Caudata.org

Caudata.org (http://www.caudata.org/forum/)
-   2009 Grant (http://www.caudata.org/forum/f1-general-topics/f5-general-discussion-news-members/f1184-2009-grant/)
-   -   Caudata.org Grant Poll (http://www.caudata.org/forum/f1-general-topics/f5-general-discussion-news-members/f1184-2009-grant/60174-caudata-org-grant-poll.html)

John 5th March 2009 21:51

Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Here are the 17 applications for the 2009 Caudata.org Grant. Voters, before proceeding be sure to read this first. Each voter gets 1 vote. Due to the relatively low number of voters, we may need to hold two rounds to drill down to a more manageable number of applications. Voters will be notified if/when this happens. I wish to reiterate that if you are unsure about an individual grant and what it's talking about, then do ask. We want an informed decision from the voters. If you are anything like me, you will have a lot of thinking to do before deciding (I still haven't), so don't rush unduly. Lastly, I remind you all that only those who donated to the grant get to vote. Thank you.

The Applications for the 2009 Caudata.org Grant, in association with Amphibian Ark
Please read all of the applications before casting your vote - click a grant application in the list below and the grant application should appear on your screen.
  1. Distributional modelling and ecological research on Salamandra algira in Morocco with
    emphasis on different genetic lineages
    - Salamandra algira
  2. Effect of magnetic nanoparticles on newt behavior - Notophthalmus viridescens
  3. Conservation status and systematics of Chiropterotriton multidentatus (Caudata: Plethodontidae) - Chiropterotriton multidentatus
  4. Is chytridiomycosis affecting Appalachian salamanders? - Appalachian salamanders
  5. Habitat preferences of the axolotl (Ambystoma mexicanum) within its refugee’s
    canals
    - Axolotl/Ambystoma mexicanum
  6. Pandi mushroom-tongue salamander Project: Conservation status assessment of a threatened Andean salamander from Colombia - Bolitoglossa pandi
  7. Comparative landscape genetics of two amphibians endemic to the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt of Central Mexico - Mexico Ambystoma & Pseudoeurycea
  8. Systematics of the Pseudoeurycea cephalica group - Pseudoeurycea cephalica
  9. Conservation Genetics of Hellbender Salamanders in New York: the use of mtDNA
    for Population Structure and Diversity Estimates
    - Hellbender/Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
  10. The Salamanders of the Valley de Sibundoy-Mocoa (Putumayo, Colombia) transect - Colombian Bolitoglossa
  11. Continued Surveys for the Fungal Pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in Georgia Salamander Assemblages - Bd in Georgia, USA
  12. Systematics and phylogeny of the species complex Bolitoglossa franklini / lincolni (Caudata: Plethodontidae) - Bolitoglossa franklini
  13. Variation in Four-toed Salamander, Hemidactylium scutatum, Microhabitat Use Across Age Groups and Sexes - Hemidactylium scutatum
  14. Population status, presence of Batrachochythridium dendrobatidis (Bd) and the effect of the Transoceanic highway of Bolitoglossa altamazonica in the Vilcabamba – Amboro corridor in Perú - Peru Bolitoglossa
  15. Survey and assessment of aquatic salamander species in the French Creek Drainage of the Allegheny Basin - Hellbender/Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis and Mudpuppy/Necturus maculosus
  16. Captive propagation of Endangered Guatemalan Salamanders - Guatemalan Bolitoglossa
  17. Survey of Chytrid fungus presence on the three species of salamanders in Peru - Bd in Peru
I remind the voters that we, Caudata.org, are an International Community, and as such each of you should endeavour to be as unbiased in your selection as possible.

John 5th March 2009 22:18

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
This initial poll will close on March 15th. There may be a further poll or polls if necessary.

blueberlin 6th March 2009 10:21

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Hi John and Kevin,

I have two questions. First, is the point of the poll to narrow things down to a single project? Second, the projects are much more specific than I imagined. (I imagined something more like an investment in television advertising or political activism.) Me, I would prefer to cast a vote for a project that would prove most beneficial to the broadest range of amphibians. Is there a way of discerning the broadest potential application from the results of the various projects?

Thanks,

-Eva

Jan 6th March 2009 14:10

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
John, would it be possible for you to post the Caudata.org grant description and guidelines for application? I know you had mentioned in another thread that our grant specifies that we have "a strong preference for supporting projects that involve biologists from the species’ native country" - what other specifications, if any, were outlined in the application procedure? And how was the 'call for application' made/advertised?

John 6th March 2009 17:37

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by blueberlin (Post 181918)
I have two questions. First, is the point of the poll to narrow things down to a single project? Second, the projects are much more specific than I imagined. (I imagined something more like an investment in television advertising or political activism.) Me, I would prefer to cast a vote for a project that would prove most beneficial to the broadest range of amphibians. Is there a way of discerning the broadest potential application from the results of the various projects?

Scientific grants do not work in that fashion. In order to receive a grant from a scientific funding organisation, lots of detail must be provided so that the organisation can make an informed decision knowing that their money will be targeted at a specific issue or area. For small grants like ours, this system is perhaps even more essential to insure that our money has the most effect. I hope this makes sense to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan (Post 181951)
John, would it be possible for you to post the Caudata.org grant description and guidelines for application? I know you had mentioned in another thread that our grant specifies that we have "a strong preference for supporting projects that involve biologists from the species’ native country" - what other specifications, if any, were outlined in the application procedure?

Here: http://www.amphibianark.org/Kevin/Caudata.org-grant.pdf

Quote:

Originally Posted by jan (Post 181951)
And how was the 'call for application' made/advertised?

Kevin made people aware of it. I also wrote to a few organisations (concerned with axolotls) to let them know it was available.

John 6th March 2009 17:41

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Looking at the way the voting is going I think we will be taking all grants that receive more than 1 vote (or 2 - can't say until everyone has voted), and put them in a second poll with a smaller number of candidates, and the winner of that poll will receive the grant.

blueberlin 6th March 2009 19:41

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 181985)
Scientific grants do not work in that fashion. In order to receive a grant from a scientific funding organisation, lots of detail must be provided so that the organisation can make an informed decision knowing that their money will be targeted at a specific issue or area. For small grants like ours, this system is perhaps even more essential to insure that our money has the most effect. I hope this makes sense to you.

Sure, that makes sense. I misunderstood Amphibian Ark - I didn't realize that they were a scientific organisation. I sort of lumped them in with charities in general. "My bad".

I'm still a bit overwhelmed at trying to decide which project would be the most broadly beneficial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 181987)
Looking at the way the voting is going I think we will be taking all grants that receive more than 1 vote (or 2 - can't say until everyone has voted), and put them in a second poll with a smaller number of candidates, and the winner of that poll will receive the grant.

So we will decide on one project? Seems logical as it is just a wee little pot o' gold we have to offer.

-Eva

John 6th March 2009 19:54

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by blueberlin (Post 181997)
So we will decide on one project?

Yes but it my take more than 1 poll because there are only about 30 voters.

Jan 6th March 2009 22:16

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
John, thanks for posting the guidelines for grant application. In my opinion that narrowed the field to only those that satisfied the grant application requirements. Now the difficult part of trying to estimate which will yield the biggest bang for the buck with outcomes.......

John 6th March 2009 22:23

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Speaking of opinions, I can't help but think it might be helpful if we shared our own thoughts about the projects and discussed them, rather than letting everyone fly blind. I've seen the results so far and personally I would not have voted for one of the options that has received several votes (I think I see a reason that the voters didn't). What do you think?

blueberlin 6th March 2009 23:10

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
FYI: Word from the chat is that folks are waiting to see what others vote for first...

It is an awful lot of text to read in a relatively short time before making an informed decision.

-Eva

John 6th March 2009 23:17

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
10 days to read 17 pages? Not that bad.

blueberlin 6th March 2009 23:24

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Ok I decided I'll just go first (at least, I was first when I started this reply) since I'm the outspoken dork of our family here :rolleyes: Honestly, I figured, I have only the one vote and it can't matter that much, so I'd rather skip voting than make a wrong choice. (Opinion One.)

As I hinted above, I did honestly click on two links and try to read about the projects, but marmalade started dripping out of my ear and so I instead gave a really, really close look at the project titles.

Right off I decided that Effect of magnetic nanoparticles on newt behavior is a magic bean for which I would not sell my cow. Could be I'm wrong but it seems to me that there is so much more work to be done simply to understand the various animals in their natural habitats, and we can pursue the currently fashionable nanotechnology later, once we have figured out whether and how amphibians will live today and tomorrow.

