W
Wildman
Guest
I would like to try to add some insight to the underlying debate highlighted in stoney's "Hunters Beware" post. The Hunters Beware thread- like most political topics- really dances around the core issues driving the debate.
On one side you have stoney saying the "green" movement has infiltrated the hunting community, and on the other side you have other hunters claiming stoney is out of touch with science based reality.
Unfortunately, as is usually the case with these things, you have two sides which both have an element of truth claiming they are the ultimate authority on the subject.
Although stoney doesn't apparently have a PhD in the Wildlife Sciences, he has touched on a very real issue. The issue is the difference in ideology between traditional hunters and the ideology put forth through the modern day ecological sciences.
Essentially, stoney comes from a more traditional perspective where hunting and wildlife are prioritized above other resources. The ecological sciences crowd come from a more water/soil/vegetation perspective where wildlife is only a benefit if it moves their water/soil/vegetation ideology in the direction they want. This difference in ideology can put so-called "sportsmen/women" on different sides of the argument.
Traditional hunters come from the perspective that as long as large wildlife numbers can be maintained all is well. The water/soil/vegetation crowd only find value in wildlife if the wildlife don't compete against the water/soil/vegetation ideology. Thus, the water/soil/vegetation crowd is actually willing to diminish wildlife numbers if they view it to be a benefit to the water/soil/vegetation.
The problem is political interests use both of these ideologies to push their political agendas using well meaning sportsmen/women from both sides of the argument.
In the "science based" community it is pretty well accepted that traditional hunters are "selfish and ignorant about the realities of ecology", and although there may be some truth to this argument, it is only rivaled by the arrogance and sloppiness of the scientific community.
Here are a couple of links I have posted on these issues in the past:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...800&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#.UyND-4XYiSo
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...104&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#.UyNC5IXYiSo
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...427&forum=DCForumID6&archive=yes#.UyNErIXYiSo
Although stoney may not be a PhD, he may actually be smarter in some ways than those who buy the "science" argument hook, line and sinker without questioning anything simply because it's "science".
My two cents. Fire away!!!
On one side you have stoney saying the "green" movement has infiltrated the hunting community, and on the other side you have other hunters claiming stoney is out of touch with science based reality.
Unfortunately, as is usually the case with these things, you have two sides which both have an element of truth claiming they are the ultimate authority on the subject.
Although stoney doesn't apparently have a PhD in the Wildlife Sciences, he has touched on a very real issue. The issue is the difference in ideology between traditional hunters and the ideology put forth through the modern day ecological sciences.
Essentially, stoney comes from a more traditional perspective where hunting and wildlife are prioritized above other resources. The ecological sciences crowd come from a more water/soil/vegetation perspective where wildlife is only a benefit if it moves their water/soil/vegetation ideology in the direction they want. This difference in ideology can put so-called "sportsmen/women" on different sides of the argument.
Traditional hunters come from the perspective that as long as large wildlife numbers can be maintained all is well. The water/soil/vegetation crowd only find value in wildlife if the wildlife don't compete against the water/soil/vegetation ideology. Thus, the water/soil/vegetation crowd is actually willing to diminish wildlife numbers if they view it to be a benefit to the water/soil/vegetation.
The problem is political interests use both of these ideologies to push their political agendas using well meaning sportsmen/women from both sides of the argument.
In the "science based" community it is pretty well accepted that traditional hunters are "selfish and ignorant about the realities of ecology", and although there may be some truth to this argument, it is only rivaled by the arrogance and sloppiness of the scientific community.
Here are a couple of links I have posted on these issues in the past:
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...800&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#.UyND-4XYiSo
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...104&forum=DCForumID5&archive=yes#.UyNC5IXYiSo
http://www.monstermuleys.info/cgi-b...427&forum=DCForumID6&archive=yes#.UyNErIXYiSo
Although stoney may not be a PhD, he may actually be smarter in some ways than those who buy the "science" argument hook, line and sinker without questioning anything simply because it's "science".
My two cents. Fire away!!!
