That is pretty much it. Occasionally, such as this Thread a SDSTAFF report is linked to, and the answer, even if it has no cites and (to me at least) is unsatisfactory it is taken as gospel. So who are these people? Why do we believe them? If it was Cecil, then sure, but his minions?
Doug Yanega, the author of that particular Staff Report, is a Ph.D. entomologist with 20+ years experience in the field and numerous peer-reviewed scientific publications.
What specifically do you find “unsatisfactory” about that report? (And if you think Staff Reports are “taken as gospel” on this board you don’t check Comments on Staff Reports too often.)
In any case, it should be noted that Staff Reports are not necessarily intended to be the definitive or the last word on a subject. While some are researched in depth, others may be answered more briefly, on the basis of a Staff member’s personal knowledge. It really depends on the Staff member’s available time.
The qualifications of SDSAB members vary. Some, like Doug and myself (an ornithologist) are professionals in our respective fields. Others are interested amateurs. All have proven their credibility to Cecil and the administration through their history of posts on this board or other contributions such as guest Staff Reports. That isn’t, of course, to say that Staff members never make mistakes; but by and large the reports are written with a pretty high level of expertise.
I’m just cooler than you. Get over it.
How many of you are there?
We fill the skies with our numbers.
I’m not sure how many active SDSAB members there are now, actually. As I look around the virtual SDSAB clubhouse, I see several names from the early part of the decade that I don’t recognize, although I’ve been a poster here since December 1999.
As Colibri suggests, though, we have an impressive collection of professional qualifications among the Advisory Board members. It is worth pointing out, too, that a particular subject may well be treated comprehensively and correctly without professional quals. As an example, although I tend to gravitate to the legal issues (I’ve written about, inter alia, diplomatic immunity, grand juries (as a partner), police lineups, and conviction in absentia) I also provided a report on Che Guevera, which is fairly described as a departure from my professional expertise.
And yet, they can all dance on the head of a pin! Marvelous!
Except for Bricker. Nobody wants to watch him do his tired old Mazurkas on the head of a pin, anymore. We make go over to the corner, & dance on the head of a thumbtack, now. 
As another example, although most of my Staff Reports have been on biology, my area of professional expertise, I also wrote one on Christopher Columbus, based on my interest in the history of exploration and extensive reading on the subject.
Some Staff members may not have professional qualifications in any particular area, but have excellent research skills and may write on a variety of subjects.
As much as I love Cecil, it’s funny that he’s used as a comparison. The SDSAB’s collective qualifications are compared unfavourably to Cecil’s, but the only one of his that we know for sure is that he’s a witty smartarse. But that’s okay.
It’s a bit hard to come up with a precise number as to who is “active”, since some Staff members may not have written a report for a while. Also, moderators and administrators are included on the SDSAB list ex officio, since they have access to the Mailbag. Some of these write Staff Reports, some don’t. Retired moderators retain the SDSAB title temporarily, but need to write reports to continue to keep it. And then there are guest contributors who write Staff Reports; some go on to become formal members of the SDSAB, others are one-shots.
Looking the list I recognize at least 35 who I believe have written Staff Reports; there may be more, and this does not include guest contributors who have not formally joined the SDSAB.
Cecil is a collective individual. 
This wasn’t meant as a slam to SDSAB or SDSTAFF, I was wondering about the qualifications, particularly on ones that have no cites. I get the weekly letter, and it often contains staff reports, or advisory board reports. Most of these have a list of cites at the end. This particular one does not, and it made me wonder.
What I don’t like about it is the seemingly taken out of thin air definition of what suicide is. Of course this might not be out of thin air, it might be an accepted definition of suicide, but I have no way of knowing that beyond what Doug says. As well I would think someone who commits suicide is generally mentally ill and therefore sick which would basically disqualify humans from suicide as well. The definition seemed set-up to ensure the answer was no, animals don’t. I have no idea if they do or don’t, but this is hardly an authoritative answer IMO.
