Why do some of us not enter our data in naherp.com?

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » June 30th, 2012, 2:24 pm

Yes, why don't some of us enter our finds in the database? This a good question. I know many of us see a lot of stuff, yet some have only entered one snake or nothing at all. What's up with that? Many could be power house's of data for NAHERP...and I'm not just talking about ego thumping contests (I'm picking on everyone who hasn't put their sightings in). The database is a powerful tool for conservation, mapping, and changing stupid laws. We need to show where, and how many of these animals are out there. We need everyone to do as much as they can.

What are the reasons some of you have not joined us? Are you ignorant of how the database works? Do you think it's too much trouble? Too hard?

Here's a fact: It takes 30 seconds to enter a photo, even less time if you know how to open several windows at once, re-size your pics, and enter several species at the same time. The gps is easy too...just click on the wrench tool, dial down to the spot and "click".

We need more entries. That's the bottom line.

No one can see your localities online, except you. No one can take your data unless you permit it. What's the problem? I'd love to hear why we all aren't dumping hundreds or thousands of entries into the NAHERP.com database. This is your lifetime opportunity to make a difference and contribute to a worthwhile cause. Many already do, what's up with the rest of you?

If you have time to post your finds here, you have time to enter them where they will make a difference!

Here's a few more facts (and this is not to brag):

We have over 107,000 entries right now. We have over 600 people who have entered something. I have over 5,500 entries in the database. Fundad has over 4,200 entries in the database. Pingleton has over 3,300 entries. However, over 300 people have less than 10...and many of us have never entered anything. Many of those people spend a lot of time in the field and posting their finds on FHF. Is the problem a lack of understanding of why the database is important?

I think we need some help...

Porter · Post by **Porter** » June 30th, 2012, 2:40 pm

How do we use the wrench tool? Is that something new...? I for one was going to enter a few finds this year, noticed the exact GPS is a standard now, and I didn't have time (patience) to go on google each to try and get that info. Last year, you could leave that blank in the records with just county info. I understand why just county is not enough resourceful/useful info... how can we use the wrench tool?

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » June 30th, 2012, 2:48 pm

I repeat: "just click on the wrench tool, dial down to the spot and "click".

And, in addition...click the "Hybrid" option so the roads and state lines appear on the map. The wrench tool is not new, just unknown to most of us because we don't seem to have a set of picture-book instructions available for newbies...

Maybe Don will get to that sometime...(poor guy, he works so hard as it is).

Porter · Post by **Porter** » June 30th, 2012, 3:55 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote:I repeat: "just click on the wrench tool, dial down to the spot and "click".

And, in addition...click the "Hybrid" option so the roads and state lines appear on the map. The wrench tool is not new, just unknown to most of us because we don't seem to have a set of picture-book instructions available for newbies... Maybe Don will get to that sometime...(poor guy, he works so hard as it is).

I think a better answer might be... click on that tiny little black smudge, that is actually called an "icon" which is shaped like a wrench the size of a harvester ants butt... located above the, "latitude" and, "longitude" boxes. Apparently... you are suppost to click on that, considering it's written at the top of the "record" screen with the red * explaination sentence of how to use the page correctly. Good to know! I think I have NOW lost all inspiration to add any records all of a sudden... but, I'll make sure to add something of special significance to futher expand are(our) knowledge of rare colored snakes or range expansions. I simply don't hit the field "enough" for vouchers... I'm a photographer. I do photography... pictures... art... photos... ya know... the easy stuff. When I come across something different, that you can't find photos of on Calherps or anywhere else... I'll let ya all know. Thats what I do...

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » June 30th, 2012, 4:02 pm

Why don't you just come out an really say what you mean. That you don't care enough about the future of the animals to help document them...

Porter · Post by **Porter** » June 30th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote:Why don't you just come out an really say what you mean. That you don't care enough about the future of the animals to help document them...

I can't say something that isn't true... but I will say this... a protected pond turtle is something I won't take home and something I will leave in the wild... where it can breed and produce more pond turtles... as opsoed to by kept in captivity hurting the numbers even more

Another thing I won't do... is belittle a guy for asking an honest question, simply because he has a different opinion than I do. I'm the kind of guy that puts opinions aside and hits the field with even the kind of people that don't like me much at all... just to be a man about it. Thats what Porter does... he doesn't hold a grudge. Life is too short. I don't need or want enemies. I'll continue to "appreciate" these animals... in my own way... and stick to picture books...

peace, no hard feelings Brain!

