Dishonesty in government

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

User avatar
Jeroen Speybroeck
Posts: 826
Joined: June 29th, 2011, 1:56 am
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Jeroen Speybroeck »

stlouisdude wrote:Pretty much every herper I have ever spoken with understands that we need to preserve habitat.

Sure, fair point. I only expressed the thought because some were arguing that it is valuable to repeat the issues associated with collecting to new members, while I would argue that especial new members would be less keen on reading these lengthy essays and I see greater value in repeating every once in a while how herpers can influence protection of habitats or improve habitat quality at a local level. I'm sure people around here can share such experience in fairly practical terms, but they don't really seem to do so often. To my mind, being allowed to collect is about your personal freedom, not about herps or their fate. The outrage that's being shouted hear thus seems a bit over the top to me. I would firstly accuse the goverment of lack of action in the habitat departement and would care far less if they allow any species to be collected or not. What's the harm for the herps if none of them would be allowed to collected?

There's a lot of difference between European countries. While a majority of people will kill any snake or snake-like creature on sight, collecting is pretty much illegal. I'm fine with that. To my mind, field herping is about 'being' with herps in the field. Take them out of the field, then you have to drop "field" from the term. But that's just personal; I'm not sentimental or irrational about the impact of collecting in most cases, while most people around here are. I say "most cases" because we unfortunately have destroyed so much habitat that a lot of populations are so small and under pressure nowadays, that I'd rather not have any collecting at those sites, eventhough it will probably not cause extinction. There are cases, though (e.g. islet populations, isolated cave populations with little shelter from human hands), where dedicated collecting could do serious damage, imho. Maybe those cases are more common around here, because we have some small-range endemics and a lot of eager people, don't know.
stlouisdude wrote:Unfortunately, the only laws they can make are the ones that won't make any difference.
Really? In contrast to us, you have a network of huge protected areas (NPs, SPs). Surely, those are legally established? I at least am pretty jealous about those.
User avatar
cbernz
Posts: 547
Joined: March 16th, 2011, 12:28 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by cbernz »

stlouisdude wrote:Jeroen Speybroeck: Pretty much every herper I have ever spoken with understands that we need to preserve habitat. Even as a small child, I could understand that going to places with good habitat in tact would result in finding more species than say a small city park. I think it is less discussed because there is less confusion about it. Collecting on the other hand, is less intuitive. I have no idea what is taught in Europe but in the US there is a persistent campaign to paint collecting as a primary conservation concern. People, including those tasked with making wildlife laws, are not able to make a distinction between big game hunting and a tiny, obscure snake as silly as it sounds which is why it keeps coming up. Also there is pretty much zero chance of banning habitat destruction while there is significant risk of banning collection or even capturing snakes to take a photo.. Oregon nearly did the latter for a few abundant species this year and these types of regulations won't stop coming anytime soon. Very few states can ban habitat destruction even for truly endangered species as far as I know.
People definitely do make a distinction between big game hunting and herping, which is that hunters comprise a large, well-organized, well-known group that spends a lot of money on conservation, while herpers are quite frankly the opposite of all those things. There's virtually no political or economic risk in banning herp collection, whereas cutting the deer season short one day will prompt protests and headlines.

Maybe if herpers can get their s*%t together, stop bitching at and demonizing the government, get way more involved in education and outreach, grow their numbers, team up with other nature enthusiasts, and start making a real fundraising footprint towards conservation, they could incentivize the government to regulate and monitor herp populations as seriously as they do with game animals. Maybe herping could become an above-board hobby, like fishing or hunting, with licenses, seasons, and bag limits.
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Jimi »

Maybe if herpers can get their s*%t together, stop bitching at and demonizing the government, get way more involved (...) licenses, seasons, and bag limits.
we are all so divided that we are having very little effect. How do we change this starting with the very people on this thread?
Exactly. What is necessary to succeed at the state level, is to become just like falconers, trout fishermen, recreational crabbers, etc - just another color on the legitimate-stakeholder rainbow. Partner with the wildlife managers to effectively push back on the HSUS & PETA agenda, which is absolutely anathema to wildlife agencies.

Another point, related to bitching at "the government" - how about a civics lesson? The different levels (city, county, state, fed) and branches (executive, legislative, judicial) have different roles and functions, and the public has different ways to interact with them. There is no such thing as "the government", in a unitary sense.

So for example complaining about state executive-branch rules, and then citing federal legislative-branch laws or judicial findings - or any other such permutation you can think up - displays an ignorance of the way things work, and/or just a lazy mind. And being ignorant and/or lazy like that, you're just never ever going to be effective. Going on to complain about "rigged systems" or "vast conspiracies" beating you, when it was actually your own laziness or ignorance, is frankly pathetic. It would be like complaining you failed your chemistry test, when you didn't study, or do your homework, or go to the weekly lab. The teacher wasn't out to get you. You just failed, because you didn't show up and do the work.
Stakeholders need to come make their case. This is true to a point but in the long (and sometimes short) run it takes more.
Absolutely. There simply is no "one and done". You need to maintain a presence and an active, constructive engagement. And yes, sometimes you'll find dirty tricks are being played. I've had it done to me. But it wasn't by some vast organized conspiracy. One poorly-supervised person in a vital role can ruin a whole system.

A few words about letter-writing. I've never really seen it work. Letters are like petitions - they might make you feel better. But you need to actually physically show up. Let me take this a step deeper. Human beings for the most part do not make decisions based on data, statistics, etc. Elected and appointed people are our decision-makers and they are also human beings (maybe even more emotionally-sensitive that many of us sciencey-types). Human beings make decisions, for the most part, based on emotions. So come to the meetings, look and act "normal", and make your case about how much interacting with animals, in the ways you want, means to you. And why there is no reason for anyone to take that away from you. Do that - be seen, as a fellow live feeling breathing human being - and you have an honest shot. No guarantee, but a shot. You might get dirty-tricked. But you probably won't. A letter is just a piece of paper, it has no face, it has no eyes, it has no body language.
since you have insinuated that you know what I want, Jimi why don't you tell everyone what it is I want
1) No, I did in fact not insinuate any such thing. I think it's paranoid to jump to that conclusion. 2) Now we have a chance to get somewhere - nobody here knows what you want. Other than - apparently - to belittle, complain, and seethe. If that isn't all you want, then why don't YOU say what it is you want? And maybe stop all that other BS so we can actually hear your actual content?

Me? Well, you've never asked, but I'll go first. I want an organized herper community, where keepers and non-keepers stop trashing or ignoring each other and generate a short list of reasonable needs and wants (e.g., "show me some proof and some reasoned argument before you go banning this or that"). Then I want state agencies, which are the main regulators of wildlife use in the US, to accept and engage herpers as stakeholders. Finally, I want legitimate process that results in legitimate, credible, enduring outcomes: healthy wildlife and satisfied people. It is possible, just look at what has been done with elk, pronghorn, turkeys, alligators, and also bald eagles, peregrine falcons, etc.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

cbernz wrote:
stlouisdude wrote:Jeroen Speybroeck: Pretty much every herper I have ever spoken with understands that we need to preserve habitat. Even as a small child, I could understand that going to places with good habitat in tact would result in finding more species than say a small city park. I think it is less discussed because there is less confusion about it. Collecting on the other hand, is less intuitive. I have no idea what is taught in Europe but in the US there is a persistent campaign to paint collecting as a primary conservation concern. People, including those tasked with making wildlife laws, are not able to make a distinction between big game hunting and a tiny, obscure snake as silly as it sounds which is why it keeps coming up. Also there is pretty much zero chance of banning habitat destruction while there is significant risk of banning collection or even capturing snakes to take a photo.. Oregon nearly did the latter for a few abundant species this year and these types of regulations won't stop coming anytime soon. Very few states can ban habitat destruction even for truly endangered species as far as I know.
People definitely do make a distinction between big game hunting and herping, which is that hunters comprise a large, well-organized, well-known group that spends a lot of money on conservation, while herpers are quite frankly the opposite of all those things. There's virtually no political or economic risk in banning herp collection, whereas cutting the deer season short one day will prompt protests and headlines.

Maybe if herpers can get their s*%t together, stop bitching at and demonizing the government, get way more involved in education and outreach, grow their numbers, team up with other nature enthusiasts, and start making a real fundraising footprint towards conservation, they could incentivize the government to regulate and monitor herp populations as seriously as they do with game animals. Maybe herping could become an above-board hobby, like fishing or hunting, with licenses, seasons, and bag limits.

Why wouldnt a license be a good thing? I think it would serve well.

Facing uncomfortable truths have not been a dominant trait in the herping community. There are arbitrary lines around what is accepted as evidence and what is not. GP interaction and capture of herps isnt addressed because its uncontrollable, untraceable, unaccountable, and when it is brought up, its regularly in an apologists notation. Captures in a coffee can, etc that turn out too inconvenient to keep - there is no evidence that the experience leads "to a lasting interest in conservation" or the desire to be a scientist.

The release of captured herps into a different area, fed cultured food, kept with other herp pets, or ill, is a compromising needle prick into the biological hygiene of a biome.
stlouisdude
Posts: 458
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:30 pm
Location: St Louis, MO / Hartford, CT

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by stlouisdude »

In regards to an education effort, there are a number of wonderful personalities here with valuable information but written text can only reach a limited audience. What about a video series or at least some audio? We have a guy who is obviously pretty savvy with media stuff running this site... I'd love to see it transform into a round table or series of short interviews.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Kelley Mc.,
The two other topics you mentioned were the Precautionary Principle and disease. Some time ago, I believe I posted my critique on the PP so I will not repeat that here.

As for the issue of disease, once again I have not taken time to investigate the scientific literature with respect to the transmission of diseases in wildlife populations vs. captive populations. But from what I have read, I get the sense that some individuals in the veterinarian sector and wildlife biology sector have it backwards.

That is, potential pathogens occur, and have evolved naturally in the wild and and thus occur in populations of wildlife. When wildlife are captured and maintain, pathogens that were already present in the captured animals then produce symptom of disease since such captive wildlife often are maintained in less than optimal conditions that promote the increase of pathogenic organisms.

That some pathogens could have mutated and become more virulent in domestic stocks is a possibility but I believe less likely than such events taking place in the wild.

The speculation that disease organisms can be transmitted from captive species that have been released to wildlife population often surfaces in the vet. and wildlife biology sectors. I consider such speculation as ill advised. As we are now all aware, there are a huge number of exotic species that have taken hold in various part of the nation and all over the world. How is it those species did not all get infected, become overwhelmed, and then succumb by our native North Am. pathogens?

I do not wish to come across as dismissing the issue of wildlife diseases as there are some really ‘bad actors’ as far as such pathogens are concerned. But at the same time, it is my present position that there likely no real evidence of released wildlife producing problems in wild stocks. But there is gobs of evidence for the reverse, that pathogens in wild stocks have produced epidemics and death in captive wildlife and domestic stocks.

Two examples of which I am aware are the West Nile Virus and then more recently about 2 – 3 years ago, the Asian bird flu. I am an active falconer and some falconers lost their raptors to both of those diseases.

Perhaps others, such as Dr. Sweet might chime in and who have a better understanding of this topic.

Richard FH
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

You challenge widespread cannonized tenets that have been in place for decades... but there is a deep stalemate in so many of these, and I think many if not all could be re-examined.

I think i would be more hesitant regarding mycologic disease and water born pathogens, and with other bacterial/viral potential; more time needs to pass to make a claim that would mean disaster in a population of animals.

Again investigators having no attachment or agenda to the issue, along with current intensive veterinary science would be important.

Mutation and transmission of diseases cannot be explained or fully understood in one herping forum post. Or a hundred.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

Its pertinent to note that sick animals in the wild do not linger, and symptomology and progression of disease in small cryptic species (Herps) are difficult to trace or observe.

A virus or bacterium does not care, have preference or know it is in the body of a contained or wild organism. However in captive situ or domestic stock, being readily observable and in condition of exacerbated exposure, being in that closed system is the relevant factor.
User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by lateralis »

GP interaction and capture of herps isnt addressed because its uncontrollable, untraceable, unaccountable, and when it is brought up, its regularly in an apologists notation. Captures in a coffee can, etc that turn out too inconvenient to keep - there is no evidence that the experience leads "to a lasting interest in conservation" or the desire to be a scientist.
Really?
Well I'd have to disagree on the interaction part; there are many examples of this in the scientific community. Two people (one deceased) that I counted/count as a friend owe their very successful and prominent careers to a childhood fascination with herptiles. It's how I got into this field too. So the PP is bogus most of the time and to me part of the new age, ultra PC, feel good crowd who practice conservation and biology from behind a desk with little to no real world experience. Read Cloak and Jaguar to get real world insight into the wildlife conservation game, the book is rife with dishonesty at the resource agency level.
User avatar
cbernz
Posts: 547
Joined: March 16th, 2011, 12:28 pm
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by cbernz »

lateralis wrote:
GP interaction and capture of herps isnt addressed because its uncontrollable, untraceable, unaccountable, and when it is brought up, its regularly in an apologists notation. Captures in a coffee can, etc that turn out too inconvenient to keep - there is no evidence that the experience leads "to a lasting interest in conservation" or the desire to be a scientist.
Really?
Well I'd have to disagree on the interaction part; there are many examples of this in the scientific community. Two people (one deceased) that I counted/count as a friend owe their very successful and prominent careers to a childhood fascination with herptiles. It's how I got into this field too. So the PP is bogus most of the time and to me part of the new age, ultra PC, feel good crowd who practice conservation and biology from behind a desk with little to no real world experience. Read Cloak and Jaguar to get real world insight into the wildlife conservation game, the book is rife with dishonesty at the resource agency level.
Just so I don't lose track of this conversation, what are "GP" and "PP"?
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

The right question, IMO, is what can we do to change the current results? We are being slaughtered at the national, state, and local level and that bodes poorly for keepers, breeders, and herpers of all levels and the future, both captive and wild, of the many species we are dedicated to keeping around for future generations.

We have some smart, educated, and experienced people who see the insanity of it all, but we are all so divided that we are having very little effect. How do we change this starting with the very people on this thread?
The answer is more of what's already being done. Believe it or not as bad as things seem keepers, breeders, and herpers have been and are successfully fighting back. There are representatives in DC, that meet with government officials, state and federal law makers, scientist , Washington-based legal experts as well as many everyday people working on the behalf of herpers. All day, Everyday. These people successfully get devastating proposal's dismissed and tirelessly work to overturn existing laws that are based on fraudulent science. To do this successfully it takes financial resource's. As I illustrated, sometimes it takes more then just we the people. And considering how out gunned herpers are in that key area. Its remarkable how well we've done. A true testimony to their dedication, passion and intelligence

This not a complaint, a paranoid this or that conspiracy. Its the reality of what takes place. An understanding of what your up against. Things are coming at the herp community from all angles, everything from federal and state regs to city ordinances to apartment rules. In many cases people have no idea these things are happening and couldn't keep up with it all if they did. The herp community does not have the ability to spread their word in any where the same capacity that those who lobby against herpers do.

Dishonesty in Government example, scientific manipulation, read the following quote.

One particular point illustrates perfectly the cooperation between Rodda/Reed and the USFWS leadership in their animal rights agenda.

Rodda and Reed wrote, "The Burmese Python is a questionable subspecies of the Indian Python, Python molurus" (McDiarmid et al. 1999).

Here is the significance of that singularly damning statement. Now it is not immediately clear why this is damning to the nonsnake keeping public. The problem snakes in the Everglades are Burmese Pythons. The climactic data for Burmese Pythons is no where near as wide ranging as is the climatic data of Indian Pythons is. Hence, this one statement that relegates Burmese and Indian Pythons into one indecipherable mess. To illustrate the folly and patent unfairness of this little trick, imagine saying that Sun Bears, which inhabit lowland tropical rain forests, could survive and thrive everyplace that other bears live. That is silly on the face of it. No less silly, or in this case, dishonest is the mislabeling of the highly specialized Burmese Python with the vastly variable Indian Python. The Burmese Python inhabits the same lowland rain forest as the Sun Bear coincidentally. A Burmese Python would be as far out of his climatic range in Atlanta Georgia as the Sun Bear would be. But not according to Rodda/Reed who require this deception to fabricate their contracted for conclussions.