Then there are a few that do focus on habitat and conservation - I do not understand the word "systematic" in the recurring sense of these titles, but habitat and conservation were the ideas that led me to support the drive, so I would be most inclined to vote for one of these. The trouble is that I cannot judge whether the information gained will benefit a single species (a worthy endeavour, certainly!) or have widespread benefit.

Ok so there are some of my unqualified but honest opinions. Hopefully others will now feel secure enough to add their thoughts, too.

-Eva

John 6th March 2009 23:30

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Well, seeing as I haven't made up my own mind, would people like it if I wrote a summary of my thoughts of each proposal with a pros/cons piece on each? Those who have already voted, I can always reset the poll if you want another shot. Obviously I can't guarantee I won't colour your opinions in my summaries but from the sound of things it would still be a positive way to proceed.

blueberlin 6th March 2009 23:37

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Oh Joooooohn.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 182028)
10 days to read 17 pages? Not that bad.

17 pages of dry text for making the decision on one vote among 30 for dispensing $1000 for one project among 17?

As you wrote yourself, the texts are sometimes somewhat.. specialized... and if I take 30 minutes to read each text and 10 minutes to think about what I have read, even the voter preparation process becomes another kind of donation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 182030)
...would people like it if I wrote a summary of my thoughts of each proposal with a pros/cons piece on each? ...from the sound of things it would still be a positive way to proceed.

I think that is a great idea. If anyone else here has spent as much time considering this as you have, I am sure that they will also express their opinions, since you will have set the precedent. Because I have to tell you, I would rather not vote than read through all of that. (Be comforted, though, that I won't click a button without having an idea what I'm voting for.)

-Eva

Nathan050793 7th March 2009 03:11

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 182030)
Well, seeing as I haven't made up my own mind, would people like it if I wrote a summary of my thoughts of each proposal with a pros/cons piece on each? Those who have already voted, I can always reset the poll if you want another shot. Obviously I can't guarantee I won't colour your opinions in my summaries but from the sound of things it would still be a positive way to proceed.

I'm with Eva on this. It'd be nice to see what you've been mulling over about this.

MikeM 7th March 2009 03:54

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Id say #5 or #9 personally, but i cant vote in this poll.

michael 7th March 2009 04:42

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
I voted or one of the chytrid studies. It seems like a lot of work is being done on chytrid and frogs. Not much has been done on chytrid and salamanders. It might be pretty important to assess if it is a serious threat to salamander populations. I voted for #11. Since their are so many salamanders in the wild in the U.S. it might be important to figure out if chytrid is a big threat to them.

The proposals are all pretty short and didn't take a big amount of time to read.

pete 7th March 2009 06:24

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
I'm not in on this vote, but I enjoy the thread and seeing the topics of study. Furthermore, it's always a fun exercise to try to narrow down a list of research proposals. I was thinking that one way you could have done this step would be to give each voter 3 votes to cast. This would allow the voters to be a little more broad in scope at this step. Especially those that may not be technical experts and have difficult time narrowing it down to 1 of 17. Of course there may be a few individuals that would dump all their votes in one topic, but I think that would be fine if they feel so passionately about a topic they could weight their vote at this stage. Then with the results of this vote take the top ?three to five? areas of study do a new poll (one vote/person) while trying to get some focused discussion on the more concise list.

Another idea may be to keep this first round of the vote blind, since seeing others choices may impact how some individuals may vote. (Personally, I think that I'd go #7 at the moment, but if I see no one is voting for it then I may go for a more popular one that has a better shot at winning.) If you have 30 votes and 17 topics, then once you get a few votes that topic is looking pretty good. This may be another advantage to giving people 3 votes in the initial round.

Not trying to criticize your method, but I sense there is some searching for the optimal way to do this, and I figured it was an idea.

Jan 7th March 2009 12:52

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
I found all of the applications very interesting and worthwhile. In evaluating the applications, I placed each on a grid and compared each to the 6 main application requirements. In my assessment, 6 applications satisfied all of the requirements. From there, I looked at the level of funding needed for the research, had other monies been secured yet or applied for ?? – from my perspective this is a key element – if we award money, I want to see the project completed. I also focused on dissemination of results and methods of dissemination. The broader dissemination the wider the audience – I have a bias for dissemination by both publishing in a peer reviewed journal and presentations (platform or poster). Lastly, I tried to assess the broad applicability of the research relative to all caudates (subjective).…which led to my top 2 choices: #11 and #2.