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » June 30th, 2012, 4:44 pm

When did I belittle you for asking a question? I thought you were joking, since we have a tutorial up above this post for how to enter data. Sounds like Porter is being a little too sensitive today. Should have answered the phone when I called and i could have cleared this all up for you. UNBELIEVABLE!

And what is that pond turtle comment about? Are you insinuating something?

Ross Padilla · Post by **Ross Padilla** » June 30th, 2012, 5:39 pm

I'd say you're unbelievable, Brian, but I actually believe it.

You did belittle Porter in your response, so be a man and apologize. Porter was man enough to respond to your thread.

I'm sure there a lot of non contributors that will avoid this thread.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » June 30th, 2012, 5:47 pm

Ross: Shut up...

This isn't a big deal. I just asked a question, and hoped to get some answers. People will do what they want, fear what they want, misunderstand what they want...but maybe someone will see the vision of our database and start contributing. I talked to Porter about this in the past, but he seems to have unreasonable fears about it, and also seems to be hyper-sensitive today. Whatever. I didn't mean to belittle anyone (except you, I love to belittle you...and vice-versa, but you know I respect you too).

Ross Padilla · Post by **Ross Padilla** » June 30th, 2012, 6:38 pm

I know you do and I know you know I do, but do you know I know you know I respect you too?

I know how you are, I'm just saying at least cut him a little slack for participating in this thread, or try to be a little more patient and understanding. I'm sure you know he does care about the animals.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » June 30th, 2012, 7:31 pm

Well, actually I know all that stuff...I just didn't know I insulted him. I'm trying to be brief and detached in my responses, but I guess it ain't workin'...

And i will not apologize for a non-insult.

Sure, the 2nd time I tried to provoke him, that was intentional, but i really didn't think Porter would get his little panties all in a bunch over it and take his reptiles home...plus, he didn't return my call...that's just rude.

Porter · Post by **Porter** » June 30th, 2012, 8:53 pm

I never anwser the phone when I'm dealing with womens panties... some things are more important than Brain Hubbs

(sorry Brian, you increduble author you

) Besides, anyone who knows me, knows, I only talk though text and anyone who knows Brian, knows, he hates txts and only answers his phone before 9am and after 10pm...lol It was doomed from the start.

I did get your lovely voicemail however, warning me that if I write back... this means war

Then when you said, "Porter, I know my response to your post was a bit.. quote, quote... PROVOKATIVE"

I got an image of you in womans patties and decided a phone call was a bit too risky

...all is well my friend

I'm just trying to get the point across, that you might have better luck persuading the people who don't enter data, by not calling them morans for not entering data..

(hence the "belittling" reference) in-case you didn't notice, there is no written wrench thing at the the top of the page with the * sentence... Alright, gotta go... I'm on the hunt for a hyper-sensitive three-toed mokeys uncleapolis snake. There's gotta be one around here somewhere...

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » June 30th, 2012, 9:01 pm

You know...I NEVER called anyone a moron...

And...you also know I like to stir the kettle (can't say "pot" because that means something else these days...)

Calfirecap · Post by **Calfirecap** » July 1st, 2012, 6:19 am

The first few times I entered herps into the database I didn't realize the importance of re-sizing the photos, that along with a POS computer made for painfully long entry times, upwards of 10 minutes. I was mind boggled at how anyone had the time to enter much of anything. I certainly didn't have the patience for that. Now that I've got that resolved it's been easy to enter data and it's become a personal challenge to add new states, counties, and species. I also believe it's important to enter commonly encountered species as someday they may not be very common and a baseline is needed.
Case in point, I just got back from a trip to the Black Hills of South Dakota where as a kid I recall seeing Plains Gardersnakes nearly every day. I went to many of the same places I saw them 40 years ago and didn't see a single one. The locals I spoke with all said they really don't see them much anymore as well, and the habitat in many of the places looks just as good as I remember it.

The point is it's both important and easy to document your finds and you no longer have to kill the animal to preserve it's record.

Lawrence

hellihooks · Post by **hellihooks** » July 1st, 2012, 6:22 am

I actually live to belittle you Brian... it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it...

Today however... I cannot belittle you for your 'call to action'... despite your sometimes unrefined and brusque approach.
I fully support your appeal for more participation, and your quest to understand why more people don't contribute. An 'in-depth' discussion of this topic can not help but yield more participation, as data entry will prove to be logical, reasonable and righteous, supplanting any real or imagined fears and or defects of character, such as 'laziness'.

