Phil,
It is a discussion of all of the above because they are deeply inter-twined. I
have never said they (academics and regulators) were tightening down out of
spite, fortune and fame. As with many discussions about issues there are many
facets that are inter or intra-related. And often times those who are
unaffected or have a moral or philosophical lean towards a particular view tend
to ignore facts and or consequences because it doesn't fit their agenda. I have
met and talked to many academics and other "environmentalists" or "animal
rights academics" if you will, who just care about "protecting the animals and
resources" at all costs. That is, at cost to Constitutional rights, business
(making money), socio-economic realities, fairness and often times actual
scientific data. The precautionary principle fits right into this type of
thinking. If it could be bad don't do it. We don't have the data that says its
okay so don't do it. We can't live on earth and survive off natural resources
as we do and live in a capitalistic society using that principle exclusively.
Many folks take the precautionary principle to far because their agenda is a)
extreme or b) they are not considering all the factors: rights, economics, etc.
They are only considering protecting the animals and resources at all costs.
How do I know this? I was educated by and worked with and for many folks like
this. It is obvious.
I have NEVER said no regulation. As a mater of fact you must not have read my
post because I explicitly list regulatory options that are backed by science:
Sustainable harvest techniques, bag limits and wildlife management techniques.
I fully support regulation. Collectors and harvesters need to pay for permits.
They need to keep records of harvest and they need to follow regulations. This
requires law enforcement participation to make sure this happens. Again, there
are many issues here that have an impact as to how this needs to come about for
example the funding and structure of wildlife agencies. There is alot more but
we can't get into everything.
You bring up the cod example. Everyone learned about this when they got their
Bachelors. If you remember, only the commercial fisherman were considered when
setting the harvest. The recreational fishermen were ignored. The scientists in
Canada told the government that they were setting the harvest to high because
they were not considering the recreational fisherman. The government didn't
listen. The cod fisheries crashed. I could have that backwards. Yes, we need
good data. Herps are a little different then the cod fisheries. You can't use a
fish finder to catch massive amounts of herps. They are very cryptic and their
observability is very low. No, we don't have the data but we could get it. We
could have herp specific licenses. We could require all harvesters to report
their take. We can use the natural history data and GIS data we have. And for
those species for which there is a concern we could do some more intense
research. In most cases harvest is extremely low for most herp species and I am
sure it will be determined that impact is negligible. Put the resources into
the species with the most concern. Who pays for it? The collectors, the
hobbyists, the citizens of the state, the developers and the concerned
citizens. There are many options here but that is another discussion.
Everyone makes a profit. We are required as citizens of the world to make money
to live. Academics do make a profit off their work. They don't profit directly
from harvesting and selling animals but they make a profit (an income). The
more famous and well known ones can make more then others. They are desired by
entities to consult, conduct studies and give expert opinion. Because they are
desired they have to choose how much they can fit in to their schedule. They
can also start private consulting firms and make money there. Everything we use
comes from natural resources. Do we get all that stuff for free? We have to pay
for that stuff. People who want herps have to pay for them and people who
collect and breed them have to make a living too. Collecting herps is not free.
It takes many, many things that cost money to do this: permits, licenses,
vehicles, gas, collecting equipment, caging, time and knowledge to name a few.
Nothing is free and everyone needs to make a living.
You don't think that people should put animals in cages? I don't think you
should eat tofu. I don't think you should drink beer. I don't think you should
wear Birkenstocks. I don't think you should eat vegetables or maybe meat. Who
died and made you or me boss? What about the Constitution and our rights? Is it
okay for you to dictate what someone can and can not do? What happens if my
herps are happy in their cages? They breed, eat and are healthy. There are no
predators here and they get vet care. Hell I don't even get medical care. These
are all examples of feelings, morals and opinions. I take great issue with
someone else trying to tell me what I can and cannot do or works to take away
what I love to do. If I was hurting wild populations then, yes, stop me. If I
was abusing my animals then, yes, stop me from keeping. But you need to have
some pretty good unbiased evidence and data to show this and not just feelings
and opinion.
