From aney@coho.net Mon Nov 1 16:05:59 2004 Received: from mxe4.u.washington.edu (mxe4.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.15]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.08) with ESMTP id iA205wHg119828 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:05:58 -0800 Received: from ms2.whiz.to (ms2.whiz.to [206.58.39.168]) by mxe4.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.09) with ESMTP id iA205vSm018875 for ; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:05:57 -0800 Received: from wavdqqrm (65.122.146.77.qdsl.fasternetwork.com [65.122.146.77]) by ms2.whiz.to (Postfix) with SMTP id 08572BA7F2; Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:04:10 -0800 (PST) Reply-To: From: "Warren W. Aney" To: , , "stan moore" Cc: , , Subject: RE: Constructive criticism! Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:06:25 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 In-Reply-To: <001b01c4bb92$b06a1ca0$6501a8c0@michaelo9d0qhd> X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIII, Probability=7%, Report='__C230066_P1_5 0, __C230066_P2 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_MSMAIL_PRI 0, __HAS_X_MAILER 0, __HAS_X_PRIORITY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0' I've avoided this discussion -- my "delete" pinkie has a trained auto-reflex when I see certain names and topics. However, I now feel impelled to flaunt my 50 years of wildlife management education and experience by making sure we all recognize some realities: First, past wildlife managers did do a number of things that were, at the time, considered enlightened but would now be considered improper (and Aldo Leopold did promote some of these actins): Introduction of exotic or non-indigenous game and fur species in the name of filling "unoccupied niches" (e.g., in my part of the country eastern cottontail, red fox, wild turkeys, California quail, Hungarian partridge). Introduction of plant species in the name of habitat improvement without considering their invasive potential (e.g., russian olive, multiflora rose). Over-emphasis on single game species resulting in range overstocking and ecosystems damage (e.g., mule deer, elk). Acceptance of species eradication or near-eradication as the proper goal of predator management (e.g., gray wolf, grizzly bear, cougar). Second, despite those hindsight mistakes, past proactive wildlife management was the sole reason for the recovery or restoration of a number of species that would have otherwise been eradicated in many or all of our states (e.g., pronghorn antelope, elk, beaver, wood duck, trumpeter swan, sage grouse, bighorn sheep). Third, recent wildlife management has become more comprehensive, resulting in efforts to restore species and populations once deemed unworthy of protection (e.g., cougar, gray wolf, grizzly bear, bald eagle, peregrine falcon). Fourth, the survival of present-day wildlife management (and wildlife managers), at least at the state level, is dependent on hunters, trappers, anglers and landowners. Until other stakeholders step up and create a wider spectrum of political and financial support for these managers, state wildlife management will continue to be beholden to those who do provide this support. Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist Tigard, Oregon -----Original Message----- From: CONSBIO-owner@u.washington.edu [mailto:CONSBIO-owner@u.washington.edu]On Behalf Of Michael Welker Sent: Tuesday, 26 October, 2004 12:34 To: liveoak@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu; stan moore Cc: utahwolves@yahoogroups.com; consbio@u.washington.edu; wyldlifeconservation@yahoogroups.com Subject: Constructive criticism! All, I'm going to have to whole heartedly agree with Dr. Hawkins. The subject of "proactive" comments is crucial to the success of wildlife conservation. I would even go as far as saying we need to formulate proactive solutions and then unrelenting support of these solutions. We must be proactive on all fronts. Some of the main issues that directly relate to wildlife conservation are shunned by academia and agency personnel. The issues that need to be addressed for true wildlife conservation involve: economics, politics, education, human population growth, human values, land and road development, land management policies, wildlife management focuses, conservation land purchases, monetary fund allocations, agency side stepping and loop hole creation. Another issue is the fact that in many instances academia promotes itself and not the wildlife it seeks to conserve. Still other issues include non-action because of job security fears. It is about time to call a spade a spade. We have to address the real problems and stick to our guns. Most agency and academic folks simply don't want to address the real problems with the real solutions (for a lot of reasons). For instance, several state wildlife agencies list herp species to protect them from collecting. The problem is: 1. They don't have data to support the collecting pressure (which if there is collecting at all it is miniscule at best). 2. The greatest cause for decline by far is land development and roads (vehicles on roads kill more herps then can ever be collected) but they don't address that. 3. Listing species can be a means to fund ones own agency and self thus the motives are questionable. 4. Wildlife and environmental laws are not enforced. 