I would argue that data collection, and entering the data, is the one thing we can do on a consistent basis, that we do for the herps rather than for ourselves.
We all derive pleasure from seeing herps in the wild, as 'nature lovers'... does that help the herps? NO.
Some take a few home, to keep as pets, or to breed as a source of income...does that help the herps? NO.
Some are avid photographers, either for personal pleasure, or (if good enough) financial gain...does that help the herps? NO.

With the exception of professional research and amateur Ed talks, only collecting and submitting data provides positive utility for the herps we all profess to love so much. And here's the kicker... you don't have to be one or the other... you can be all 4 if you like.

If you are any combination of the 1st 3, with just a fraction of the time you spend 'serving yourself'... you can add data collection/submission and 'give back' a little to the herps you derive so much from, and help insure that your children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy herps as much as you do.

DO THE RIGHT THING...

JIM

Hornemadness · Post by **Hornemadness** » July 1st, 2012, 7:14 am

there are a few reasons why i don't enter data. The first is that i don't carry a camera with me when i go herping. I have a bad habit of dropping cameras in water of down cliffs and the like. Its a very expensive habit. I also don't have a GPS. No voucher, no GPS, why even bother? when i herp, i like to be able to scamper up rocks and trees easily. Half the time i'm carting boards and a potato rake anyways.

Ross Padilla · Post by **Ross Padilla** » July 1st, 2012, 7:40 am

They make cameras small enough now to fit in your pocket. You would hardly even know its there. All you have to do is pull it out to take a voucher. And the GPS has already been discussed here. Anyone can get GPS by using the form you fill out your data on H.E.R.P. You don't need the hand held devise.

hellihooks · Post by **hellihooks** » July 1st, 2012, 7:44 am

I wear a backpack, which I keep my camera, temp gun, flashlights, food/drink in. Never restricts my rock climbing/hiking in the least. And I don't (yet) have a gps either. It's actually kinds fun to see if you can pinpoint the exact spot you found something, on the google maps... and lets you see the area in a way you just can't, by foot...

jim

ramblon · Post by **ramblon** » July 1st, 2012, 8:00 am

What are the reasons some of you have not joined us? Are you ignorant of how the database works? Do you think it's too much trouble? Too hard?

Yes, possibly and yes. So simplify this for a layman like myself Brain so I can possibly enter information. And good morning btw

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 1st, 2012, 8:54 am

I actually have entered a few records and will continue to as I make significant finds, which happens only rarely of course cuz I suck at finding stuff. As for why I don't do so on a regular basis:

1. I don't see how entering glossy snakes for an area in which they are known to be abundant is going to "save" any herps, especially if that is in the context of salvation

.

2. It is work, for which I expect return, be that monetary, a clear conscience knowing the herps will all be ok now, or whatever. Entering glossy snakes records from the middle of the Mojave affords no such reward.

3. Those who enter data can only see locale details of their own entries. Ironic that certain priviledged others, who may never have entered any records, get to see everyone's locale data. I'd love to see all the records in a KMZ file, not so I can go "poach" but because that kind of information fascinates me as much as it does anyone else ...and of course, it may prove helpful in finding certain species. The BIG BUT here is that I DO UNDERSTAND THAT RESTRICTIONS ARE NECESSARY.

hellihooks · Post by **hellihooks** » July 1st, 2012, 9:55 am

monklet wrote:
1. I don't see how entering glossy snakes for an area in which they are known to be abundant is going to "save" any herps, especially if that is in the context of salvation .
:

Actually... it was a surfeit of data on all three Ssp's of glossy that kept them off the SSC list, when we provided data for the SSC update.
Coastal Horned lizards used to be as common as dirt... imagine if there had been a database like Nafha 30 yrs ago, tracking data on Blainevilli ... perhaps the would not be protected today...

Point is... not up to us to decide what's important or not, which is why you report all sightings of all herps... even utas.

Who knows what will be endangered next...
Along with how 'rare' some herps might be, we need to also continually demonstrate that 'common' stuff is not suffering declines.

In case you're wondering Brian... I have no curbs to paint...

jim

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 1st, 2012, 10:19 am

Glossy Snakes were an SSC canditate?

...anyway, I do see the wisdom there but I'll guess that in the case of Utas and Glossies...

Jim Bass wrote:Coastal Horned lizards used to be as common as dirt... imagine if there had been a database like Nafha 30 yrs ago, tracking data on Blainevilli ... perhaps the would not be protected today...

