Thanks Deryk, I didn't know that however, I basically use it as you have stated as an indication of what might be in an area and often just use the whole shire info, although sometimes I'll search a smaller area, particularly if its in a large western LGA. I've only had to go searching for a particular species once (Plains Wanderers) and that was when I was still getting the written reports, and as the name suggests they'd wandered off anyway and I didn't find them.

Speaking of little Red Flying Foxes I saw 2 in Orange last week on the southern edge of town feeding in a sugar plum tree. They are not recorded in the wildlife Atlas as having been in Orange before ever! There would probably be a few Orchardists who would disagree, but maybe these were on holiday from Penrith!

I recently got an email from DECC to check some data I sent in.

its from 2004.

This is how slow they are to enter data. As a result, I have seen sites cleared for quotes I have done (and seen species there) and jobs that have been cancelled on significant result. Council then say "what proof do you have?" when you report it. As detailed in another forum, the law isnt on yr side to hand over a report a client has paid for not submitted for a DA, and hence you rely on the scientific license to back you up...

Hi All,

When I was employed by DECC, I submitted entries regularly and was surprised that quite a number of other Rangers did not. Where I was employed at times we had to get funding (with difficulty) for GPS's etc so that you could both state a map reference and also a grid ref from your GPS. This was in the days when there was still "military provenance" on GPS accuracy by the Yanks, so it was hard to make your data ground-truthing accurate for Atlas requirements. I have submitted Atlas data each year since working as a consultant, but I am sometimes annoyed that entries are sometimes missed in the Atlas data, so does some of this stuff get "conveniently" lost?? Bearing in mind a good proportion of my survey work has been on private holdings in Western NSW, so Atlas entries may or may not be biased to DECC reserves where it can be verified by "authorised" personnel

Bruce,

My understanding is that the dot on the DECC website is the south western corner of whatever grid the record has been made within. For example, if Animal A is actually caught at Easting 356425 and Northing 6245134, then the sdisplayed dot on the mapped website would be at E356000 N6245000. It wouldnt take much to head to that site and know your within a square kilometre of whatever threatened animal/plant your trying to poach (especially if Animal A has a specific habitat need e.g. Broad headed Snake). I use the atlas loosely to indication of whats out there and what I should be roughly considering may be present within my survey area.

Does any one know if there is a difference in the accuracy of the data between what is given on the web site and what is given in the reports sent out. I know they give exact co-ordinates in the reports although they removed other valuable information such as the person who collected the data (for so called privacy reasons (Bloody ridiculous!!) But when you bring up the maps on the website you can zoom in, so is the location of the little pink dot accurate. Are not they providing maps of the location of these species themselves. Any poacher can look up the website and find that there are Major Mitchell Cockatoos in XYZ state forest and go out looking for them, and even when they supply the co-ordinates the atlas allows you to submit data with a variety of accuracy levels so it might be within this grid square xxyy I saw a 1 Night Parrot. Contray to what Nick says I found the reports were not much more useful than the web site (been assuming its accurate) like Jason  I use it for most jobs or the Bionet site which also gives Australian Museum and Forestry records.

Hi Liz and Nic. Interesting post! I have been using the online site for most jobs as we tend to be the major submitter of data in our area, hence the records are mostly ours anyway, or we hear of them. We submit all records of all species, predominantly as the license requires it (tho the files end up huge), and sometimes what is common now, is threatened tomorrow so when that species is listed - boom, there's a record of its distribution. Same for migratory species.

It is a shock to hear that 1:250 000 is the min scale for mapping of records - this is useless for a 7 pt test eg defining the local population as per the new guidelines (a topic I will expand further on in due course). it may be ok for an SIS for showing a regional population, but still, where's the practicality.

Liz opens the interesting Pandora's box of what is a publication. Interesting position a consultant may find themselves in - criticised for not providing sufficient information (ie a map), then risking being prosecuted for showing the locations!

Surely the simplest solution is for DECC to close public access to the AOW if the risk of poaching is their concern, or not displaying "species of concern?".

I agree this is a formal matter that needs addressing. The only placation I have is the data will soon be free, as it should have been given it costs me a weeks work each year to prepare all the data!

I had an interesting discussion with DECC when the letters were issued.

I had obviously never read the conditions of the data licence agreement in too much detail as the restriction to publish maps of Atlas data has always been in there apparently ...

However, I sought some clarifications that you might be interested in viz. what constituted a "publication" and what constituted "Atlas data".

Was a report provided to a client a publication? Ultimately one would expect that a report would accompany a DA and therefore may eventually end up in the public domain. Therefore DECC says that such a report IS a publication and attracts the restriction on mapping.

However, much of the data in such a report is that which we have collected ourselves and belongs to the client and is not lodged in the Atlas until we do so (presumably annually). Therefore we are free to map away to whatever level of accuracy we see fit until it becomes Atlas data. Whether we can re-hash our previous results that have been lodged with the Atlas was not explored, but I imagine we are also free to do so unless we have sourced the localities directly from an Atlas data request.

OK - fair enough. This restriction is, of course, intended to stymie the orchid hunters and such like. But will it do so? Even if we were to provide no maps of our results, in most cases, you don't have to be a genius to work out where the thng has been found, or at least come close to it. Locational data are necessarily provided in our reports as are detailed descriptions of the site and the habitats present. So a determinsed orchid hunter can easily glean the necessary information for their nefarious intentions even if we provided no maps whatsoever.

I think it is just plain silly and overly-bureacratic. There are too many loop holes to fulfil the stated intention of the rule and, short of providing two levels of reports - a secret one with all information in it and a generalised one that says absolutely nothing for public consumption - it will remain so.

The political climate has generally degenerated to one of suspicion and information control and this is seeping into the realm of scientific data. Open and free exchange of information makes ofr good science - the other model does not. 

I think the ECA should take this to DECC and ask for a review of this part of the licence agreement given its inability to deliver the biodiversity protection it professes.

And by the way, who decides which species are mroe precious than others? Have you seen the list? It is quite mad.