You are correct, I do not check comments of staff reports to often, if at all to be honest.
You might say that’s the key qualification right there. I’m a lawyer IRL, and I know some quirky stuff from my various professional experiences, but I never had a case involving a dead body, a diplomatic pouch, an embassy, arresting the president, or many of the other areas I’ve written about (I’m still waiting for the question about contractual relations between mortgage correspondents and mortgage investors or the coverage provided by the standard Mortgagee Protection Policy).
If I didn’t have research and writing skills, I’d be pretty useless. And believe me, not all lawyers have those skills. 
Blasphemer! Burn hir at the stake!
I will categorically state that this is not the case.
As I said, the level of detail given in Staff Reports varies. They are not intended to be scholarly dissertations. While many provide citations, others do not. In this case, Doug answered on the basis of his extensive experience in biology, rather than attempting to document every statement he made.
My own Staff Reports also vary. Some questions I have answered off the top of my head (while usually doing some checking to make sure my knowledge is still up-to-date), while others I have researched in detail and provide cites for.
From Merriam-Webster:
Emphasis mine.
Doug’s definition is a commonly accepted one (even though mentally-ill people are often said to have committed suicide).
That’s the best place to comment on an answer you disagree with. While Doug rarely if ever posts elsewhere, he often does post in response to comments on his own reports if he is aware of them.
Its not so much that I disagree, I have zero knowledge about suicide be it animal or human. It just seemed (to me, and I could be wrong) that because he had the fancy SDSTAFF in front of his name (which does of course make him cooler then me 
) it made it acceptable to link to as an answer. Normally if someone linked to a site that just said what Doug’s answer said, with no cites, no proof of knowledge, it would be dismissed.
Is there somewhere with a list of the qualifications of SDSTAFF and SDSAB members? Or is it good enough that TPTB think you are qualified?
Of course it is “acceptable to link to as an answer;” Staff Members do generally have some expertise in the subjects they write on, and answers have been reviewed by Cecil. (This does not however mean that Cecil has verified every detail included in them.) And in any case, a number of posters in that thread disputed various aspects of the Staff Report. While it wasn’t dismissed, neither was it “accepted as gospel.” Which is as it should be. As anything else on the Internet, Staff Reports must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Some Wikipedia articles are very authoritative, some are crap. Most peer-reviewed articles are credible; some are garbage.
There isn’t any formal list. SDSAB members are only as good as the answers they provide. I wasn’t required to provide a resume to become a member of the SDSAB, and in any case how would you verify anybody’s qualifications? As I said, SDSAB members have usually established credibility with Cecil and the admin by the quality of the information they have provided before being accepted as members, not via formal academic credentials (although many of us have the latter).
I am an epidemiologist, specializing in HIV/AIDS and STD. I’ve written about ramen noodles, camels and jake brakes, too.
Camels got jake brakes?
So you are telling me if I linked to a page that had no explanation of who this person is, no ability to verify the claim, that it would be accepted as a cite? Not necessarily agreed with, but accepted? With no dismissal of it as unverifiable, that anyone can make a webpage? This would be accepted as a useful cite in GQ?
I accept that Staff Members have expertise, that all sources must be looked at critically, and this should be done here. My phrase ‘accepted as a gospel’ was not meant quite so literally, more of a reference to the reverence that is felt by all towards Cecil. My point was more a question about who exactly you people are.
So you are telling me if I linked to a page that had no explanation of who this person is, no ability to verify the claim, that it would be accepted as a cite? Not necessarily agreed with, but accepted? With no dismissal of it as unverifiable, that anyone can make a webpage? This would be accepted as a useful cite in GQ?
I accept that Staff Members have expertise, that all sources must be looked at critically, and this should be done here. My phrase ‘accepted as a gospel’ was not meant quite so literally, more of a reference to the reverence that is felt by all towards Cecil. My point was more a question about who exactly you people are, and why it seems answers are given more credence.