data sharing/security

[Michael]

At 03:14 PM 12/7/98 -0600, Stuart G. Poss wrote:
>
>
>You are correct to identify a particular known threat to these species
>and attempt to address it.  Rogue collectors may well be much more of a
>problem for certain largely non-motile species.  However, I would argue
>that a more appropriate response would seem to call for better law
>enforcement, environmental protection legislation, and education of the
>public and policy/law makers rather than data withholding.

The unfortunate situation for many rare plant species is that their
protection lies only in their obscurity and remoteness from public
attention.  This is a problem because lack of public knowledge and concern
about rare species may result in little public support for their
conservation.  On the other hand, excessive attention to charismatic and
collectible species creates its own problems, and even if all visitors to a
wild population refrain from collecting, visitation, trampling, and
disturbance become a threat.  Guards, fences, etc. are rarely a feasible
protection strategy due obvious cost limitations.  Law enforcement of
regulations takes place after the fact, after the damage is done.
Education is the key.  Fortunately we have botanical gardens, zoos,
aquaria, etc. which allow the public to see these organisms in protected
zones or simulated natural environments.  These are the public outreach
collections.  Education takes time, and also requires willingness to accept
education.  I do not see education grafted well onto "instantaneous" web
access to population site location data.  I am not talking about making
data inaccessible.  Site data IS currently accessible, but not through
instantaneous and anonymous queries.

>It is not at
>all clear that in the example of the orchids you gave subsequently, that
>it was access to website collections records that was clearly shown to
>have made the difference.  I would not argue that the potential threat
>is certainly real and has been a problem for fossil sites.

Indeed, I have no proof that access to collections data facilitated the
orchid collection example (and I have not myself seen records for the
site).  I provided the example to illustrate that the collecting problem is
real and that I have encountered it on my own casual botanical forays.  (I
have noticed declines in other orchid populations, but have no evidence as
clear as this case that collecting was involved).

>Even if only a few
>irresponsible collectors are active, it is only a matter of time before
>they find these locations, even without accessing the web. If we did
>restrict such access, couldn't such nefarious individuals turn to other
>sources of information?

I understand your reasoning, and indeed, the "nefarious individuals" who
poach species have always existed.  More of a problem may be the pool of
uneducated people, who on finding a database such as the one for Wisconsin
orchids, might then find precise site data linked to the pretty picture of
the plant in bloom.  This is not an education, but an invitation to visit.
I will grant that most people who appreciate these plants have some care
about their survival.  But few understand the issues effecting their
survival, and the idea that digging and collecting plants is a form of
conservation approaches urban legend proportion (and hobbyists who wish to
believe it resist education to the contrary).  I am not saying that people
need be blocked from observing the organisms that interest them.  But I do
think education is required first, about how even well intended visitation
and limited collecting can impact fragile species and habitats; also the
alternative of visiting public collections and managed sites.

>For the most part, we do not know what the
>threats are.  To lock up data so that it can't be instantaenously
>accessed and hence readily investigated by scientists greatly limits our
>ability to utilize such information in novel ways to address these
>problems.  Thus, witholding information may not prove as conservative an
>approach as it might seem.  Perhaps if such data could be placed at the
>right momment in the hands of a geneticist, molecular biologist,
>land-use manager, nature photographer, or developer making a honest
>effort to limit destructive effects, these species might have some
>lasting chance against these not as easily identified threats.

Again, I do not think that restricting instantaneous anonymous public
access to some data is to "lock up" that data.  Consider the special
collections department of public libraries.  The information there IS
available, it is simply available with supervision.  If time constraints
are such a concern that instantaneousness is required, I would worry about
the lack of time available for proper analysis of the data.

I do think if instantaneous public access to site data were of value to
conservation workers and their efforts, they would be at the forefront
requesting this be made available.  From my observation the opposite is true.

>Perhaps an authentication solution that incorporates the notion of
>requests from certain known "secure" servers or passwords, would permit
>automatic access to those who could be expected to behave responsibly
>with such data.  Like certain kinds of mischevious hacking, it could be
>made a felony to use such access inappropriately or gain access by
>unlawful means.  In my mind this would be preferable to taking data "off
>the table", each time we perceive that someone might misuse it.

Yes, I believe this is an agreeable compromise, and not difficult to
implement.

As another Taxacomer pointed out, the matter of data security is of concern
only for the fraction of taxa which are Endangered, Threatened, or special
concern species.  Of these, only a fraction are threatened by collection or
harvesting.  Often these species are members of discreet taxonomic groups
(families, genera) and are easily recognized.

I do not think protecting data security is a large technical problem.  But
it is an issue of concern.  The community of collections workers and the
conservation community have shared close ties and these should not be
jeopardized in exchange for the vague and speculative utility that might be
obtained by uncontrolled public access to rare organism site locations on
the web.  Does "the public" want this information? If you polled those who
are educated and concerned about the environment, I think you may find they
would not want site data disseminated.

Michael Chamberland