Now this part has me puzzled

Do you mean that if we'd known they were in trouble they'd have been protected so that now they wouldn't be protected? Hmmmm... I'll need to work with that

hellihooks · Post by **hellihooks** » July 1st, 2012, 11:23 am

Yeah... my main point was who would have guessed HL numbers would have dropped so dramatically? Perhaps, had that decline been noted, steps could have been taken to prevent it... perhaps slowing the rampant development

And who's to say what's next... Bledings? Gilberti? Skiltons? point is... we need to switch to a purview of foresight, rather than hindsight... so we enter data on everything, JUST in case it's needed in the future.
You WILL COMPLY...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJT ... lpage#t=2s

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 1st, 2012, 11:47 am

Well, Jim is rather cohesive today, but methinks Monklet might have drank some magic cool-aid last night...

Ramblon - give me a call and I'll tutor you, or just look at the tutorial at the top of this forum.

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 1st, 2012, 12:11 pm

Captain Picard wrote:You WILL COMPLY...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZEJ4OJT ... lpage#t=2s

et tu Captain?

Captain Hooks wrote:perhaps slowing the rampant development

Less development, less jobs, higher home prices yada yada yada. ...are we really sure this is what we want?

Captain Hubbs wrote:Monklet might have drank some magic cool-aid last night

...how dare you suggest that I might indulge in such depravity ...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night

hellihooks · Post by **hellihooks** » July 1st, 2012, 12:31 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote: methinks Monklet might have drank some magic cool-aid last night...

Trying to keep up with the Jones's?

by the sewer he lived, by the sewer he died... they said it was murder... but it was sewercide

jim

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 1st, 2012, 12:49 pm

Here's a response I made to another member on a different forum, when asked the benefits of entering every snake they see at a location.

Recording every individual at least once from a location helps demonstrate population abundance. I try not to record the same location more than once, but if i do, I also try to avoid entering the same individuals again (if I can tell them apart). I have one site in CA that i visit several times a year, where I have noted over 45 different CA Kings. I finally made a chart of band counts (like 3 full, 2 broken, 5 full, 1 broken) to tell them apart, and in subsequent sightings I add the new pic to the original record for that individual and note the new sighting date in the notes section. I don't think duplicating animals is helpful to the database, but others might disagree. This becomes tougher with things like pond turtles or painted turtles, so I try to visit those locations only once and enter whatever I see at the time. I also record DORs, and everything else I see when I'm herping or traveling. If I'm at a pond that has 100 bullfrogs in view, I might take pics of 5 or 10 to illustrate that there were a lot of them there, or a few pics showing big numbers in the water.

Here's what my Cal King spot looks like on google earth. The snakes are in clusters because that is where my boards are, and only the original locations are plotted, even though I have found several of the same individuals at new locations (I'm not trying to plot movement, that would just get too confusing). I really need to add more A.C. to the area to get a better count. Each icon represents a different Cal King. The main field is an isolated habitat (approx. 6-7 acres of hab.), surrounded by housing and roads. When I began this project 4 years ago I had no idea what I would discover, but estimated approx. 100+ kings for the main field. My estimate seems to be proving true.

Here's a closeup of the area with the most boards, and the most sightings (funny how that works). while I have seen snakes under most of these boards, again only the original spots are marked.

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 1st, 2012, 1:06 pm

Mind if I ask exactly where that is?

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 1st, 2012, 1:12 pm

No, not at all...it's in CA.

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 1st, 2012, 1:17 pm

Seriously, I would certainly regard that as a valuable project which has some degree of survey consistency, definition and scientfic control.

Unfortunately, when you mix your data in with all the uncontrolled data in the DB the value of yours and all the hard work you've put into it will be diminished. That is why I am a proponent of controlled surveys such as your's rather that random and arbitrary data collection.

I am now sparked into entering ALL my MNP records as that is where I plan on visiting regularly and over time, if I continue, might prove valuable to someone ...even if it is not tightly controlled at least there might value as it would be in a defined area. I'm not going to stop and take data points for every side-blotched and spiny though but snakes are a reasonable goal.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 1st, 2012, 1:34 pm

What is MNP?

A further control over my site is the fact that it sits behind a locked gate and guardhouse, and I am the only one who has access to it, besides the owner. This eliminates other herpers who might muddy my waters...

Of course, there are still problems, like the horses that now graze all the grass on the site, and the time 2 yerars ago when the owner allowed a neighbor to dump an acre of dirt all over one of my boardlines, or when his grandkids decided it would be fun to plow some of the dead grass and demolished 12 of my oldest boards in one section. The dumped dirt spot is now growing grass again, and the voles are digging tunnels once more, so next year I will re-plant that area with about 40 or 50 boards. It never ends...

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 1st, 2012, 1:45 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote:What is MNP?

It's in California

Isn't it fun now you leave something in some place where it would seem nothing would happen, and over time all kinds of wierd unexpected behavior mucks it all up

Natalie McNear · Post by **Natalie McNear** » July 1st, 2012, 4:13 pm

My main reason for not contributing data as regularly as I did in the past is mainly that I don't like to photograph every herp I find, mark GPS points, collect temperature/barometric pressure/humidity data for every point, etc. I'll still do it for more notable finds like SF Garters and Brown Vinesnakes and whatnot, but for every Coast Garter or Western Fence Lizard (for example) it gets tiresome since a herper can pretty much find tons of them any day of the year. I only like to contribute records when I can gather as much as the climactic information as possible, since that's what's most useful to other herpers, but it's a bit tedious to do that for everything.

Also, I'm not a competitive herper, so adding the contest as an incentive to contribute records doesn't really do anything for me.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 1st, 2012, 4:59 pm

Try looking at the database as a mapping project, not a behavioral project, and then you won't feel the need to add all that excess stuff for common species. SF garters were really common in the 1950s along Skyline, but no one took pics. Just try to find a pic from the 50s or 60s from those ponds. The case might be the same for the other garters or lizards someday. Just something to think about, and I never add barometer, moon, sky or any of that other info. Voucher photo, time and date, county, gps, method and quantity are all that are really needed.

hellihooks · Post by **hellihooks** » July 1st, 2012, 5:02 pm

Ya know... there's a neat little shortcut, that cuts out a lot of tedium, and saves quite a bit of time.
say you just entered a charina, but also saw a racer, coastie, ring and swift at the same locale, at roughly the same time. hit the copy icon at the top right, and then adjust the data for the new herp. Often the only thing I have to change is the species, quantity/sex, the time, and a small gps adjustment... most of the data remains the same...temp, B. pressure, cloud conditions ect.... Most of that 'additional' info is secondary to the primary data of what and when something was seen. jim
Damn Brian... if I didn't know better, I would say we make a pretty good tag-team...

PS... did you get your mudsnake Gnat?

I see it's your new avatar...

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 1st, 2012, 7:49 pm

Just threw 30 new records in...from my May trip to the Midwest. About 150 more to go...whew...Now, check out record #111841 and tell me if this isn't the most awesome turtle pic you've ever seen. Or, at least, the most awesome turtle pic I've ever taken...

Fundad · Post by **Fundad** » July 2nd, 2012, 5:28 am

Monklet Wrote

1. I don't see how entering glossy snakes for an area in which they are known to be abundant is going to "save" any herps, especially if that is in the context of salvation .

Well UC DAVIS thinks they're not abundant, and thanks to the people not entering records, it looks like they will continue to believe that.

Because we didn't prove otherwise. Thank God some of us believe in what we are doing, because some of data we released to them is going to be used for habitat conservation efforts of the GLOSSY snake, but unfortunately I think they are going to protect them from collection now.. We did nothing to prove otherwise, or I should say those of you who don't help us did nothing to prove otherwise.

Here is a list of species Ventura county requested from us.

The nine snake species on the LISL are:
Arizona elegans ssp. occidentalis, California glossy snake
Diadophis punctatus, ring-necked snake
Hypsiglena torquata, night snake
Lampropeltis zonata ssp. pulchra, San Diego mountain kingsnake
Leptotyphlops humilis, Western blind snake
Masticophis flagellum ssp. piceus, red coachwhip, red racer
Tantilla planiceps, Western black-headed snake
Tantilla hobartsmithi, Southwestern black-headed snake, Smith’s black-headed snake
Trimorphodon biscutatus, Western lyre snake

Please notice the Glossy Snake, Night Snake, and Ringneck snake They believe they are uncommon or rare. AND WE DIDN'T PROVE OTHERWISE.. Mainly because so many of you guys don't believe in the project or entering your data. (You have your excuses)

The National Forest Collected data from us in June, and I talked the lady who requested it. She said, it was amazing how many of those records were from areas they we UNAWARE held those species. (Those National forest records are being used to help manage those habitats for those species..)

How's that for a hodge podge of records?

2. It is work, for which I expect return, be that monetary, a clear conscience knowing the herps will all be ok now, or whatever. Entering glossy snakes records from the middle of the Mojave affords no such reward.

Understood, I just care deeply about the herps I enjoy, and knowing my data is used or might be used to help agencies and the scientific community that have NO budgets anymore motivates me.

