Subject: ECOLOG-L Digest - 13 Apr 2003 to 14 Apr 2003 (#2003-101)
There are 17 messages totalling 1438 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. A complaint to journal editors everywhere (8)
2. ~ Catch the EPA-STAR call-in wave TODAY ~
3. field ecologists vs. theorists (was: A complaint to journal e ditors
everywhere)
4. News: US Rivers Being Depleted By Anthropogenic Demands
5. Yikes - sorry (2)
6. Visiting Ecologist Faculty Position, Southwestern University
7. Summer Field Crew Internships, Washington Department of Ecology
8. Summer 2003 REU position, Konza Prairie, Kansas
9. Wildlife Management Field Courses, South Africa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:08:02 +0100
From: William Silvert <wsilvert@MILPAH.COM>
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
I wasn't expecting to be taken so literally! My point was that whether you
take your field notes in pen, pencil, or virgin's blood, you need to archive
the original data without censoring or editing it. Now of course much data
collection is direct to computer, but the original files should be archived.
Often people copy the original data to a neater form and discard the
original records. I was able to carry out some evaluations and found that
the error rate in transcribed data was about 2%. Furthermore the errors are
not random, since there is a tendency to smooth outliers. Given the high
variability of ecological data, it is possible to shift a decimal point
without noticing what you are doing. I suspect that the variation in
transcribed data could be rigorously shown to be less than that in the
original data.
Bill Silvert
PS - I think that there are pens that work in cold weather and even under
water (like the Fisher space pen), but that is really beside the point.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave McNeely" <dlmcneely@LUNET.EDU>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
> Everything that you say is correct. However, when working in the field
> "written in ink in a bound notebook," does not work. We use pencil, no
to
> make the information recorded less permanent, but to make it more so.
f
we
> drop the notebook in the creek, information written with pencil will st
ll
> be on the page when it dries. Information written with pen will not be
> unless the ink is India ink, which must be used with pens that are
> unreliable in the field. And any ink will clog at low temperatures.
>
> Dave McNeely
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:17:44 +0100
From: William Silvert <wsilvert@MILPAH.COM>
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
I'm often surprised at the hostility that ecologists show to theorists. I
worked in physics until 1975 and in that field experimentalists and
theorists usually work together and find cooperation mutually beneficial.
Ecologists like Deborah Layton seem to take more of a dog in the manger
approach and would rather see their data rot than let someone who might be
able to make sense of it do so.
Why doesn't Deborah give up the field work that she finds so exhausting and
move to an air-conditioned office where she can spend 8 (more likely 10 or
12) hours a day poring over mathematical formulae if that is what she finds
appealing?
Of course it can be embarassing to have someone look at your data and see
something in them that you didn't. That is why ecologists should avoid
contact not only with theorists, but with microbiologists, chemists, and
sundry other experts. Why cooperate?
But I think that the hostility that many ecologists have towards theorists
is very deep. I used to go on research cruises regularly before I retired,
and some of my colleagues even resented the fact that I rarely get seasick.
As a theorist I should have been hanging over the rails!
Bill Silvert
Retired marine ecologist (theory section)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Layton, Deborah" <dlayton@DEP.NYC.GOV>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
> I would also submit that many scientists, who spend a lot of time, ener
y,
> sweat and skin out in the field may be somewhat reluctant to share data
with
> those who like to sit in air-conditioned offices and build models based
on
> data that others have obtained. It may not be a very progressive way t
> think, but I think that this could be part of the reason...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:45:21 -0500
From: Dave McNeely <dlmcneely@LUNET.EDU>
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
I didn't read anything that Deborah wrote to indicate the SHE felt the way
she described some field workers as feeling, but rather that she was making
an observation about behavior she was aware of, might have witnessed, may
have heard about, or simply judged as taking place.
In fact, though I can't speak from the point of view of a theorist
(actually, mostly as a teacher, but one who has made worthwhile
contributions on the basis of field research), I think there is a lot more
cooperation between theorists and field biologists than seems to be being
credited in this discussion. In some cases the two are one and the same,
some famous examples such as Darwin, E.O. Wilson, and MacArthur being just
the best known, but certainly only a few among many!
Ecologists have a very large case of P (for Physics) envy, and sometimes we
try to find excuses for why we haven't done better than we have as
physicists mimics. It might be better to spend the energy on doing the very
important work we do.
Does this mean I think that we cooperate perfectly? No. We can improve.
Physicists can, too, and so far as I can tell, in some ways that might
surprise some. BTW, weren't some of our most important textbook examples
the product of theoretical, field, and experimental work on related or the
same problems?
Dave McNeely
Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <wsilvert@MILPAH.COM>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
> I'm often surprised at the hostility that ecologists show to theorists.
I
> worked in physics until 1975 and in that field experimentalists and
> theorists usually work together and find cooperation mutually beneficia
.
> Ecologists like Deborah Layton seem to take more of a dog in the manger
> approach and would rather see their data rot than let someone who might
be
> able to make sense of it do so.
>
> Why doesn't Deborah give up the field work that she finds so exhausting
and
> move to an air-conditioned office where she can spend 8 (more likely 10
or
> 12) hours a day poring over mathematical formulae if that is what she
finds
> appealing?
>
> Of course it can be embarassing to have someone look at your data and s
e
> something in them that you didn't. That is why ecologists should avoid
> contact not only with theorists, but with microbiologists, chemists, an
> sundry other experts. Why cooperate?
>
> But I think that the hostility that many ecologists have towards theori
ts
> is very deep. I used to go on research cruises regularly before I retir
d,
> and some of my colleagues even resented the fact that I rarely get
seasick.
> As a theorist I should have been hanging over the rails!
