Re: update WNS maps
Posted: Jan 13, 2012 5:56 pm
Indiana is better off than most states in terms of a baseline. our Indiana bat surveys were conducted for over 20 years (until USFWS recently decided only people in tan shirts can count) by essentially the same principle people and they did count and record other species when observed.
Digital looks great on paper and I do think it will become a better tool. However, making sure your matching the pictures together right to avoid recounting or under counting and hoping the seasonal interns or the computer algorithims used to "count noses" get it right are issues. For caves with lower numbers and lower ceilings its actually faster to do it the old way.
I think most of the reluctance about numbers is that we never really knew how many bats there are/were even in a general sense. and we really have no idea how many have died other than what is missing from known sites. Plus, from a strictly biological standpoint its a waste of time to try and guess a number you know is wrong, and unlike a trend number cant really be used for anything besides headlines.
The I bat surveys were really just trends even though there is a number. The *estimates* are for *known* caves. Some people will say that we knew most of the main caves used....maybe in the NE. In Indiana there are at least 2 caves not on the survey list with significant numbers of bats that no one wants the USFWS to know about. My guess is there are plenty more people havent told me.
Digital looks great on paper and I do think it will become a better tool. However, making sure your matching the pictures together right to avoid recounting or under counting and hoping the seasonal interns or the computer algorithims used to "count noses" get it right are issues. For caves with lower numbers and lower ceilings its actually faster to do it the old way.
I think most of the reluctance about numbers is that we never really knew how many bats there are/were even in a general sense. and we really have no idea how many have died other than what is missing from known sites. Plus, from a strictly biological standpoint its a waste of time to try and guess a number you know is wrong, and unlike a trend number cant really be used for anything besides headlines.
The I bat surveys were really just trends even though there is a number. The *estimates* are for *known* caves. Some people will say that we knew most of the main caves used....maybe in the NE. In Indiana there are at least 2 caves not on the survey list with significant numbers of bats that no one wants the USFWS to know about. My guess is there are plenty more people havent told me.