From herpcon@cox.net Wed Oct 27 14:25:41 2004 Received: from mxe5.u.washington.edu (mxe5.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.168]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.08) with ESMTP id i9RLPfYq104324 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:25:41 -0700 Received: from lakermmtao01.cox.net (lakermmtao01.cox.net [68.230.240.38]) by mxe5.u.washington.edu (8.13.1+UW04.08/8.13.1+UW04.09) with ESMTP id i9RLPc2q009907 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:25:38 -0700 Received: from michaelo9d0qhd ([68.101.89.9]) by lakermmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with SMTP id <20041027212533.VYKT15964.lakermmtao01.cox.net@michaelo9d0qhd>; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:25:33 -0400 Message-ID: <005e01c4bc6b$82f1e530$6501a8c0@michaelo9d0qhd> From: "Michael Welker" To: "Michael Welker" , , "stan moore" Cc: , , Subject: Re: Constructive criticism! Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 17:25:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 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' Please do NOT remove me from your list. I can take constructive criticism. I would like to work on wildlife conservation that confronts ALL the issues! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Welker" To: ; "stan moore" Cc: ; ; Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:33 PM 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 > .