A national combined recording system

[Sandy73]

Do we need a national wildlife recording/logging website? A website where you can log all your sightings, regardless of species, and where conservation bodies/ charities can access all the data from one place.

Do other countries have multiple recording websites or are they combined?

For example, one of my local patch’s is a coppiced wood with a pond owned by the local Wildlife Trust. During a visit I see 20 different bird species, some butterflies, damselflies and dragonflies, some Red-tailed Bumblebees, a stoat, a couple of grey squirrels, a couple of common lizards and some newts in the pond. Just as the sun is setting and I’m leaving a Pipistrelle flies overhead.

So, I record my bird and dragonfly sightings on BirdTrack (the BTO recording system), the butterflies I record with my local Butterfly Conservation branch, the mammals with the local mammal society, the Pipistrelle with my local bat group and the lizard and newts with the local reptile and amphibian group.

That’s six different websites that I can record the information on. I don’t have to but it seems, to me, a shame not to add, however small, to local. County and national records. Are wildlife (bird/ butterfly/ all) watchers recording/ listing species but are not aware of all the different recording websites or don’t have the time to add data to so many websites?

Do others have this frustration? Would this combined recording system help or hinder?

[Pete Eeles]

Sounds like a very sensible idea! Even if there were simply a "portal" to the relevant recording mechanism. Of course, each order would probably require different information depending on the critters in question. But, for the all-round naturalist, this sounds like a fine idea

Cheers,

- Pete

[Sandy73]

Agreed there would be some different requirements but a lot would be the W's;

Where
What
What number
What day
And weather

It would also be a good place for the Wildlife Trusts, the RSPB and other major conservation bodies to point their members to record any sighting.

[ChrisC]

I've never used it but there is a system/database that allows you to do all at once (I think) it's called Living Record

"You can use Living Record as your own personal records system to keep track of the wildlife that you see.

Records are linked to location markers that you add to Google Maps. Click on a marker to review the records for a location. It is also easy to review your records for a single species or for a specific date.

Your records are treated as personal to you. Other users do not see the details of your records, apart from the experts who are responsible for verifying records before they are passed on to local record centres.

There is a growing list of subjects that you can record, from mammals to moths, amphibians to wasps, even vascular plants".

Chris

[NickMorgan]

I agree that there should be some national wildlife recording system that is accessible to everyone. We have The Wildlife Information Centre here in Lothian and Borders. The problem is that they readily accept records, but then charge to give you any information back.
When I was a ranger I used to send in all of my records, but didn't even get a thank you! The reason I collate all of the butterfly records for East Lothian and pass them on to Butterfly Conservation is because I was concerned that none of our records were getting anywhere. I noticed that the Millennium Atlas didn't include our records that had been sent to TWIC.
I suppose that the real problem is that we shouldn't set up a new system that runs in parallel with what is already out there. That may mean that records are put on the new web site and not go to the organisations that have traditionally recorded birds, butterflies, lichens, etc, etc. I guess that one of the main concerns would be validating the records.
Certainly something that should be considered, though.

[David M]

Trouble is, accurate records generally demand regular, uniform constraints, such as those defined on an established transect.

Much as I enjoy reading the results of the M&S butterfly count, a fair proportion can be immediately discounted (eg Hedge Browns and Small Skippers being spotted on the Isle of Man).

Then you would have to factor out deliberately mischievous sightings (difficult, given that some sightings appear extreme yet are entirely genuine, eg last year's Monarch or Marmari's New Year's Day Painted Ladies).

I doubt it would do much harm but I'm not sure whether it would do much (scientific) good either.

[ScottD]

from what I understand the UKBMS new online system allows for entry of other non-lepidoptera records?

[Matsukaze]

There already is one, run by the Biological Records Centre in Wallingford, albeit recently established:

http://www.brc.ac.uk/irecord/

[Bill S]

There already is one, run by the Biological Records Centre in Wallingford, albeit recently established:

http://www.brc.ac.uk/irecord/

Thanks for posting that, I've been after a national system for ages as most of the sites I go to span county borders so county recording has never made sense to me.

Bill