I support the ESA. If a species is in trouble then meet the criteria and get it
listed. If a species is not listed E or T then it should have a reasonable
harvest amount. If you are concerned about a species but can't get it listed
then set lower bag limits. The captive population is a safety net. The zoos
cannot keep and breed every species. The private sector can and will actually
pay to do so. What will happen to all the species that occur in lands slated
for development? They will die. They should be collected. Every city has a
master plan of development up to 20 years out. All those species will die
unless they are removed. Harvest should be encouraged until we can get
development and the impact of roads under control. Just my opinion.
Mike Welker
El Paso, TX
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Morefield
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should be
applied to GCC arguments
Mike,
It strikes me that your comments are beginning to sound less like a
discussion of scientific principles and more like a rant against the academic
and regulatory communities. I hope that besides simply venting your
frustrations here, you also support research/scientific efforts which back up
your claims and professional opinions with data.
I have serious doubts that anybody anywhere is clamping down on the herp
industry out of spite or with the intention of finding fortune or fame. Isn't
it more likely that these are concerned scientists, stakeholders, and decision
makers that are out to preserve the integrity of ecosystems and simply don't
agree with your viewpoint? I realize that being the minority opinion is not
always a pleasent experience, but the ability to disagree while remaining civil
is what makes us professional scientists.
I am not a herpetologist or wildlife expert, but as an environmental
scientist I much prefer animals thriving outside of a cage and I regularly
support efforts to ensure that they do so. While I am sympathetic to your
perceptions, I disagree with the implication that a herp-harvesting industry
unencumbered by regulation would somehow self-police to the extent that the
greatest ecological benefit would be realized. On the contrary, examples exist
(sea mink, cod) of animal communities being greatly diminished at the hands of
the very people turning a profit from their harvesting.
Phil
From: Michael E. Welker <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should be
applied to GCC arguments
Here we go with the exceptions and the non-absolutes. I will not defend each
little different case scenarios. The sometimes or the not always.
Abuse and misuse of the precautionary principle is rampant in research and
science. I have known many academics who are animal rights activists with
degrees. I had the conservation at all costs mindset in the 90's - "we need to
protect these animals from evil money grubbing humans." I also found many folks
with letters after their name feeling the same way. Then I got my BS in
wildlife science and I learned a few things - like sustainable harvest,
population biology and wildlife management techniques. I saw the difference
between the banning agenda/conservation at all costs mentality and wildlife
management. Game biologists understand this (not commercialization but harvest)
but many classic natural history zoologists, biologists and herpetologists
don't. Now they use the precautionary principle because of "lack of data." And
usually err on the side of extreme caution or banning. You can't go from no
regulation of herps to banning collection of herps.
That is slightly bipolar. And not writing clear regs so folks have to
liquidate breeding collections is poor planning and not fair.
Scientists are exempt from many state herp regulations. I believe the new NM
regs they are exempt. I also remember something in the AL regs maybe possession
of venomous? I don't have time to research every instance but they are there.
I said the "more famous a researcher becomes" the more financial and other
benefits he receives. The university gets part of the grant money for admin
costs, the PI gets a salary. They usually set their hourly wage. You add all
the "benefits" from being "famous" and they make some money not to mention the
power and prestige.
Mike Welker
El Paso, TX
----- Original Message -----
From: Russell L. Burke
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] the precautionary principle makes sense and should be
applied to GCC arguments
The precautionary principle is why we buy car insurance, life insurance, and
medical insurance. If based on good data, it makes perfect sense. It is not the
primary reason that collection of turtles was banned in FL.
Scientists are not exempt from collection regulations.