Further, the USFWS does not agree with that statement either. The USFWS knows that Burmese and Indians Pythons are completely different animals. The Indian Python is already federally regulated. Import and export are illegal. Interstate sales are illegal as well without a Permit granted by the USFWS. Permits for commercial interstate shipping are only granted to individuals who pass through a rigorous application process. If the USFWS believed that the problem Burmese Python is actually the Indian Python, as Rodda and Reed claim in that single sentence, USFWS could end the trade in Burmese Pythons overnight. However, the USFWS leadership is after much more than just that problem species. They never mention the fact that the USFWS disagrees.

As Rodda and Reed gave one another high fives for the genius of this game changing false sentence, they know they will then ply all the climatic data that applies to Indian Pythons fraudulently to Burmese Pythons. They believe their legitimate credentials will discourage others from questioning this betrayal of science and academic integrity. They are stacking the deck in the favor of the extreme animal rights agenda they willingly serve.

In 2009 Hans J. Jacobs, Mark Auliya & Wolfgang Bohme, published a legitimately peer reviewed scientific paper called "Zur taxonomie des dunklen tigerpythons, Python molurus bivittatus Kuhl, 1820, speziell der population von Sulawesi". This document proves that Burmese Pythons are NOT Indian Pythons. The papers abstract reads, "This raised the taxonomic status of the Burmese Python (Python molurus bivittatus) is reassessed and elevated to specific rank again." Rodda and Reed are fully aware of this and yet this was ignored in favor of producing the customized science that pushed their own ideological agendas.

Rodda and Reed know full well that the scientific community does not accept that Burmese are Indian Pythons. They never mentioned that fact.

Rodda and Reed know that Burmese Pythons in the Everglades have been proven to be descendants of South East Asian Rain Forest dwelling Burmese Pythons. Timothy M. Collins, Barbie Freeman and Skip Snow proved the genetic origin of the Burmese Pythons in the Everglades in the FINAL REPORT GENETIC CHARACTERIZATION OF POPULATIONS OF THE NONINDIGENOUS BURMESE PYTHON IN EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK, a report prepared for the South Florida Water Management District in 2008). Yet, Rodda and Reed failed to acknowledge this fact. Instead they used the data of the Indian Python, which created the nightmare scenario of Burmese Pythons at the Kentucky Derby and all across the southern half of the United States. The Rain Forest habitat preferring Burmese Python would not have their legitimate possible threat analyzed if Rodda and Reed could find another way to cook the books.
Remaining true to the actual topic of discussion, Ernie Eison
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jimi,
I understand what you are saying about becoming involved and taking part in the process. I have now appeared three times before the Oregon Wildlife
Commission with the last time this past June 9th. But what is missing is that if we had competent and honest leadership in state wildlife agencies, having to fight such ‘battles’ would not be needed.

I clicked on the link to the Dan Ripa documents but only got as far as reading the abstract. Yet it is clear that Mr. Ripa see the exact same issues.

Of interest is that you once worked for the Florida Wildlife agency. Then you likely know of Kevin Enge with whom years ago, I was in contact and acquired some reprints of his documents dealing with the commercial take of herps in Florida. It would seem that most non-game wildlife biologists have not researched the literature and thus are not aware that for many decades, both Florida and Louisiana have had extensive commercial harvest of species of herps. Perhaps they are aware but simply dismiss those realities and go about their business of proposing non-sense regulations of placing non-game species in a protected status.

Over and over I had tried to understand how can such agency leadership have knowledge that game species, such as deer, are harvested by the many
thousands every year, and yet propose a ban of personal take of non-game species that by comparison, have miniscule if any demand? Where in the hell is their ability to think critically? I view the current situation, that seems to exist in all state wildlife agencies, as simply one of following the leader and as being accepted, standard operating policies and practices.

In about 1999 or 2000, believing perhaps the standards for research and assessing species had changed since my undergraduate days, I contacted the past Chair of the Fisheries and Wildlife Dept. at OSU and the then Chair of the Zoology Dept. at OSU. I told them that ODFW had listed the Sharp-tailed Snake based solely on personal opinion. I had been taught that unless such anecdotal information had support from valid evidence, the standard in science related endeavors was that since perception (opinions) were unreliable, it was unethical to use such information as if such opinion were f
factual.

Both gentlemen told me that standard was still in place. When I told them that ODFW had placed the Sharp-tailed Snake in a listed category based only on personal opinion, one of those individuals told me it was worse with some federal agencies.

I am at a loss to understand how, when, where, and who started this immoral process. I am also at a loss to understand why no one in a leadership position has yet to put and end to it. But I could be wrong as I have am not privy to what has taken place in all 50 state wildlife agencies.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
lateralis
Posts: 320
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:56 pm
Location: SW USA

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by lateralis »

I am at a loss to understand how, when, where, and who started this immoral process.
I guess there are several of us who share this feeling Richard, and after reading Cloak and Jaguar I am still flabbergasted by how deep the corruption runs. One of the guilty parties in the macho b debacle ended up working on another endangered species project in Spain. After a measly 5 years of probation he is now working for an outfit that runs wildlife safaris out of Yellowstone. This person was responsible for the death of more than one jaguar in his quest for fame and yet he can still get gainful employment working with listed species?? Which brings me to another point - vette your next nonprofit or Eco trip, the organization /individual you give your money to could be a dirty bird.
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

A few words about letter-writing. I've never really seen it work. Letters are like petitions - they might make you feel better. But you need to actually physically show up. .
You might not have ever seen it work. But it has been an instrumental part of the successful push back against outrageous wildlife legislation in the past. The letter writing campaign idea was introduced by representative's based in Washington DC. People working on our behalf with decades of experience who interact with government law makers on daily basis .

Letters hand written and mailed are not like petitions that are just series of signatures or emails that are ineffective. That point made clear by those working on the herpers behalf in DC. In the case I mentioned a lot more then letters were involved, people certainly showed up and intense amount of work put in. On the other hand whos shows up for the people in favor of these laws. A lobbyist, a lawyer, and couple dirty scientist.

In this instance . A winning case was made, the bill did not pass but the pen proved mightier then the people and it was signed by executive order. The fight did not end there and currently people are showing up everyday working to get the law over turned. At same time others have tried to expand on it. Showing up is always important but it also depends on the situation what's involved whos pushing for what. Sometimes its more important just to have the right person show up.
Let me take this a step deeper. Human beings for the most part do not make decisions based on data, statistics, etc.
What? Fraudulent science is foundation of horrific wildlife legislation. With every piece of proposed wildlife legislation there is the accompany "scientific evidence". The reason these laws get proposed in the first place is because special interest group's are constantly pushing wildlife agencies to act on the "scientific evidence" they present.

Why do you think Gordon Rodda and Robert Reed were commissioned to compile a risk assessment paper in short order before the constrictor law hearing. Why do you think Rodda and Reed doctored (review my previous post ) the report. Why do you think the results of the failed SREL python study were held back for a year and not released until after the hearing. With out the trumped up scientific evidence in this case as in many, it would have gone nowhere. Why do you think every fear mongering propaganda filled news article references the work of these bad scientist. The whole point of deceiving manipulating, lying about data and statistics is to influence peoples decisions. And it works.

What went on with the Burmese pythons is a shinning example of the collusion taking place between bad science, special interest groups and dishonest government working against those who show up.
I am at a loss to understand how, when, where, and who started this immoral process.
I saw rise begin back in 73 directly coinciding with the rise in power of special interest environmental and animal rights groups. Its really out of control at this point. Yes the Feds are far worse then the state guys.

Ernie Eison
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Scotttriv wrote:Some of these govt people were indeed born clowns and others are "born" activists who have an agenda.

Govt isn't like the private sector where if you don't produce something that people actually want to buy, you go out of business.

These clowns and activists create nothing and continue to be paid.

In fact, they actually create work for themselves and coworkers when they create problems because invariably, somebody has to fix the problems that they create. It is like a self perpetuating jobs program.

One govt. group digs a trench that we don't need and another group fills in the trench and then another group comes along and decides that we need a different trench.

If we fired half the people in govt today, society would function just fine.

This is quite a bit of silliness.


There is MASSIVE dishonesty in human behavior all over the place. All of us know people on this forum who are ridiculously dishonest and yet have nothing to do with government. Heck, advertising and a lot of business is almost built on the idea, "People trying to make a profit will be as dishonest as they possibly can short of what they might get caught at."

Look at Trump. He might be the most dishonest person we've ever seen running for president, and he didn't come out of government at all. Read up on Trump University, or how he got his riverboat casino in Gary, or what he did to the Mohawk Nation in New York, or all his various housing and casino scandals. And again, he never was in government at all.


The fact that some people will be dishonest is part of humanity. It pisses us off more when they're in government because they're in a position of authority respective to us. But don't pretend like government employees are some different species than the rest of us. If you have facebook, you see dozens of people who have nothing to do with government being as or more dishonest every single day.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

note to dthor68, I just deleted the PM sitting in my outbox regarding spotted turtles wild notes of a herpetologist I know, that I thought you would be interested in.

I deleted it because I realized I would be sharing privileged input with a forum member who obviously did not wish to communicate with me.

No problem I get it.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jacob,
You now have had a chance to ‘digest’ the many point of view that have been posted in this thread. So has your position remained unchanged? Or perhaps, do you now have a better understanding?

Richard F. Hoyer
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Jimi »

I understand what you are saying about becoming involved and taking part in the process. I have now appeared three times before the Oregon Wildlife
Commission with the last time this past June 9th. But what is missing is that if we had competent and honest leadership in state wildlife agencies, having to fight such ‘battles’ would not be needed.
(...)
Over and over I had tried to understand how can such agency leadership have knowledge that game species, such as deer, are harvested by the many
thousands every year, and yet propose a ban of personal take of non-game species that by comparison, have miniscule if any demand? Where in the hell is their ability to think critically? I view the current situation, that seems to exist in all state wildlife agencies, as simply one of following the leader and as being accepted, standard operating policies and practices.
(...)
I am at a loss to understand how, when, where, and who started this immoral process. I am also at a loss to understand why no one in a leadership position has yet to put and end to it. But I could be wrong as I have am not privy to what has taken place in all 50 state wildlife agencies.
When I say "get involved" I'm talking about a whole lot more than showing up at a Commission meeting. I don't know what you - or any potential readers - do or don't know about how these Commission meetings work, or what takes place before them. Basically, in an ideal situation, stakeholders and staff would have had or at least started a productive relationship some time before the Commission meeting, and had a number of meetings and a bit of correspondence so that what was being presented by staff to the Commission, was palatable (maybe not delicious, but at least edible...) to the stakeholders and the staff.

Agencies vary a great deal in how - and which - staff get involved in rule-making. It's important to understand that, in agencies where the "corporate culture" is to flatten out the decision-making, where they aren't very "top-down", there's going to be less Leadership oversight of junior staff, and there's going to be less internal imposition of "proper procedure". So you can get decisions made faster, but they aren't necessarily going to be great decisions. Unfortunately, in any organization, a superior is going to feel a lot of pressure (whether imposed by himself or others) to show he's sticking up for his people. If he's seen to be always throwing his people under the bus, how can his people ever trust him? How can he ever get their loyalty, get their best and hardest work? We've probably all had bosses we'd follow into Hell itself, and bosses we wouldn't trust for directions to the water fountain. I sure have.

"Immoral"? " (in) Competent and (dis) honest"? Hmm. When you throw the whole can of paint at all of us, you're not going to make many friends. Even those of us who have a lot of empathy for the injustices that have been inflicted by others upon you, are going to choke on that bone. Believe me, nobody working in state wildlife management does it because they don't care a whole lot for wildlife. The problem lies in not also embracing the people side of the equation.

I think what you're looking for is accountability. In your opening post in this topic you laid out some possible steps. I like to think of those as nuclear options. They are options, and - hey - sometimes you just need to nuke somebody. But I would suggest starting with well-applied conventional approaches, making proportional adjustments as circumstances dictate. Because once you go nuclear, it's hard to go back to hoping for a constructive relationship. Conventional approaches involve working your way up the chain of accountability, from staff to career leadership to appointed & elected people. If your expectations of fair play have been violated, spell that out and try to work it out with those who you think screwed up (they might not agree with you, and they might even be right - be prepared for that). If you think you're getting jacked around, take it up to the next level. I have said this before - bureaucracies HATE to get embarrassed. Which can work for and against you - in part, it depends how you play it. Give a little face-saving space to everyone while sticking to your core points and demanding fair and consistent treatment. If you honestly get burned, go up a bomb size until - if and only if it becomes necessary - deploy your nukes.
Of interest is that you once worked for the Florida Wildlife agency. Then you likely know of Kevin Enge with whom years ago, I was in contact and acquired some reprints of his documents dealing with the commercial take of herps in Florida. It would seem that most non-game wildlife biologists have not researched the literature and thus are not aware that for many decades, both Florida and Louisiana have had extensive commercial harvest of species of herps. Perhaps they are aware but simply dismiss those realities and go about their business of proposing non-sense regulations of placing non-game species in a protected status.
Sure, I worked with Kevin and held (hold) him in the highest regard. Besides working at FWC's terrestrial research lab in Gainesville, Kevin is a pretty accomplished colubrid and rodent breeder. As for actual published literature on commercial harvest in FL & LA, I haven't seriously looked it up myself, don't know what exists. I just know (from water-cooler conversations and some harvest & effort reports - grey lit at best) there don't seem to have been any demographic or economic impacts from that level of harvest, whether or not one thinks it has been well-managed harvest, or not. (Sometimes an agency just gets lucky, or was adequately but not excessively precautionary - and skill has nothing to do with it.)

There's been a bit of noise here about "protecting" herps having no conservation value. It actually depends on the laws of the state - in some states such a designation would have consequences for project proposals, e.g. for stream-alteration permits, consultations by state highway depts, etc etc. In other states, not so much. I think the constructive play for herpers to work toward, is to separate a little recreational take from these habitat-destroying or -degrading activities. That is exactly what has been done for deer, sportfish etc.

I need to say something about expectations for science to drive decision-making. In the best circumstances it can play a major advisory role. But science is not going to answer questions about allocation - about who gets what, or whose ox gets gored. That's a human judgement call, made for the most part by elected or appointed people. Not researchers or managers. It's one of the most frustrating things about being an academic or a state biologist - that politics wins. Politics is not about the truth, or reality, or objectivity. Politics is about power and resources, getting them and using them. Power corrupts, so it's best distributed and not aggregated.
Letters hand written and mailed are not like petitions that are just series of signatures or emails that are ineffective.
Ernie, I can agree with that - handwritten and unique beats duplicate form letters hands-down. But I still say it's better to come in person, if the process you're taking part in allows that. At the local and state level it almost always does. At the federal level, I have no idea. I think it's best to deal with things before they get that far.

I also want to point out, what I have mainly been talking about here and what I think Richard is most concerned about, is state designation of "hands-off status" for native, wild species. That to me is a different beast entirely from management of non-native, captive animals. Sometimes I think it would be best if captive exotic animals were under the jurisdiction of state ag agencies, like other livestock. Ag agencies understand trade, health certs, etc. State wildlife agencies are better off sticking to public trust resources - their citizens' birthright. When they start messing with people's private property, they get in over their heads. In my opinion, having seen things from both sides of the fence.

Anyway, that said, I still don't agree with you on your characterization of Rodda/Reed. I see what happened there as rule-maker (FWS) misuse of an exploratory, preliminary scientific product. Science is supposed to be self-corrective, in that erroneous or atypical results will be refuted, not corroborated. Gordon - one of the most intelligent and well-rounded human beings I have ever met - was my grad school advisor, and I just cannot accept the idea of him as corrupted or deluded. It does not conform to the 4 years we spent working together, where I feel I got to know him fairly well. I think you've got the story messed up somewhere in the sequence of steps you think happened. I'm trying to be respectful here. But your slander, I can't just take it.
Quote:
Let me take this a step deeper. Human beings for the most part do not make decisions based on data, statistics, etc.

