Date: 1/11/18 6:38 pm
From: Lars Per Norgren <larspernorgren...>
Subject: [obol] Re: ebird throws out the baby with the bath water...

*
In the 70s there was the real concern that public records led to capture, legal
or not, of Gyrs and Peregrines. Captive raised falcons are now a standard item
on the market and no falconer with half a brain wants a wild bird months or years
out of the nest. I think a myth is firmly established. I purposely withheld reporting
a Burrowing Owl on Obol this November because I've seen non-birders with monster
lens walk right up to them in Linn County. Weeks later I saw that someone posted
the same BUOW on ebird within a day or two of my sighting. It came with a very
detailed map of where to find it. I understand ebird's intentions. Hell is paved with
good intentions (or bad excuses, take your pick). The benefit of access to these
Gyrfalcon sightings weeks to years post facto seems significant. The risk under a
similar timeline seems non-existant. I can imagine any number of other species
worthy of masking under various circumstances that will no doubt never get it.
On Jan 11, 2018, at 4:51 PM, Mike Patterson wrote:

> If you go looking for Gyrfalcon records on eBird, you will discover
> that they have all been masked. You can no longer get any info other
> than very approximate locations when using the find a species tool.
>
> I will start by saying that I understand about releasing locations of
> sensitive species. I understand that by masking a location, ebird
> protects sensitive species and themselves. I fully understand,
> appreciate and support the larger effort in this.
>
> But...
>
> Why protect a record from last year? Why hide the date? Why disappear
> a list for a bird that left the place it was seen 2 decades ago?
>
> This is what one gets, if one goes to my report of a Gyrfalcon from 1999
> http://ebird.org/ebird/pnw/view/checklist/S41827855
>
> Orwellian isn't it?
>
> I'm pretty sure that a clever programmer would be able to protect
> dates and locations for sensitive species without making it look like
> nothing was ever there...
>
> Here's what one sees at iNaturalist
> https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/9443517
>
> So I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground solution to this issue...
>
> --
> Mike Patterson
> Astoria, OR
> That question...
> http://www.surfbirds.com/community-blogs/northcoastdiaries/?p=3294
> POST: Send your post to <obol...>
> JOIN OR QUIT: http://www.freelists.org/list/obol
> OBOL archives: www.freelists.org/archive/obol
> Contact moderator: <obol-moderators...>
>


 
Join us on Facebook!