Post #1276206

2022-12-11 04:37 UTC

@KorimakoEcology One obvious abuse would be to generate records that suggest that a rare and range-restricted species is actually rather widely distributed and therefore should not be considered a factor in planning decisions for what may in fact be its last remaining range. Or imagine a stream of plausible data that suggests old-growth logging is not reducing populations of protected species. These are not likely to be effective strategies for small local decisions, but at scale ...

Replies (2)

@dhobern@scicomm.xyz 2022-12-11 04:41

@KorimakoEcology Maybe we need to gamify corporate interests. For example, would Nike be prepared to pay big money to establish a monitoring scheme through a large biodiverse region shaped like their swoosh, just so it appears that way as a hot spot on distribution maps?

Open ##1276207
@KorimakoEcology@ecoevo.social 2022-12-11 05:08

@dhobern We have a local example of that here. A consultant to a mining company calculated 50 million Archey's frogs when only 5000 were known previously. Thankfully checks and balances exist to ensure single sources of information don't normally hold too much weight when it comes to decision making. https://i.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/129275083/50-million-or-5000-rare-frog-count-latest-front-in-coromandel-mining-war#:~:text=Rare%20frog%20count%20latest%20front%20in%20Coromandel%20mining%20war,-Sharnae%20Hope05&text=There%20were%20thought%20to%20be,are%20more%20than%2050%20million.

Open ##1276209