Griz Advocates Fret Over Potential Delisting

[BigHornyRam]

The grizzly bear advocates are mobilizing the troops in an effort to stop the pending delisting of the bear in the Yellowstone region. Sow and cub counts are at long time high according to a recent article in the Missoulian. Head bear coordinator for the USFWS doesn't understand why the bear advocates are upset. He said that having the bears delisted is a good thing. That means that they have accomplished their goals of protecting the bears and the ultimate goal is to get every endangered species delisted.

My opinion is that the advocates are upset that they are going to lose one more arrow from their quiver. Anyone else agree?

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-09-2003 11:02: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[tmsander]

I think I would agree with that.

 

[dgibson]

They're upset because delisting the bears means that the gubmint won't burn every person at the stake who approaches them. Where you and I see being listed as a last-ditch effort for a species on the ropes, they see it as refuge for anything they care to hug at the given moment.

 

[BuzzH]

If theres enough bears to delist, get on with it. If they fall below the population parameters, list them again. Simple as that.

 

[BigHornyRam]

Buzz,

In a perfect world, Yes. In todays world nothing can be that simple!

Paul

 

[ELKCHSR]

Delist the suckers and let the hunting begin!!!

 

[Erik in AK]

If they're delisted then the weenie-greenie organizations who rely on "save the bears"
emotionalism be out o' a job. So sad....not

If bears don't need saving then they don't need fund raising aimed at saving them anymore.

I smell expanding hunting opportunity

 

[ELKCHSR]

I'm just curious on what the next drum they will pick up. They need to continually get fed. dollars to survive, they have never learned to survive on their own, in the private sectore..LOL...I suppose it will be a "Noble and Just" cause"....

 

[Muledeer4me]

I agree Paul.

 

[1_pointer]

Elchsr- Are you referring to scientists? Most environmental orgs. are supported via private funds. I wouldn't worry too much, most that are involved enough with these orgs are more educated than most so finding a job won't be all that hard and I'm sure their not doing it for the money. Plus, there are plenty of other drums they can find to beat.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Your really kidding arnt you..You need to look at the whole picture and you will plainly see, they run from one cause to the next..and where does those private funds come from..I'm actually thinking they are called "GRANTS", those private funds are what we all pay into it and it, and the grantor is actually considered last time I looked, the Federal Government..

 

[BigHornyRam]

Maybe some of you will find this interesting. A friend of mine who is in the acedemic world was asked to analyze some data compiled by a "researcher". The project was to determine the effects of logging on grizzly populations in the Greater Yellowstone. The results of the analysis did not come out at all the way the researcher hoped they would. In fact the analysis pointed towards a benefit from logging for the bears. My friend would not change the results of his work, so all the data was shit canned.

The researcher was not happy with my friend, and made it clear that he and all his other cronies would ever use his services again. I don't know what funds were used for this study, probably a combination of grants (tax dollars for the liberals reading this) and private funds from enviromental organizations opposed to logging. It was real eye opener for my friend who at the time was some what naive with the ways of modern science. I'm sure when the grizzly gets delisted, this researcher will be looking for another critter to save from the timber industry.

Paul

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-14-2003 10:30: Message edited by: Paul C ]</font>

 

[Lostagain]

Happens all the time, people really need to see WHO paid for the studies. That normally will show what the results will be. Hell, Hersheys put out the results of a study that said "chocolate was good for your heart", no surprise was there. The Egg Council put out that "eggs are good for ya afterall". Just shows ya to be a bit cynical about all these wonderful studies that what your dollars.
As for the private dollars put up for these studies, those private dollars were welfare. Most orgs did not pay any taxes on the contributions. Talk about welfare ranchers, at least they make a pretense of paying.

 

[1_pointer]

Elkchsr- No I'm not kidding. If they come from the Federal Gov. then they aren't PRIVATE funds. Private funds come from donations etc... Grants can be obtained from the government, but I'd be too suprised if many conservation org. are too dependent on those. Most grants are offered for research as noted above. That is something I'm learning about in school from having to deal with grants and not in the 'real world'.

All research is biased because it is performed by humans. However, there are varying degrees of bias and the trick of reading scientific literature is being able to seperate the good from the bad. Peer review helps feret out some of these problems. IMO, a peer reviewed scientific journal is where you will find your most reliable information. Secondary and tertiary sources (review article and books) are good, but often will skew the results to fit their agenda. This can happen in science, but is much less a problem.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All research is biased because it is performed by humans. However, there are varying degrees of bias and the trick of reading scientific literature is being able to seperate the good from the bad. Peer review helps feret out some of these problems. IMO, a peer reviewed scientific journal is where you will find your most reliable information. Secondary and tertiary sources (review article and books) are good, but often will skew the results to fit their agenda. This can happen in science, but is much less a problem. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can't tell you how much I agree with this statement, but I would take the word of the person that is actually out in the field most of their lives trying to glean the actual truth, even if they are starving to do so, over any of those that sit in their little glass palaces and dictate what they learn thru theory and ideals that are not in reality based on sound principle practice and real scientific leg work. There are a lot of things I would believe Buzz on for instance than some others, because of his experience in the field. I would never believe him or any one else that touts the “Global warming” drivel, because there really is no base on what is said about it, only conjecture and theory, it is all about the earth being in a drought cycle in this part of the planet, I am not totally certain on which cycle we are in, but I believe that it is the 100 year and the 1000 year that we are now in the grips of, and nothing else…

 

[dgibson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMO, a peer reviewed scientific journal is where you will find your most reliable information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah, just look at the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

[1_pointer]

Dg- I did say most!

Elkchsr- You've obviously never been afield or around ANYONE who is a field ecologist/scientist. You are commenting on something you have absolutely no first hand knowledge of! Where do you think the damn data comes from? Theories are not the only part of science, its the support/disproval of THEORIES that has generated damn near every bit of scientific knowledge. Do you think the models used to predict fire movement were generated by a lumberjack on the backside of a napkin?

I am not saying that an ecologist will have the same knowledge has a rancher,or whatever occupation you feel is worthy and works on/with the land, has of a particular piece of property. But, I would bet that the scientist has a better understanding of the landscape has a whole. Science strives for generalities.

 

[Lostagain]

Right 1P; I think what elk is about is the generalities are then used as particulars. Doesn't work in every situtation. Each situtation is independent but too many try to apply the generalities to them without tailoring each to a particular circumtance. Tends to make people touchy about generalities.

 

[1_pointer]

LA- Your right, blanket statements/practices will get one in a hurry fast!! That is the major problem with the federal agencies.

 

[Michaelr]

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH ALL OF YA