Interesting article
#2 Guest_edbihary_*
Posted 04 January 2008 - 08:49 PM
So, it does not surprise me at all that government scientists would make judgments based on belief and hearsay. Neither does it surprise me that they would defend those beliefs.
Add to that the fact that these people are GOVERNMENT scientists. Like other government employees, they are bureaucrats. They are typically hard-working, and they deserve our respect. When they are wrong, they should be told so, in a respectful manner, without assassination of character, by bringing forth the facts. But bureaucrats are bureaucrats.
I couldn't agree more strongly with the author's conclusion:
"For those that truly wish to promote wildlife protection, the emphasis should be on habitat preservation, protection, and restoration. Promoting legislation aimed at habitat conservation and donating funds to various land trusts are two ways that can result in the conservation of wildlife, including herps."
And of course that applies to protecting fish as well.
#3 Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Posted 04 January 2008 - 09:14 PM
We are not discussing this ED..... < Thats a period..... which mean finality
I'm not going to discredit your thoughts so I'm not going to delete this either though.. But please be informed
Please refrain from posting controversial discussions pertaining to religion and politics.
As for the Authors conclusion:
I also agree wholeheartedly...
#4 Guest_fundulus_*
Posted 04 January 2008 - 10:01 PM
Interestingly, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has a category of DD, "data deficient", for species that are too poorly known to rate. That's the current rating for the flame chub, and has been since 1990. So not all management agencies are as bureaucratic as the Oregon people mentioned in the article in this thread. I hope that the final version of my survey will help to resolve that DD status.
It's like Einstein said: "If I knew the results in advance, it wouldn't be research."
#5 Guest_mikez_*
Posted 04 January 2008 - 11:22 PM
Interestingly, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has a category of DD, "data deficient", for species that are too poorly known to rate. That's the current rating for the flame chub, and has been since 1990. So not all management agencies are as bureaucratic as the Oregon people mentioned in the article in this thread. I hope that the final version of my survey will help to resolve that DD status.
It's like Einstein said: "If I knew the results in advance, it wouldn't be research."
I don't know if anyone else here is familiar with the author of that paper but I have known him through herp forums going back at least five years.
That paper reflects an attitude he has been posting about in the forums for years. He has generated many nasty flame wars with his posts. I was surprised to see him admit in the paper that he only studied the two snake species as a hobby on the side. Usually he just refers to himself as a "scientist" or "field biologist for 40 years". Actually he's a retired school teacher. It seems he has an ax to grind against mainstream wildlife managment in general and Oregon authorities in particular.
No doubt his findings on rubber boas were valid and that they contadicted conventional wisdom at the time.
Also no doubt that similar scenarios exist with other seemingly rare species around the country.
Nevertheless, I don't believe that wildlife managers in Oregon or around the country are as incompetent as Mr. Hoyer apparently believes and wants others to believe. I realize I am reading more into the paper than is written. However my long experience with reading the many diatribes and rantings of the author on the herp forums allows me to read between the lines. It's the same dead horse he's been beating for years, just prettied up and polished for publication.
#6 Guest_edbihary_*
Posted 04 January 2008 - 11:55 PM
Richard, everything that I wrote was relevant to the article. I did not take a side, either a religious one or a political one. I merely pointed out that there is a controversy, and that both sides are biased. I think that is relevant, without stepping over the line. The author of your article was discussing, in essence, the bias and stubbornness of the bureaucrats. They have religious-like bias in their science (or lack thereof), and the political power of bureaucrats in the application of conservation law. That is what I get from the article; I see it as relevant to the article. I thought I conveyed that without crossing the line. If I am mistaken, I apologize.Thank you Ed for not even touching this subject or the reason it was posted (Applications to science, this hobby and conservation law) but to instead bring up unrelated thoughts about Creationism, religion and Anti government sentiment and pretty much kill this before it starts....
We are not discussing this ED..... < Thats a period..... which mean finality
I'm not going to discredit your thoughts so I'm not going to delete this either though.. But please be informed
As for the Authors conclusion:
I also agree wholeheartedly...
Mike makes some interesting points.
So, let's do what we can to protect habitat.
#7 Guest_uniseine_*
Posted 05 January 2008 - 10:39 PM
Yet all views held today were once minority views, that were eventually accepted in spite of great resistance by the scientific community which defended the prevailing ideas of the times.
And new theories gain support and become accepted by those using scientific approaches. It took Kepler over 15 years to make sense of his data. It took 30 years to get enough data to convince (rightly skeptical) scientists.
My point is that "great resistance by the scientific community" is overcome by scientists.
(Even if those people with the new ideas don't consider themselves scientists. As long as they follow scientific practices, they are scientist to me. [These practices are also open to scientific scrutiny.])
I have not read the article.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users