Category proposal: man-made habitats

[+netdust]

Hi all,

 

What do you think about a category for something like "man-made habitats for one or a specific group of wild animals or plants" ?

I was thinking for example of things like

• 
   
  
• a small pond created in a school project to support a locally endangered toad species
  
• a town that creates a patch of grassland on their town hall's flat roof to allow certain wild flowers to grow
  
• Some time ago, someone asked in the forums about a category for an old cellar that has been modified to make a bat shelter. This would also go in here nicely.
  

To be more specific, I was thinking about the following requirements/suggestions:

• Must be for wild animals/plants, which excludes zoos, aquariums, gardens ...
  
• The habitat itself must have been created by man, so nature reserves and the like are also excluded. Also areas actively preserved by nature conservation organisations by actions such as regular mowing, cleaning etc. are excluded, because nothing new is created
  
• The habitat must have been created with the intention of creating a habitat, so things like an abandoned stone wall that has by chance become the home of a rare lizard species is excluded. If someone put a fence around the stone wall and put an information board there, it is still excluded, because the fence is not part of the habitat
  
• Creation of the habitat can of course make use of given surroundings at the site, so if someone put more stones around the lizards' wall, planted some bushes or whatever is necessary to improve the site for the lizards, it would be ok
  
• Creation of the habitat must have been with one specific species or a specific group of species in mind, so just if someone planted some trees just to get a forest, it would not be included, nor would be an artificial lake that is there simply because it is nice to have a lake, regardless of how many rare birds live there now. I think this will probably limit the category to small and medium projects, as intended.
  
• Feeding places do not count as habitats in my definition
  
• I would also like to exclude small animal shelters like nesting boxes (too many, not interesting), insect hotels (own category) and the like, but I am not sure yet how to put cleanly in the category description.
  
• Proof must be given that the requirements are met (man-made, which species?), either by a sign at the site or a relevant web page
  

I would like to hear what you think about this. Of course, the text is far from ready yet, just a write-up of my first ideas.

And please do not shout at me, its my first try with all this category stuff ;-).

[+PISA-caching]

I'm not a category expert and wouldn't even call myself a well-experienced waymarker. However, your idea deserves an answer and if nobody else does, I will reply.

 

In general I like the idea, but with all the exclusions I think it will be pretty hard to find waymarks that do fit in your category regulations.

 

Also, if I think about your example "grassland on their town hall's flat roof to allow certain wild flowers to grow": How do you know, if it was created for wild flowers or maybe it was just grass that over the years was 'captured' by wild flowers? I think you will always need something like a sign or a website that proves that this habitat was created for this specific purpose.

 

Just my personal opinion and sorry for my bad English.

 

Greetings from Vienna, Austria

Andreas

[+netdust]

I think you will always need something like a sign or a website that proves that this habitat was created for this specific purpose.

 

Thank you for your answer.

 

Yes, a sign would of course be required, its the last point in my extensive list. You are right, otherwise it make no sense..

 

I am not use how many locations that fit to the requirements are around. Most of the restrictions were made with the aim to clearly define the sort of place I was looking for. I there are any suggestions how to improve it or make a broader, still meaningful category out of it, you are welcome ...

[+PISA-caching]

I am not use how many locations that fit to the requirements are around. Most of the restrictions were made with the aim to clearly define the sort of place I was looking for. I there are any suggestions how to improve it or make a broader, still meaningful category out of it, you are welcome ...

 

I understand that most of the restrictions (if not all) are necessary. Maybe some more examples would help.

 

Another thing: I wouldn't exclude nesting boxes in general. There are some very interesting ones. For example: In Vienna they put some nesting boxes for Peregrine falcons on former flak towers. You don't see many of these special nesting boxes elsewhere.

 

I really wish that more waymarkers would tell us their opinion. At least we can't complain about waymarkers sending their idea to Peer Review without discussing it in the forum and on the other hand don't reply to new ideas, no?

[+netdust]

Another thing: I wouldn't exclude nesting boxes in general. There are some very interesting ones. For example: In Vienna they put some nesting boxes for Peregrine falcons on former flak towers. You don't see many of these special nesting boxes elsewhere.