What? Fraudulent science is foundation of horrific wildlife legislation. With every piece of proposed wildlife legislation there is the accompany "scientific evidence". The reason these laws get proposed in the first place is because special interest group's are constantly pushing wildlife agencies to act on the "scientific evidence" they present.
I'm gonna stand behind what I said. People make decisions based on emotion, intuition, etc - not data, stats, etc. That's what I understand from contemporary neuroscience anyway, and also from experimental behavioral economics. People make decisions faster than we ever used to believe, then - here's the kicker - they unconsciously construct a narrative or an argument that appears to "objectively" support the decision they already made. That's why i say it's crucial to show up and show a face worthy of empathy. Deep down, normal humans do not like to hurt other humans or even other animals. If you can show up at a live meeting and say "hey, this thing you're voting on in a minute, there's a real chance it's gonna hurt me - so please don't!!!" - you have a better chance than if you just send something in writing (no matter its quality).

Anyway, on the heels of what happened in Dallas and the last couple of years, and just thinking about this topic and its title in general, helps me understand my heartburn with the topic title and with a lot of what's been written here: I don't like it when people are encouraged to disengage, when people are encouraged to think the institution of wildlife management as a whole is broken. It IS NOT. And if you think it is, what's your prescription? Riots? Bomb-throwing? Sniping? That is not necessary and it would not be effective. Instead, learn how to be effective within the institution. For those of you in small states, it's really not that complicated. I'm not saying it's easy, but it isn't that complicated. And sometimes - sometimes - it isn't even very hard.
This is quite a bit of silliness.

There is MASSIVE dishonesty in human behavior all over the place. ...

The fact that some people will be dishonest is part of humanity. It pisses us off more when they're in government because they're in a position of authority respective to us. But don't pretend like government employees are some different species than the rest of us.
Well enough put. Also, I'd add that one or two anecdotes don't add up to full reality.

cheers
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

The way I have come to understand here even though i was focusing on tangents on the thread, is that if our government supports fraudulent science, then Science is made to disappear.

That's very disturbing.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

Im just a little curious about Jimi's comment about contemporary neuroscience, since the neuroscience of the past didn't have the technology of data gathering that we have now and that is developing.

To be fair it was mentioned, and without example fortifying the opinion.
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Jimi »

Here's an example Kelly:
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/br ... you-decide

Another
http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/deci ... ion-making

One more
https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_as ... anguage=en

Dan Ariely does some great experiments. No brain probes, just offering human subjects small sums of money, or class credit, to participate in choice-making experiments (e.g., see about 12:30 in the TED talk). I delved into this stuff (reading actual scientific papers, and books) after getting frustrated at some challenges I was having at work. Trying to lead work groups through difficult choices to improve workflows, prioritization procedures, etc. Herding cats, I call it. They'll do the damnedest things, will cats. Choice architecture is critically important in what decisions people make. It also demonstrates that people are not consistently rational beings.
if our government supports fraudulent science, then Science is made to disappear
Like I said, an anecdote or two does not add up to reality. I've seen quite a bit of govt-funded and (a whole different thing) govt-conducted science and in all honesty have never seen fraud committed. Just think about it - science is a competitive endeavor, there's competition for money, jobs, prestige etc. Committing a fraud just gives your competition a pretty easy way to skewer you, and to receive honestly what you had tried to take dishonestly. It's much, much more in one's self-interest to simply do good work. Honest self-interest makes the world go round, when we can be rational. That's what gives me hope in politics - the art of the deal, give some to get some.

More on what I've seen - besides seeing some pretty awesome work done, and very useful decision-supporting information created, I've seen some frankly stupid questions asked, I've seen a lot of boring outcomes that any fool could have predicted, and I've seen people act like petty little shits. But fraud? Sorry, no. As for "govt making science disappear"? Only through defunding it (which - talk about the dog that didn't bark - has been underway for a generation now). In the short term I'd worry a lot more about political disinformation campaigns making science irrelevant. E.g., the climate-change "controversy" (manufactured). Or corporate science committing fraud ("cigarettes aren't harmful"). Or internet idiots spreading horseshit ("vaccines cause autism"). Note, the last one was actually initiated by fraudulent scientific research, which was caught and debunked almost immediately by the self-correcting process of - wait for it - science. But the lie was perpetuated in the idiot echo chamber of the internet.

The USGS geophysics lab case out of Colorado is utterly egregious. But part of what makes it so noteworthy is how unusual it is. Despite what others have said here, I just haven't seen ANYTHING like routine or widespread fraud or deceit in science, government, or most importantly - in what I understand to be the point of this topic - the intersection of the two.

Lord help me. I'm sounding like Gerry B. I'm gonna have to drink this off. Jesus.

Richard provided this:
In about 1999 or 2000, believing perhaps the standards for research and assessing species had changed since my undergraduate days, I contacted the past Chair of the Fisheries and Wildlife Dept. at OSU and the then Chair of the Zoology Dept. at OSU. I told them that ODFW had listed the Sharp-tailed Snake based solely on personal opinion. I had been taught that unless such anecdotal information had support from valid evidence, the standard in science related endeavors was that since perception (opinions) were unreliable, it was unethical to use such information as if such opinion were factual.

Both gentlemen told me that standard was still in place. When I told them that ODFW had placed the Sharp-tailed Snake in a listed category based only on personal opinion, one of those individuals told me it was worse with some federal agencies.
If ODFW freely admitted that they had not used "science", they only used personal opinion, would the academic ethical standards still be applicable? I think not. This is what I was getting at previously when I said it can be very difficult for academics to adjust to agency realities (science is part, not all, of decision-making). My preference, and an available alternative, would be for the agencies to mainly decide to do nothing if they have no information, rather than do something very restrictive. But helping them make that decision - as opposed to some other one, if that's what they're inclined to do - is a job for the stakeholders. Who have to show up, and do the work, and do it well.

Take a look at that choice architecture stuff, it's fascinating. And tactically usable. For serious.

cheers
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

Ah, ok! You are being beautifully specific as usual. ( :

Jimi Im really interested in perceptual illusion. In nature and in human 'foible'

And the Dan Ariely stuff - I can dig it!

Hey thanks for replying I really appreciate and will absorb the input.
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

Another example of how biologist cook the books. The author of deceit this time is Whit Gibbons who has a long and close relationship with Bob Reed(usgs) and was chosen to head the Savannah River Ecology Lab [SREL] experiment . A project whos results completely contradict countless statements and predictions made to the media by the authors and other invasion biologists. These result's (as noted in my previous post) by intent were kept secret until past the close of the comment period (in mid-August 2010) for the proposed USFWS action to list nine constrictors as Injurious Wildlife.

In this example we see how deception on the part of wildlife biologist plays into the world of everyday herpers when it comes to the passing of detrimental and bogus wildlife regulation. The making of a rare snake 101.
The southern hognose snake is a Federal Species of Concern which has apparently undergone serious declines throughout its range and may be extinct in Alabama (Gibbons, 1996). In N.C. it is known from 20 counties, all in the Coastal Plain . . . Since 1980, it has been reported from only 11 of those counties, and since 1990, only nine. . . . Around Wilmington, it was once fairly common.

Note the deceptive wording: It has "apparently undergone serious declines and may be extinct in Alabama". The citation to Gibbons (1996) is meant to fill us with panic. And Gibbons himself (2000, Herpetologist's League Newsletter) attempts to add to the panic by warning us that southern hognose snakes have not been seen in Alabama for more than 18 years! This sounds frankly terrible until you realize (from a recent survey in Edgren, 2001) that only two southern hognose snakes were ever reported in Alabama prior to 1950! Thus like Opheodrys vernalis in N.C., Heterodon simus had a very restricted range in Alabama to begin with: another "fringe dweller". But its scarcity is magnified by the pathological scientists to paint a picture of dramatic decline.

More deception: Note how the writer attempts to trick us with numbers, in order to give the impression that the populations are waning in N.C. as well:


Since 1980, it has been reported from only 11 [out of 20] counties, and since 1990, only nine . . . Around Wilmington, it was once fairly common.

First, we don’t know who the "reporters" are or how they compiled their data (if any). Second, "since 1980" an interval of 18 years has elapsed since the time of their report, while "since 1990" only 8 years have elapsed. Naturally, there would be fewer reports of these snakes over a period less than half as long. But if you read the above passage quickly and didn't ponder over it, you would think just what they wanted you to think: There are less reports, therefore the snakes are declining. Next they tell us the snake was once "fairly common in the Wilmington area." Indeed so—when I was a child I caught dozens of them in my own neighborhood. What they don't mention is that 20 years ago Wilmington was a country town: today it is a sprawling urban-suburban complex that has swallowed up an entire county. Every herptile in Wilmington has met the same doom, not just hognose snakes. Where is the correlation for a statewide decline? Herpetologist Dean Ripa
I think you've got the story messed up somewhere in the sequence of steps you think happened. I'm trying to be respectful here. But your slander, I can't just take it.
I can only guess since it wasn't specified that "Jimi" was referring to the piece I posted demonstrating Gordon Roddas and Robert Reeds dishonesty. The deceitful manipulation of data to produce a favorable result (for them and their constitutes). If anyone else thinks I got the story messed up somewhere . I would suggest doing your homework. Be well enough informed to make an educated response before making a statement like that. Jimi is clearly lost as to the facts. The example I posted of Robert Reed and Gordon Roddas lying and falsifying data is air tight and will hold up 100% to any amount of scrutiny. Everything I wrote is verifiable. I challenge one and all to prove otherwise. Its only the tip the iceberg. I do not see any trustful future for regulation that is influenced by a group of scientists employed by state and federal government to act out the roles of independent scientists while preserving clear and admitted biases.

A profound and all to often truth about showing up,
State and local governments like to the give the public fair warning about what is in store for them when a law is to be passed. You are invited to a brief public hearing and given a chance to express your opinion. This may make you feel better having said something, but it will have very little affect upon a committee that has, in fact, already made up their minds before you got there. If they had not made up their minds there would be no hearing. They are not there to take orders from you. You are there to be publicly informed of their intentions. The law says they must. Dean Ripa
I have found that to be very true. Like I said and clearly demonstrated showing up has its limits.


Ernie Eison
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Jimi »

Anybody but Ernie -

So, I just spent part of my day sitting through some dry-run presentations (to internal staff) by a state wildlife biologist who is going to present to our Wildlife Board, next year's bobcat and lion regulations.

She's been working the last year on these regs, with our local trapper and houndsmen associations. Stakeholders, in other words.

They worked out how many animals are going to be allowed harvested, in which harvest units, for what reasons, by what means. There are population measures (% of animals taken as adults/juveniles, proportion females vs males, etc) with trigger-points for changing management - like, closing an area to further exploitation, because the populations are showing early signs of depletion.

Based on previous results, and some modeled forecasts, we expect about 2000 bobcats and 300 lions to be taken next season between September and March.

The most narrow-focused deer and elk hunters would rather a lot more cats were taken. The PETA types would rather none whatsoever were taken. The cat hunters and trappers (and the agency, BTW) think this is a safe conservative number, that will cause no harm at all to the cat populations. The trappers and hunters got enough of what they wanted, that they will be back next year to do the required work to stay in the game.

I'm just offering this anecdote to show people how it is for other wildlife enthusiasts, and how it could be for herpers. If these cat trappers and hunters hadn't shown up, if they hadn't worked for years with this biologist and all her predecessors, would they be as well-off as they are? Would they still be able to enjoy their wildlife as they want to? I doubt it. I don't believe it one bit actually.

Bottom line - not showing up is a guarantee for getting nothing whatsoever. Ernie is bitter as hell about the python ban. That's fine, he can feel whatever he likes. Don't let him trick you into thinking you have no hopes or options working with state wildlife agencies. That is a deceit, with who knows what interest or motive behind it.

cheers
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

Bottom line - not showing up is a guarantee for getting nothing whatsoever. Ernie is bitter as hell about the python ban. That's fine, he can feel whatever he likes. Don't let him trick you into thinking you have no hopes or options working with state wildlife agencies. That is a deceit, with who knows what interest or motive behind it.

cheers
Once again Jimi is not up to speed. Review what I actually said in the quoted comments below , That's the bottom line.

All the grandstanding , attempt's to minimize etc. Does not change the fact that what I have said is on point and comes from a place of understanding. To that point,

In my previous post I addressed Jimi's attempt to trick people into thinking that I messed up the story somewhere, this in reference to the information I posted demonstrating Gordon Roddas and Robert Reeds dishonesty. The deceitful manipulation of data to produce a favorable result (for them and their constitutes). Also in that post I provided another detailed scenario demonstrating how a rare snake is created by the use of data manipulation. This time the biologist responsible was Whit Gibbon's . In that example we see how deception on the part of wildlife biologist plays into the world of everyday herpers when it comes to the passing of detrimental and bogus wildlife regulation. The story can be found in my pervious post and is well worth reading.

I also made a simple fact finding challenge to one and all. Clearly one person knew he was cornered and could only muster a cheap shot in response.

This response along with all the other nonsense . Typifies the games played by people who talk out of school and get checkmated. The whole Ernie's mad about the python ban crap was debunked long ago. Save that silliness for after nap time.

I'm all for organizing but I am firmly based in reality. It takes more.

The answer is more of what's already being done. Believe it or not as bad as things seem keepers, breeders, and herpers have been and are successfully fighting back. There are representatives in DC, that meet with government officials, state and federal law makers, scientist , Washington-based legal experts as well as many everyday people working on the behalf of herpers. All day, Everyday. These
people successfully get devastating proposal's dismissed and tirelessly work to overturn existing laws that are based on fraudulent science. To do this successfully it takes financial resource's. As I illustrated, sometimes it takes more then just we the people. And considering how out gunned herpers are in that key area. Its remarkable how well we've done. A true testimony to their dedication, passion and intelligence

Letters hand written and mailed are not like petitions that are just series of signatures or emails that are ineffective. That point made clear by those working on the herpers behalf in DC. In the case I mentioned a lot more then letters were involved, people certainly showed up and intense amount of work put in. On the other hand whos shows up for the people in favor of these laws. A lobbyist, a lawyer, and couple dirty scientist.
In this instance . A winning case was made, the bill did not pass but the pen proved mightier then the people and it was signed by executive order. The fight did not end there and currently people are showing up everyday working to get the law over turned. At same time others have tried to expand on it. Showing up is always important but it also depends on the situation what's involved whos pushing for what. Sometimes its more important just to have the right person show up.

A profound and all to often truth about showing up,

State and local governments like to the give the public fair warning about what is in store for them when a law is to be passed. You are invited to a brief public hearing and given a chance to express your opinion. This may make you feel better having said something, but it will have very little affect upon a committee that has, in fact, already made up their minds before you got there. If they had not made up their minds there would be no hearing. They are not there to take orders from you. You are there to be publicly informed of their intentions. The law says they must. Dean Ripa

I have found that to be very true. Like I said and clearly demonstrated showing up has its limits.

Ernie Eison

The apple doesn't fall, far from the USGS tree. Ernie Eison
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Jimi »

The apple doesn't fall, far from the USGS tree.
Seriously dude? I'm proud of the education I got as a result of working with USGS on an actual wildlife (including herps!) conservation problem. I don't have a general problem with your industry, and I think you'd be seriously hard pressed to find anyone here who thinks I'm a liar or some other flavor of dirtbag.

But let me share something I've been holding back. When I was in Florida, from 2004-2008, and I went to some of those stakeholder meetings (as a venomous keeper, not as a state biologist - I was actually both at once), one of the things that struck me most odd was how nobody from industry was willing to accept an iota of responsibility for the presence of feral Burmese pythons in the Everglades. I was also mystified by how state law prohibited FWC from charging people with release of animals unless they were actually caught red-handed in the very act of doing so. So if you need some help getting over your bitterness, try this on for size. Maybe the pet industry is "doing time", in a karmic sense, for its former excesses. I'm truly sorry - pissed, actually, which I have openly expressed here previously - that a whole lot of innocent people have been harmed, for something of dubious benefit. But I cannot help wondering if the python ban wouldn't have been so savagely imposed on all of us, if industry - and keepers in general - had been a little more penitent, and been willing to do something more for mitigation or prevention or anything, than what I was able to glean during my time there. SO I think that was a case of the stakeholders being a little too stubborn for their own good.