>
> Bill Silvert
> Retired marine ecologist (theory section)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Layton, Deborah" <dlayton@DEP.NYC.GOV>
> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:57 PM
> Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
>
>
> > I would also submit that many scientists, who spend a lot of time,
energy,
> > sweat and skin out in the field may be somewhat reluctant to share
data
> with
> > those who like to sit in air-conditioned offices and build models
ased
on
> > data that others have obtained. It may not be a very progressive
ay to
> > think, but I think that this could be part of the reason...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 07:49:06 -0700
From: Beth Chase <chase@KOOTENAI.ORG>
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
I like theorists...I get to use their knowledge base & think tank expertise
to put some of their theories to the test...in the field....! Thanks ;=)
Beth Chase
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Silvert [mailto:wsilvert@MILPAH.COM]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:18 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
>
> I'm often surprised at the hostility that ecologists show to theorists.
I
> worked in physics until 1975 and in that field experimentalists and
> theorists usually work together and find cooperation mutually beneficia
.
> Ecologists like Deborah Layton seem to take more of a dog in the manger
> approach and would rather see their data rot than let someone who might
be
> able to make sense of it do so.
>
> Why doesn't Deborah give up the field work that she finds so exhausting
and
> move to an air-conditioned office where she can spend 8 (more likely 10
or
> 12) hours a day poring over mathematical formulae if that is what she
finds
> appealing?
>
> Of course it can be embarassing to have someone look at your data and s
e
> something in them that you didn't. That is why ecologists should avoid
> contact not only with theorists, but with microbiologists, chemists, an
> sundry other experts. Why cooperate?
>
> But I think that the hostility that many ecologists have towards theori
ts
> is very deep. I used to go on research cruises regularly before I retir
d,
> and some of my colleagues even resented the fact that I rarely get
seasick.
> As a theorist I should have been hanging over the rails!
>
> Bill Silvert
> Retired marine ecologist (theory section)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Layton, Deborah" <dlayton@DEP.NYC.GOV>
> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:57 PM
> Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
>
>
> > I would also submit that many scientists, who spend a lot of time,
energy,
> > sweat and skin out in the field may be somewhat reluctant to share
data
> with
> > those who like to sit in air-conditioned offices and build models
ased
on
> > data that others have obtained. It may not be a very progressive
ay to
> > think, but I think that this could be part of the reason...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:06:15 -0400
From: Kathy Crowley <kfc6@CORNELL.EDU>
Subject: ~ Catch the EPA-STAR call-in wave TODAY ~
Greetings,
Thanks very much to all of you who have already placed calls on behalf of
the EPA STAR graduate fellowship program. TODAY and TOMORROW are the last
days of the EPA-STAR CALL-IN WAVE, so if you have not yet placed your
calls, this is the time. Tomorrow -- APRIL 15 -- is the deadline for
public comment.
Building on your successful efforts last year, we are in an excellent
position to maintain and even increase STAR fellowship funding. Please
take 15 minutes to call or fax Senators and Representatives and ask them to
increase EPA STAR fellowship funding in FY 2004 to $30 million. Contact
information is below. Also, you can help by forwarding this information to
other EPA STAR supporters.
OUR CALLS LAST YEAR MADE A DIFFERENCE. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN.
THANK YOU so much for your help!
Kathy Crowley
Department of Natural Resources
Fernow Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
kfc6@cornell.edu
__________________
Original message sent Thursday, April 10, 2003:
Dear Colleagues,
Last year, with over 1,000 calls, faxes, and letters, we convinced Congress
to restore the EPA STAR graduate fellowship program supporting
environmental research for FY 2003. Now, the STAR fellowship program again
needs your support. The President's budget request for FY 2004 proposes a
50% cut to STAR fellowship funding, which could reduce the success rate of
applicants to only 3.5%. The National Council for Science and the
Environment (NCSE) is advocating that the STAR fellowship budget be
increased.
CALL-IN WAVE: TODAY through APRIL 15th.
Please join us for a CALL-IN-WAVE to take place from TODAY through TUESDAY,
APRIL 15. Take 5 to 15 minutes to call or fax Senators and Representatives
and ask them to increase EPA STAR fellowship funding in FY 2004 to $30
million. Unlike last year, the budget process seems to be moving quickly,
so please make your call as close to the following schedule as possible:
Last Name: Call Date
A-F: Thursday, April 10
G-L: Friday, April 11
M-R: Monday, April 14
S-Z: Tuesday, April 15
OUR CALLS LAST YEAR MADE A DIFFERENCE. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN.
Because of your hard work and successful efforts in 2002, we are now in an
excellent position to maintain and even increase STAR fellowship
funding. Last year, this program was virtually unknown. This year, that
is not the case. Please take advantage of all the work you did last year
to bring this great program the funding it needs and deserves.
KEY PHONE CALLS:
Please contact influential Senators and Representatives on the Senate and
House Appropriations Committees first. (See contact information below.)
IMPORTANT FOLLOW-UP CALLS:
Please contact Senators and Representatives in your own state. Visit the
NCSE web site for a sample letter you can fax (
http://www.ncseonline.org/updates/page.cfm?FID=2597 ).
THE MESSAGE:
Introduce yourself and have three polite and succinct "talking points"
prepared, which you could also leave on voice mail if necessary. You can
also ask to speak to the staff person in charge of environmental or EPA
issues.
"Talking points" could include:
1. Thank you for restoring funding to the EPA Science to Achieve Results
(STAR) graduate fellowship program in FY 2003, after the President's budget
request had proposed to eliminate the funding with no justification. I
would like to see program funding increased rather than decreased for FY 200
.
2. The EPA STAR fellowship program is the only Federal program aimed
exclusively at funding students doing important research in diverse and
applied environmental fields. Topics have included critical issues such as
the risks of children's exposure to pesticides and the ecosystem effects of
harmful algal blooms. Yet, there is no other funding program of this kind.
3. Please INCREASE EPA STAR fellowship funding for FY 2004 to $30 million,
so that the program will be able to fund outstanding applicants that it
currently has to turn away. At $30 million, we would expect about 20% of
applicants to receive fellowships -- still a highly competitive process.
The STAR fellowship program gives the nation a huge benefit for a very
small investment.
For additional information regarding the STAR fellowship program, please
visit the NCSE web site at
http://www.ncseonline.org/updates/page.cfm?FID=2597 .