3. Those who enter data can only see locale details of their own entries. Ironic that certain priviledged others, who may never have entered any records, get to see everyone's locale data. I'd love to see all the records in a KMZ file, not so I can go "poach" but because that kind of information fascinates me as much as it does anyone else ...and of course, it may prove helpful in finding certain species. The BIG BUT here is that I DO UNDERSTAND THAT RESTRICTIONS ARE NECESSARY.

Only ONE person has the ability to view your records, and he has taken an oath not to do so.. I have EXTREMELY sensitive data on there.. YOUR DATA IS SAFE with naherp, and it can not be released without your permission..

Fundad

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 2nd, 2012, 6:49 am

Good points Brian, and well taken.

Regarding #3, I am aware that only Don has access to the data and I have no concerns about that. By "certain priviledged others" I meant those persons/agencies who request and receive that data. Just because they're "official" doesn't mean they can't take advantage of the data as herpers, or tell other people. Probably not a big concern but I was just pointing out the unfortunate irony.

As fro Diadophis, Hysiglena and Arizona in Ventura Co., I've only found Diadophis, and because of where it was found and the overall paucity of records for it in that portion of the county I did enter it. As for the latter two, if I find either of those in Ventura Co. I will definitely enter the data. I also coerced a friend to finally enter his Lyre Snake for the first county entry of that species.

Anyway, I'll try to be a better person and become more active in entering records. I'll even try to enter some old ones.

Kent VanSooy · Post by **Kent VanSooy** » July 2nd, 2012, 7:30 am

Here's the specific request from the Species of Special Concern task force:

-----------------------------------------

Hi Kent,

I've pasted a list of taxa that have photo-vouchered records in the database that we'd like specific localities for. This is not a list of SSC taxa, we're still making those evaluations and just need more records for these specific taxa.

Anyway, let me know what you can do. I expect that people won't want to share localities in some cases and particularly for certain taxa, but we'd appreciate anything that we can get.

Thanks again for your help on this. Please let me know if you have questions or need any other information.

Bob

Taxa that we would like additional photo-vouchered localities for:
Rana aurora
Scaphiopus couchii

Ambystoma macrodactylum sigillatum
Aneides niger
Taricha torosa (southern California only)

Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
Coleonyx variegatus abbottii
Gambelia copeii
Uma notata
Uma scoparia

Arizona elegans occidentalis
Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra
Lampropeltis zonata pulchra
Lichanura trivirgata (San Diego Co. only)
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea
---------------------------------------------

On the glossy snakes, it made the most sense to provide all the records we had, since there's disagreement on where eburnata ends and occidentalis begins (or vice-versa).

I believe the SSC revision is still in-process - has anyone heard differently?

Fundad · Post by **Fundad** » July 2nd, 2012, 9:29 am

Regarding #3, I am aware that only Don has access to the data and I have no concerns about that. By "certain priviledged others" I meant those persons/agencies who request and receive that data. Just because they're "official" doesn't mean they can't take advantage of the data as herpers, or tell other people. Probably not a big concern but I was just pointing out the unfortunate irony.

Thats why you always have control over what data is released. For example there have been a couple requests that I said no too..

You choose what records you want to release and if you want to release it to that particular request. This is EXACTLY what makes our process the best of the best.

You can set records to "Closed" "Sensitive" or "Non Sensitive".. Then you can choose which of those three you want to release, or you can choose not to release your data.. Its that simple..

Anyway, I'll try to be a better person and become more active in entering records. I'll even try to enter some old ones.

Even if you don't enter data, wouldn't you now agree that our data, regardless of it not being a scientific study, has "Tremendous" value?

Fundad

monklet · Post by **monklet** » July 2nd, 2012, 11:12 am

Yes

I WILL COMPLY

Natalie McNear · Post by **Natalie McNear** » July 2nd, 2012, 11:27 am

It would be pretty foolish for a governmental agency to decide whether to add a species like the Glossy Snake to the list of SSCs based solely on the presence (or absence) of records in an online citizen scientist database. When we go out herping, we're not measuring the density of species in an area, though the relative abundance of species we see might correlate with actual abundance; rather, we're just measuring how effective person A is at finding species X, Y, and Z within a certain set of environmental parameters (which might range from very effective to not effective at all). In order to determine if a species needs additional protection, I would hope the agency considering the amendments would take the matter seriously enough to conduct a number of scientific studies in various locales incorporating mark-and-recapture, historical data, land-use considerations, etc., beforehand. For the Glossy Snake to be added to the SSC list based only on records from herpers, as insinuated above, that's just bad science.