All that stuff you cite about how hard folks are working in DC - USARK or whoever you mean - DOES NOT mean American field herpers and herp keepers (all of whom have a state or territorial wildlife agency managing their wildlife for them) are absolved of the responsibility, or alienated from the right, to work with their state agency on their herp regs.

Cheap shots? You got that covered man.

cheers
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Ernie;
You mention, "Also in that post I provided another detailed scenario demonstrating how a rare snake is created by the use of data manipulation. This time the biologist responsible was Whit Gibbon's."

Can you give me a citation to that paper.

I have one reprint of a paper By Dr. Gibbons and a large number of subordinate authors that I consider as a classic. It has to do with a snake that was originally thought to be very uncommon to rare with a very restricted distribution. But then after 4 decades of surveys, the snake was found to have a much greater distribution and not be so uncommon. I hope we are not referring to the same paper.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

For myself, I think the primary issues are group-think and people’s unwillingness to think critically about things they take for granted.

Just look at this discussion. There are intelligent, educated people who have fallen on both sides of the debate, with others somewhere in the middle. I do think one side is mostly right on the science question and the other side is mostly wrong. But are they wrong because they’ve evil liars who know the truth but want to deceive the rest of us? Or because they just haven’t thought through the whole issue well enough because they’ve been exposed to too much of one side and not enough of the other?

Richard, you yourself say:

“But for the past 19 years, I have been dumbfounded at discovering that many individuals with degrees in wildlife science, like my own, do not truly grasp why we can harvest species and still have those species continue as sustainable populations.”

That suggests that the primary issue is ignorance, not dishonesty.

I think that Richard is mostly right in that placing a non-game species in “protected” status has little to no effect as the laws are currently written. In fact, I think it has a negative effect – putting agency resources into doing useless things takes resources away from useful things, and reducing public interaction with wildlife almost certainly has negative long-term consequences in terms of likelihood of having sufficient public will to do the REAL things necessary to protect that wildlife.


The reason agencies do it isn’t because they’re dishonest, or stupid. I think it’s more that they feel like they HAVE to do something, and the laws are written so that they can’t do hardly anything at all. It’s not the agency’s fault that they CAN’T stop development and protect habitat with these listings. If the public would allow it, they would do it. But there isn’t public willpower to protect habitat the way it really needs to be protected. And 90% of the people who claim they do have the willpower are themselves buying 2,000 sq. ft. homes and multiple cars and running AC all the time and doing every other overuse of resources that causes the habitat destruction in the first place.



WSTREPS wrote:Where there's money, control , perceived expertise,career objective's. There's corruption while remaining topical
Thank god the animal trade industry is free from these things. It's only in biological sciences where you find money, control, perceived expertise, career objectives, and corruption. :roll:


WSTREPS wrote:The apple doesn't fall, far from the USGS tree. Ernie Eison
:lol: This, Ernie, is why no one who doesn't already agree with you takes you seriously. (along with the fact that you never post anything of value outside of your narrow anti-scientist-and-government agenda).

I’m not against pet reptiles or against trade in them, but when I think of people who have made real contributions to the kind of conservation that matters….you and your cohorts really aren’t coming to mind.

You have an anti-scientist agenda that comes through in EVERY thread you ever make here. If you didn’t have evil scientists and government agents to talk about, you wouldn’t have anything left to say at all.




The biggest problem here is that people with very different priorities are breathing too much of the air. As I see it, there are at least four priorities here that have nothing to do with conservation:

1) The animal-rights types and really ignorant environmentalists who don't want captive herps regardless of conservative impact
2) People with careers in science or government who have a career advancement goal that supercedes the data
3) People making money off the animal trade who are afraid of that income being impacted
4) People who like to keep herps who are afraid of their freedom to get what they want being impacted


The problem is that the government regulation/environmentalist side is too often assuming that everyone on the other side is all in category #3 and #4 (as at least one person did in this thread), and the herper/deli cupper/animal trade side too often assumes that everyone on the other side is all in category #1 and #2 (as at least 2-3 people have done in this thread).

People like Richard and Jimi clearly are honest, intelligent, on-point people who don't fit in any of those categories...yet they get associated with the loose cannons that do.

The problem is not Richard and Jimi.

The problem is the people who act and talk as if they belong in one of categories 1-4, several of which are present in this thread. You are the reason that those assumptions are around. You are the reason those assumptions are perpetuated. And as long as those assumptions are in place, you will talk past each other and likely get yourself ignored.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jimi,
I understand and agree with many points you have made, such as it is far better to try and ‘work with’ rather than to ‘antagonize’. As sound as your advice may be, and despite I believe you understand the problem I have identified, your advice sort of sidesteps the real problem.

That is, after these problems have already taken place, you are giving advice on how to potentially deal with the problems after the fact. It is my position that there should be some means for preventing such problems in the first place. But admittedly, I have no practical solution. What I hope to have done is to bring attention to the fact that these problems exist with our state wildlife agencies.

So let me try and address this issue with a somewhat different approach. You (and others), can let me know if you agree or disagree with the following set of stipulations and my reasoning.

1) An important reason universities have departments of Wildlife Science it to produce wildlife biologists who are versed in science-based methodology for assessing and managing species of wildlife.

2) Such departments of Wildlife Science do not teach students that it is permissible and acceptable to assess and manage species of wildlife based solely on personal opinion.

3) Such departments of Wildlife Science neither advocate nor condone the use of personal opinion to assess and manage species of wildlife.

4) University departments of Wildlife Science would consider it to be unprofessional and unethical to assess and manage species solely on the basis of personal opinion.

5) If the above stipulations are accepted as being correct, then it should be evident that when state wildlife agencies assess and manage non-game species solely on the basis of personal opinion as they have done, they are acting in an unprofessional and unethical manner.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:Jimi,
I understand and agree with many points you have made, such as it is far better to try and ‘work with’ rather than to ‘antagonize’. As sound as your advice may be, and despite I believe you understand the problem I have identified, your advice sort of sidesteps the real problem.

That is, after these problems have already taken place, you are giving advice on how to potentially deal with the problems after the fact. It is my position that there should be some means for preventing such problems in the first place. But admittedly, I have no practical solution. What I hope to have done is to bring attention to the fact that these problems exist with our state wildlife agencies.

So let me try and address this issue with a somewhat different approach. You (and others), can let me know if you agree or disagree with the following set of stipulations and my reasoning.

1) An important reason universities have departments of Wildlife Science it to produce wildlife biologists who are versed in science-based methodology for assessing and managing species of wildlife.

2) Such departments of Wildlife Science do not teach students that it is permissible and acceptable to assess and manage species of wildlife based solely on personal opinion.

3) Such departments of Wildlife Science neither advocate nor condone the use of personal opinion to assess and manage species of wildlife.

4) University departments of Wildlife Science would consider it to be unprofessional and unethical to assess and manage species solely on the basis of personal opinion.

5) If the above stipulations are accepted as being correct, then it should be evident that when state wildlife agencies assess and manage non-game species solely on the basis of personal opinion as they have done, they are acting in an unprofessional and unethical manner.

Richard F. Hoyer

While I agree with the numbers you give Richard, asking people to stop making decisions based on their personal opinion is sort of like asking people to stop being human. It doesn't happen in any field. While it shouldn't happen in a science-related field, and we may hope that that's the place where it is least likely to happen, there's still going to be a lot of people who let their personal opinions take on too much weight no matter what we do - as is true everywhere.


I would suggest, instead of demanding that people stop letting their opinions influence their work, that it would be more fruitful to change their opinions - to continue promoting the good work that you do exposing how species thought to be rare are actually common, and most of all promoting the fact that sports take is such a tiny or meaningless impact on the viability of species. If we could work to get that information disseminated better through the universities, conservation movements, and government agencies.

And I think that the best way to do that, as Jimi has said, is personal contact. You have done great. We just need a lot more of you, and less of certain other characters.
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

But let me share something I've been holding back. When I was in Florida, from 2004-2008, and I went to some of those stakeholder meetings (as a venomous keeper, not as a state biologist - I was actually both at once), one of the things that struck me most odd was how nobody from industry was willing to accept an iota of responsibility for the presence of feral Burmese pythons in the Everglades. I was also mystified by how state law prohibited FWC from charging people with release of animals unless they were actually caught red-handed in the very act of doing so. So if you need some help getting over your bitterness, try this on for size. Maybe the pet industry is "doing time", in a karmic sense, for its former excesses. I'm truly sorry - pissed, actually, which I have openly expressed here previously - that a whole lot of innocent people have been harmed, for something of dubious benefit. But I cannot help wondering if the python ban wouldn't have been so savagely imposed on all of us, if industry - and keepers in general - had been a little more penitent, and been willing to do something more for mitigation or prevention or anything, than what I was able to glean during my time there. SO I think that was a case of the stakeholders being a little too stubborn for their own good.
That's really not sharing anything of value. Its just speculative banter based on a limited perspective that ignores obvious and not so obvious truths. Let me clue you in, nobody from industry who attended those meetings had an iota of responsibility for the presence of feral Burmese pythons in the Everglades. It would be wrong and useless to point the finger at someone else not knowing what the facts really are. No one knows for certain how the pythons got there but its known for certain who didn't put them there.

What went on in Florida with the laws was separate (at least partially )from what was taking place Federally. The industry did show responsibility and recognized that sensible regulations were a sound idea to help prevent future problems. Myself included. Member's from the industry worked very hard with wildlife officials in Florida to come up with a workable solution that was good for everyone. Workshops, special permitting, documenting experience, proper housing, a state held inventory and micro chipping were all part of the agreed upon solution. In no time that solution was put into law and everyone was happy with it. Then for all intensive purposes with out warning. This sensible solution was modified and became an all out ban for the simple pet keeper. And it didn't matter if they met all the previous qualification's. It was a royal screw job. For the herpers that did show up.

Fun fact: The only way I can legally posses Burmese pythons in Florida is if I breed and sell them. Huh you say, well for all the Ernies bitter about the python ban big mouths. Ill let you explain it. Clearly you think you know what your talking about.
The basis for the action to place the great constrictors and the boa constrictor on the Injurious Wildlife List of the Lacey Act is a report issued by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) titled Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment Risk assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor. This 302-page report was authored by Robert N. Reed and Gordon H. Rodda, biologists employed by the Invasive Species Programs of the USGS; it was issued in December 2009.
Burmese Pythons may eat Ivory-billed Woodpeckers. As surprising as that statement may seem, it’s listed as a genuine possibility in Table 4.2 on page 69 of this report. There is no better illustration of the extraordinary degree of bias and unfounded speculation that comprises the bulk of this report. We make the following observations to summarize this report: • A search of the manuscript for 11 grammatical qualifiers, including may, might, maybe, could, appears to, and others, found a total of 1369 uses. More than one in every hundred words is a qualifier. On average there are 5.3 qualifiers per page. • The maps indicating areas in the USA favorable to the establishment of each taxon are based on climate and, in some cases, precipitation. They do not consider the habitat, plant communities, niches, human density, mechanized agriculture, predators, prey, road density and traffic, suitable shelter, surface water, soil, or any other of many factors that have strong effect on the potential and realistic “suitability” of these areas for the actual establishment of any of these species. It is our opinion that most of the areas indicated in the report as having favorable climates, in fact, have little or no actual possibility to realistically or actually support populations of any of these large constrictors. The authors stop short of stating that Anacondas could survive in South Texas, or that Burmese Pythons could live in Oklahoma or Utah, but they strongly suggest these are “possibilities.” In fact, because of their excessive use of qualifying terms, the authors make few definitive statements about anything. • This is a state issue, not a national issue. The presence of Burmese Pythons in Florida and the possibility of the establishment of the other species covered in this report is a Florida issue. The state of Florida has excellent progressive and proactive regulations and programs in place. • The establishment risk assessments performed by the authors for each of the nine taxa in this report conclude that in all categories the nine taxa have either a “medium” or “high” risk that they will become established. In other words, they conclude that a 100-pound, 15-foot-long snake has the same likelihood to become established as, say, a small generalist sparrow species or a rat. This begs disbelief. • It would be improper to base legislation of any sort on this report. This report is not impartial, nor are the authors and the department that employs them, the Invasive Species Program of United States Geological Survey. If such a report is deemed necessary, it should be compiled by an impartial panel of scientists.

Dave and Tracy Barker

...................................................................................................................................................


I was also mystified by how state law prohibited FWC from charging people with release of animals unless they were actually caught red-handed in the very act of doing so.
How about those USGS scientist caught red handed? Where are the charges. One of the scientist destroyed evidence (made science disappear ) or as it was so delicately put "failed to preserve data".

Let me demystify this for you. You cant charge somebody with a crime if you don't have any proof that they did anything. If you don't see someone releasing the animal and cant prove it was theirs you cant charge them with anything. In Florida . If animals that verifiably belong to someone escape for any reason, are intentionally released, escape in any way even if someone bust in their place, robs them and lets all their animals loose. They are held accountable and could be charged.

Cheap shots? You got that covered man.
In many cases if not all when talking about the scientist I have soundly criticized for their dubious actions. I have posted verifiable facts to demonstrate this. Everything from incorrect biological , morphological and environmental data to direct contradictions found in their work. I have showcased carefully worded manipulative statements and cited strategically missing information .

No bitterness straight up disapproval of junk science and nothing more. I discuss the python issue the most because it is the greatest verifiable illustration of how government, special interest group's and junk science are intertwined. Its also an area that I posses a great deal of knowledge in. A guy like Jimi could read any of the work put out by the USGS on pythons and think its great. He doesn't know any better. People who posses a genuine expertise on the subject understand that the crap they put out reads like comic book or for the older generation a THF publication. To that end,

Scientist who were / are directly involved with the work I criticized , including Bob Reed (USGS Invasive Species Branch Chief ) frequent this forum and were /are given a fair opportunity as is everyone to dispute what I said.

A chance to answer direct the questions I posed. Questions why there is so much incorrect physiological , morphological and environmental information in their work. Why they left out key environmental details pertaining to the Everglades, Why they are they using anecdotal, extreme and unconfirmed statistics to prop up their work when factual documented information is available. Answers to questions they should know off the tops of their heads, especially considering the amount of research money that is being spent to study these animals.

Predictably, They ran from answering the direct question's that put them on the spot. But these scientist and their friends certainly took the time to respond with vague ambiguous BS, side stepping and smear tactics, classroom antics. They played all manor of games to side track and distort what I actually said and avoid the points of contention placed before them , They did everything but the one thing needed...... Provide a fact based rebuttal.

Ernie Eison
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jonathon,
From your first paragraph, I get the impression you consider it to be unrealistic for myself and the public to expect state wildlife agencies to assess and manage all non-game species in a professional manner. That is, the public should expect and accept that such wildlife agencies will use junk science methods rather than valid evidence to assess and manage some non-game species.

I might partially agree with that notion if state wildlife agencies openly identified which species were listed on the basis of personal opinions. I have never seen that to be the case. Perhaps Jimi knows if that has occurred where an wildlife agency openly admits a species has been listed without any valid, supporting evidence and solely on the basis of speculation such as personal opinions.

It has been my experience that when agencies provide justification for listing species, they invariably will use language that imparts the notion that species were listed in a professional manner, based of factual evidence, “the best available science”, and the like.

If you search the regulations that the Calif. Wildlife Commission adopted and went into effect 3/1/13, it contains such language that unmistakably
imparts the impression that the species the agency added into a protected status, which included all Rubber Boa populations in Kern Co., was accomplished by professional methods.

And when a wildlife agency resorts to such a ploy, that represents yet one more deceitful and immoral practice that the non-game section of wildlife agencies follow. Years ago when I looked into this issue, where agencies mentioned the used of ‘best available science’, invariably, no science was involved.

So I respectfully disagree with the premise the public should expect, and accept that agencies use unprofessional methods to list species in some category of concern. The thrust of my initial post pertained to that very issue. That is, I was calling attention to what I consider as unprofessional and unethical conduct being followed by wildlife agencies when dealing with non-game species of wildlife.

Richard F. Hoyer


Perhaps I will find time to comment on the last half of your recent post. RFH
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

Ernie;
You mention, "Also in that post I provided another detailed scenario demonstrating how a rare snake is created by the use of data manipulation. This time the biologist responsible was Whit Gibbon's."