I'd like to see the evidence of even a single scientist who is making money
by promoting any ban on commercial collection. Scientists generally don't make
money from the grants they get, that money goes to the institution and pays for
research costs.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Taylor, Cm
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 3:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Mike,
I appreciate your situation, but the fact is that for every person like you
there are many others who have little to no science background, routinely ship
and receive animals and plants illegally, and decimate vulnerable populations
of organisms, among other things as I am sure you are aware. I don't think it
is fair to blame the science community for these problems. Again, I am sorry
for any impact to your legitimate business, but surely you can understand these
issues and see how they arise.
Chris
*************************************
Dr. Christopher Taylor
Professor, Aquatic Ecology
Department of Natural Resources Management
Texas Tech University
Box 42125
Lubbock, TX 79049
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael E. Welker
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 10:17 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Warren and forum,
Facts and data should rule not abuse of the precautionary principle. Far to
often wildlife and environmental extremists (even those in academia or from
academia) have abused the precautionary principle. An example would be the use
of taking the worse case scenario say for a turtle species age to sexual
maturity. By using the oldest age known rather then the average or the most
common to push an agenda. This was done in the FL turtle banning agenda by a
well known turtle biologist. Take for instance the management of herpetofauna
in TX, rather then enacting fair regulations and sustainable harvest management
approaches, activities were banned causing private herpers to have to liquidate
collections that have taken decades to build. And destroying businesses and
breeding programs that contribute to herp conservation through captive
propagation of herp species. The precautionary principle is used by agenda
pushing academics to scare regulatory biologists
(who come from academia!
) because many of the these "experts" are anti-wild collection and
anti-commercialization. They are preservationists not conservationists. And
they look at themselves as animal advocates. They are also exempt, as are zoos
and museums, from complying to the regulations so it doesn't affect them.
Further many use the precautionary principle and the "banning agenda" to secure
grant funding for continued research. An example of this would be the Burmese
python problem in the Everglades and the climate model paper. The more famous a
researcher becomes the more grant money they get, the bigger labs they have and
the higher fees they can charge for consultations and projects. An example of
that would be a well known conservation biologist in FL. I have the facts. I
just don't want to throw out names because that wouldn't be appropriate. I say
stick to facts and data and not abuse the precautionary principle.
Mike Welker
El Paso, TX
----- Original Message -----
From: Warren W. Aney
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
In the face of uncertainty with potential consequences of great magnitude,
the precautionary approach should rule. Under this approach it is safer and
more prudent to take effective action to counter climate change than it is
to take no action and risk its effects. The costs of taking action are
high, but there are also benefits (cleaner air and healthier oceans, for
example). The costs of not taking action are potentially catastrophic.
Our ancestors will enjoy an improved world and thank us for taking action
even if they determine we were wrong. Our surviving ancestors will condemn
us if we took no action and this proved to be wrong.
I know, this is rhetoric and not science, but I have frequently had to deal
with decision making in the face of scientific uncertainty and this is the
approach I finally learned to apply or recommend.
Warren W. Aney
Senior Wildlife Ecologist
Tigard, OR 97223
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hal Caswell
Sent: Sunday, 20 March, 2011 15:12
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
Wayne,
Whether it's a "trick" question or not depends, of course, on the details.
However, if you really want information about the "direct and indirect
effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change" you could not do better
than to start with the 4th IPCC report. This is freely available to anyone
with internet access at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
It represents the output of the largest scientific collaboration in history.
Each volume is prefaced by a summary for policy-makers which is purposely
designed to be accessible to non-specialists. Most policy-makers are not,
after all, scientists.
As you know, one of the essential aspects of any scientific endeavor,
especially one with serious policy implications, is uncertainty. Another
advantage of the IPCC reports is that they have developed the most explicit
quantification of uncertainty for such a large body of scientific work that
has ever been attempted. The disadvantage of that approach is that they
tend to be slanted towards underestimating effects rather than
overestimating them. So, read it as a conservative assessment.
Hal Caswell
On Mar 20, 2011, at 8:20 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:
> James and Ecolog:
>
> No, it's not a "trick" question, it's an honest plea for better, more
convincing information about quantification of the direct and indirect
effects of anthropogenic causes of climate change. "The public at large" has
an even tougher time sorting out the scientific sheep from the goats, on
this and other issues in science. It may be a tough question, but there's
nothing tricky about it.