It is difficult to garner much information from a one page application. However, it is what it is … and that is where I’m landing with my thoughts. I applaud all of the applicants with their submissions - very encouraging toward caudate research.

John 7th March 2009 14:31

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Jan, do you still have your grid? It sounds like you were very thorough. I would agree with every aspect you discussed with the exception of the last one - broad application to all caudates would be nice but for $1000 I don't think we should dwell on the "broadness" - significance to a target species has its own merits too. I'd very much like to see your grid prior to the "broad applicability" criterion.

freves 7th March 2009 14:46

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
I had a difficult time deciding between 4 and 9. I ultimately went with 4. This work will be taking place regionally speaking in my own backyard so I think that it is important to know if chytrid is present and if so to what extent. The choice was not easy to make however as I have a true fondness for hellbenders as well. Also, I'll have to admit that the hobbyist in me was wanting to vote for the one dealing with Bolitoglossa breeding however in the grand scheme of things I think that environmental studies should come first.
Chip

coendeurloo 7th March 2009 16:20

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
#4 Is chytridiomycosis affecting Appalachian salamanders?

That one sounded like a *really* valuable research to me, as far as I can understand it.

Jan 7th March 2009 21:38

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 182117)
Jan, do you still have your grid? It sounds like you were very thorough. I would agree with every aspect you discussed with the exception of the last one - broad application to all caudates would be nice but for $1000 I don't think we should dwell on the "broadness" - significance to a target species has its own merits too. I'd very much like to see your grid prior to the "broad applicability" criterion.

John, please note from my post that I indicated that broad applicability was a subjective assessment not a criterion and thus not a part of the grid. For the grid, I used the 6 main requirements as outlined in the application - objective assessment. I would agree that broad applicability is not necessarily a driver....but in my opinion, when all else is reasonably equal - it is persuasive.

John 7th March 2009 22:09

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jan (Post 182147)
John, please note from my post that I indicated that broad applicability was a subjective assessment not a criterion and thus not a part of the grid. For the grid, I used the 6 main requirements as outlined in the application - objective assessment. I would agree that broad applicability is not necessarily a driver....but in my opinion, when all else is reasonably equal - it is persuasive.

Jan, don't hold back, where is this grid :) ?

Jennewt 7th March 2009 22:12

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Jan, can you tell us which 6 you found to fulfill all 6 of the objective criteria?

Otterwoman 7th March 2009 23:19

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan050793 (Post 182074)
I'm with Eva on this. It'd be nice to see what you've been mulling over about this.


I'm with Nathan and Eva.

Who knew donating money would be so much work?

benw 8th March 2009 10:50

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
I voted for the chytrid fungus testing on sals in Peru, mainly for the fact we all know the effects this fungus is having on the amphibian population, and more importantly to me, that the money we raised covers the WHOLE project rather than a proportion, and i like the idea that we, as a community, could make a complete difference to the sals in that area, and that it was a Caudata funded project.

Ben

Jan 8th March 2009 13:35

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 182150)
Jan, don't hold back, where is this grid :) ?

John darlin' - I would never hold out on you :-). I am out of town and the grid is on my desk in my office at home...and it is handwritten, not typed. When I get home tonight, I can minimally relay the 6 that met requirements.

Jan 8th March 2009 21:40

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
From re-reviewing the grid, there were eight applications that satisfied all of the requirements: these were #2, #4, #9, #10, #11, #14, #15 and #17. The differentiator among these, in my opinion, was the requirement of ‘dissemination of results’ – how will the research results be disseminated? As I stated, my bias is for results to be presented at meetings and submitted to (and hopefully published in) peer reviewed journals…scrutinized science undertaking with wider audience exposure. To that end, there were three that indicated both methods of dissemination would be pursued: #2, #9 and #11. The others either mentioned just one method or were vague, e.g., ‘data will be published’…. which left me wondering, where? And the answer to that can vary widely and may lack significance. In my final selection, I voted for the one that IMO gave the best ROI.

John 9th March 2009 01:22

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Jan, thank you. I think you're being somewhat unfair with the "where will it be published" part. Most scientists wouldn't publish quality projects outside of peer-reviewed journals - to do so doesn't really help one's CV, one's perception in the eyes of one's employer, or one's prospects for an upward career trajectory within academia.