All that said, the NAHERP database is an extremely valuable starting point for any researchers looking to conduct studies on a certain species, as has been demonstrated in the past by various agencies choosing to use our data before they do their own studies. The database will probably become the most valuable tool to herp researchers looking to validate potential range extensions, but people need to submit those records and not hide that information to researchers because it's "their" spot.

For me personally, however, the main reason I enter data is to contribute to the knowledgebase we have on a given species by recording as much as the environmental data as I possibly can. I want to help other herpers find those species, whether the said herpers are complete newbies or PhD scientists. And like Brad, if I'm going to take the time to enter all that data into the database (and getting exact temperature/humidity/pressure/altitude info for every record IS time-consuming), then I expect some kind of return on it. For me, the ideal return (and the only one I want, actually) would be that everyone else submit complete records to help other herpers as well.

The info in the database has been a tremendous help for me in finding certain species, so I return the favor by submitting complete records. Some may argue that it's not one of the primary goals of the project to help other herpers by allowing them to read the environmental data for a given species, but then why are other herpers allowed to see the records? Don could easily close access to the records to allow only professional researchers to see them, but he doesn't. And that's because the database is designed to be useful to amateurs and professionals alike. Some may feel that recording environmental data for other herpers is "spoon-feeding" them information that they could eventually discover on their own after many months in the field, but I don't see it that way. Would they also say that reading a book or peer-reviewed papers on that species prior to looking for it in the field is cheating as well? Probably not, it's just doing research so that herper doesn't wander around aimlessly in the field forever. It's the same information, just a different means of reading it.

Anyway, end of rant I guess. I only submit records with as much environmental data as I can muster, and find it kind of frustrating that so many other records are nothing more than a voucher photo (understandable for sensitive/endangered species of course). I'll still submit records for species that are notable in some way (hard to find, small range, declining, range extension, etc.), and when I do I'll be sure to put enough environmental data to help any herpers who view the record. I like helping others, and I've already offered what little advice I have on finding Canebrakes and Mudsnakes to those interested in finding those species.

Quality over quantity, baby. Having thousands of records to one's name doesn't mean anything to me if those records aren't complete.

rpecora · Post by **rpecora** » July 2nd, 2012, 11:41 am

A couple of thoughts on the subject of this thread.

1) GPS data is now required to make an entry, it didn't in the past. Although the coordinates aren't viewable to anyone or any entity without consent, regardless some may be less likely to add data now that it is mandatory. A state/county/city record without specifics is still a viable record right? A Request for release of any data in the database requires consent for release anyway, so if needed the specific data can then be transmitted and/or entered at that time. If records without gps data is considered worthless then those entries should be purged.

2) Bragging rights for most entries in a season or otherwise. I've seen tongue in cheek remarks (not bragging...) about the amount of entries someone makes. Entering data should not be a contest. For most it's hard to get the numbers as compared to those few who are able to frequent the field and have the time to enter the hundreds of records a month. There should be no pressure on anyone to enter data for any reason. Let's get back to square one and promote the database for what it is and what it can possibly do for the wildlife and leave it at that.

3) Perceived end result of the data when used. I've seen a few different comments about what the data can do to help the herps and/or the habitat. Has there been any published document or report as a result of the release of our data from the database that actually lists the database in it's bibliography? Are there any published wildlife or habitat decisions made as a result of our released data?

In regards to number 1) above I have a question. When data is released is there a disclosure agreement signed by the requester as to the sensitivity of the data released, what it's going to be used for, and whether or not the data can subsequently be shared with others?

Don could easily close access to the records to allow only professional researchers to see them

If that happened I doubt there would be continued participation.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 2nd, 2012, 11:55 am

Nat: As I said before, you can enter data any way you want, but the DB is mostly a mapping project, so the more the merrier. Common lizards, turtles, and snakes need no in-depth data for a mapping project. In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), you could separate the common from the more interesting and enter the data accordingly. It would all be good. See my little CA kingsnake project up above in this thread. It isn't important to me what the weather conditions were at the time of each visit (mainly because I already know when to look for kingsnakes), I'm more interested in how many are in that field. My 60+ boards are now producing about 11 kings per visit. But, I did the same thing for Fence lizards down the road from there. In one visit to a 2 block section of road I photographed 28 Fence lizards basking on the curb. It doesn't matter to me what it is, just how many I can photo and enter into the database. However, I do draw the line at trying to enter every Bullfrog I see in a pond. I think 5 of those is sufficient.

