[NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers

DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
From: "Andy Moir/Christine Callaghan" <slickdog1@gmail.com>
To: <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
References: <CAAwXBYecEjGrrN0MrnDcWWE2v+1v6iCQBQgeKLOEJN3aKzA0Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:42:26 -0300
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00A0_01CC4CA6.13B93A10
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


  I am afraid I don't hold the scientific community in the same high =
esteem that Richard does. In fact, I believe segments of the scientific =
community have a growing credibility problem.=20
   In our efforts on some environmental issues here on the Neck and =
Islands, we have come up against all sorts of scientists who interpret =
"facts" to suit the wishes of their political or business masters. =20
  A recent example came from DFO scientists who told a crowd in =
Shelburne that there is no scientific evidence to show that open net =
salmon farms do damage to the local lobster population.  They made it =
sound as if they had actually studied the issue.  But of course, they =
haven't...they have quite intentionally not studied it, presumably for =
fear of what they might find.  When government scientists make this sort =
of claim, I ask myself, where is the test of a "high degree of proof" =
that Richard refers to in his note. =20
  The people who have studied it, the lobstermen of NB, who have 20 =
years or more experience of seeing their livelihood destroyed by open =
net fish farms, don't have PhD after their names, so their observations =
are dismissed, often by scientists.  In many cases, I'll take local =
knowledge over the political/scientific agenda of those who are paid to =
provide advice that the politicians want to hear.  All too often, the =
science has been tainted to reflect a reality that has more to do with =
creating jobs and making money than accurately or fairly assessing the =
environmental impact of some of these projects.
So I think the scientific community has a long way to go to clean up its =
act before it can rightly claim any holier than thou attitude about who =
is right, and who is wrong on these issues, or, if fact, what the =
criteria should be for determining what is the truth. =20
Andy in Freeport


  ----- Original Message -----=20
  From: Richard Stern=20
  To: NatureNS=20
  Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:48 PM
  Subject: [NatureNS] Cougars and Ivory-billed woodpeckers


  Hi,

  I'll weigh in on the interesting thread about E.cougars, elephants =
etc., mainly because I enjoy this kind of debate.  Wild cougars (or =
Eskimo curlews, or Coelocanths etc.) may or may not be present in NS, =
and people can believe whatever they want. But I agree with Ulli etc. =
that convincing the naturalist and scientific community would require a =
pretty high degree of proof - preferably independently analysed and =
corroborated photos, videos, DNA etc., and then proof beyond a =
reasonable doubt that any photos aren't faked in some way, and that the =
creature wasn't a zoo or collection escape, like Paul's elephant.=20

  I would urge interested parties, and for that matter all birders and =
naturalists interested in reporting sightings,  to read David Sibley's =
refutation of the "proof" that the Ivory-billed woodpecker still lives =
in Arkansas, for a great example of what to look for and how to go about =
it , and the sort of analysis that should convince skeptics on rare bird =
committees etc.! =
(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5767/1555.1.full), followed by =
John Fitzpatrick's response =
(http://www.sciencemag.org/content/311/5767/1555.2.full). These are 2 =
highly respected well-known birders with multiple books and publications =
to their name, who give apparently convincing evidence to prove opposite =
"facts", neither of which has subsequently been corroborated, although =
apparently Fitzpatrick has backed down somewhat and the Cornell team =
have stopped searching till more definitive evidence is found.

  Keep debating and looking!

  Richard
  --=20
  #################
  Richard Stern,=20
  317 Middle Dyke Rd.
  Port Williams, NS, Canada
  B0P 1T0

  sternrichard@gmail.com
  ###################

------=_NextPart_000_00A0_01CC4CA6.13B93A10
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META name=3DGENERATOR content=3D"MSHTML 8.00.6001.19088">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>&nbsp; I am afraid I don't hold the =
scientific=20
community in the same high esteem that Richard does.&nbsp;In fact, I=20
believe&nbsp;segments of&nbsp;the scientific community have a growing=20
credibility problem.&nbsp;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In&nbsp;our efforts =
on some=20
environmental issues here on the Neck and Islands, we have come up =
against all=20
sorts of scientists who interpret "facts" to suit the wishes of=20
their&nbsp;political or business masters.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>&nbsp; A recent example came from DFO =
scientists=20
who told a crowd in Shelburne that there is no scientific evidence to =
show that=20
open net salmon farms do damage to the local lobster population.&nbsp; =
They made=20
it sound as if they had actually studied the issue.&nbsp; But of course, =
they=20
haven't...they have quite intentionally not studied it, presumably for =
fear of=20
what they might find.&nbsp;&nbsp;When government scientists make this =
sort of=20
claim, I ask myself, where is the test of a&nbsp;"high degree of proof" =
that=20
Richard refers to in his note.&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>&nbsp; The people who have studied it, =
the=20
lobstermen of NB, who have 20 years or more experience of seeing their=20
livelihood destroyed by open net fish farms, don't have PhD after their =
names,=20
so their observations are dismissed, often by scientists.&nbsp; In many =
cases,=20
I'll take local knowledge over the political/scientific agenda of those =
who are=20
paid to provide advice that the politicians want to hear.&nbsp; All too =
often,=20
the science has been tainted to reflect a reality that has more to do =
with=20
creating jobs and making money than accurately or fairly assessing the=20
environmental impact of some of these projects.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2 face=3DArial>So I think the scientific community has =
a long way=20
to go to clean up&nbsp;its act before&nbsp;it can rightly claim any =
holier than=20
thou attitude about who is right, and who is wrong on these issues, or, =
if fact,=20
what the criteria should be for determining what is the truth.&nbsp