Here are my opinions as promised. Please undertand that I am giving a short honest assessment of each project and that I tend not to minse words - please understand that I intend no offence!
  1. Salamandra algira - Despite my personal fondness for Wouter Beukema, we state in our grant that we favour those working with species in their own country so this makes this otherwise interesting research take a back seat to many of the other applications.
  2. Nanoparticles and Notophthalmus - I have some professional knowledge of Nanoparticles and Nanomaterials because of where I work. I am quite curious about this research but I do not see it being a priority for conservation in comparison to the other research grant topics here.
  3. Conservation of Chiropterotriton multidentatus - I think this project would provide valuable information for conservation, although the budget area is vague. This would be in my list of those to be considered.
  4. Chytrid in Appalachian salamanders? - A nice interesting project, though I'm not sure how much it will really contribute to conservation (as the answer is likely to be yes to all the species in my opinion), though it may help us target those species that need more protection than others. This would be in my list of those to be considered.
  5. Axolotl Habitat Preferences - Interesting project but I don't think habitat preference is something that needs to be funded for the axolotl - habitat preservation, pollution reduction and mitigation, removal of predatory fish species, and controlled captive breeding in a local environment are priorities for this species and I am very disappointed we did not receive more applications to help this species. If this animal were not so threatened I would feel better about funding this project but it just doesn't seem appropriate. Aside from this, there is no mention of publication of the results so this would not be on my list, despite how much interest I have in this species.
  6. Bolitoglossa pandi - I think assessment of this species would be a worthwhile endeavour but there is no mention of mode of publication. Still, this would be on my list of projects to consider because of the conservation value.
  7. Mexico Ambystoma & Pseudoeurycea - I like this project and I think the results garnered from this work could be quite interesting. My concern though is that I don't see significant potential conservation data coming from this (again, just my opinion). For that reason I wouldn't consider this a primary candidate for my vote.
  8. Pseudoeurycea cephalica - Again, this falls into the same category as number 7 in my opinion: interesting and worthwhile work but not much immediate conservation value. This project would not be a primary candidate for my vote.
  9. Hellbender/Cryptobranchus alleganiensis - Hellbender populations are having a very hard time particularly in the Ozark mountains (not the region of study for this project, I should point out). There is a huge shortfall in our knowledge of this species. Aside from the potential to help the study populations, this project could yield data that would potentially help the conservation and understanding of Hellbender populations elsewhere. I very much like the detail given in the project, the timeline and publication prospects. I consider this application a strong contender for my vote.
  10. Colombian Bolitoglossa - Population information and assessment of "what is where" is valuable data. If we don't have a comparison to historical records, how can we know if a species is in decline? However for immediate conservation value I believe this project falls into the same category as #7, for example. It would not be a strong contender for my vote.
  11. Bd in Georgia, USA - I view this project similarly to #4 (also about chytrid) but the current application has more clearly stated conservation goals and as a result I would consider it more vote-worthy than #4 and certainly in my list of contenders.
  12. Bolitoglossa franklini - This is interesting work on the genetics of these salamander but it has little or no immediate conservation value and I would not consider it a contender for my vote.
  13. Hemidactylium scutatum - This species has particular habitat requirements, particularly for breeding and has suffered from habitat drainage/destruction over much of its range. It also hasn't received much attention in comparison to other species. Illinois, USA, where this project will take place, represents some of the western-most range of this salamander. At a state level, obviously the conservation of this species should be given importance considering the state is not a stronghold for the species. The data from this project may provide information that could aid conservation but frankly I don't see it having a significant conservational impact (again, my opinion with limited knowledge). However I would consider voting for it.
  14. Peru Bolitoglossa - This is another population assessment with two twists - firstly the research will test for Chytrid in the surveyed salamanders, and secondly there is a major construction project underway that will almost certainly affect some populations of the target species. This assessment would have a more immediate impact on conservation than some of the others presented here because of the immediate construction threat. However whether or not anyone could (or would have the money to) do anything about population damage is another matter. I would consider voting for this project.
  15. Hellbender/Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis and Mudpuppy/Necturus maculosus - This is another population assessment project. Frankly, from a value for money point of view, I don't think $1000 for 2.5 days of survey time is good bang for buck. For that cost I would have hoped for something more tangible in respect to conservation. I don't think I would consider this a leading contender for my vote.
  16. Guatemalan Bolitoglossa - Captive propogation of threatened species. Captive breeding of threatened species is an admirable goal but I would very much like to hear what has made these species so threatened in the wild to warrant this captive breeding. I would also like to hear about conservation efforts. I am also somewhat dismayed by the fact that this application makes it seem as if nothing is known about the breeding biology of these salamanders (which I am willing to accept). Therefore I find myself questioning the value of undertaking such work bearing in mind how little knowledge there is to begin with. I don't wish to descriminate against species, but I would rather vote for a project that has an achieveable goal over one with a (seemingly) remote chance of success, in the near term at least. Aside from all of this, there is no mention made of publication of the results. I would not consider this a primary candidate for my vote.
  17. Bd in Peru - Population assessment and survey for the presence of chytrid fungus. I don't see immediate conservation implications but the data could be useful for future conservation efforts. Otherwise the application meets our requirements and I would consider voting for it.
So, to summarise, the projects I would consider for my vote are: #3, #4, #6, #9, #10, #11, #13, #14, #17.