>
> The plenitude of data is the problem, not the solution. The problem is
credibility of good science in the eyes and minds of "the public."
"Scientists" tend to come off as elitist, patronizing snobs who decry the
"dumbing-down" of we, the unwashed (if not unclean) through the only media
to which we have access, e.g., TV and the Internet. Scientists sit on their
hands and let these media get by with incredible distortions of science. I
have tried to raise these issues to the scientific community, only to hear a
deafening silence, or at best, diversionary mumbling about how we should
accept "scientific" conclusions uncritically. The minute we ask critical
questions (some say this is the root of science), we get condescension and
the doors to further enquiry are slammed shut in our faces.
>
> With all due respect to climate change, for example, we, the unscientific,
dumbed-down rabble who dare to enquire beyond unconditional faith in
accepting what we are told by "science" are immediately classified as
"deniers" (we of little faith) if we question the dictum of the day. We know
a straw-man fallacy when we're hit with one, whether or not we can
articulate it. This adversely affects the credibility of science in general
and the subset in question in particular. We do not, for example, question
whether or not there IS an anthropogenic factor in climate change phenomena,
we just want to be able to start at the generalizations and follow a clear
trail of the supporting chain of evidence as far as we care to.
>
> The "scientific" conclusions get all mixed up with each other, and we're
trying to sort out the well-founded from the unfounded. Are, for example, we
being switchgrassed into submitting to a wholesale acceptance of "renewable
fuels" and "biofuels" and "carbon credits," or are these THE solution to
switching off our apps? Is our concern that the part of "science" we are
allowed to see is leading us down a gardening path where we destroy more and
more complex, diverse ecosystems to plant (and presumably irrigate,
fertilize, and maintain) switchgrass or corn or soybeans until now common
species are forced onto the endangered species list and habitats are
homogenized?
>
> So if you mean by "trick" that you see more than meets the eye, I would
have to (just did) say aye, I agree. In fact, I don't see how a brief,
direct, simple, singular question or two could possibly be interpreted as
tricky--unless we are so used to obfuscatory convolutions that we become
suspicious of said questions.
>
> What I hoped for is a simple, direct answer that reflects an as honest and
complete an answer to the question as possible from those who have already
analyzed the data as possible--i.e. with as little equivocation as possible.
I had hoped to get individual responses that would demonstrate the
hypothesis that the world climate is going to hell in a handbasket because
of human activity and that it wouldn't boil or freeze if humans just stopped
(just what?). While I am very grateful for those who took the time to send
links and references, I had hoped for a simply-stated conclusion along with
that support, I must conclude, in agreement with James, that ". . . there
are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends that are
consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of good
logic supports anthropogenic climate change," I do not agree with his
statement ("What more could a realistic person want?"). A realistic
(scientific?) person wants conclusions based on sound analysis supported by
solid data (or as solid as possible, revealing the amount of "slop" or
"fudge" at the outset). For the very reason Roper cites, absolutely firm
conclusions without any envelope of uncertainty is ipso facto suspicious.
That's where the questioning, not the denying, comes from.
>
> James' question is a reasonable one; I tried to avoid elaboration in my
perhaps-too-brief initial post, but I was not trying to be tricky. I hope
this helps to clarify what seems to me (for the moment) any doubts about any
"hidden agendas." I am not a "climate-change denier," I fully understand
that there is an anthropogenic effect on the climate--I just don't know
whether the science to date over- or under-estimates that effect, and
conversely, how much other factors influence potential outcomes. follow-up
questions: What do we need to know that we don't know? Or do we know
everything we need to know? What are the solutions? What are the effects of
those solutions on ecosystems? How can scientists increase public confidence
rather than tear it down?