Can you give me a citation to that paper.

Tuberville, T. D., J. R. Bodie, J. B. Jensen, L. LaClaire, and J. W. Gibbons. 2000. Apparent decline of the southern hog-nosed snake, Heterodon simus. Journal of the Elisa Mitchell Scientific Society 116:19-40.

.................................................................................................................................................

I would like to present another example of how questionable tactics are used in wildlife regulation.

Poor Science + Wildlife Enforcement Agencies = Strangulation by Regulation.

Timber rattlesnakes and CITES

On the surface the attempt for inclusion of timber rattlesnakes to the CITES list is proposedly meant to monitor the export of timber rattlesnakes, a species whos export numbers are demonstrably very low and comprised of mostly captive born animals. Verifiable facts . USFWS document every animal or animal product that is exported or imported by the US. CITES listed or not.

Why then was there such a big push to add Timber rattlesnakes to the CITES list instead of a much more viable candidate such as the twin-spotted rattlesnake for example ? This is why,


The more states involved, the more power to CITES. And CITES being the stepping stone to the already gigantically powerful ESA, this will mean power to dictate who does what not only with the snakes, but with the land the snakes inhabit. This means federal control of an animal formerly only under state control. This cuts the federal government in on a big 29-state pie. 29 states being the number of states the timber rattlesnake is found in as cited in the proposal at the time of its submitting.



CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA Amendments to Appendices I and II of CITES Eleventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties Nairobi (Kenya), April 10-20, 2000

A. PROPOSAL
Inclusion of Crotalus horridus in CITES Appendix II.

B. PROPONENT
United States of America

https://cites.org/eng/cop/11/prop/44.pdf


A bit about locating snakes for study or any purpose . The field herping portion of this post.

How do you go about collecting rattlesnakes (or any other snakes) in great numbers for sale? What technologies exist to do what the researcher himself cannot accomplish? None at all. Snake hunting is one of the most inefficient of all human endeavors.

The available technology for finding snakes is so extremely limited that it can't really be considered a valid "technology" at all. Accidental encounter is the most used method of capture. And the rate of encounter of finding a snake the size of a southern hognose ( or virtually any supposedly scarce snake species ) among the dense wire grass, ferns and leaf litter of a large pine forest or mountain side, swamp etc is practically zero. Only when populations of snakes become biologically abundant is it possible to find any snakes. To this extent snake hunting is self-controlling. Once the snake population falls to a certain level, the rate of encounter falls with it, and it simply becomes impossible to find them, no matter what amount of time you are willing to devote. Short of destroying habitat, snakes simply cannot be eradicated in a piecemeal way.

Ken Darnell records in his book, "The Venom Gypsy" (2000) Ken has an extraordinary amount of first hand information about rattlesnakes and their commercialization. He has visited hundreds of round-ups over the years (where he collects the snakes’ venom) and is well informed about the methods snake catchers use to find and catch snakes. Darnell supplied the following communication:

One of the great myths about the timber rattlesnake is that it is always found in large numbers in communal dens, and that these dens are easily exploited. In truth, during den emergence, there is no mass exodus of snakes: they crawl out a few at a time over days and days from narrow crevices that one can't see to the bottom of. One finds a few individuals basking on rock-ledges, and extracting the remainder (provided one can determine there to be a remainder) is next to impossible unless one is willing to wait for days or weeks on end. Yet just mention the word "snake den" and the public pictures a cavernous expanse straight out of Indiana Jones, where mighty masses of snakes teem and writhe. In fact, one might not even be aware that one is at a "snake den", for other than the presence of large numbers of rocks, there is no clue to its existence except the presence of the occasional snake or shed snake skin.

Ernie Eison
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

the thing with chimps is, their greed is honest and they care not who is the greediest one. They are aware it is rapacious amongst them all.
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:Jonathon,
From your first paragraph, I get the impression you consider it to be unrealistic for myself and the public to expect state wildlife agencies to assess and manage all non-game species in a professional manner. That is, the public should expect and accept that such wildlife agencies will use junk science methods rather than valid evidence to assess and manage some non-game species.
I think you partially misunderstand me, but I think we also have a real point of philosophical disagreement too.


First off: I am NOT affirming any poorly done appraisal and management of non-game species. I believe that state wildlife agencies, conservation groups, and the herping community should be held to the highest standard possible to promote the conservation of herps, with the best scientific work available. Unfortunately, there is clearly not enough money for adequate scientific work to be done by the state on many populations of non-game species.* But everyone should be doing the best with the information they have.


Where I disagree with you, strongly, is where you say something like, "Such departments of Wildlife Science neither advocate nor condone the use of personal opinion to assess and manage species of wildlife." If personal opinion did not come into the picture, there would be NO assessment or management of any species of wildlife, especially the ones for which we don't have a lot of data. Personal opinion is an integral part of drawing conclusion and making decisions.

Being "professional", using "the best available science", and ultimately making decisions based partially on "personal opinion" are not mutually exclusive - in fact, it's impossible to make professional real-life conservation decisions with the best available science without letting personal opinions factor into the equation.



There was a quaint day in first half of the 20th century (the end of the "modern" era) where some philosophers still believed that science could be perfectly rational and perfectly objective, just producing unbiased information to the public. The view that only that which can be proven and tested is important, "logical positivism", mostly died by the 1960s.

As explained in one paragraph within a very helpful outline of the issues:
Science, then, cannot be value-free because no scientist ever works exclusively in the supposedly value-free zone of assessing and accepting hypotheses. Evidence is gathered and hypotheses are assessed and accepted in the light of their potential for application and fruitful research avenues. Both epistemic and contextual value judgments guide these choices and are themselves influenced by their results. More than that, to portray science as value-free enterprise carries a danger with it:

The deepest source of the current erosion of scientific authority consists in insisting on the value-freedom of Genuine Science…(Kitcher 2011a: 40)
That is just saying that science in itself cannot be value-free. Expecting conservation decisions made based on science to be value/opinion free is even more off-target.


Just like your choice of experiment, evaluation of the results, and in fact every single step of your experimentation is driven by your own values and opinions, the conservation decisions that people will make will be even MORE driven by values and opinions.


This passage about the drawbacks of mechanically relying on the opinion-less "evidence-based medicine" movement might be helpful:
The goal is to replace subjective (biased, error-prone, idiosyncratic) judgments by mechanically objective methods. But, as in other areas, attempting to mechanize inquiry can lead to reduced accuracy and utility of the results.

Causal relations in the social and biomedical sciences hold on account of highly complex arrangements of factors and conditions. Whether for instance a substance is toxic depends on details of the metabolic system of the population ingesting it, and whether an educational policy is effective on the constellation of factors that affect the students' learning progress. If an RCT was conducted successfully, the conclusion about the effectiveness of the treatment (or toxicity of a substance) under test is certain for the particular arrangement of factors and conditions of the trial (Cartwright 2007). But unlike the RCT itself, many of whose aspects can be (relatively) mechanically implemented, applying the result to a new setting (recommending a treatment to a patient, for instance) always involves subjective judgments of the kind proponents of evidence-based practices seek to avoid—such as judgments about the similarity of the test to the target or policy population.


What they say about the social and biomedical sciences is also true of population ecology. Casual relations hold on account of highly complex arrangements of factors and conditions. Whether a mortality impact on a population constitutes a true threat depends on a constellation of factors. Applying any known facts or experiments to a new setting (such as recommending a conservation plan based on studies of populations or mortality effects on anything other than objectively randomized mortality and viability studies of the exact population in question with adequate controls) always involves subjective judgments.


For example, how about a little critique of your rubber boa studies:

#1: Were your choices of study site objectively randomized across the entire range of southern rubber boas? If not, how do you know that your personal decision about which sites to study didn't cause you to choose sites which happened to be particularly fruitful for rubber boas as opposed to other sites, and how can you hold the opinion that your results hold true for rubber boas in other parts of the range?

#2: Did you lay cover through a perfectly random grid within your study site? If not, how do you know that your decisions about where to lay cover didn't cause you to choose positions which happened to be particularly fruitful for rubber boas as opposed to other species? The same goes for which type of cover you chose to lay, which time of year you chose to check it, which time of day you checked it, and the very decision to use cover as your methodology at all. (As opposed to, say, random-walk surveys done both day and night, digging out of plots, drift fences with pit or funnel traps, baited traps, etc.)


Knowing those two flaws, how does a state wildlife agency combine the results of your study with, say, the generally crowd-sourced information that southern rubber boas are far less common in the San Jacinto Mountains than they are in the San Bernardinos, or even with any other location in the SBM outside of your particular sites? Or the fact that road-cruised encounters or hiked encounters or board lines might give different relative population densities of different species than your study gave? How do they factor in the small overall range and relatively narrow elevation preferences of the SRB alongside the relatively high population density within specific sites which might have been chosen in a biased manner? Since no one has ever done a study which showed the impact of take on a SRB population, to what degree do they assume that SRB population dynamics are similar to other snakes such that studies done on those snakes can be applied to the SRB?

I'm not saying that I disagree with your conclusion that the SRB does not need protection from take. I think it's likely the right conclusion. I'm just saying that it's a conclusion which can't be made without personal opinion working its way in on every level.


That's why I'm suggesting that it would be a fruitless and self-defeating battle to try to "eliminate personal opinion" from the process. It will fail because it's impossible and not even praiseworthy. Even pretending you can do that de-legitimizes the process, as said above. Instead, acknowledge that every conservation decision at every level involves personal opinion, and work as hard as you can to change those opinions.




* And, honestly, I'm not really sure that I want more money put towards population studies. In my mind, the focus on species populations is totally misguided, and itself is one of the reasons why there is an undue emphasis on collection. Habitat conservation and management should be the primary focus of wildlife conservation, and except for game species and a few highly-collected species, the vast majority of the limited resources available should be focused on habitat conservation, not species conservation.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Ernie,
When you cite a paper, the normal practice is to provide the senior author. So in a sense, you incorrectly attributed that study and senior authorship to J. W. Gibbons where you should have mentioned Tuberville.

It is my view that the field of conservation has now been hijacked by individuals that I would term as ‘alarmists’. There has been a ‘jump on the bandwagon’ type situations in the conservation movement that I do not believe was present until after the ESA had really taken hold in this country. As with most legislation, the ESA has has some benefits but at the same time, has spawned some unintended consequences.

As an example, the USF&WS began a test program whereby they are killing one native species of owl, the Barred Owl, in an effort to see if they can save the N. Spotted Owl. Even Dr. Eric Forsman considers that policy as ill conceived. Dr. Forsman obtained his PhD at Ore. St. U. in Fisheries and Wildlife with the N. Sp. Owl as his thesis project and has been involved in research of the species ever since. Should this practice work, it likely means that the feds will need to continue killing Barred Owls into perpetuity. It would seem that perhaps the manner in which the ESA is worded, it does not allow for natural extinction processes to take place.

At any rate, by entering the Sr. author (Tuberville) on Google and getting a list of her publications, I was able click on the PDF of that paper and read the ‘Abstract’ ‘Introduction’, and ‘Methods’ sections. I can agree that there is an inherent bias in the paper but it not anywhere as bad as a number of peer reviewed papers I have read dealing with species of conservation concern. The Tuberville paper does include some ‘wiggle-room’ with respect to their methods, results, and conclusion. (Read the Abstract).

And here is what I believe is a mistake that perhaps these and other researchers have made. In the Abstract it mentions that “Habitat destruction and degradation, road mortality—(as)—possible factors leading to the species’ apparent decline in much of its range ----.“ That very well could be true.
However, that exact same claim can be made for just about every species of snake and most, if not all other species of wildlife. Just pick out a species, express grave concerns that it is declining, and then mention loss of habitat and habitat degradation as culprits.

It takes self discipline to try and remain objective and impartial when investigating issues be they biological or political in nature. It appears to me that a certain unknown percentage of individuals in conservation research have not exercised self discipline but instead, have climbed on the bandwagon.

A classical example of the ‘bandwagon’ phenomena is where many individuals in conservation circles have adopted the position that road mortality produces negative affects the populations of wildlife. If one analyzes the issue of road mortality in an impartial and objective manner, it becomes reasonably apparent that such mortality could not possibly produce negative affects to the overall populations of most species of wildlife.

Last, in the the Introduction of the Tuberville paper is the following: “Infrequently seen in the wild, particularly in the past few decades, the southern hog-nose snake is considered rare and in decline by many herpetologists.” A very similar scenario is what led the CDFG to declare and list the S. Rubber Boa as “Rare” and place it in a protected status in Calif. But let me quickly add that following my own advice about being objective, the assessment of the S. Hognose Snake could well be correct.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Kelly Mc »

When I said I learned from your posts - I meant about the workings of human affairs in policy making, behind the scenes government frailties, etc.

But in going over some of your other statements esp in speculations of cause and effect they are specious and regularly stop short of any actual analyzation. You claim a non bias and an objectivity that isnt believable, at all.
mwentz
Posts: 152
Joined: December 8th, 2012, 3:06 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by mwentz »

So, I probably am biased against the government scientists (even as I truly attempt an unbiased post). Just getting that out of the way. I do have a favorite scientific fraud (Hein Tran and CARB), it is a wonderful story about forged degrees, faulty data, coverup, political protection, and money, but it is not herp related, so I will refrain from more comments about it.

I was however able to find (via google) actual cases of Government dishonesty and fraud in herp related cases (and in other groups of animals needing to be listed or not listed as protected in one fashion or another).

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/ ... ranks.html
http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/fws/2_2 ... _Mowad.pdf

The two above links are related to the same case. In this, the whistleblower contends that not only was science disregarded, but when people made a fuss over it they got retaliated against for blowing the whistle. So not only is scientific dishonesty tolerated at the FWS, reporting it is actively rooted out, and squashed. Under such a system, how can scientific honesty even be available? To bring it to herps, some scientists at the agency thought a lizard should be protected, but because of oil (or gas), they were told not to protect it. In another case, they were told to use outdated models because of political reasons, when they had better science at hand, including actual data, and not models.

Here is a case of two scientists knowingly making flawed models and data, and (probably) not being punished once it was found out. And the whistleblowers were punished. (this one has to do with burying beetles)
http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/ ... ervice-408

It appears that at least one of the scientists will be or has gone on to a job in the oil industry, one of the industries that would have benefitted from the flawed model they produced.

This link, mentions that sidestepping peer review is not an uncommon practice at FWS.
http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/ ... ished.html

While human beings are flawed, and we can all make mistakes, when the system actively hides dishonesty and does its best to stop honest people from telling the truth, how can any of us believe a word they say? I make mistakes all the time, but I don't piss in peoples faces and tell them it is raining. That is what supervisors are doing when they retaliate against whistleblowers or allow other officials to make flawed models or purposely use outdated data.

We are all the chumps here. We pay their salaries, and they are laughing at us, and taking the checks to the bank, and then when they need to move on, they get into bed with the people they were "supposed" to be regulating in the first place (in the above example, oil and gas).

If any of us tried to publish something without proper peer review we would be laughed out of the room, and told to not let the door hit us on the way out.
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:It is my view that the field of conservation has now been hijacked by individuals that I would term as ‘alarmists’. There has been a ‘jump on the bandwagon’ type situations in the conservation movement that I do not believe was present until after the ESA had really taken hold in this country. As with most legislation, the ESA has has some benefits but at the same time, has spawned some unintended consequences.

As an example, the USF&WS began a test program whereby they are killing one native species of owl, the Barred Owl, in an effort to see if they can save the N. Spotted Owl. Even Dr. Eric Forsman considers that policy as ill conceived. Dr. Forsman obtained his PhD at Ore. St. U. in Fisheries and Wildlife with the N. Sp. Owl as his thesis project and has been involved in research of the species ever since. Should this practice work, it likely means that the feds will need to continue killing Barred Owls into perpetuity. It would seem that perhaps the manner in which the ESA is worded, it does not allow for natural extinction processes to take place.

Some clarification: Lowell Diller, a timber company biologist, is the one who dreamed up the test project, put together the project, and has been shooting the birds. The Green Diamond Resource Co. that Lowell works for had to apply for permits from the government to undertake the project. I think that after Lowell ran the experiment for 4 years and showed positive results, FWS picked it up themselves to some extent, with heavy opposition from PETA and "Friends of the Animals". But the test project started with industry, not government.