Pecora: 1) GPS is easy to enter, and easy to skew if you feel the need to protect a rock or boardline. It will still be much more valuable than just saying a county, or city name. I'll leave it at that. 2) Contests appeal to some, and motivate them to continually add as much as they can. Most people will not get all fired up to add more and more data without some motivating factor. Just leave those of us who like that motivation alone, and do your own thing. If bragging rights aren't what motivate you, so be it, but the contests have motivated a large percentage of our participation. Here's a news flash, most humans are not altruistic by nature, and would soon forget about the database without some kind of motivation and constant hype (ever wonder why commercials exist on TV?). For myself, I enjoy competing with Fundad and others, but I would still pour 2,000 records a year into the DB without the contest. It's obvious from our entries that the majority are not motivated that way. Do you have any other ideas to light a fire under some their asses?

In addition, I'll tell you my main motivating factor...I want to document as much as I can for posterity. I enjoy the challenge of documenting as many species and places as possible. The DB map is like a puzzle that needs to be filled in...and I'm addicted to doing that. It's also put me back in touch with all the species i ignored for years, like frogs and turtles.

Robert Hansen · Post by **Robert Hansen** » July 2nd, 2012, 12:12 pm

Just a point of clarification about the status of "Glossy Snakes"...it's not all of them, but only the south-coastal/San Joaquin Valley subspecies, A. e. occidentalis. Those of us who have done field work for decades have noted a decline in this form, most obviously of course as a result of habitat loss. But even in areas of the southern San Joaquin Valley where suitable habitat remains, this snakes appears to be much less common now than historically. This is borne out by Klauber's records from the 1930s and the experiences of collectors up through the 1970s, contrasted now with field results over the last 20 years. That information combined with the >90% reduction in San Joaquin Desert habitat (where Gambelia sila and Masticophis flagellum ruddocki also occur) suggests that we take a close look at this particular taxon. I know some of you are well aware of the distinction in the data request from the UC Davis folks, but I wanted to make it clear we're not talking about the widespread and abundant desert forms candida and eburnata.

Cheers,

BH

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 2nd, 2012, 12:19 pm

One of our members has seen several in the Bakersfield area, but has not submitted any of them to the database. This is one of our problems. Other than that, I cannot comment on the scarcity of CA glossies, as I haven't seen one in over 20 years, and haven't looked for them either.

hellihooks · Post by **hellihooks** » July 2nd, 2012, 12:20 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote: Here's a news flash, most humans are not altruistic by nature, and would soon forget about the database without some kind of motivation and constant hype (ever wonder why commercials exist on TV?). For myself, I enjoy competing with Fundad and others, but I would still pour 2,000 records a year into the DB without the contest. It's obvious from our entries that the majority are not motivated that way. Do you have any other ideas to light a fire under some their asses?

I've said this several times, and will say it again...'BEST ENTRY CONTEST' (per month?)
1) significant find(s)
2) EVERY field filled
3) plenty of good pics
4) Relevant Comments

Rather than quantity of entries... this will help folks 'train themselves' to input more complete data. and ANYONE can compete with just one great entry, per month...

jim

Robert Hansen · Post by **Robert Hansen** » July 2nd, 2012, 12:29 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote:One of our members has seen several in the Bakersfield area, but has not submitted any of them to the database. This is one of our problems. Other than that, I cannot comment on the scarcity of CA glossies, as I haven't seen one in over 20 years, and haven't looked for them either.

Brian: I am aware of those, but the numbers pale by comparison to what snake hunters found on the same roads in the 1970s, to the point where if a glossy IS found, it's a notable occurrence. This also lends support to the value of accumulating specific point-locality data over time...as you've been advocating

rpecora · Post by **rpecora** » July 2nd, 2012, 12:31 pm

Brian Hubbs wrote:Do you have any other ideas to light a fire under some their asses?

What about database goals, set record numbers to be reached by month, qtr, year, and make it a team achievement rather than individual.

Brian Hubbs · Post by **Brian Hubbs** » July 2nd, 2012, 12:33 pm

Bob: Well, I wish I could have seen what those numbers were. My only experience in the central valley with glossies was on a road near the grapevine one night around 1990, and I saw 6. All juvies. It was like finding gopher snakes.

I wish I'd taken pics...

Pecora: Come up with the goals and make a post. I support that. Jonathan did that kind of thing until he went to India. We need to be reminded of what's needed.
Here's one suggestion: Pond turtles from every pond and creek and river from NorCal and San Diego County. We have very few. All the SD county entries are mine. We also have very few from Kern County (all but 1 are mine). Google earth is a great tool for mapping potential localities. Most counties north of San Luis Obispo need to be searched for those, especially San Benito. Most of my San Benito entries are from a Sewage Pond (I doubt anyone will try to collect those...

).