User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 17

Thread: Should the location of newly discovered species remain hidden?

  1. #9
    Lotsa blue bluemax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington State
    Posts
    2,153
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Having been an employee of the US govt. I have often been the keeper of location secrets for plant populations. This information is routinely withheld and given out on a need to know only basis and I support this. Why make it easy for people to do damage and break the law? Having said that I also understand the need for location data in describing new species and varieties and here things get tricky.
    - Mark

  2. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    undiscovered paradise, ny
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I feel the specific location data should not be given and that a broad location data would be alittle better for public view. say a new cp species was discovered in australia... southeastern part. That's all that should be said... it'd be like finding a needle in a haystack.... if for preservation reasons then it should be given but that section of forest or swap or whatever should be protected in its entirety and not just key pin point locations

  3. #11
    LeafKirby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    600
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, no.

    As soon as you even tell the continent, that species is doomed.
    Formerly known as WaterKirby.

  4. #12
    Physalaemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SF Bay Area, USA
    Posts
    217
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    In every museum I've worked in, publicly-available locality data was kept to the county-level for this very reason.

  5. #13

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    undiscovered paradise, ny
    Posts
    276
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As it should.. I mean if you've been months years or even decades trying to locate something then y would you want to disclose the information of its were abouts are... you wouldn't want to cause someone else may not have the same compassion toward that species as you do.

  6. #14
    Peatmoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,192
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    "If you build it, they will come"

    In the modern days of google maps ect. Even county level info may be too much. It can't be that hard to find suitable habitat for a plant with satellite images. Alas, perhaps the only way to prevent poaching may be to make the buyers care enough to not to buy poached animals.
    <Av8tor1> as big as peat is, the bear runs not him

    Big Boss, Founder, and Major Cheese of the Canadian Association for the Cultivation of Carnivorous Plants... Ask if you want to join, I'm the only member...

  7. #15
    Sphagnum Guru Wire Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,990
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    County level distribution should be the most specific the released data gets.

  8. #16
    CreatureTom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    425
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm completely for withholding the data. Generally those who have any interest in where a species is from will respect that the species should be protected, your average person won't gain anything from knowing that their species of X comes from Y location.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •