Very dissappointing

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lionel
Very dissappointing

I joined iRecord a while ago but, through personal circumstances, have not revisted the site for some time. I recently entered a new sighting and was very disappointed to find my earlier records virtually all stating 'outside range' or 'confusion with similar species' even though my initial entry stated that it was an introduction. I am working on a re-wilding project so most of my records will be outside normal ranges. I only enter records when the 'introductions' have colonised the area and always attach photographs. Why should I bother!

Matt Smith
These are system generated

These are system generated messages based on what has been entered into iRecord already, primarily to help Verifiers.  Ignore them.

Lionel
System generated messages

I understand that certain messages are automatically generated but not all. My record of a slow worm sighting, confirmed by the Staffordshire wildlife trust, had the following comment added; "Possibility for confusion with similar species, refer to identification guide". I know of nothing in the UK that could be confused with this reptile if anyone looked at the photograph. I repeat my original point why should I (or anyone) spend time recording sightings.

admin
As Matt say, the message in

As Matt say, the message in question is automatically generated based on rules in the system.  Amphibian and Reptile Conservation set this rule for slow worm sightings that there is potential for confusion.  The record has not been reviewed by an expert who has looked at the photo.  Verifiers contribute their time voluntary and there is not complete coverage by regions or taxonomic groups.  In answer to your overall question, presumably there is value to you of having a list of what's been recorded from your site (i.e. for your own records/interest), regardless of whether an expert has looked at the records.  Another option is for you to let the regional expert for amphibians that you have recorded this species and have entered the record via iRecord.

thanks, David

Lionel
re very disappointing

I do not want to spend time filling in records that will not reach a national database. The slow worm record is well over a year old and will probably never be verified now. I do not have a problem with that if the record could still be passed onto the NBN database. The low number of verified records means that a huge opportunity is being missed. Successive generations are being exposed to an ever decreasing number of species, as confirmed by the various ‘State of Nature’ publications and I would have thought that an observation ‘outside of known range’ would be something to celebrate. With the recent flood of news items around mass extinction brought about by climate change, farming, human population expansion etc. we need all the information we can get. I think iRecord could do a lot better, especially as citizen science is now well established. For me it’s Goodbye to iRecord.

admin
hi

hi

It is, of course, your decision whether to continue recording and where you send your records.  All records entered via iRecord are made available to all Local Environmental Record Centre and all National Recording Schemes.  This is regardless of what gets verified via iRecord and regardless of any automated messages.  I would therefore argue that using iRecord increases the chance of biological records contributing to research and conservation, compared to not submitting observations or using many other data capture routes. 

The speed of verification has little to do with iRecord - it is an issue of capacity.  Verifiers give their time freely and most national recording schemes have no funded staff.  Therefore, the review of records will depend on the time and effort that an expert is willing to give to this task.  We are continually working with experts, aiming to improve the process of online verification and how records are made available to others (e.g. through the NBN Atlas). 

Using biological records for assessing the state of the environment requires information on how data was collected and assessments of its confidence - verifiers, national schemes and taxon experts are vital for this and we are extremely grateful for their inputs.

David

JonathanWallace
releasing species into the wild

I am a bit concerned by your statement that you are introducing species 'outside their known range'.  Why are you doing that and are your releases covered by a licence from Natural England?  Where are you obtaining the livestock that you are releasing?  If you are transferring it from other sites how do you know you are not adversely affecting the source population and if you are purchasing it from suppliers how are you ensuring it is genetically suitable for the region where you are releasing it (releasing livestock from non-native sub-species/races could constitute an offence under the WCA).  How do you ensure that the livestock is disease free and will not infect related species and other widlife in the release area? What assessments have been undertaken to ensure that the habitat into which you are releasing them is appropriate and capable of supporting a viable population of the species you are releasing? 

Matt Smith
Jonathan - I think you have

Jonathan - I think you have misunderstood the "outside know range" comments and what they mean.  The "range" that iRecord looks as is based purely on what records for that species have been entered into iRecord, so if there is only 1 record of a species inthe system, then almost certainly any addtional records added to the dataset will be "outside known range".  The more records that are entered, the better and more correct the "known range" will become.

I'm not sure where you "introducing species" comments come from.  There is no suggestion in the original post that any species are being reintorduced anywhere and no indication that animals are being relocated.  The original question relates purely to iRecord system generated comments.

Barry Walter
Re: introducing species

I think Jonathan is referring to this (from the OP):

I am working on a re-wilding project so most of my records will be outside normal ranges. I only enter records when the 'introductions' have colonised the area [emphasis added]

which seems to pretty clearly indicate some kind of re-introduction programme.

JonathanWallace
Yes, Barry that is correct.

Yes, Barry that is correct.

JonathanWallace
I fully understand what the

I fully understand what the 'outside known range' comment as generated by the irecord system means but the OP indicates quite clearly that the poster is introducing species where they are not currently present, as Barry has pointed out.   I believe this raises a number of questions.

Log in or register to post comments