Obviously the project is controversial. But this is an example where scientists can have a legitimate disagreement. Dr. Lowell Diller (who happens to be an avid herper) has been studying Spotted Owls for something like 30 years as well. And while Forsman has been studying them for the government, Lowell has been studying them for timber companies - he's been working in industry, not government, this whole time. I haven't always agreed with Lowell, but he is not an alarmist. Some of his earlier work (before the Barred Owls moved in in numbers) proved that Spotted Owls were viable in second-growth forest when the narrative was that they could only survive in old growth patches. Because of who he chose to work for and some of his papers' results I know people who have seen him as overly favorable to industry interests. In reality, he's probably on neither extreme - just another guy trying to do what he thinks is best.

Here's a quote from National Geographic that gives both scientists' perspectives. Forsman is the USFS biologist, while Diller is the industry biologist. I know of at least one other FWS biologist (Kent Livezey) who opposed the project even more strongly than Forsman. I know of at least one other non-government biologist (Dave Werntz) who strongly supports the project. It's not a government/non-government issue.
The FWS hired an ethicist, Bill Lynn of Clark University, to help guide its choices. Lynn concluded that the "lethal removal" experiment is justified because humans destroyed old-growth habitat in the first place and thereby placed spotted owls at a big disadvantage in the battle against the new intruder.

"If we had not been so rapacious with unsustainable logging, we might have seen a very different competitive dynamic between the barred owl and the northern spotted owl," Lynn says. "It is our responsibility to try as best as we can to make up for for the harm we have done in the past."

Forsman remains conflicted. Although he believes the experimental removal is justified from a scientific point of view, he doubts it will work as a management tool. "I don't think we can ever manage barred owls in the long run," he says. "We would have to do it forever. They are here to stay."

In California, Diller is convinced that getting rid of barred owls is the right thing to do. "I don't think we can save spotted owls everywhere, but we can allow them to persist at least in a portion of their range and give them time to adapt to this new threat," he says. "I choose to kill some barred owls so both species can persist, as opposed to doing nothing and allowing the spotted owl to go extinct."

Diller finds comfort in the fact that the experiment seems to be working. Spotted owls, he says, are returning to the sites where he has shot barred owls.


We can remember many people on this board have advocated killing bullfrogs (or ravens or introduced trout/bass or any other number of invasive species). There isn't really a substantial difference except in terms of emotional attachment.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jonathon,
You are correct in that I likely made a poor choice with respect to the example of owl caper. Sorry for that.

I understood the basic reasoning behind the killing of Barred Owl and I am well aware that such killing of the Barred Owls will have no overall negative affect on that species. My objection was the fact that the 'killing' policy would have to go on forever and ever.

Also, I would not bet against the possibility that the N. Spotted Owl may evolve / adapt to eventually compete successfully with the Barred Owl.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:Jonathon,
You are correct in that I likely made a poor choice with respect to the example of owl caper. Sorry for that.

I understood the basic reasoning behind the killing of Barred Owl and I am well aware that such killing of the Barred Owls will have no overall negative affect on that species. My objection was the fact that the 'killing' policy would have to go on forever and ever.

Also, I would not bet against the possibility that the N. Spotted Owl may evolve / adapt to eventually compete successfully with the Barred Owl.

Richard F. Hoyer

That was a very gracious reply to my overly aggressive message. I've gone back and edited out most of the rhetoric to leave just the important facts.



I think it's very easy to find examples of government scientists screwing up, with good intentions or bad ones. It is very easy to find the same in EVERY field. Some people have posted their favorite examples of "a government employee done wrong!" without realizing that anecdotal examples of well less than 1% of government scientists committing fraud is about an indicative of evil government as 1 in 1000 cops shooting an unarmed suspect is. One side tries as hard as they can to paint everyone in the profession with the same brush as the worst offenders, the other side defends every occurrence as if they'll give up the argument if they ever admit that mistakes, even malicious ones, are made. The truth is that every body of people has a few bad apples and every organizational body has some structural issues that can be unhelpful. But most people in most places are trying to do their jobs right Demonization of the profession/organization as a whole isn't helpful unless it actually needs to be scrapped - and the voices who believe that either government or science need to be scrapped are a bit marginal.

I have the highest respect for you and Jimi and have found you to be some of the most informative voices in every single discussion either of you participate in. I am just a bit worried that your disappointment with incompetence on this message has taken a direction that won't be helpful to move things forward, and gives a bit of a platform to people who have agendas that are rooted far outside of conservation concerns for the animal.
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Jonathon,
In your July 12 post, you mention, “While I agree with the numbers you give Richard, asking people to stop making decisions based on their personal opinion is sort of like asking people to stop being human.”

My skills a writing have never been very strong which may account for what seems to be somewhat of a disconnect. I may not have been precise enough. That is, if you were referring to wildlife agency biologists using their own opinions to list species, I do not believe that is the case in most instances.

It is unlikely that agency biologists possess much, if any knowledge about the species of herps they propose for listing a protected status. So they are not using their own opinions. Instead, agency biologists have made listing decisions based on the opinions of other individuals and without any supporting evidence.

Example: In 2003, I was part of a panel that reviewed all species of herps on the ODFW Sensitive Species list. At the time, there were four species of snakes on that list, the Ground Snake, Sharp-tailed Snake, Common Kingsnake, and Calif. Mt. Kingsnake. The latter two species had been included sometime in the early 1980’s. Not having been the subject of any study in Oregon, I knew that they likely were listed without any valid evidence.

When it came time to review all four species of snakes, I asked all participants two questions. Did anyone know of any evidence that would support the initial listing of those 4 species of snakes. There was total silence. I then asked if anyone knew of any new evidence that would support the continued listing of those 4 species. Again total silence. I then recommended that all four species be removed from the Sensitive Species list.

Keep in mind that the dozen or so invited participants included professional herpetologist, biologists and PhDs from USGS, BLM, ODFW, OSU, and possibly the US. Forest Service. Also present was the head of ODFW Wildlife Diversity (non-game species) Section and the gentleman from the Natural Heritage Organization who was facilitating the panel review. Sometime before that panel convened in 2003, I had requested both individuals bring the evidence in support of the listings of those 4 species of snakes. Neither of those individuals had any evidence in support of those listings.

I then asked how the two species of kingsnakes got added to the Sensitive Species list. My friend and herpetologist Dr. John Applegarth was sitting right next to me and mentioned that he had contacted ODFW and voiced the opinion that he thought both species might be harmed by individuals collecting those species. We all had a laugh at that time including myself. But that confirmed my suspicions!

The same type of personal opinion (concerns) about the Rubber Boa population on the S. Kern Plateau lead to the 2013 CDFW regulation that had all populations of the Rubber Boa in Kern Co. placed in a no-collecting, protected status.

It is my view that the practice of state wildlife agencies listing species in a ‘protected’ status, based only on personal opinions without any supporting evidence, is widespread, is standard operating procedures, and thus ‘institutionalized’ amongst most if not all state wildlife agencies.

I entered my original post because the practice appears to be so widespread and represent a violation of public trust for the reasons I mentioned in that post. Now I only have examples from a few states that supports my assertions. But from fragmentary information, I believe this practice is widespread and accepted as being the norm throughout all, or most state wildlife agencies. But if Jimi or others have information that indicates I am mistaken, then I certainly should be challenged and called on the carpet so to speak.

You might note that the input I received from one of the professionals at OSU with whom I conferred in about 1999 or 2000, mentioned that the same practice was worse with some federal agencies. Unlike the specific examples I can cite with respect to state wildlife agencies, I lack such specifics with respect to federal agencies and thus have avoided making similar assertions.

Richard F. Hoyer
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

It seems Richard F. Hoyer is not alone in his experience. Below is what research scientist and herpetologist Dean Ripa had to say about a North Carolina rattlesnake "protection" regulation he questioned.

Since the pamphlets offered by the state did not cover any justifications for the ruling except a vague "decline" said to be occurring in the populations of the snakes, I naturally wanted to know what had caused the decline (or what they thought caused it) before deciding if so unusual a proposal could have any effect in rectifying it. I also wanted to know how they had determined the "decline."

My attempts to validate this matter were answered with a discursive "we have the data" and then I was summarily silenced. When at last it became apparent to me that there was no data, and when before the whole room I contested the existence of this data, and pressed them to show this data to me, I was given a speedy dismissal. "Please just state whether you are for or against the ruling," the auditor (Cobb) retorted. And I replied, "How am I know whether I am for or against your proposal if you cannot provide me any data?" Apparently it was considered a strange request to want to review actual information before making an informed decision. No one else in the room needed data, why did I? Indeed, NCWRC did not need data either.

Subsequent inquiries into the scientific documentation backing up the proposal were never answered.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has changed from an agency mostly concerned with game management and sport fishing to an agency that's wielding the extraordinary power of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).This has made it a very political agency.


The attempts made to try and minimalize the dishonesty and the results of that dishonesty found in to todays blend of Government and conservation. Are just as dishonest in their own right as the empowered scientist and government official's who violate the trust of the public and their peers. It typifies the win at any cost (including the truth) attitudes displayed by the hyper agenda ridden (phony) conservationist of the day. The willingness to ignore or diminish the wrong doing on the part of both scientist and government official's. Grandstanding statements . Along with the argument that there's dishonesty everywhere. Amount to little more then playing the school yard game of - I Know You Are, But What Am I? And does not absolve or relieve the guilt of their misuse of authority, trust , and funding. The point of the topic is to address Dishonesty in Government not justify it.

On more then one occasion I posted verifiable FACTS about the wrong doings in the world of pathological science and its result's. Facts that prove my case against the accused wrong doers. And I asked a simple question. If the verifiable facts I posted are wrong then show me verifiably where they are wrong. I threw down the challenge directly to the scientist, their personal friends and who ever wanted to take a shot. It was put up or shut up. When put to the test. They could not explain away the gross errors and misleading information found in their own peer reviewed work.

Ernie Eison
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

Richard F. Hoyer wrote:It is unlikely that agency biologists possess much, if any knowledge about the species of herps they propose for listing a protected status. So they are not using their own opinions. Instead, agency biologists have made listing decisions based on the opinions of other individuals and without any supporting evidence.
That was a great clarification Richard, and I think I highlighted the key statement. Your fundamental issue is that listings are being made without supporting evidence.

It makes me think of the "precautionary principle". You list things "just in case" they're endangered, and block collecting "just in case" it has an impact, because the risks of inaction are seen as far greater than the risks of too much action.

It seems that the scientists making the listings are using the precautionary principle, while you would either say that the precautionary principle should be discarded, or at least that it should only be used when there is at least some strong supporting data for listing already.


I would definitely side with you. The proponents of the precautionary principle fail to take into account the root cause of wildlife loss: that public and corporate interest in conserving wildlife isn't as high as other priorities. Our desires for bigger homes, bigger yards, more shopping, more meat, higher profits, etc. are greater than our desires for conservation, and THAT is why habitat and populations are disappearing. A small number of people collecting in a non-commercial manner are NOT what is making things die out of their historic range. Anything that reduces public interest/commitment even further (like hands-off policies) is a bad thing. I think the cases in which prevention of collecting are valid are very, very few.


WSTREPS wrote:The attempts made to try and minimalize the dishonesty and the results of that dishonesty found in to todays blend of Government and conservation. Are just as dishonest in their own right as the empowered scientist and government official's who violate the trust of the public and their peers. It typifies the win at any cost (including the truth) attitudes displayed by the hyper agenda ridden (phony) conservationist of the day. The willingness to ignore or diminish the wrong doing on the part of both scientist and government official's. Grandstanding statements . Along with the argument that there's dishonesty everywhere. Amount to little more then playing the school yard game of - I Know You Are, But What Am I? And does not absolve or relieve the guilt of their misuse of authority, trust , and funding. The point of the topic is to address Dishonesty in Government not justify it.
I think that Richard, even though he (like me) participates in the world of science as an amateur, knows the difference between anecdotes and meaningful data which prove a case. Either you don't, or you don't care.

I have not ignored or diminished any wrongdoing on the part of any official.

I have pointed out that highlighting that a scientist has committed fraud while employed by the government does not say anything at all about the vast majority of scientists who work for the government, any more than pointing out that someone has been involved with lying, bribes, trafficking of protected species, and other illegal activity in the animal trade would say anything about everyone else in your trade.

If you have actual evidence that scientists are bigger liars or less bound to facts than the rest of the human population, then give it. If all you have are a couple anecdotes you've noticed that have led you to form a personal opinion, then your opinion should be just as invalid in terms of making policy as the uninformed opinions of the scientists Richard is upset with.


You've been showing yourself to be incredibly biased on this issue, to the point where you've now started making anti-government postings on the FHF that have NOTHING to do with herps at all. As I ask you virtually every time we engage in conversation, why don't you start making posts that share some of your substantial knowledge of herps, or at least some nice pictures of all the many outings you've done all over the world, and ADD something to this forum, rather than just railing against government and scientists every. single. time. you. post.



WSTREPS wrote:On more then one occasion I posted verifiable FACTS about the wrong doings in the world of pathological science and its result's. Facts that prove my case against the accused wrong doers. And I asked a simple question. If the verifiable facts I posted are wrong then show me verifiably where they are wrong. I threw down the challenge directly to the scientist, their personal friends and who ever wanted to take a shot. It was put up or shut up. When put to the test. They could not explain away the gross errors and misleading information found in their own peer reviewed work.
I just had to laugh when I saw this. Weren't you the guy who came on this forum and made up a list of completely BS assertions about the Bangladesh Python Project that I was involved with, for the sole reason that the project involved pythons and scientists? And when I was able to demonstrate that literally every negative assertion you posted about the project had been made up in your own head and posted verifiable FACTS about the actual project, you just doubled-down and kept making ridiculous assertions against the project, even changing the meaning of English words in the process to keep it going, until the point where Scott had to tell you to stop the mudslinging or he would kick you off?

Looks like they're not the only ones who refuse to admit when they were wrong.

I don't know which scientists you're talking about, and I can guarantee 100% that I was not one of those people who supported peer-reviewed work which you found gross errors in (I've found gross errors in a LOT of peer-reviewed work too, though some journals peer-review much, much better than others and some scientists publish much better work than others). But I can guarantee that any of the faults you found with them can be tagged onto your or other people in your industry just as easily.


* Are you accusing them of obvious bias that shines through in their written work? Well, you clearly have that one too.

* Are you accusing them of refusing to admit when they were wrong even when verifiable facts show their assertions to be false? Well, you clearly have that covered too.

* Are you accusing them of being concerned with making money and advancing their careers? Of course you are concerned with that as well.

* Are you stating that they have had agendas beyond the conservation of wild populations? You'd have a hard time making the argument that conservation is your primary agenda.

* Are you accusing them of lying? Well, I'll let anyone who reads this board judge whether that applies to you or not, but you certainly wouldn't be able to defend your industry as clean in that regards.



Your main issue with scientists and government officials involved in conservation is that they usually have an agenda which has been opposed to yours, and you feel that if you can find examples of individual people who did wrong things or individual decisions that were bad, you can therefore taint the whole group and thus justify yourself.

All you've actually managed to do is prove that the world of science and government is composed of human beings like yourself.


I'm concerned with actually helping good things happen for herps and for people. That is what ALL of my work regarding herps, in the USA, Thailand, Bangladesh, and to a small degree India, has been centered around. One major way I've tried to do that is to help herpers, conservationists, scientists, and government officials to collaborate more often and more effectively, so that the knowledge and data gathered by herpers plays a greater role in conservation decisions, so that government/conservationists/scientists trust herpers more and rely on them more, so that herpers spend more of their energy conserving the wild populations of the herps they love, and so that in the end, more people are dedicating themselves to the survival and thriving of wild herps, which needs a LOT more hands on deck.


That's my honest motivation.