5. There are many others. These are some of the issues that are major wildlife conservation issues but they are not addressed. They are shunned. We have to constructively criticize. We have to address the real issues that are failing our wildlife conservation efforts. Check out "Degenerated Science" by Dean Ripa http://www.bushmastersonline.com/ . Although he stretches some ideas he makes some good points. I know those who proactively criticize do bruise egos but some egos need to be bruised to move forward. It seems that academia and agency personnel in each state have a clique that they fiercely protect. They also have an" I can do it all" attitude when in reality they need to have a great deal more people working on the research that needs to be done. Do they promote jobs? No. Do they promote themselves? Yes. Do the universities care about the conservation implications of a research project or the grant money they can get? The money! If a professor or agency employee speaks up against an institution's "sell out" to economic interests do they get to keep their job? No! Who do the top wildlife professionals work for? Agencies and universities! So we have the best people in our field muted for self preservation. No wonder they won't address the REAL wildlife conservation issues. We need to address and solve problems not get offended by constructive criticism. Mike Welker ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ronnie Hawkins" To: "stan moore" Cc: ; ; Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 8:50 PM Subject: Re: comments by hunter regarding wolves raise doubt on conservation ethics > To the consbio list: > > I have had feedback of two sorts on the post I sent out earlier > today--both supporting my comments and the ongoing discussion, and > cautioning against responses that might end up leading to personal > attacks, which I agree are inappropriate on any list of this nature. > > If the majority of listmembers prefer that this list be a venue simply for > professional postings, so be it--I won't intrude by injecting my own > thoughts beyond this message. However, I do think that sometimes it can be > beneficial for people to be challenged, even by "provocative" comments, to > reexamine and defend their own positions on important issues. And > conservation biologists, as a group, must be aware that the very existence > of their field--a "crisis discipline," as proclaimed by Michael Soule--is > in essence a challenge to the whole overall thrust of globalizing, > industrializing, exponentially expanding human society. The discipline > itself must be provocative--if biodiversity is to be "saved," there must > be dramatic change--the fundamental trajectory of humanity in the > 21st century must be changed. Hence there is no justification for > ivory-tower insulation from reality. > > I have a considerable background in biological science--a degree in human > medicine, in fact--and I once considered going into some kind of research > in tropical zoology, just because I knew it would be fascinating. But when > I began to discover the extent of the destruction being wrought on the > living systems of the planet, I decided I could not spend my life just > documenting the demise of species "at the hands of man"--I wanted to do > something about it, to stop this escalating destruction. I went back to > school in philosophy, specifically to examine the dimensions of what I > considered--and still do consider--to be an enormous ethical problem, the > anthropogenic extinction of species. On the way to getting my PhD in > philosophy I took a number of graduate courses with the students in the > wildlife school at the University of Florida, because I believe that an > "environmental philosopher" who knows next to nothing about the science of > conservation biology is pretty worthless--and unfortunately there are > quite a few of them out there. But if the way we humans currently think > and act is ever going to change, many voices, educated voices, are going > to have to call for that change--even if what they say will be "upsetting" > to many people who are fearful of straying too far from the status quo. > (Interesting how a little fear makes some clutch ever more tightly to > "staying the course.") > > We know that six billion people on the planet--never mind a projected 8 or > 10 or 12--is unsustainable. We know that a global economy based on > continued "growth" in material consumption is unsustainable. We know that > petroleum, for example, is a finite resource that may be passing its peak > of production, just as we know the products of its combustion are causing > global climate change. We need to integrate our understanding of these > facts into the worldview of humanity, and the sooner the better--the > present paradigm is unsustainable for people, let alone for nonhuman > species. It's time to call a spade a spade, folks. > > There are many > different ways of doing so--I happen to prefer a straightforward, > confrontational way. But those who choose a kinder, gentler path still > have, I think, an obligation to do what they can to bring about the > necessary change of direction, and I'm starting to lose patience with some > who know better but don't seem to have the courage of their convictions. > This may apply to some academics--I'm not meaning to engage in any kind of > "personal attack" here, but if the shoe fits . . . > > Anyway, I'll shut up now if this kind of comment is inappropriate for the > list. But I do hope some of you will reflect on some of these issues. > > Ronnie Hawkins .