For myself, I've whittled the list down to three choices: #9, #11, #14.

Greatwtehunter 9th March 2009 09:12

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Ok so I'll throw my hat in the ring. I've been trying to decide between 4, 11, and 13. I am strongly leaning towards #4 but I don't wanna vote for it quite yet cause I kinda feel biased since it's pratically in my backyard as well. Being from this region though I could see some of the benefits as some species here only have 2, 3, or 4 county ranges. As quick as chytrid has spread in some areas it wouldn't take no time to wipe out these species.

Oh well, I may make up my mind one of these days before voting is over with.:rolleyes:

Jan 9th March 2009 12:53

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by John (Post 182306)
Jan, thank you. I think you're being somewhat unfair with the "where will it be published" part. Most scientists wouldn't publish quality projects outside of peer-reviewed journals - to do so doesn't really help one's CV, one's perception in the eyes of one's employer, or one's prospects for an upward career trajectory within academia.


For myself, I've whittled the list down to three choices: #9, #11, #14.

John, appreciate your comment but we will have to agree to disagree. My comments were about 'dissimination of results'. Specificity and clarity IMO trumps what 'most' may do as there are 'those' that don't. I can only hold someone accountable to what they say they will do,,,,not what I assume they may do. But this isn't about us, it's about where we will award our money.

Your opinions, considerations and insight on each proposal are much appreciated - thanks for putting this together - it is quite valuable. Ultimately, it appears that we have landed on and favor the same grant applications.

Azhael 9th March 2009 13:32

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Although i´m inclined to be appealed by number 16, i´m not convinced by it...
It may be a bit of a silly reason to decide which project to vote, but after seeing Nick Baker´s program on hellbenders some time ago, i can´t help but vote for number 9.....it´s still in my head :S.

cichlidjedi 9th March 2009 20:04

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
I would like to vote for #9 to help out the hellbenders

John 9th March 2009 20:05

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cichlidjedi (Post 182403)
I would like to vote for #9 to help out the hellbenders

Only people who donated to the grant in December are eligible to vote in this though.

cichlidjedi 9th March 2009 20:52

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Sorry I thought it was for those that donated to Amphibian Ark? Sorry again my mistake.

John 9th March 2009 21:01

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cichlidjedi (Post 182415)
Sorry I thought it was for those that donated to Amphibian Ark? Sorry again my mistake.

Did you do it as part of our donations drive? If so you should have received an email from AArk containing a thank you for participating in the Caudata.org Donations Drive. Send that to me and we can flag you so you can vote.

John 10th March 2009 04:24

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
cichlidjedi was one of the donors to the drive and he didn't get flagged - sorry about that. If anyone else has this problem please let me know (unfortunately I am only human!).

John 10th March 2009 21:42

Re: Caudata.org Grant Poll
 
With 5 days left to go, right now we have a clear leader. I don't think we'll need another poll if this keeps up. However I remind those who have yet to vote (which is at least half of the voters) that you have 5 days remaining.


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:52.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO
Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website & Content ©2001 - 2017 Caudata.org Caudata.org Newt & Salamander Portal
(Users retain image copyrights)