What's yours? When you post rants against government that have nothing to do with herps, or attack herp research projects on the other side of the world that you know nothing about just because pythons are involved, what do you hope to accomplish? If you succeed in demonizing government and science, what do you win? Are you hoping that they'll throw up their hands and say, "you were right!" and adopt a completely libertarian view towards the snake trade? Do you think that science journals will say, "these internet rants are right on target!" and reform their criteria for accepting studies? Do you think that literally every python researcher in the world will give up their work because you have correctly accused them of being in it solely to profit off Everglades hype?

What's the prize that you think you can win here?
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

In my previous post I included a statement from researcher and biologist Dean Ripa about his experience involving a new protection policy to be implemented. What happened when he asked to see the data surrounding that issue. The dishonesty he encountered on both the part of wildlife biologist and wildlife official's. Below are his further thoughts based on his intensive investigation of the issue.
.
(1) That there is a decline in snake populations even though no one knows how many snakes there are, or ought to be;

(2) That snakes that were so rare 50 years ago that only a handful of people had ever seen one have suddenly become "Endangered," and moreover, this happened after they were granted "Special Concern" protection;

(3) That snakes that are so secretive that no one can find them, can be determined to be in decline (e.g., southern hognose; coral snake, etc.,);

(4) That the ecological variations in the urbanized northern United States can be applied verbatim to the agriculturalized south;

(5) That the state with the highest incidence of snakebite in the nation does not have enough rattlesnakes to bite people;

(6) That it should be illegal to kill a dangerous snake but legal to kill a harmless one;

(7) That a child who catches a common species of snake or other reptile in his own yard is a criminal, while cars will squash thousands of those same snakes at night while he sleeps, totaling millions each year;

(8) That in order to protect snakes and other reptiles you must make it illegal to rescue them from roads before being run over by cars;

(9) That an animal so small that it can hide beneath a single oak leaf can be rendered extinct by flabby overweight snake-men toting bags and hooks while walking on weekends in thousands of square miles of dense forest, thickets and swamps;

(10) That the greatest opponent of these supernaturally gifted snake hunters is also the greatest collector of snakes in the state (A. Braswell);

(11) That you can increase wild populations of snakes by banning captive reproduction of them;

(12) That a law that cannot be enforced and will not be obeyed will protect snakes few people can properly identify;

(13) That an animal must become "endangered" before it can rate a grant to study it; and so the more endangered species the more grants and money to be made by scientists;

(14) That a list of endangered species increasing from year to year indicates a successful management approach;

(15) That there is more money to be made in protecting wildlife than in selling it;

(16) That the greatest exploiter of herptiles in the state created the laws and will be least affected by them (A. Braswell);

(17) That animals preserved as a resource for everyone can be used by no one (exception A. Braswell and Company);

(18) That it is cruel to maintain captive born animals alive in captivity but not cruel to take them from the wild and kill and mummify them;

(19) That in order to protect animals the state must kill them.

Ernie Eison

.................................................................................................................

I want to stay topical. I certainly don't want to derail this thread addressing all the fallacies made by one poster. Point by point. He is trying once again to sway opinion by distorting the truth.

Direct comparison of what was actually said and the posters delusional (or perhaps intentional ) remembrance of the truth. Illustrates this point.
until the point where Scott had to tell you to stop the mudslinging or he would kick you off? jonathan ( Johnathan says "you" multiple times in singling out me)

Ok, enough. To everyone who is participating in the mud slinging......take this crap to private messaging or be gone. Scott


Not me , not Johnathan, or anyone one particular person involved with that thread was ever singled out as jonathan falsely claims.

To those who care enough the forum has a search function. Search my other post and review all the topical information found in them. Scroll back thru my post in this thread. Review my post and carefully read what I have said. Please point out to me where I have lied about anything, where I have misquoted someone, where I have presented incorrect biological or ecological information, where I have demonized all science and government, etc. By all means prove this. As a side note I certainly did have my critique's of the Bangladesh Python Project, the band wagon jumping nature of it, the advertising Eco tours on the main Forum, the uselessness of such projects. If anyone takes issue with that...........oh well.

Lastly, Any and all questions will be cheerfully answered.

Ernie Eison
Richard F. Hoyer
Posts: 639
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:14 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Richard F. Hoyer »

Ernie,
Some of the quotes you posted by Dean Ripa are Priceless and so on target!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathon;
On this forum, last year or the year before, I copied my critique of the so-called ‘Precautionary Principle’ that I believe I first posted on the Arizona PARC web sites and then the national PARC List Serve quite a few years back. For those that may be new to this forum or missed my previous coverage of the PP, below I have copied that critique.

If the PP were used in a legitimate manner, I could concede it would have merit. But Jonathon, you are correct in that I totally reject the use of the PP as it has been terribly misused in conservation cirlcle.

And by the way Jonathon, when in the early 2000’s I reviewed the issue of non-game species listed in Utah, the Utah Wildlife Agency openly mentioned the use of the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Since Jimi works for that agency, perhaps he can tell us if that admission still exists somewhere in the agency’s documents.

Richard F. Hoyer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Precautionary Principle’

The underlying basis for the positions I have taken in recent threads have everything to do with credibility, integrity, professional conduct, and basic honesty as those values pertain to state wildlife agencies and their management of non-game wildlife. In this thread, I provide my thoughts on the so-called 'Precautionary Principle' (PP) and these same basic values are at the core of my remarks.

Background: My position has always been that science-based processes should be used to assess and manage wildlife resources. After all, isn't that the reason behind university programs in Wildlife Science so that graduate biologists will employ professional methods?

In mid 1997, I was visiting an acquaintance that had recently retired as a regional fisheries supervisor for the Calif. Dept. of F & G. We were discussing my proposed study of the Sharp-tailed Snake (Contia tenuis), a species that had never been studied in Oregon. With a complete void of factual evidence, in 1971 the ODFW placed the species in a 'Protected' status based solely on anecdotal opinion. Since no evidence existed to indicate Contia was having problems, from a biological and ethical perspective, I expressed my view that the species should not have been listed in the first place. My friend disagreed and mentioned something close to the following: "Since so little is known about the species, it is best to take a conservative approach and err on the side of caution'. That was my initial introduction to the 'Precautionary Principle'.

In recent years when I have questioned the legitimacy of a listed species, individuals have repeated the same or very similar phraseology as a justification. It sounds so reasonable that one is inclined to accept the notion at face value. But something bothered me at the time and I began to seek answers. The following is what I have learned along with some analysis.

1) By it very name, the word 'principle' lends a measure of authenticity and legitimacy. The impression I have gotten when someone cites the PP is that they believe they are citing a basic principle of biology. Thus, the use of the word 'principle' misleads individuals into believing a basic biological principle is involved.

2) Instead of a basic principle, the PP is simply a point of view, conjecture, supposition, personal opinion, a concept, or philosophical position and thus is not factual but speculative in nature. True biological principles have support from a broad base of existing evidence. The PP lacks support from any factual evidence. Employed in a biological context (as if it were some basic principle), it is quite deceptive for those that are not aware that the PP is simply a concept or personal point of view.

3) The application of the PP concept primarily occurs in specific situations.
A) With rare exception, application of the PP is not used in connection with commercial species, fur bearers, or game species. It is almost exclusively applied to non-games species.

B) Even though little is known about the basic biology of 99.99% of all species, it is not applied across the board. The PP is applied 1) where some 'official' concerns are expressed for a species (being considered for listing) but where supporting evidence is lacking and 2) as a defensive ploy anytime questions of legitimacy arise about a listed species for which supporting evidence is lacking (as when I questioned the Contia listing in Oregon).

Thus, applying the PP is a convenient way of sidestepping the issue any time there is a void in factual evidence. As such, the PP could be selectively applied to nearly all species on this earth. Just pick a species, express a grave concern for its overall status, then cite the PP as a justification for listing the species. In this manner, there is no need to produce any evidence in support of your position.

4) Application of the PP does not truly mean 'proceed with caution' but entails a total prohibition of any use of a wildlife resource.


5) There are two inherent conflicts or contradictions between the underlying assumptions of the PP and basic tenets of wildlife science and population biology.

A) With mentioning 'the need to err on the side of caution' (coupled with a complete hands-off stance), implied is that the health of species are suspect (populations are 'sick'). In contrast, the basic tenets of wildlife science and population biology indicate the opposite situation. Populations are deemed to occur at normal densities in occupied habitat (are 'healthy'). This is due to the principle of population biology previously mentioned that species over produce their kind during reproduction.

B) The second contradiction occurs as follows: Because population biology indicates species exist at normal densities, factual evidence is needed to demonstrate otherwise. In contrast, application of the PP concept bypasses or ignores the need for factual evidence to determine if a species' health is suspect. By invoking the PP, one can simply declare that a species is suspect and should be place in a protected status.

It should be noted there is no evidence that supports the PP concept but an enormous amount of evidence exists in support of the basic tenets of population biology--that species exist at normal densities in suitable habitat. It seems not to bother advocates of the PP that in many cases, the listing of species was done without any factual evidence. Yet the irony is that proponents of the PP then mention that scientific evidence is required in order to have a species removed from a 'Protected' status.

Do you think agency wildlife biologists would recommend de-listing species based solely on anecdotal opinion without supporting evidence? Yet, with a complete void of factual evidence, wildlife agencies have listed species in a 'Protected' status base solely on anecdotal opinion. I was hoping that Arizona was different. But I see that is not the case with the recent listing of the Box Turtle where no meaningful evidence was presented that would remotely indicate the species was experiencing problems in that state.

6) It is my view that most non-game species listed in some category of concern were done so based mostly or entirely on anecdotal type information lacking factual support. When a person invokes the PP for such listed species, they are employing an unscientific concept to justify a species listed by unscientific processes. In my opinion, this amounts to one form of junk science justifying the use of another form of junk science.

7) Last, I looked into the origin of the PP. I found that a number of individuals had proposed it's application but that it was primarily aimed at technological advances. One source on its origin mentions that the PP became popular with G. Tyler Miller, an Environmental Scientist and economist. In one of Miller's books, 'Environmental Science, ninth edition' is the following definition: "The precautionary principle: When there is much evidence that an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, we should take precautionary measures to prevent or reduce harm even if some of the cause-and-effect are not fully established scientifically." Please note where it mentions "WHEN THERE IS MUCH EVIDENCE".

As mentioned at the beginning, my concerns involve basic values of integrity, credibility, professionalism, and honesty. After examining the current manner in which wildlife agencies assess and list non-game species, in the past 8 years I have progressed from merely being skeptical to being cynical. I no longer accept listed species at face value and need to be shown the factual basis that support such listings. No longer am I gullible enough to accept a biologist's (or academic's) explanation that a listing was 'based on the best science available' or 'based on the best available information'. Invariably, I have found that no science was involved and the best information amounted to anecdotal opinion without support from meaningful evidence.

With many species having been listed without acceptable evidence, I find it hard to reconcile how any individual that critically examines this issue can have confidence in the credibility in state wildlife agency's lists of 'Protected Species'. How does this situation reflect on the integrity of a state wildlife agency, particularly their non-game programs? Does anyone believe that such methods are professional and are taught at university Depts. of Wildlife Science? And what does it tell you about basic honesty. In official lists of protected species, state wildlife agencies are informing everyone that these species are in need of protection. Yet agency biologists are unable to produce any valid evidence in support of such listings. (Nor are they able to explain in rational terms how a protected status truly 'protects' such species.) The situation in Oregon is a typical example in which not a smidgen of data exists in support of the 4 species of snakes listed in the 'Protected' category.


As with my prior threads, I hope that I have planted some seeds for thought.

I will close with mentioning that as an independent biologist, I am not accountable to any entities be they public or private. I am a long time conservationist having contributed financial support yearly for decades to a number of conservation organizations with my favorite being Nature Conservancy. Clearly there are some species in dire straits and others where populations have been compromised. But with the current situation in which there are an incredible number of bogus listings, it is my view that the entire conservation movement has been compromised.

The questions of why and how this has all come about I will leave for others to ponder.

Richard F. Hoyer (Corvallis, Oregon 1/26/05)

Jonathon,
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

WSTREPS wrote:In my previous post I included a statement from researcher and biologist Dean Ripa about his experience involving a new protection policy to be implemented. What happened when he asked to see the data surrounding that issue. The dishonesty he encountered on both the part of wildlife biologist and wildlife official's. Below are his further thoughts based on his intensive investigation of the issue.
.
(1) That there is a decline in snake populations even though no one knows how many snakes there are, or ought to be;

(2) That snakes that were so rare 50 years ago that only a handful of people had ever seen one have suddenly become "Endangered," and moreover, this happened after they were granted "Special Concern" protection;

(3) That snakes that are so secretive that no one can find them, can be determined to be in decline (e.g., southern hognose; coral snake, etc.,);

(4) That the ecological variations in the urbanized northern United States can be applied verbatim to the agriculturalized south;

(5) That the state with the highest incidence of snakebite in the nation does not have enough rattlesnakes to bite people;

(6) That it should be illegal to kill a dangerous snake but legal to kill a harmless one;

(7) That a child who catches a common species of snake or other reptile in his own yard is a criminal, while cars will squash thousands of those same snakes at night while he sleeps, totaling millions each year;

(8) That in order to protect snakes and other reptiles you must make it illegal to rescue them from roads before being run over by cars;

(9) That an animal so small that it can hide beneath a single oak leaf can be rendered extinct by flabby overweight snake-men toting bags and hooks while walking on weekends in thousands of square miles of dense forest, thickets and swamps;

(10) That the greatest opponent of these supernaturally gifted snake hunters is also the greatest collector of snakes in the state (A. Braswell);

(11) That you can increase wild populations of snakes by banning captive reproduction of them;

(12) That a law that cannot be enforced and will not be obeyed will protect snakes few people can properly identify;

(13) That an animal must become "endangered" before it can rate a grant to study it; and so the more endangered species the more grants and money to be made by scientists;

(14) That a list of endangered species increasing from year to year indicates a successful management approach;

(15) That there is more money to be made in protecting wildlife than in selling it;

(16) That the greatest exploiter of herptiles in the state created the laws and will be least affected by them (A. Braswell);

(17) That animals preserved as a resource for everyone can be used by no one (exception A. Braswell and Company);

(18) That it is cruel to maintain captive born animals alive in captivity but not cruel to take them from the wild and kill and mummify them;

(19) That in order to protect animals the state must kill them.

Ernie Eison
I agree with the bolded issues, though it certainly bears consideration of where those issues come from, so that we can take positive steps to address them instead of just whining about them.


The other ones are all either a bit silly, personal, or emotion-driven.




WSTREPS wrote:I want to stay topical. I certainly don't want to derail this thread addressing all the fallacies made by one poster. Point by point. He is trying once again to sway opinion by distorting the truth.

Direct comparison of what was actually said and the posters delusional (or perhaps intentional ) remembrance of the truth. Illustrates this point.
until the point where Scott had to tell you to stop the mudslinging or he would kick you off? jonathan ( Johnathan says "you" multiple times in singling out me)

Ok, enough. To everyone who is participating in the mud slinging......take this crap to private messaging or be gone. Scott


Not me , not Johnathan, or anyone one particular person involved with that thread was ever singled out as jonathan falsely claims.

To those who care enough the forum has a search function. Search my other post and review all the topical information found in them. Scroll back thru my post in this thread. Review my post and carefully read what I have said. Please point out to me where I have lied about anything, where I have misquoted someone, where I have presented incorrect biological or ecological information, where I have demonized all science and government, etc. By all means prove this. As a side note I certainly did have my critique's of the Bangladesh Python Project, the band wagon jumping nature of it, the advertising Eco tours on the main Forum, the uselessness of such projects. If anyone takes issue with that...........oh well.

Lastly, Any and all questions will be cheerfully answered.

I asked you pertinent questions in the above post, and they remain unanswered.


As far as your quote goes, anyone else can read the series of ridiculous claims you made RIGHT HERE (no need for the search function), and decide for themselves if Scott was seriously referring to anyone other than yourself and Gary, or if it was ANYONE's fault other than your own that you came onto a perfectly valid post made in the name of assisting conservation and science, and tried to hurt the project with uninformed lies just because it had something to do with science, conservation, and pythons.

When he said, "YOU are the problem, not the solution." after the point that people are only going to read something "that brings something positive to the table", do you think he was referring to the person who came onto a thread he knew nothing about in order to attack the people involved, or the person who made a reasonable defense of the project?

