As I have mentioned before on here, I have a lot of personal records on my copy of MapMate. The vast majority of these are of moths, and moreover the majority of records across all orders are from VC55. Beyond that, I have lots of 'records' of things I have seen and photographed whilst out and about that have not got onto my MapMate as yet - but will in time.
All of my moth records have been submitted directly with the various VC Recorders. VC55 beetle records have been shared with the County Recorder, and most of the VC55 bugs have been similarly shared. Beyond that, records of odd bits from VC55 have been submitted via NatureSpot but there is plenty of scope for me to increase my record sharing.
I have always felt that providing records via the recognised county authority (ie the County Recorder for whatever order) is best. Having contact and dialogue with your County Recorder is invaluable, both ways. You know your records are appreciated and being put to use, and you build a rapport which creates trust and confidence in your records and recording capability. I have not thought about it too much in a National context until now. I am sure that my moth records (certainly from VC55) have been onwardly submitted to relevant National recording schemes, but I am not so convinced that it fully works in reverse. Up until know I have been reticent to use National platforms, notably
iRecord, as I don't know who (if anyone) is making use of the record and if they get shared back to the County Recorders. I'm also aware that lots of records sit on there in limbo awaiting verification, and recorders don't necessarly get timely or perhaps any feedback. Maybe it's all just down to me being, dare I say it, old fashioned!
What was clear from both the moth and beetle conferences I attended is that there is a general push from Recording Scheme organisers for recorders to use iRecord. I had only submitted one record directly via this platform, but everything that is put onto NatureSpot is sucked through to it as it uses the same database platform and protocols. So despite only having directly submitted one record, I am (just) within the top 100 iRecorders in the UK by species.
Stenus bimaculatus, Flagham Fen, Costwolds 23/03/2018 - submitted to iRecord
I've decided I really should start submitting records for everything that is out of VC55 and not a moth, as even if they are not immediately ratified and utilised they are there if needed whereas they are of absolutley no use sitting on my MapMate purely as a personal record. I will continue to supply VC55 records either directly to the relevant Recorder or NatureSpot. I am conscious of the risk of record duplication, but the odd moth or beetle will go on NatureSpot as well as direct submission as there is value in adding to the photographic resource for the VC. Either way I will certainly try to be more methodical this year and get casual records submitted as I go.
Getting older records onto iRecord will be more ad hoc. I put a couple on last night, mainly to remind myself of how the system works. I'll get a few more on before this year's activity properly kicks in.
Note you can see my last records submitted via NatureSpot on there too.
I would be interested to hear how others approach their record submission, and thoughts/experiences with iRecord. Give me a warm feeling that I will not be wasting my time.
I've realised that over the last few weeks, despite stating I would not be setting myself any 2020 objectives, I've managed to inadvertently talk myself into a few personal recording challenges for the year:
- increase my personal records on MapMate to 84000 by end 2020
- have an updated look at my garden molluscs - anything new?
- target leafmining moths
- increase my vascular plant list by actively trying to add c50 common VC55 species
- make use of newly acquired literature / keys
- increase my garden beetle list
- submit more records, both locally and Nationally, methodically