 

Yes, that is true, this kind of nesting aid is interesting and I would like to see those in a potential category.

I thought about it a second time and I think the nesting box exclusion can be dropped. I just wanted to exclude simple nesting boxes for small song birds like the ones in my backyard. But I do not need a separate statement for this, because these do no have a sign or webpage, unless I paint one

Then, also other nesting aids could be allowed. e.g. wheels or other nest supports on roofs for storcks.

 

I will try to find sone real-life examples what could be allowed in this category as soon as I find the time. I think there should be enough things around to waymark.

 

However, I wonder if it's really wise to further pursue this idea, as there does not seem to be very much interest from the community in this.

[+lumbricus]

...I really wish that more waymarkers would tell us their opinion. At least we can't complain about waymarkers sending their idea to Peer Review without discussing it in the forum and on the other hand don't reply to new ideas, no?

That's true, at the moment it's very quite here...

[+lumbricus]

Another thing: I wouldn't exclude nesting boxes in general. There are some very interesting ones. For example: In Vienna they put some nesting boxes for Peregrine falcons on former flak towers. You don't see many of these special nesting boxes elsewhere.

 

Yes, that is true, this kind of nesting aid is interesting and I would like to see those in a potential category.

I thought about it a second time and I think the nesting box exclusion can be dropped. I just wanted to exclude simple nesting boxes for small song birds like the ones in my backyard. But I do not need a separate statement for this, because these do no have a sign or webpage, unless I paint one

Then, also other nesting aids could be allowed. e.g. wheels or other nest supports on roofs for storcks.

 

I will try to find sone real-life examples what could be allowed in this category as soon as I find the time. I think there should be enough things around to waymark.

 

However, I wonder if it's really wise to further pursue this idea, as there does not seem to be very much interest from the community in this.

Waymarking nesting boxes isn't the best idea, we should let them their quiet. Post some examples here, minimum three, with pictures etc. taken by yourself. If it should be a problem to get them, the idea isn't the best. It reads very complicated, sorry.

[+netdust]

Post some examples here, minimum three, with pictures etc. taken by yourself. If it should be a problem to get them, the idea isn't the best. It reads very complicated, sorry.

Wow, seriously? Three examples with pictures taken by myself? I wonder how many miles some people do. Or how could categories such as shot towers, Bismarck towers, village pounds, etc. ever have come to life otherwise? I personally like the rarer categories best.

 

Yet, for my proposal, I do NOT think that this is rare. I think there should be quite a few locations in not too large a radius. Problem is, due to my personal situation, I can only drive around to a very limited extent at the moment. I could provide examples for one location in walking distance to my home, the photos of which I have taken this morning. But I think for clarification, links to relevant webpages should do the job as well.

 

But anyhow, maybe you are right and this concept is to complicated. I was in doubt about that, too. Just to defend my cause, there are quite a lot categories which have descriptions/requirements that seem similarly detailed to me. If I had just threwn the potential title on the board, the first comment would probably have been that I should explain further and give a clearer definition. And of course these comments would have been right. Maybe it would also have helped to start with a clearer title, maybe "species conservation installations" or something, but maybe not.

 

Taking everything into account, I will abandon this idea. Thanks to all who replied for their honest feedback!

Edited July 1, 2015 by netdust

[+lumbricus]

...Wow, seriously? Three examples with pictures taken by myself? I wonder how many miles some people do. Or how could categories such as shot towers, Bismarck towers, village pounds, etc. ever have come to life otherwise? I personally like the rarer categories best...

Normally the idea of creating a new category comes in the way if you have discovered things (pictures taken) on your travels and they don't fit in an existing category. Your idea seemed not to be very rare, like shot towers, so I thought 3 examples would be not a big problem.

[+fi67]

I am not generally against this category; it is not really bad, but I do miss some WOW factor. This and a complicated description do not go well together. I do not have the feeling that I could not live without this category.

[+DougK]

I do not have the feeling that I could not live without this category.

In other words, without the double negative: "I have the feeling that I could live without this category."

 

I have to agree.