WHO TO CALL:
Here are recommendations for the most important calls or faxes to make
(additional information at http://www.ncseonline.org/SciencePolicy/?FID=1682
):
1. HIGHEST PRIORITY
Chairs and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies (Note: when you call,
indicate that you are calling these Representatives and Senators as members
of the Appropriations Subcommittees. If you are also a constituent, let
them know that as well.)
If you send email, please copy your message to Marty Spitzer at the House
Science Committee: Marty.Spitzer@mail.house.gov and Dan Braden at NCSE:
dbraden@ncseonline.org .
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES T. WALSH, R-NY, CHAIR
Rayburn House Office Building, Room 143
Fax: 202-225-4042
Phone: 202-225-3701 (EPA Staff member: Ron Anderson)
Email: rep.james.walsh@mail.house.gov
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, D-WV, RANKING MEMBER
Longworth Office Building, Room 1016
Fax: 202-225-9476
Phone: 202-225-4172 (EPA Staff member: Angela Ohm)
Website: www.house.gov/mollohan
SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, D-MD, RANKING MEMBER
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 130
Fax: 202-228-1624
Phone: 202-224-4654
SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, R-MO, CHAIR
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 137
Fax: 202-224-8149
Phone: 202-224-5721
Email: kit_bond@bond.senate.gov
2. ALSO VERY IMPORTANT: CALL YOUR OWN REPRESENTATIVES.
Ask your representatives to write "Dear Colleague" letters to the
Representatives and Senators listed above, requesting that they increase
funding for the STAR fellowship program to $30 million. You can easily
find your Representatives' and Senators' phone numbers using the following
web sites:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html
You had a tremendous impact during last year's campaign to save the EPA
STAR fellowship program. With your efforts now, we can maintain and even
increase the STAR fellowship budget for FY 2004. Please forward this
request to other EPA STAR fellowship supporters who may not yet have
received it.
Thank you so much for your help in placing these calls by April 15. Let's
give the government a strong message about how we'd like to see our tax
dollars spent.
Sincerely,
Kathy Crowley
Special thanks to Gretchen Gettel and Noel Gurwick for letting me modify
the text of their messages from last year's STAR fellowship campaign, for
this renewed effort to support the program. Thanks also to Noel Gurwick,
Gretchen Gettel, and Dan Braden for their help with the content of this
message.
________
Kathy Crowley
Department of Natural Resources
Fernow Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
kfc6@cornell.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:10:39 -0400
From: Joseph W Corona <jwc7@LEHIGH.EDU>
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
I would venture a guess that the error rate for interpreting original fiel
notes by an outside investigator is higher then the 2% transcribed error. I
the data is not organized then there can be a large margin of
misinterpretation. I believe that if raw field data is made available, the
it should be organized so that an outside investigator can accurately
interpret the data.
Quoting William Silvert <wsilvert@MILPAH.COM>:
> I wasn't expecting to be taken so literally! My point was that whether
ou
> take your field notes in pen, pencil, or virgin's blood, you need to ar
hive
> the original data without censoring or editing it. Now of course much d
ta
> collection is direct to computer, but the original files should be arch
ved.
>
> Often people copy the original data to a neater form and discard the
> original records. I was able to carry out some evaluations and found th
t
> the error rate in transcribed data was about 2%. Furthermore the errors
are
> not random, since there is a tendency to smooth outliers. Given the hig
> variability of ecological data, it is possible to shift a decimal point
> without noticing what you are doing. I suspect that the variation in
> transcribed data could be rigorously shown to be less than that in the
> original data.
>
> Bill Silvert
>
> PS - I think that there are pens that work in cold weather and even und
r
> water (like the Fisher space pen), but that is really beside the point.
--
Joseph W. Corona
Ph.D. candidate
Dept. of Earth and Environmental Sciences
Lehigh University
31 Williams Dr.
Bethlehem, Pa 18015
267-475-9043
jwc7@lehigh.edu
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 09:18:13 -0600
From: Dave Whitacre <dwhitacre@PEREGRINEFUND.ORG>
Subject: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
It seems safe to say this topic of raw data availability is of broad =
interest.
It is interesting to learn of the various efforts existing, that make =
raw data sets available, and I admit I have not yet looked at them.
However, voluntary efforts to post data sets in a central repository may =
not fully serve the function I have in mind--especially if they require =
a special data format that will cost the researcher more time and effort =
to comply with. I'm guessing such repositories will receive most use if =
they can accommodate a variety of formats--so long as adequate metadata =
are provided. My concern is not ease of use of data, but rather that =
data at least be available, in SOME form.
The issue of data ownership would seemingly be most sensitive if data =
are placed in a repository making them easily minable by others--along =
with many other, similar data sets. One can understand a certain =
reluctance to put hard-won data into a container specifically designed =
for ease of mining by others. In such a case, yes, it seems one might =
need to discuss and arrive at agreements regarding data ownership. It =
would be interesting to see what form that discussion would take.
Can we not assume, however, that, when you publish based on a certain =
data set, you need to (at the same time) reveal the raw data? And at =
that point, isn't anyone free to take those data and re-analyze them as =
they wish, and to mine them for other purposes? (Although, the civil way =
to do this would be to offer coauthorship, and perhaps participation in =
the entire process, to the data originator.) Such availability of data =
seems to me a key part of the checks and balances of science. Lets face =
it--the pre-publication peer review process is necessary, but not =
sufficient. Arguably, the most important peer review is that which =
follows after publication. And such review is scarcely possible if the =
reviewers cannot see the data.
Here's a proposition: Each journal must guarantee that the raw data =
supporting any given article are in fact freely available to anyone, by =
one means or another. This means the raw data must be either: 1) =
published in the journal issue (if even on CD inside the back cover, 2) =
deposited at a web site maintained by that journal/society (I would =
argue for very lenient format, so long as tons of supporting information =
are provided, or 3) guaranteed to be available from the authors (specify =
which authors) for a specified number of years (but what then? after an =
author's death, the data may never again be available--really ALL data =
should be "published" somewhere.)
The question to me seems to be this--is our science important, or not? =
If its important, the raw data need to be available. Also, are we truly =
interested in advancing human understanding, or only in advancing our =
individual careers? If the current construct of science prohibits us =
doing both, perhaps we need to make some changes.
