Butterfly counts and money

[Dawn, Douglas]

Some observations on this issue:

I understand from all the mail on this issue that the $3 partly supports
is the publication of the results of the counts.  Afterwards, that sale
of the published results has enough revenue to provide the rest of the
support needed.  Two reasons have been confirmed in prior e-mails for
the need for the compilation of counts which is published:

1. Scientific/ecological research.
2. "Vanity" of those participants involved to seeing their name in
print.

Additionally it was clarified that this was not happening to any of the
$3:
1. Utilization for anti-collecting campaigning, which happens to be a
personal project of NABA's current President.

Why I might not agree that "vanity" be an appropriate description for
the time, money and effort one puts into contributing to science (any
more than a mother who feels satisfaction upon her baby recognizing her
as "Mom"), would it not be logical to assign ALL the cost solely in the
sale of the publication, which drives the cost and only exists thanks to
the contributors?

The system could be something like this: 1- estimate total publication
cost for next year.  2- spread over sales this year 3- put difference in
bank account managed by NABA/Xerces.  4- solicit tax deductable
contributions to start program, or phase in by progressive reduction of
$3. (I assume the current $3 is tax deductable??).

Not that anyone anywhere with the resources to count and identify
butterflies couldn't ante up the $3.  I think this is clearly that some
people are having problems with the concept which could be viewed as
having a flawed method for assigning cost to those creating the value to
begin with.

Imagine if we charged contributers $1 per lep observation to officially
include in the sources generating range maps and original research.
Perhaps this issue was not originally thought out well for some
potential contributers and has now become institutionalized.  Comments
anyone?

saludos
Doug Dawn
Monterrey, Mexico
stelenes at pobox.com
 ----------
From: aa051 at chebucto.ns.ca
To: LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu; cpk at europa.clark.net;
news.istar.n at News1.Ottawa.iSTAR.net; nntp-user at news.dal.ca
Subject: Re: Butterfly counts and money
Date: Miercoles 25 de Junio de 1997 5:50AM

msa at anise.tte.vtt.fi (Markku Savela) writes:

> This thread makes me wonder what these "butterfly counts" are! My
> impression was, that they were for getting people to volunteer their
> own time and resources to freely provide scientific information,
> instead of "circus events" for which you pay to attend.
>
> Must be some misunderstanding? I hope the fee is only, if you take
> part in guided event, to cover some immediate costs for the
> arrangements?
>
> I assume you can always "do the count" on your own. Would be rather
> silly for NABA or AUBUDON to refuse information with comment "You
> didn't pay the reporting fee, we don't accept your free
> information!!!"

and Paul_Opler at NBS.GOV (Paul Opler) [Count Co-editor and NABA V.P.]
writes:

> Jim: The participant fee is in line and is even less than
> that charged by the Audubon Society for participation in the
> Christmas bird count. Quite simply, the money is used to
> defray the cost of the count publication. The money collected
> doesn't quite cover costs, but sales of the publication
> finish up the costs. It certainly not a profit-making
> activity. For further breakdown, you might write Jeff a note.

My information may not be quite current but I recall the time when the
Audubon Society began to charge participant fees' to defray publication
costs. As I recall they will gladly accept the results of your count
(for
purposes of data analysis - which is hopefully what this exercise is all
about) even if no fees are remitted, simply that the results will not be
printed in the National Audubon journal.

Perhaps, if it does not already have such a policy in place, the NABA
might consider doing so, so as not to exclude those who may not be able
to round up the resources.  Perhaps the arrangement could be that only
the
names of those participants who remitted the fee would be published.
Thus
if you are concerned about the vanity of having your name appear in the
publication, you can ante up the $3 fee to help put it there!

Paul?

Cheers!

Christopher Majka
 --
| Christopher Majka - Editor-in-Chief: Chebucto Community Net
  |
| Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada  |  also Editor: Culture & Philosophy
  |
| URL: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Culture.html EMail
<aa051 at chebucto.ns.ca  |