Link to google drive workshop folder

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aG8i3t81XTxqD-ArI_wUsq5cDAeXcaaM

For anyone just joining, here is a link to the google drive workshop folderhttps://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aG8i3t81XTxqD-ArI_wUsq5cDAeXcaaM

The Zoom Chat is now open to all participants. We want your input. In particular, what do you think is our best next step as a conservation group.? For science, first. For the Road to Recovery, in general?

I would like to see us come together in some "think tanks" around the 5 game changers and perhaps a 6th group focused on "what's missing from the 5 game changers" and start to draw some road maps or strategies forward from here [may be an opportunity to explore this as well at the PIF roundtable at NAOC]

We need a similarly focused parallel science track that includes social science and also new approaches from medicine such as "implementation science." We also need to tie our work to additional societal values and especially consider how our work can be more inclusive of more voices in science. Finally, we need to take risks with implementation of conservation actions and study the response and convince funders to take risks.

Some of the conversation has focused on how limited our conservation actions might be due to a variety of constraints, so a useful approach is to look at the effectiveness of conservation actions and to better link scientists with managers so we can better evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of conservation.

For common birds in decline, we need to act on a large scale so we need bigger partners -- Big Ag, forest products industry, carbon sequestration advocates, multilateral banks, etc

One thing still missing in the link to how we are going to get the science implemented onto the ground. We need a bridge between the science and those that do the work. More contacts from state agencies etc. As a JV all of our sciences ends up as more birds through the actions and $$$ from mostly state partners.

(Copied because my original just went to panelists): I really like the approach of, for each species, combining information on the conservation concern + knowledge gaps + existing conservation infrastructure/plans. Seems very logical. Just wondering how those aspects may be specifically weighted. Also, fantastic job on this workshop, Pete, Ken and Tom and all speakers. All talks were excellent and illuminating and a clearer picture for our future foci is emerging.

Having shifted out of academia into work with a state agency, I had hoped to be in a position to bridge the gap between science/research and policy. At least in regard to landbirds, I have found a frustrating disconnect in the framework of our scientific inquiry and questions from implementation strategies, management, and policy decisions. i.e., the basis of needs from the latter are not informing some of the research being done and questions being answered. We need to find a balance between meeting the needs of answering these specific questions and action at a large scale

Could the framework be built around a multi-taxa -thinking BirdScapes, which may incorporate multiple bird species, and also indices of environmental/habitat, human dimension (value).

I agree with the push that we need more science to inform our conservation efforts. The field of conservation physiology comes to mind. If we understand the physiological limitations of taxa to future env change, then we can predict future responses. Some species will be limited in their abilities to respond. This knowledge will help us prioritize future conservation efforts