Humbly submitted,
Dave Whitacre
The Peregrine Fund
5668 West Flying Hawk Lane
Boise, Idaho 83709
(208) 362-3716
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:15:49 -0400
From: "Landis, R Matthew" <rlandis@MIDDLEBURY.EDU>
Subject: Re: field ecologists vs. theorists (was: A complaint to journal e
ditors everywhere)
Hello,
>From my point of view as someone who studies forest dynamics, I personal
y
don't really see such a big distinction between theorists and field
ecologists. Most of the articles I read in e.g. Ecology, Journal of
Ecology, etc. are intended to advance theory, yet 99.9% of them are based on
original field data. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is meant by
"theorist" and "field ecologist". In any case, theory and field work
necessarily go hand in hand. As Krebs wrote in Ecological Methodology :
"Hypotheses without data are not very useful, and data without hypotheses
are wasted".
Respectfully,
Matt Landis
R. Matthew Landis, Ph.D.
Dept. Biology
Middlebury College
Middlebury VT 05753
tel. 802/443.3484
fax.802/443.2072
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beth Chase [mailto:chase@KOOTENAI.ORG]
> Sent: Mon, April 14, 2003 10:49 AM
> To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
>
>
> I like theorists...I get to use their knowledge base & think
> tank expertise
> to put some of their theories to the test...in the field....!
> Thanks ;=)
>
> Beth Chase
> Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: William Silvert [mailto:wsilvert@MILPAH.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:18 AM
> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
> > Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
> >
> > I'm often surprised at the hostility that ecologists show
> to theorists. I
> > worked in physics until 1975 and in that field experimentalists an
> > theorists usually work together and find cooperation
> mutually beneficial.
> > Ecologists like Deborah Layton seem to take more of a dog
> in the manger
> > approach and would rather see their data rot than let
> someone who might be
> > able to make sense of it do so.
> >
> > Why doesn't Deborah give up the field work that she finds
> so exhausting
> and
> > move to an air-conditioned office where she can spend 8
> (more likely 10 or
> > 12) hours a day poring over mathematical formulae if that
> is what she
> finds
> > appealing?
> >
> > Of course it can be embarassing to have someone look at
> your data and see
> > something in them that you didn't. That is why ecologists
> should avoid
> > contact not only with theorists, but with microbiologists,
> chemists, and
> > sundry other experts. Why cooperate?
> >
> > But I think that the hostility that many ecologists have
> towards theorists
> > is very deep. I used to go on research cruises regularly
> before I retired,
> > and some of my colleagues even resented the fact that I rarely get
> seasick.
> > As a theorist I should have been hanging over the rails!
> >
> > Bill Silvert
> > Retired marine ecologist (theory section)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Layton, Deborah" <dlayton@DEP.NYC.GOV>
> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
> > Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
> >
> >
> > > I would also submit that many scientists, who spend a lot of
ime,
> energy,
> > > sweat and skin out in the field may be somewhat reluctant
> to share data
> > with
> > > those who like to sit in air-conditioned offices and
> build models based
> on
> > > data that others have obtained. It may not be a very
> progressive way to
> > > think, but I think that this could be part of the reason...
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:32:44 -0500
From: Benjamin Whiting <bwhiting@BOREAL.ORG>
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
And vice versa: There are also those of us who immensely enjoy field work,
collect decent amounts of data, and are willing to share it, but lack the
time, $, and/or skills to properly analyze it. And would appreciate any desk
jockeys assistance with developing models... As well, our data is oft times
viewed with skepticism-due to improper technique, improper sample
methodology, relatively small areas and amounts of data, not having history
of publication, and many other reasons {including a battle of ego and Id (or
Super ID and Sub Ego and variants thereof)}-and therefore, unfortunately,
goes unreported...
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU]On Behalf Of Layton, Deborah
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 2:58 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
I would also submit that many scientists, who spend a lot of time, energy,
sweat and skin out in the field may be somewhat reluctant to share data with
those who like to sit in air-conditioned offices and build models based on
data that others have obtained. It may not be a very progressive way to
think, but I think that this could be part of the reason...
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Nuttle [mailto:Tim.Nuttle@UNI-JENA.DE]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 1:35 PM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
Ecology and other journals published by ESA provide this type of service in
their online repository "Ecological Archives". There are such things as SAS
code, raw data files, and equation derivations, that take up a lot of space
in print but are potentially useful for others. There is also the
opportunity to publish "data papers" that allow dissemination of large data
sets without synthesis or testing theories (although currently there is only
one on the website).
The website is:
http://www.esapubs.org/esapubs/archive/archive.htm
Tim Nuttle
Institute of Ecology
Friedrich Schiller University
Dornburger Strasse 159
D-07743 Jena
Germany
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Whitacre" <dwhitacre@peregrinefund.org>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 6:37 PM
Subject: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
> At the moment, I am reading many papers that examine life history =
> correlates of body size. I have noticed something very frustrating to
> me, which probably impedes the march of science, and that is: the rarit
=
> with which raw data are published.
>
> Thus, we have the specter of earlier investigators having compiled =
> hundreds or thousands of data points, by laborious combing of the =
> literature and extracting data from museum skins or tags (in the presen
=
> instance).
>
> In many cases, later workers revisit the same topics, using newer, =
> better statistical methods, and/or partly different (often enlarged) =
> data sets. In some cases, workers are unable to reconstruct what data =
> were included in the initial studies. In the case of the truly massive
> earlier studies, the probability of someone reconstructing the same dat
=
> set on their own is quite small, given one's limited time and other =
> constraints.
>
> Sometimes researchers include a comment "Data available upon request."
> These data are NOT always available upon request--at least, not after =
> the passage of a few years.
>
> Perhaps ideally, we would all add such data to a publicly available =
> on-line data bank--does such exist?=20
>
> At any rate, I believe that our science would progress more rapidly--an
=
> I, for one, would have more fun--if raw data were more often published
> along with journal articles.=20
>
> Perhaps this could be assisted by use of a minute font size for data =
> appendices. Or perhaps (radical notion) a CD with raw data for the =
> entire journal issue could be included inside the back cover.
