Social media as a scientific data gathering tool? Seriously?
Is this what budget cuts have reduced Parks Canada to?
Has a once-proud organization which prided itself on solid science as a means of managing ecosystems within national parks across this country been reduced to relying on casual observations, via Facebook and Twitter, to monitor (page 9) white-tailed deer migration?
In the past, on this very page, we’ve commented on how data collection by other than scientific methods is of very little value. Would using social media as a means of counting deer vary greatly from when provincial authorities cut back on scientific counting of bears to discern how many are on the ground in this province?
Concerning bear counts, a decision was made that anecdotal evidence would be gathered from people in the field (i.e., ranchers, hunters) as a means of gathering data.
At the time, we commented on the idea that, should bears be spotted in a given area by 10 people who then reported in, did that mean 10 bears were spotted, or did 10 people spot a bear? What weight would a report of 10 bears then be given?
Within the bowels of Parks Canada’s own website, under Ecosystem Management, subtitled Ecosystem Principles, it is stated that ecosystem management must be credible and solidly based in science. Social media is fine to let friends know where you’re going for lunch, but as a scientific tool?
Now, we realize the Tweet/Facebook method of data collection is a Parks experiment, but in no way should results gathered be given much credence as there are far too many variables which could easily reduce its value.
For example, how many people driving down a road can actually identify a white-tail, as opposed to a mule deer? For that matter, there are people out there who can’t differentiate between deer and elk. And again, driving past at 120 km/h, as many are wont to do, would an accurate count be made? If 15 reports of 20 deer are sent, would that be representative of multiple reports of a single herd of 20 deer? Would it represent 300 animals?
And what staffer would be tasked with plowing through social media reports while attempting to get an accurate picture of what a bunch of tourists believe they saw? Would a staffer be available, based on jobs already lost due to federal cutbacks?
As per www.pc.gc.ca/eng/progs/np-pn/eco/eco1.aspx – management must be guided by the establishment of clear, practical and measurable objectives that are consistent with the park management plan and by the strict application of science in the collection and interpretation of research and monitoring data.
‘Nough said?
Speaking of Parks cutbacks, we wonder if the reason the national body has been tasked with cutting jobs to help out with a federal deficit slash of $5.2 billion is related to (again, reviewing Parks’ website) an admission that, “Canada’s climate is changing (www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/v-g/ie-ei/cc/index.aspx). The changes will affect all our national parks. In fact, a changing climate is one of the threats to the ecological integrity of the national parks system.
“The Parks Canada Agency is studying the phenomenon of climate change and identifying measures to address the challenges. These measures include adapting park management to accommodate inevitable changes and reducing energy consumption in the Agency’s operations.”
Climate change? That’s hardly in keeping with Harper’s feds. Maybe Parks cutbacks are punishment for not sticking to the federal Conservative playbook.
