Hi Ent
The British Admiralty, or indeed, the Air Ministry and War Office (not to mention the later Ministry of Defence!) for that matter, were often (but not always) slow to embrace new ideas and fast to hold on to traditions...one just has to look at their infighting and lack of agreement that lead to poor development of aircraft for their navy, the lack of interest in Frank Whittle’s jet engine or perhaps the lack of development in modern arms and armour for their army in between the wars...
But I don’t quite see the analogy between my post and Churchill getting his way over the Admirals through the use of statistics.
One might argue that holding onto the idea that recreational hunting can actually help conservation is an anachronistic way of thinking, just like the British Admirals of your tale? And on the U-boat front the Brits did learn their lesson and had developed dedicated anti-submarine escorts by the Second World War, and it was the USA who was slow to learn against the U-boats due to one Admiral King’s reluctance to take up a British idea that had already been learnt the hard way.
I disagree with you that the use of studies that have not been validated to the current issue serves no purpose. We can learn from studies that have already been conducted elsewhere and valid studies are not necessarily ones that are carried out in one or a series of National Parks. There is no point reinventing the wheel, and one could argue that studies at the local scale are not relevant at greater scales, such as one at which management occurs. Are you then suggesting individual, case by case studies? I think you and I would both agree that is not practical. I think we have learnt a lot about biological systems, and yes, there is still much more to learn too. And yes, I do have some interest in the biological sciences, including bats, among other things.
Ent wrote:
So using your own studies referred to then hunting increases animal numbers. It then appears the much malign Game Authority should be placed in charge of fisheries, save the polar bear, panda, white rhino, and World Whaling Organisation at least. Given that hunting has been blamed for the near extinction of more than a few species (just have to love school teaching), it is quite liberating to read that we should be encouraging hunting based on the studies that you refer to. Do you just not love rhetoric in debates now it has been turned the otherway?
Actually, to some instances, yes, but not necessarily with the species you mentioned. I have already mentioned that this idea is argued for conservation of say elephants in places like Zimbabwe. Hunters want to hunt an elephant and will pay a lot money to do so. The government want that money so they will protect the elephants from poaching.
The problem is, sustainable hunting on the elephant model I mentioned doesn’t work for all species because all species have different life histories. And that elephant model would need to be monitored, to ensure births at least equalled deaths. But species that become feral tend to have high birth rates and can also increase generation times if say, mature males and females are taken out of populations. But a species that has just one young a year will be unlikely to proliferate and is more likely decline due to hunting pressure.
And it is not actually hunting that is actually the main cause of extinction of most species. It is habitat loss and fragmentation. So the polar bear loses ice caps and seal hunting grounds; panda’s lose bamboo forest; rhino’s compete for pasture. And whales are not one species but many. Some are fine, others have been hunted heavily, and all are competing with humans for decreasing resources (fish and krill). Hunting is then an extra pressure that comes on top of all that.
Ent wrote: If the controlling body is seeking a stable and strong population (as appears to be with deer in Tasmania) then it should not be surprising that hunters will largely seek to do this. Criticising them for their own success is rather rich/rhetorical.
It is often neglected by anti-hunting groups that hunters are by definition are indoctrinated in conservation as with out what they hunt they cease to be hunters. Over fish trout and flyfisher themselves will seek to moderate fishing pressure, or as at least this has happened in Tasmania. Sadly, this appears not to happen with many commercial fisheries. I believe that the most vulnerable animal is one that is not hunted, nor looks cute on conservationist posters, especially ones with habitat is near a population centre.
If the controlling body is seeking a stable and strong population AND the hunters are seeking to do this, why dress their amendment to the bill as 'Game and feral animal control'? They should call a spade a spade and tell it like it is. And yes, I agree your statement that many hunters are 'indoctrinated in conservation as with out what they hunt they cease to be hunters'. This is the crux of my argument, and I have brought it up in both threads on hunting. Hunters want to hunt. Therefore they will maintain sustainable prey populations (which is why the protection of elephants by allowing paying hunters could actually work). Hence, their intention is not to 'control' feral animals but to 'sustain' them. So how does sustaining feral populations, knowing the damage they do, sit with National Parks and their users?
But I actually think that many recreational hunters themselves believe they are making a difference. But ones beliefs and reality are two different things. And I am sure that many don't actually care one iota about the environment. I won't just single recreational hunters out there because I am sure there are bushwalkers who are not paying that much attention to their environment...we see that every time we see rubbish deep in the bush.
Ent wrote:My personal opinion is the success or failure of animal population control will heavily depend on the policies and directions imposed by the controlling body and how the hunters see their social responsibility role. I cannot see Sambar hunters (just as one group for example) converging on mass to shoot and leave a trail of carcass to rot unless that they accept that is their social responsibility to control an animal population. Frankly, would not surprise me if some hunters come up with innovative ways to avoid what their hunting belief would consider is wanton waste.
I totally agree. It is unfortunate that there are what has been described as 'unresolvable conflicts of interest' in the NSW Game Council, the Government body that is supposed to regulate hunting in the state. Basically, the members are hunters themselves, with vested interests. Isn't there some story/fable about a kid being put in charge of a lolly jar?
Ent wrote:Science done with a political motivation is in my opinion poor science
Science done with political motivation can be biased science. Same with science done with commercial motivation. But science has to be generally robust before it will be published and it is not easy to get published.
Ent wrote:I find it ironic that a Pope (holder of infallible judgement) makes such a comment and that you quote him. Was he referring to the organisation that he headed or the scientist that were “dealt” with? We all know (or should know) how much some Popes have encouraged open scientific thought over the ages, not! Also we live in a democracy where the unwashed mass vote count. Something that until recently many Popes would have struggled with (divine right of kings and such concepts).
I don't think that the fact a pope that spoke the words is relevant. A pope is just a man after all. But the words are relevant to the way the world is governed or ruled. Or can we only use famous quotations or perhaps use historical examples in the context they were spoken/occurred...perhaps we can go back to talking of Churchill
(Just Joking)
Cheers
Andrew
) 