>
> David Whitacre
> The Peregrine Fund
> 5668 West Flying Hawk Lane
> Boise, Idaho 83709
> (208) 362-3716
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:34:08 +0100
From: William Silvert <wsilvert@MILPAH.COM>
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
I have received several messages both on and off the list suggesting that I
misinterpreted Deborah Layton's message (see below). She is the only one who
can clarify how she feels, but certainly there is a lot of hostility towards
theorists in ecology, and it doesn't really help us move forward. The
feeling that theorists are parasites who suck the data out of hard working
researchers is wide-spread, and the consequence is (as Deborah points out)
hoarding of data and reluctance to let anyone else interpret it.
I have generally had good relationships with experimentalists and have
written many joint papers, but I get some rude shocks sometimes. In most
fields data are considered public once they have been published, but I have
been contacted by experimentalists who claim that if I use their published
data, I have to list them as co-authors. I even had one nasty episode where
I needed someone's data, and although he promised me that I would see them
as soon as they were "worked up", he went and published them without
contacting me. But OK, I took the data from his published paper and wrote my
own analysis. He filed a formal protest with my supervisor, claiming that I
had no right to use even his published data without his explicit permission.
Of course his protest didn't get anywhere, but what really bothered me was
that this wasn't a matter of some arcane ecological study - this was a
matter of predicting shellfish toxicity in an area where a couple of people
had already died because the monitoring program did not provide accurate
toxin levels.
Ironically, this hostility towards theory is part of the reason why
theoretical ecologists sometimes go off on tangents and generate results
that are nonsensical from a biological point of view. If the
experimentalists won't talk to them, they work on their own, and yet they
could use the insight that is denied them. We really would be better off
working together.
I'll end this diatribe with one of my favourite anecdotes. My lab once
employed a post-doc who was studying the growth efficiency of amphipods.
Since this was an interest of mine, I asked him if we could work together.
He refused, explaining that this was a real scientific study, based on
laboratory data, and he didn't need any theorist going off on flights of
fancy. At the end of his research program his supervisor suggested that he
try starving the amphipods. He did, and they continued to grow very well!
The moral of this story, in case you haven't guessed? If you ignore
theoretical principals, they have a way of cropping up and hitting you over
the head.
Bill Silvert
PS - Dave McNeely referred to E. O. Wilson as an example of someone who
combined field work with theory. It's a good example, but I am reminded that
Richard Feynman, who certainly ranks with Albert Einstein as one of the
greatest theoretical physicists of all time, wrote a chapter in his
autobiographical essay "Surely you are joking Mr. Feynman" about experiments
he carried out on ant behaviour in his kitchen. On occasions when I have
dared to mention this to sociobiologists, they respond with fury at the idea
that this amateur should dare tread upon their ground. Experimentalists
generally seem to feel that the role of theorists should be restricted to
analysisng the data that they have collected - the idea that a theorist
could actually design an experiment, or contribute to planning field
research, is not only rejected, but scorned. Pity.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Layton, Deborah" <dlayton@DEP.NYC.GOV>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: A complaint to journal editors everywhere
> I would also submit that many scientists, who spend a lot of time, ener
y,
> sweat and skin out in the field may be somewhat reluctant to share data
with
> those who like to sit in air-conditioned offices and build models based
on
> data that others have obtained. It may not be a very progressive way t
> think, but I think that this could be part of the reason...
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:52:47 -0500
From: "D. Liane Cochran-Stafira" <cochran@SXU.EDU>
Subject: News: US Rivers Being Depleted By Anthropogenic Demands
Read this only if you want to be really depressed. Sometimes I think I
should take a job with the Nature Conservancy or something like it and feel
like I'm accomplishing something tangible. I'm having one of those "really
fed up with these students" type of weeks and it's only Monday! Oh well, I
have a really good freshman in my lab now, who will hopefully stick around
for a while. I hope the new guy (behavioral ecologist) doesn't snag her awa
.
Later,
Liane
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 18:24:45 -0700 (PDT)
>To: Environmental Ecology News <envecolnews@yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: News: US Rivers Being Depleted By Anthropogenic Demands
>
>http://ens-news.com/ens/apr2003/2003-04-10-10.asp
>
>Water Demands Draining U.S. Rivers
>
>By J.R. Pegg
>
>WASHINGTON, DC, April 10, 2003 (ENS) - Many of America's rivers are
>suffering from severe water shortages, with drought and human water
>consumption placing some of these waterways in acute peril, warns a new
>report released today by American Rivers.
>
>The conservation organization's report, "America's Most Endangered River
>of 2003," details 10 rivers that face immediate and severe danger, but
>paints a larger picture of a nation tumbling towards a possible water
>crisis.
>
>"America's seemingly insatiable demand for fresh water is nearing nature
s
>limits," American Rivers President Rebecca Wodder told reporters at
>today's press conference. "And we have designed much of the human
>landscape to make the problem worse, not better."
>
>At the center of the concern is a simple fact - the United States uses
>more water per person than any other country with little regard for wast
>or cost. The U.S. average of 1,300 gallons per day is some 60 times the
>average for many developing countries, according to the World Water
>Council, with some 85 percent used to for irrigation.
>
>[Photograph omitted]
> The Ipswich River is being starved of water by excessive groundwate
>pumping and human consumption. (Photo courtesy American Rivers)
>
>U.S. irrigation habits, urban sprawl, increased groundwater pumping and
>loss of wetlands are endangering the nation's rivers and draining its
>fresh water supply, Wodder explained, and more often than not government
>policies are making things worse.
>
>Two federal government projects, one to drain 300 square miles of wetlan
s
>and another to scour more than 100 miles of river bottom, put
>Mississippi's Big Sunflower River at the top of this year's list. These
>U.S. Army Corps of Engineer flood control projects are poised to go
>forward this year, unless reviews by state officials or the U.S.
>Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) judge otherwise.
