publications using eBird data) done using
eBird (especially using Texas and ideally your county data), the new avenues of
research eBird data has opened up, and the fact that the reviewers are all
expert, local birders who ensure good, quality data goes into eBird. These
sorts of statements probably go into their grant applications, so it should be
readily available.
FWIW, Missouri tracks bird sitings in their Conservation Areas and State Parks
through their CACHE/SPARKS databases. These databases put the data into eBird
as well. Clearly they value eBird as a national repository of bird data.
If it was the developer's biologist who didn't like the inclusion of other
counties, it doesn't matter what he thinks, just whether you can adequately
address his concerns to the committee. His goal is to knock down your science.
Cameron made a good point about skill levels of biologists involved. If the
people who have put eBird data in for your county/area have many years' worth
of eBird data, that will further counter claims that eBird is entered by a
bunch of novices, especially if the birders have more experience with the area
than the developers' biologists.
When you look into these alternative databases, you need to do so with full
scientific rigor. By that, I mean finding all of the flaws, from checklist
density, any potential observer biases, sampling biases, lack of effort
information, adequate description of species observed, no pictures in their
database, etc.
These sorts of issues also help illustrate why it is really helpful for
everyone out birding to put their observations into eBird. There are a lot of
places (especially up here in the South Plains/Panhandle) that are still
underbirded, so the data aren't as strong. If any of y'all want to come up and
help bird up here, we get Evening Grosbeaks and had a Gyrfalcon. Probably
Black-billed Magpies/Rosy-finches could be found, too, if the Panhandle was
better birded. Plus, I'll generously offer Cameron's or Anthony's couch as a
place to stay when coming up to bird the South Plains/Panhandle ;)
Peter Keyel
Lubbock, TX
labtroglodyte@xxxxxxxxx
"Gonna buy a fast car
Put on my lead boots
And take a long, long drive"
-The Who, "My Wife"
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Other related posts:
