2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

A response to Catherine22 and general comments:

Catherine22 calls wildlife management hubris, yet what state would the natural world be in right now were there not agencies, laws and standards for the conservation and preservation of biodiversity? Numerous species would have gone extinct, watersheds would be in ruins, and the quality of life for many animal species (and humans) would be poor due to ecological degredation. Regulation is necessary because of societal impact, this is true, but you seem to want your cake and eat it too. We cannot idealize the conception of natural any more than we can snap our fingers and let "nature take its course." It doesn't work that way because the system is too far gone in most places and will not return without help. Passively allowing some species to capitalize on our drastic impact to the environment also is management, albeit an implicit one. Such apathy makes all those who share such passive views responsible for what you called "messing up the ecosystem worse than could have been imagined."

What managers can do is use appropriate science,observation and experimentation to mimic the natural systems we have left or attempt to restore them as best we can. The central problem here is that the common view of nature, including wildlife, is a social construction perpetuated by greeting cards, the nice calendar you have up in your den or the TV shows you watch about Alaska.

No one wildlife manager thinks they can "play god;" the former was a poor choice for a show title and reflects sensationalism. Nor do managers profess to "know better than nature what is best for the natural world." They are subject to the whims of political forces, the American public, and rigorous methods of scientific inquiry. They are driven to do some good, and most of them that I know should be thanked for their efforts.

In response to the last speaker on the show, I would offer this reply:

The speaker's idealized conceptions of Native American relationships with the land need more context. Native Americans did seem to maintain stable feedback loops with their local environment (including wildlife). However, our limited knowledge of their historic practices indicate that they, too, managed the land. Most notably to me, Native Americans used fire extensively to create habitat for certain plant and game species, effectively excluding some species over others. Are they then not guilty of "playing God?"

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context