>
>"Unless the EPA stands up to political armtwisting," Wodder said, "the
>Corps of Engineers will drain and scrape the life out of the Big Sunflow
r
>River to help a small number of farms collect bigger subsidy checks from
>American taxpayers."
>
>[Photograph omitted]
> Americans love pristine rivers for relaxation and recreation, but t
e
>nation's water use choices are putting many rivers in danger. (Photo by
>Mark Lance courtesy American Rivers)
>
>The effects of federal agricultural policy and subsidies have had a seve
e
>impact on the Klamath River, which is the second cited by American River
.
>
>The Bush administration's decision to increase irrigation flows to farme
s
>in the upper region of the river contributed to the deaths of some 33,00
>salmon last September. This was the worst recorded fish kill in U.S.
>history.
>
>Balancing the water needs of competing interests in the Klamath River
>Basin is not easy, said Representative Mike Thompson, a California
>Democrat. But the Bush administration's policy, by pitting upstream
>farmers against conservationists and fishers, is an attempt "to shoehorn
a
>political solution to a scientific problem," Thompson said at today's
>press conference.
>
>"The problem with the Klamath River is a uniquely local problem that is
>unfortunately exacerbated by this administration's policies," he said.
>
>[Photograph omitted]
> Low water levels contributed to a massive fish kill in the Klamath
>River last September. (Photo by Northcoast Environmental Center courtesy
>American Rivers)
>
>Thompson introduced legislation in the House today that would allocate
>$200 million to landowners and tribes throughout the Klamath Basin who
>participate in water conservation projects. It is designed to bring
>together stakeholders from the upper and lower basin, Thompson explained
>to "eliminate competing interests and find feasible solutions."
>
>"The communities within the Klamath Basin cannot afford to wait any
>longer," he said.
>
>Severe water shortages earned the Ipswich River the number three slot on
>the list, but it is not agricultural policy that is causing the crisis i
>the Massachusetts river. It is excessive groundwater pumping and municip
l
>water consumption that leave portions of the river dry each summer.
>
>The river often looks more like a dirt road, said Kerry Mackin, executiv
>director of the Ipswich River Watershed Association.
>
>"We count more dead fish than living fish," Mackin said.
>
>The combination of excessive municipal water consumption and groundwater
>pumping are directly related and threaten water supplies across the
>nation, warned Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of
>Arizona and author of the book "Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and t
e
>Fate of America's Fresh Waters."
>
>[Photograph omitted]
> Low water levels at the Platte River could have a negative impact o
>migrating waterfowl, including the sandhill crane. (Photo courtesy U.S.
>National Park Service)
>
>The United States now pumps some 28 trillion gallons of groundwater ever
>year, Glennon explained, with little regard for how this affects the
>hydrological cycle.
>
>"We are allowing limitless access to a finite resource," he said. "There
>is a disconnect between the law and science."
>
>Pumping groundwater, Glennon explained, reduces the natural flow of wate
>into the nation's rivers and depletes a resource that took thousands of
>years to accumulate. But as demand for water increases, local and state
>entities are increasingly looking below ground for additional supply.
>
>This has created a direct threat to the Platte River, which is on the
>endangered list, and threatens to undermine an agreement to secure
>adequate flows in the Platte River and to protect its adjacent wetlands.
>
>The Platte River, which runs through Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska, is
>considered by conservationists to be the most important stopover for
>migratory birds in the nation's heartland.
>
>Excessive diversion and consumption are also responsible for putting the
>Rio Grande on this year's list, Wodder explained, and water flow issues
>also led the organization to put Colorado's Gunnison River on its list.
>
>In part because of population growth, the nation's municipal water
>consumption is the fastest growing sector of U.S. water use, in particul
r
>from low density sprawl development.
>
>This is a serious concern for the Mattaponi River, which makes the
>endangered list because it is threatened by a planned reservoir that wou
d
>provide water for the sprawling cities of Virginia's Tidewater region.
>
>[Photograph omitted]
> Virginia's Mattaponi River is considered one of the most pristine
>coastal river systems on the eastern seaboard. (Photo by G. Warren
>Mountacastle, Jr. courtesy American Rivers)
>
>"Healthy watersheds capture and store water for human and natural needs,
>but sprawl development creates landscapes that shed water like a
>raincoat," Wodder said. "Water rushing down storm drains when it rains i
>water that will not come up from your well when it is sunny."
>
>Wodder also warned that the Bush administration's decision to revise the
>scope of the Clean Water Act's protection for wetlands could add to the
>long list of threats to the nation's rivers. Conservationists believe th
>reinterpretation of the law by the administration effectively removed
>protection for as much as 20 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48
>states.
>
>"Draining, filling or paving over wetlands and small streams sets off a
>chain reaction that eventually reduces the water available in river for
>people and wildlife," Wodder explained. "As wetlands are lost, flash
>floods increase but less rainfall soaks into the ground. As groundwater
>levels fall, springs dry up and stream flows drop."
>
>U.S. Representative James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat, told reporters
>at the press conference that he supports a legislative effort to reverse
>the Supreme Court decision that the Bush administration has used to
>justify its narrow reinterpretation of what constitutes a protected
>wetland under the Clean Water Act.
>
>"The Supreme Court decision is undermining a 30 year effort to improve
>America's waterways," Oberstar said. "We have to get back on track to wh
t
>the Clean Water Act intended."
>
>The other rivers on the list are Colorado's Gunnison River, which is
>burdened by unnatural water flows, along with the Snake River and
>Georgia's Tallapoosa River, which are both threatened by impacts from
>dams, and the Trinity River in Texas, which could be severely affected b
>planned flood control and floodplain projects.
>
>The water issues that are affecting America's rivers will only get more
>serious, said Glennon, and will require strong leadership at the local,
>state and federal levels of government.
>
>"This is a tragedy of the commons," he said. "We need to start to
>recognize the economic value of water."
>
>To access a copy of the report, see www.americanrivers.org
>
> * * *
>
>Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2003. All Rights Reserved.
