This may be a somewhat heretical question, and I don't mean to minimize the work that people have put into the MOU sightings database at all, but... Is there a reason to maintain a separate sightings database for MOU anymore? Is there any data that MOU collects that is not present in ebird sightings?
I ask this for a couple of reasons: - I think a lot of younger people that started birding after ebird has been around are used to submitting sightings to ebird and are less likely to submit to standalone state databases (me included, I confess) - it seems to me that the data would be a lot more valuable if it's part of a worldwide data set where it could contribute to analyses of migratory timing, populations trends over larger areas, etc. Sorry if this is a can of worms, but I thought it was worth asking, since this seems to be essentially what Wisconsin does. jonathon On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 11:16 -0500, David Cahlander wrote: > Check the MOU database and maps for Dickcissel sightings. > > http://moumn.org/cgi-bin/mapi.pl?species=Dickcissel (select Summer 2012) > > 14 counties have no reports, indicating that 73 counties have reports > of Dickcissels. The counties that Jesse Ellis indicated did not have > Dickcissel reports are as follows. The counties in blue do not have > current reports for 2012. > > anoka > becker - 6 sightings > beltrami - 4 sightings > benton - 2 sightings > brown > carlton > cass - 1 sighting > chippewa - 2 sightings > clearwater - 4 sightings > cook > crow wing - 1 sighting > grant > isanti - 1 sighting > itasca - 8 sightings > kanabec - 1 sighting > kandiyohi - 3 sightings > kittson > koochiching - 2 sightings > lake > Lake of the woods > le sueur - 1 sighting > lincoln - 3 sightings > mahnomen - 2 sightings > marshall > meeker - 4 sightings > mille lacs - 3 sightings > morrison > nobles - 9 sightings > norman - 3 sightings > otter tail - 1 sighting > pennington > pope - 1 sighting > red lake > renville - 2 sightings > roseau > stevens > swift - 2 sightings > traverse > waseca - 1 sighting > watonwan - 3 sightings > wilkin - 1 sighting > yellow medicine - 3 sightings > --- > David Cahlander [email protected] Burnsville, MN 952-894-5910 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jesse Ellis" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:33 AM > Subject: [mou-net] eBird Dickcissel challenge > > > > Hey Minnesota- > > > > > > Our neighbor across the river (where I currently live, unfortunately) has > > instituted a bit of a community birding challenge that I have found > > interesting. Wisconsin, too, is suffering from a massive Dickcissel > > infestation, and the challenge has been laid down - find Dickcissel in > > every county. They're doing very well, too (see the forward from the wisb > > list at the very bottom), even getting Dickcissel in the relatively > > forested northwest and northeast counties. After getting my first Douglas > > Co., MN dickcissels last weekend, I thought I would see how well Minnesota > > was doing. The answer? Despite all those reports on the listserve, not very > > well, according to eBird. Below are the counties for which there are no > > eBird records of Dickcissel this year. A fair fraction of those counties > > have none or only one eBird list submitted for the whole year! I know we > > have more counties than Wisconsin, but we're closer to the core dickcissel > > range and we have better habitat! We should be able to best them in number > > of counties (87 vs 72 - can we beat 72?), even if we can't find Dickcissel > > in Cook or Lake counties. We're at 44 right now.> -- > > Jesse Ellis > > Post-doctoral Researcher > > Dept. of Zoology > > University of Wisconsin - Madison > > Madison, Dane Co, WI > > ---- > Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net > Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html ---- Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