>
> WT
>
> PS: Thanks so much to those of you who have responded with solid
references and well-thought-out responses, including James.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: James J. Roper
> To: Wayne Tyson
> Cc: [email protected]
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
>
>
> Wayne, isn't somewhat of a trick question? I mean, in science, we have a
tough time saying that anything except the trivial is unequivocal.
>
>
> Also, is it even theoretically possible to unequivocally demonstrate a
difference in climate due to natural or to human causes? Especially when
they are operating simultaneously..... And, as for prediction, I have yet to
see models that based on the past do well at predicting the present, in
both, natural and human dominated systems.
>
>
> However, there are plenty of data with plants and animals showing trends
that are consistent with climate change, and also, a considerable amount of
good logic supports anthropogenic climate change. What more could a
realistic person want?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:42, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone tell me or direct me to a source that can tell me
unequivocally and quantitatively what the direct and indirect effects of
human influence are and are projected to be compared to the "background" or
"natural" influences with respect to global temperature changes and
predicted states?
>
> Is there any information on the conditions of life in the past which
match those states and their probable causes?
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sudhir Raj Shrestha"
<[email protected]>
>
> To: <[email protected]>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> In addition to Ben's comprehensive list, I will suggest you to look at
NOAA's new (still prototype, we are working on it) climate portal.
>
> www.climate.gov
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sudhir Shrestha
>
> --- On Tue, 3/15/11, Benjamin White <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Benjamin White <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2011, 6:17 PM
>
> Steve,
>
> Contrary to adopting the approach of utilizing dumbed-down on-line
climate tutorials, I find that the easiest way to initially engage
interested parties is to refer them to "summaries for decision makers" and
to content-rich web sites. Here you will often find scientific or policy
organizations' bottom line ref. findings, data and methods.
>
> Consider, perhaps, some climate findings, reports and resources from:
> - a summary of global environment, including climate:
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/GEO4%20SDM_launch.pdf (GEO5 will soon be
out and it is my personal expectation that climate change will be cast in a
slightly different light)
> -
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
#1
> and
>
http://www.ipcc..ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessmen
t_report_synthesis_report.htm
> - Geenhouse gas, etc. data: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php
> - CCSP provides an umbrella for US data data on climate change:
http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php
> (e.g.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-2/final-report/default..htm)
> - CIESIN and SEDAC provide a wealth of material, particular on the
human dimensions of climate change e.g. the Geographic Distribution of
Climate Change Vulnerability. A review of their site is will definitely
stimulate discussion:
> http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/index.html
>
> Some selected readings from the IPCC4 report, along with figures, etc.
should be a good place to start. There are always developments in the realm
of climate science that are worth consideration (for example, modeling the
influence of grassroots climate change mitigation efforts). A review of the
some of the contemporary articles in Nature, Science, New Scientist (their
"ask a climate scientist" blog is really "cool":
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/12/ask-a-climate-sc
ientist.html) etc. will likely provide material for a significantly enriched
discussion. You are correct to be wary of data or findings from
organizations which lack scientific objectivity.
>
> ***I am sure other people on the list will be able to add to the
suggested sites above.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --Ben White
>
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
>
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:01:40 -0400
> From: Steven Roes <[email protected]>
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Data
> To: <[email protected]>
>
> Hi All,
> I'm preparing to teach few days on climate change to my high school
living
> environment students. We are nearing the conclusion of our ecology
unit,
> and they've been soaking up the material like sponges--I've been
incredibly
> happy to see thier progress as an entire group.
>
> I'm working on researching for these few days climate change, and I'm
in
> need of trustworthy data with some discussion that, ideally, my
students can
> understand. If necessary, I can work to translate any discussion to
more
> appropriate language.
>
> Could any of you point me in the direction of where to find
non-biased
> information on the issue of climate change and rising CO2 levels that
is
> worthy of presenting?
>
> Thanks in advance for your help,
> Steve Roes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3487 - Release Date: 03/07/11
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
>
---------------------------------
Hal Caswell
Senior Scientist
Biology Department
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole MA 02543
508-289-2751
[email protected]