>
>==========
> ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this materia
>is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior intere
t
>in receiving the included information for research and educational
>purposes. **
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>envecolnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
envecolnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>To manage your settings, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/envecolnew
/
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:54:10 -0500
From: "D. Liane Cochran-Stafira" <cochran@SXU.EDU>
Subject: Yikes - sorry
Hit the wrong address by mistake - of course the sentiment doesn't change.
It is depressing to read such news.
Sorry.
***************************
Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Biology
Saint Xavier University
3700 West 103rd Street
Chicago, Illinois 60655
phone: 773-298-3514
fax: 773-779-9061
email: cochran@sxu.edu
http://www.sxu.edu/science/faculty_staff/cochran_stafira/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:14:09 -0500
From: Max Taub <taubm@SOUTHWESTERN.EDU>
Subject: Visiting Ecologist Faculty Position, Southwestern University
Southwestern University
Ecologist
The Southwestern University Department of Biology invites broadly
trained Ecologists to apply for a one-year visiting appointment at the
level of Assistant Professor to begin August 2003 and continue through
the 2003-04 academic year. A PhD. in biology, or a closely related
field, and a strong commitment to undergraduate teaching are required.
Previous teaching experience with undergraduate students is preferred.
The successful candidate will most likely teach Ecology and
Environmental Science in the fall of 2003 and Evolution and
Environmental Science in the spring of 2004.
Southwestern University is a selective, undergraduate institution
committed to a broad-based liberal arts, science, and fine arts
education. Southwestern currently enrolls approximately 1,250 students
and maintains a student to faculty ratio of 11 to 1. The University s
endowment ranks among the highest per student of undergraduate
institutions in the country. In addition to a number of other national
organizations, Southwestern University is a member of two consortia of
liberal arts colleges, the Associated Colleges of the South and the
Annapolis Group. Located in Georgetown, Texas, 28 miles north of Austin,
Southwestern is affiliated with The United Methodist Church and is
committed to fostering a diverse educational environment. Therefore,
Southwestern encourages applications from all qualified candidates. For
information concerning the University, visit our web site at
www.southwestern.edu.
To apply: email a letter of interest, CV, and statements of teaching and
research philosophies to shellerr@southwestern.edu. The search committee
will begin reviewing application packets on April 28, 2003 and will
continue until the position is filled. Southwestern University is an
Equal Opportunity Employer. EOE/M/F
--
_____________________________
Daniel Taub
Biology Department
Southwestern University
1001 East University Avenue
Georgetown, TX 78626
tel: (512) 863-1583
fax (512) 863-1696
taubd@southwestern.edu
______________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 08:46:05 -0700
From: "Janisch, Jack" <JAJA461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: Summer Field Crew Internships, Washington Department of Ecology
please post
*****************************************************************
Washington Sate Department of Ecology
Position Announcements (Temporary/Seasonal)
Classification: Administrative Intern 2 (Environmental), Olympia, WA
Description: $11.25/hour DOQ. Starting date: May-June 2003, Ending
date: Fall 2003. Two positions will be filled depending on funding. Work
schedule is expected to be full time.
Qualifications: Intern 2: Possess a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of
Science degree from an accredited college or university; For full job
classification descriptions and qualifications see http:
//hr.dop.wa.gov/lib/hrdr/00000//09950.htm
(note many elists do not allow hyperlinks so remove the spaces to enable the
links)
Closing Date: April 30, 2003
Duties: Interns serve as field assistants on 2-member crews during
collection of regional stream and air temperature data related to new State
of Washington
forestry practices rules. These are primarily field positions focusing in
2003 on public and private second-growth forest riparian zones in Western
Washington. Work will be based in Olympia, WA and housing is not provided.
Responsibilities may include placement and recovery of data loggers
throughout the field season and maintenance of detailed field notes,
documentation by hemispherical photography, data entry, interpreting maps,
driving state vehicles, and other tasks as requested. Valuable prior
experience includes ability to read GIS 7.5 topos, navigate by compass, hike
through forests and along rivers, familiarity with fish/amphibian habitat
characteristics, familiarity with spreadsheets and dbase programs such as
Access, general field safety practices, use of laser range finders. Some
opportunities to use ArcView may exist. The position requires attention to
detail, legible handwriting, ability to hike over rugged terrain with field
gear, travel throughout the state as necessary, and tolerance of long field
hours and inclement weather.
Interns are eligible for overtime compensation (when working >40 hrs/week
and per diem as defined by agency policies. Health insurance is only
available for positions scheduled to work minimally seven months.
To apply: For complete instructions, including where to send your
application, visit www. ecy.wa.gov/jobs/jobs.html Apply for the F&F
Program internship (riparian forestry and water temp monitoring). Include a
completed, hand-written State of Washington job application and resume,
including two references. Letters of recommendation are not needed.
For further information:
Jack Janisch
Environmental Assessment Program
Washington Department of Ecology
email: jaja461@ecy.wa.gov; phone: 360.407.6649
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 11:59:05 -0400
From: Shauna Dendy <sdendy@KSU.EDU>
Subject: Summer 2003 REU position, Konza Prairie, Kansas
Summer 2003 REU position, Konza Prairie, Kansas
We are studying the ecology and epidemiology of plant disease in the
tallgrass prairie at Konza Prairie Biological Station. The influence of
plant disease in natural systems is an area of emerging interest, since most
work in plant pathology has been done in agricultural systems to date. See
www.ksu.edu/pdecology for information about research in the Plant Disease
Ecology Lab with Dr. Karen Garrett. The REU program this summer will provide
the intern with hands-on experience in the lab, field and greenhouse. The
intern will help to design an experiment, carry it out, analyze the results
and make a presentation about the research. This is an excellent
opportunity for the student who wants real research experience. See
http://climate.konza.ksu.edu for more information about Konza Prairie.
This is a paid internship funded by the National Science Foundation.
Applicants must be U. S. citizens or permanent residents and be enrolled as
undergraduates. Applicants must have a valid driver^Òs license and be able
to work in the field. Housing is available for interns from other areas.