Again, anyone who wants can read the thread right here and judge for yourself.


Or read Ernie's other recent science-attacking thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with field herping here.



* Here's my biggest question. This is a field herping forum. Why don't you EVER post something positive about field herping?

You've bragged before about all your knowledge. All the places you've gone. All the things you seen. So POST something. Add something positive. Do ANYTHING other than railing against your pet pieve.


* Here's my second biggest question - what possible good do you think will come out of your rants? What will change?


* Here's my third biggest question? What human error do you think that scientists have demonstrated which participants in your own industry have not? If your industry is better than their field in any way, show it, and explain how.


* And finally - if you're so concerned with science being done correctly and claims being made with proper evidence, why do you keep posting as if single examples of scientific misconduct therefore say anything whatsoever about the entire industry?
User avatar
WSTREPS
Posts: 509
Joined: June 9th, 2010, 4:03 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by WSTREPS »

I posted a list of thoughts composed by biologist Dean Ripa about his experience involving a new protection policy to be implemented. Below are his recommendation's to address the issues found in that policy.


(1) Abolish the North Carolina "nongame" status in North Carolina and reclassify all herptiles as "game." All herptiles have historical usage and therefore precedence as "game." And snake hunting is a valid sport.

(2) Allow the public to collect the herptile as a live or dead product. All persons qualify regardless of institutional connections. This will put institutional personnel on an equal footing with the public and prevent irresponsible exclusionary lawmaking (e.g., such as that done by the "Scientific Council").

(3) Manage the collection of herptiles by quota, exactly as other game animals. Thus their use can be regulated, and need not be banned. The collector purchases a stamp for each example he or she wants to harvest. The fee will be geared to reflect 50% of the wholesale resale value of the animal (25% of retail), which will vary according to current market price. This will remove profit from and discourage wild collection, and force a reliance on a captive born product. The resulting monies (which should be considerable) should be managed in a way that will help herptile populations (e.g., acquire habitat, sponsor breeding programs to re-introduce depleted populations of some species).

(4) Ban certain forestry practices that hurt herptile "game" habitat, such as uprooting and removal of tree stumps (management of herptiles as game animals will enable the state to dictate land usage to some extent, as is already being done for other game species).

(5) Do not permit destruction of essential snake habitat for this damages the game product.

(6) Establish a licensing system for captive breeders of herptiles. Applicants will purchase a breeder's license and be exempt from any other fees, except those originating with the collection of the original founder's stock or any further stock taken from the wild. There are no additional licenses required to export offspring or wild collected adults from North Carolina, provided the original quota fee is met.

(7) All species, including ESA species, will be permitted to be reproduced in captivity. The applicant will pay the state the full current retail price for each example of ESA species collected. The offspring of ESA species will be PITT tagged (so as to make enforcement for wildlife agencies practical) and logged with the NCWRC office. No further fees will be exacted for offspring, which will encourage captive reproduction (discouraging wild collection). There are no limitations on destinations of sale (they may be sold within state or without). If an ESA species is sold within the state, a copy of the permits and PITT tag number will accompany the specimen. Free trade in captive born ESA species will encourage captive reproduction of them, and attempts to rebuild wild populations in some seriously depleted localities will be encouraged by the State.

(8) Exempt children under 16 from collection fees (unless ESA species) so long as the specimens are not resold. Do not exempt them from the quota, however.

(9) An ESA without habitat is worthless; but habitat without the ESA is tenable. State and federal government should therefore work toward abolishing the ESA and replacing it with an EHA (Endangered Habitat Act) or similar program intended to conserve the biological life zones of herptiles and all other wildlife simultaneously. The state should make it profitable for landowners to sell or donate their properties to the state for the conservation of all wildlife. An effort should be made to de-emphasize protection of individual species so far as possible, so long as this can be construed not to do significant damage to wild populations. An attempt to determine population numbers and expectations should be made by the state, monitoring the effects of harvest according to locality. This can be accomplished by licensees reporting their collection findings, through the quota system.

Future of a state and federally controlled "Scientific Council"

I do not see any future for a "Scientific Council" that does not use science, nor for a group of scientists employed by state and federal government who act out the roles of independent scientists while preserving clear and admitted biases. I believe that it is time for the "Scientific Council" to step down from attempting to influence state lawmakers. They have proven themselves ill-equipped for the task, and by their own admission reveal an unwillingness to abide by laws imposed upon the general public. We ask that an independent investigation (or ad hoc committee incorporating a broader public input) not related to the "Scientific Council" or its membership explore these matters further. We ask that any scientific material intended to influence the lives and health of North Carolinians be published in a recognized journal of peers and then reviewed by the whole scientific and medical community (e.g., public health), not a closed society, before being presented clandestinely to lawmakers. We ask that the Scientific Council cease presenting inaccurate or unconfirmed "opinion" designed to look like fact to our state agencies, and use the standard scientific protocol that is appropriate to all good science.

We ask that the NCWRC develop a set or guidelines and standards by which a species can qualify for ESA protection, to prevent whimsical and unfounded applications such as have characterized this issue.

We recognize snakebite as a public health issue. We ask that the NCWRC also recognize this, and if intending to pursue this course, to place it first for review by the appropriate health agencies. We ask these things as a formal request.




..................................................................................................................................................
The Johnathan blah blah blah section, (hopefully for the last time).
read Ernie's other recent science-attacking thread that has nothing whatsoever to do with field herping here.
So apparently in some peoples world it is attacking science to post a news story about scientist in the NEWS FORUM. A story that was confirmed 100% by the posted Department of the Interior Inspector General report. And for the record this same story was posted in the main forum by another member. I'll include the link to that thread as well

http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/vie ... =2&t=23542

How does it tie in with field herping ? Apparently it does. The story was the catalist at least in part for this interesting Field herping thread. Read the opening line in post one of this thread.
A prior thread identified a case of fraudulent behavior by a governmental agency. I believe such behavior in government is more widespread than most would imagine.
To those who care enough the forum has a search function. Search my other post and review all the topical information found in them. Scroll back thru my post in this thread. Review my post and carefully read what I have said. Please point out to me where I have lied about anything, where I have misquoted someone, where I have presented incorrect biological or ecological information, where I have demonized all science and government, etc. By all means prove this. Ernie Eison

I asked you pertinent questions in the above post, and they remain unanswered. johnathan

READ what I said, Your questions are not pertinent to what was actually stated. They are all confrontation and personal opinion based scenario's that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion or my quoted statement. This is not FACEBOOK > I want to remain topical (Dishonesty in Government). If you want to make this personal and specifically about me then start a thread on the board line, FB or somewhere more appropriate. I ask that you (or anyone else) do not derail this informative thread further by attempting to engage in a personal war with me.

Ernie Eison
Jimi
Posts: 1955
Joined: December 3rd, 2010, 12:06 pm

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by Jimi »

Huh, things have stayed interesting here.

Richard wrote:
when in the early 2000’s I reviewed the issue of non-game species listed in Utah, the Utah Wildlife Agency openly mentioned the use of the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Since Jimi works for that agency, perhaps he can tell us if that admission still exists somewhere in the agency’s documents.
I doubt you'd find those words in print. I also doubt you'd find a lot of happiness in your word choice "admission" since that word implies "guilt". Those applying said so-called "principle" (personally, I think of it as more a mentally-lazy shortcut, facilitated by short-handedness and overwork) certainly feel justified in using it. But the important thing is, they are empowered to use it (the "PP"). Or to not use it - to use something else. If we want them to use something else, people need to show up and suggest something else.

Know, please, that I do not work in that part of the agency. And I have about zero influence with them (either as "foreign staff", or as a lone stakeholder) - whereas an organized group of stakeholders, if they would show up and maintain a long-term functional presence, would have substantial influence. It has happened in the past, it could certainly happen again.
Below are (Dean Ripa's) recommendation's to address the issues found in that (NC) policy.

(1) Abolish the North Carolina "nongame" status in North Carolina and reclassify all herptiles as "game." All herptiles have historical usage and therefore precedence as "game." And snake hunting is a valid sport.

(2) Allow the public to collect the herptile as a live or dead product. All persons qualify regardless of institutional connections. This will put institutional personnel on an equal footing with the public and prevent irresponsible exclusionary lawmaking (e.g., such as that done by the "Scientific Council").

(3) Manage the collection of herptiles by quota, exactly as other game animals. Thus their use can be regulated, and need not be banned. The collector purchases a stamp for each example he or she wants to harvest. The fee will be geared to reflect 50% of the wholesale resale value of the animal (25% of retail), which will vary according to current market price. This will remove profit from and discourage wild collection, and force a reliance on a captive born product. The resulting monies (which should be considerable) should be managed in a way that will help herptile populations (e.g., acquire habitat, sponsor breeding programs to re-introduce depleted populations of some species).

(4) Ban certain forestry practices that hurt herptile "game" habitat, such as uprooting and removal of tree stumps (management of herptiles as game animals will enable the state to dictate land usage to some extent, as is already being done for other game species).

(5) Do not permit destruction of essential snake habitat for this damages the game product.

(6) Establish a licensing system for captive breeders of herptiles. Applicants will purchase a breeder's license and be exempt from any other fees, except those originating with the collection of the original founder's stock or any further stock taken from the wild. There are no additional licenses required to export offspring or wild collected adults from North Carolina, provided the original quota fee is met.

(7) All species, including ESA species, will be permitted to be reproduced in captivity. The applicant will pay the state the full current retail price for each example of ESA species collected. The offspring of ESA species will be PITT tagged (so as to make enforcement for wildlife agencies practical) and logged with the NCWRC office. No further fees will be exacted for offspring, which will encourage captive reproduction (discouraging wild collection). There are no limitations on destinations of sale (they may be sold within state or without). If an ESA species is sold within the state, a copy of the permits and PITT tag number will accompany the specimen. Free trade in captive born ESA species will encourage captive reproduction of them, and attempts to rebuild wild populations in some seriously depleted localities will be encouraged by the State.

(8) Exempt children under 16 from collection fees (unless ESA species) so long as the specimens are not resold. Do not exempt them from the quota, however.

(9) An ESA without habitat is worthless; but habitat without the ESA is tenable. State and federal government should therefore work toward abolishing the ESA and replacing it with an EHA (Endangered Habitat Act) or similar program intended to conserve the biological life zones of herptiles and all other wildlife simultaneously. The state should make it profitable for landowners to sell or donate their properties to the state for the conservation of all wildlife. An effort should be made to de-emphasize protection of individual species so far as possible, so long as this can be construed not to do significant damage to wild populations. An attempt to determine population numbers and expectations should be made by the state, monitoring the effects of harvest according to locality. This can be accomplished by licensees reporting their collection findings, through the quota system.
Note the first 3 suggestions are ones I have made time and again here: treat herps like "game" species, and regulate (not ban) their utilization. This is why I brought that bobcats & lions anecdote to this topic. It isn't the case that "best available science" won the day with Utah's 2017 bobcat & lion harvest recommendations. Democracy - refereed give and take, in the service of balancing a diverse set of pretty incompatible self-interests - won the day. That day, anyway - we still need to observe the regional advisory council, and Wildlife Board, process. It is always interesting. Like a tour of the sausage factory.

cheers
User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3689
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:39 am
Contact:

Re: Dishonesty in government

Post by jonathan »

WSTREPS wrote:I posted a list of thoughts composed by biologist Dean Ripa about his experience involving a new protection policy to be implemented. Below are his recommendation's to address the issues found in that policy.
Nearly all of those suggestions sound quite good in a vacuum (a couple are a little whiny/personal). However, they usually assume the availability of agency resources, not to mention public and institutional will to change, that simply aren't there. Yet again the essential question wasn't asked or addressed.

If things should be done better, why hasn't that happened already?


The big problems are that:

1) the most monied interests (developers and landowners) don't want additional protections to fall on habitat
2) the general public has trouble getting interested in much beyond individual animals
3) the people who know better don't care/do enough to make a difference as an organized lobby
4) the staffing/resources to undertake extensive management plans like these aren't available

At least one of those four things needs to change if we're going to push state management to do anything more than they already do or to change federal management to be more effective than it already is.

Getting the ESA passed in the first place was a huge coup. I honestly don't know why Nixon pushed for it - he's before my time, but I doubt he was a hardcore environmentalist. But for whatever reason, at that time legislation got through and the uninformed lawmakers who passed the legislation made it species-focused because "endangered species" are what the public who votes for them can get excited about.

Beyond the miracle of the ESA getting passed, it's been difficult to push forth a tool that protects habitat. The Wetlands Act is the only broad one I can think of, and that again was basically driven by species, with game species at the forefront. But for the most part, developers don't want even more habitat to be off limits, and developers have WAY more money than anyone else. Landowners aren't going to be pushing in that direction either. And lawmakers at the state level (especially in the Western states) are extremely sensitive to anything that puts more land under additional public regulation of any kind.

So at the state level, the only thing that the state can do unilaterally to "protect" a species without significant funds is to ban its collection. There's almost no legal authority to do much else without using money they don't have. As I pointed out, their minor effort is probably counterproductive, but as Jimi pointed out, we're dealing with lazy shortcuts by overworked and understaffed agencies who want to feel like they're doing "something".

How do we change the situation? Again, Jimi is on target:
Jimi wrote:Note the first 3 suggestions are ones I have made time and again here: treat herps like "game" species, and regulate (not ban) their utilization. This is why I brought that bobcats & lions anecdote to this topic. It isn't the case that "best available science" won the day with Utah's 2017 bobcat & lion harvest recommendations. Democracy - refereed give and take, in the service of balancing a diverse set of pretty incompatible self-interests - won the day. That day, anyway - we still need to observe the regional advisory council, and Wildlife Board, process. It is always interesting. Like a tour of the sausage factory.
The only way to get anything done in this direction is by tipping the balance of self-interest in our favor. That is done by:

1) Getting people proactively engaged on our side to push for the right things.
2) Getting people proactively engaged on the other side converted over to our side.
3) Getting more people on the sidelines proactively engaged on our side.


Amateur herpers interested enough in herp conservation to do something is a small pool. If we want to make our pool big enough to matter, we need to get all the herpers who already care to put their energy in the right direction, and then make the pool much, much bigger - by converting the rest of the field herpers, herp keepers, people who like wildlife, conservationists, scientists, and government agencies onto our side. Maybe pick up a couple strays from the general public in the process

That's done by collaborating with people different than ourselves and winning hearts and minds. Not by demonizing the very people we need to collaborate with to get things done.



WSTREPS wrote:So apparently in some peoples world it is attacking science to post a news story about scientist in the NEWS FORUM.....

READ what I said, Your questions are not pertinent to what was actually stated. They are all confrontation and personal opinion based scenario's that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion or my quoted statement. This is not FACEBOOK > I want to remain topical (Dishonesty in Government). If you want to make this personal and specifically about me then start a thread on the board line, FB or somewhere more appropriate. I ask that you (or anyone else) do not derail this informative thread further by attempting to engage in a personal war with me.
You tried to use this thread to advance your own personal war. And as you have made false attacks of myself, the research project I help out with, and its other volunteers/scientists and called me "condescending, manipulative, and somewhat stupid" in the process of this war, you don't have room to complain about me putting your true behavior out in the open. I started to list examples of personal attacks and distortions you have used, but you're right, it would just continue your derailment. So I'll only note that anyone can look at your anti-Bangladesh Python Project post or your anti-scientist posts or your full history and come to their own conclusions. And I'll ask again:


What do you think you will accomplish by posting general anti-scientist attacks like the ones you've made here or what I've linked above? What is your agenda?

I have no problem detailing mine. If your agenda isn't embarrassing, then share: why do you almost never enter into a conservation on these boards unless you can find an anti-scientist angle to it, and why do you keep broadening any specific anti-scientist attack you make to include all government and science in general?


I'm not doing this to "derail the thread". I'm doing it to try to put your logic, whatever it is, out in the open. Because I think you're detrimental to the cause you claim to promote. Either your main objective is something other than the intelligent management and conservation of herps, or your logic/assumptions in how you're going to help us all get there is faulty as hell.

So put your reasoning on the table and stop being so obtuse and sneaky about it.
Post Reply