Why the Feds Aren’t Evil for Wanting Your Data

Biologists typically have many characteristics in common. Perhaps not the first that comes to mind, but a definite commonality, is the responsibility to collect data and information to answer questions.  The difference that might exist among us is the scale at which we use the information or the perspective from which it is interpreted.  In a world of constant change, there is no shortage of complex research and management questions addressing ecological, economic, and social concerns related to our natural resources.  Whether the information gathered is used to conduct scientific research, address a management priority, or inform policy decisions, data of some form are generated.  Sometimes these questions rely on the ability to detect trends and environmental changes at regional, national, and global scales, which requires a great deal of data at multiple spatial and temporal scales.  Often data collected at local scales or over limited time periods are analyzed to answer specific research or management questions and are thereby considered to have fulfilled the immediate need.  However, from a federal national program perspective, these data still have value; it is apparent that many local data efforts rarely meet their full potential.  Decisions are made on what data are available; in the absence of data, decisions of all types and at many levels are still made.  As the need to identify and address landscape level concerns intensifies, the need to combine data of all types becomes increasingly important.  Federal information managers are familiar with the common concerns and fears associated with sharing data, and can work with biologists to both address some of the concerns and help elevate and maximize the value of the work of biologists across the nation to meet our collective responsibility to our natural resources.