To apply, send a resume to sdendy@ksu.edu or to the address below. Include
in the resume your addresses and phone numbers, work history, course work in
the life sciences (a copy of your transcript is fine) and GPA. You will need
a letter of recommendation from someone who can assess your qualifications
in the life sciences. Please have the letter sent directly to us by mail,
e-mail or fax. Applicants should have a background in biology or related
field. To learn more, contact sdendy@ksu.edu or call 785-532-1347. Mailing
address: Shauna Dendy, attn. REU, 4024 Throckmorton, Dept. of Plant
Pathology, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506. Fax number:
785-532-5692. Faxes should include a header addressed to S. Dendy.
Screening of applicants begins immediately and will continue until a
suitable candidate is found. Kansas State University is an equal
opportunity, affirmative action employer and actively seeks diversity among
its students.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 14:02:10 +0000
From: Paul Cherubini <monarch@SABER.NET>
Subject: Re: Yikes - sorry
D. Liane Cochran-Stafira wrote:
>
> Hit the wrong address by mistake - of course the sentiment doesn't chan
e.
> It is depressing to read such news.
I wasn't particularly upset by the article because the press release
did not provide any substantial quantitative information backing up
it's claim that "many American rivers are in acute peril" due to
human water consumption. Instead, we just saw alot of emotionally
laced terminology and speculation being used like "peril" "tumbling
towards a crisis" "insatiable demand" "river being starved" "scrape
the life out of" etc.
If human water consumption was truly having such a devastating impact
then it should be easy explain why this is the case in a more calm and
reasoned manner using quantitative data.
Example: the article states: "The Bush administration's decision to
increase irrigation flows to farmers in the upper region of the river
contributed to the deaths of some 33,000 salmon last September.
This was the worst recorded fish kill in U.S. history." Why not just
tell us some quantitative facts like how much water normally flows in
the Klamath River during an average precipitation year, how much flows
during wet years and during droughts and how much has historially
been diverted for irrigation during both wet years and droughts and
how much of a diversion increase the Bush administration's
decision really amounted to? And for how many years have salmon
fish kills on the Klamath River been censused? Past droughts have
been far more severe than recent droughts.
Failure of the article to provide substantial quantitative
information leads me to suspect the primary objective of the press
release was to frighten the public which in turn would tend to
motivate some into mailing a donation check to American Rivers.
Paul Cherubini
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 17:40:24 -0400
From: Ellen M Rogers <ellenm@SEACOAST.COM>
Subject: Wildlife Management Field Courses, South Africa
Course Announcement: Wildlife Management Field Courses, South Africa
8 credits from the University of Pretoria
(Apologies for cross-posting)
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT FIELD COURSES
EcoLife Expeditions, South Africa
International Universities Program
SESSIONS OFFERED:
16 May - 14 June 2003
20 June - 19 July 2003
25 July - 23 August 2003
ACADEMIC CREDITS: 8 credits from the University of Pretoria.
COST: $2600 (US dollars)
Join us for our wildlife management course where the African bush is our
classroom. Learn about managing African wildlife as we travel through
the African savannah studying real life parks and participating in
hands-on projects.
Our 30 day Wildlife Management Courses are for students and
professionals interested in African conservation. The course includes
lectures, classes and hands-on projects taught by instructors from the
University of Pretoria's Centre for Wildlife Management.
Course participants interact with the research scientists and wildlife
professionals in the field, and our participants get involved in
on-going research. Lectures, classes and projects take place throughout
the trip from our mobile classroom.
COURSE TOPICS:
* Wildlife Management Techniques
* Sustainable Resource Utilization
* Ecosystem and Biodiversity Conservation
* Reserve and Resort Management
* African Local Community Cultures and Conservation Perspectives
* Africa Tourism Principles and Historical Sites
Our program is open to students of all ages as well as professionals in
wildlife biology, wildlife management, conservation, ecotourism and
rural peoples sociology.
The course is divided into two parts, as follows:
ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT
Taking biotic and abiotic factors of each region into account, we
participate in formulating management strategies for game animals in the
different ecosystems that we will examine. As a part of the experience,
we learn about the adaptation of game to specific areas and the dynamics
of game populations under these conditions. Topics that we will cover
include animal behavior, water utilisation, game condition, diseases,
parasites, nutrition, feed selection, game capture and relocation.
PEOPLE IN CONSERVATION
In this section, we learn about grazing and browse capacity and general
concepts of carrying capacity in a multi-species park. This includes
tourist carrying capacity and how to manage a game lodge in a way that
maximizes the experience of the tourist yet minimizes the impact on the
environment. We learn about road layout and fire as a management tool.
You will also learn about the importance of historical and cultural
sites and see first hand how many of these places are maintained by
local communities for a livelihood as a part of ecotourism.
WHO WE ARE
EcoLife is endorsed by the Centre for Wildlife Management at the
University of Pretoria. The Centre for Wildlife Management has been
producing graduates in Wildlife Management since 1965, and many leaders
in the field have qualified from this school. By drawing on the
outstanding expertise and experience of the staff and graduate students
from the Centre, EcoLife offers a unique experience to those with a
special interest in wildlife.
OUR MISSION
The mission of EcoLife Expeditions is to provide an exclusive, in-depth,
educational experience to people with a special interest in wildlife,
equipping them to make contributions to the sustainable management of
natural resources.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
EMAIL: education@ecolife.co.za
Thank you,
Prof. Van Hoven
U. Pretoria
education@ecolife.co.za
Ecolife Expeditions
976 Duncan Street
Brooklyn
Pretoria 0181
South Africa.
PHONE: +27 12 460 5430
FAX: +27 12 460 9707
EMAIL: education@ecolife.co.za
URL: www.ecolife.co.za
------------------------------
End of ECOLOG-L Digest - 13 Apr 2003 to 14 Apr 2003 (#2003-101)
***************************************************************
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
Thanks to discussion with TVR, I have decided to put a link to back files of the discussion group. This months back files.
The link to complete archives is available elsewhere.
This text was originally an e-mail. It was converted using a program
RUPANTAR- a simple e-mail-to-html converter.
(c)Kolatkar Milind. kmilind@ces.iisc.ernet.in