Here's the bird answer

[cjcj]

Buzz, you need to GROW UP!, all i did was point out the fact`s and then you call me piss poor street bioligist [IYO] but you base it on nothing, the fact`s bear out that this is not a major problem, then you compare it to POACHING! i never said i was against the ladder`s, i just said it`s not a huge problem, ithaca why do you think i`m not reasonable or rational, i look into tank`s all of the time to see what`s in them, and i have seen snail`s, bug`s, and even small fish as i`m naturaly curious, why do you guy`s seem to have a problem with street bioligy?

 

[BuzzH]

cjcj said, "why do you guys have a problem with street biology".

Gee, I wonder??????

Why hell, lets just do away with all those professional biologists and get a bunch of street biologists like you to manage our wildlife.

Great idea.

Come on cjcj, you cant be serious.

 

[Michaelr]

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 08-10-2003 16:43: Message edited by: michaelr ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

cj, "why do you guy`s seem to have a problem with street bioligy?" Street biology covers a pretty wide range, cj. I give street biologists about as much credibility as street physicians. I'd give most of the street biologists here in SI about as much credibility as a monkey.

 

[MarlandS]

Ten, I sure could but they were up for like 3 months and most everyone ignored them so what is the fricken point?

So, it's up to you guys, let this place be the joke forum (the posters not the posts) or rise above it all.

The rules or guidelines were pretty basic , no personal attacks, no namecalling, simple shit anyone would expect their kids to follow. Everyone sees how it works , so I've either got to be a post nazi and use the edit delete button, or raise hell, or just sit back and watch a bunch of people with similar interests prove the anti's right.

 

[cjcj]

well it`s funny that the street bioligist`s in this case, have a better understanding of what`s really happening in those tank`s, gee how could this be? and Buzz there you go again, who said that the pro`s shouldn`t manage the forest`s? [they do don`t they?] and according to you and Ithaca they are not doing a very good job are they [dam`s fish etc.] they problem is some of the street guy`s have more common sense than some pro`s so both sides should be heard, but it seem`s you guy`s have a bug up your ass, and won`t listen to anyone who isn`t a member of your club. i used to work in a huge aerospace plant as a manufacturing eng. but the best ideas for improving quality/production etc. came from the toolmakers/machinists etc. not from our group of educated pro`s and that is a fact, the only differance is we the pro`s had the authority to implement the change.

 

[Ten Bears]

Thanks MARS.

It's special interest that always brings out the wordt in people. Well, that and the inability to accept anothers opinion may have some validity.

 

[1_pointer]

No, CJ, the street biologist can appear to have a handle on any situation because they do not have to provide any type of proof to their statements. 'Street guys' can also clamor to have any amount of common sense because like armchair quaterbacks their not playing the game that counts. It's pretty easy for most 'barbarshop' biologist to state that they knew something would turn out the way it did after the fact. Try predicting it with little to no money to collect the data that you would need to accurately predict it. I am not saying I don't make such statement on certain topic, but at least I'm willing to recognize the limits of those accusations. Sure, where you've been birds dying in water tanks may not be a problem, but have you surveyed the area in question? I'm sorry if it feels like I'm jumping all over you, but I get tired of people THINKING they can do a job they are not. You do not know the system in question, if you do then please correct me.

This is a topic about something that can do nothing but help wildlife while having absolutely NO IMPACT to any other type of use. So why do some give a phuck? If it is because you think the government is wolf in sheep's clothing then say so. If you just want to argue then say so. But, why oppose or even express a negative opinion about something that is doing nothing but benefitting wildlife. Which I assume you do support beings that you are posting on a pro-hunting website.

Again, I apologize to all for the abrasiveness of this post.

 

[cjcj]

Hello there 1-pointer, No apology is needed, if you think that was mean, it wasn`t,actualy i though it was [mild] but i can`t say that i disagree with you on some points, however i think you are missing what i`m trying to say, and that is these so called pro`s in the forestry/ biology/ science/etc. field, would greatly benefit from information obtained from [street biologist`s] hunters/fisherman/RANCHERS/outdoorsman, but to discount that input, then who is really the fool? where i live [AZ] our game and fish sends out postcards after big game hunt`s and asks questions about the hunts! gee whiz the pro`s are asking us stupid, uninformed, blind hunters questions about what has REALLY goes on out in the field, how could this be? i can give you a good example of hunters knowing MORE than the so-called experts, 20 yrs ago i told a game warded in the kaibab, [its north of grand canyon, south of utah] that i had seen some elk while i was hunting deer, he told me there were NO elk in the kaibab, this was at a check station and 4 other game wardens were there and they ALL said i was mistaken,THERE ARE NO ELK IN THE KAIBAB! i told them that they are full of shit because i had seen them! but they insisted that i was wrong, 2 yrs later they nail some guy for poaching one[elk] within a mile of where i had seen them. how could this have happend? because you know those experts, pro`s said ther wern`t any elk in the north kaibab, they said ther have NEVER been ANY and there arn`t any. so you can think how you want to, and that is ok, but i can`t ignore the things that i see and understand.

 

[MarlandS]

Cjcj, what's the odds that they were just bare-faced lying for whatever reason? Surely you hadn't been the only one to report a sighting???

 

[JoseCuervo]

1-Ptr,

No apology is needed, as it was not abrasive, rather it was well stated and articulate.

It has been said many times, but it still amazes me that we have hunters who don't want to protect the game we hunt.

Is one dead duck ok? 100? 500? on the same ranch? Where do we draw the line, or do some even draw the line anywhere.

Peace,

 

[1_pointer]

Cj- I never discounted the information provided by sportsmen or whomever. This is needed as the professional's are not able to cover as much ground as many times their number. The info you can provide is sometimes invaluable, but to state that 'street' biologists have a better grasp of what is going on is a stretch.

I find your story amusing in that I would not consider a game warden a professional biologist by any stretch of the imagination. More like a game cop.

I apologized for seeming like arguing against one person and not just the topic at hand.

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P,why wouldn't you consider game wardens to be professional biologists? I've helped, as a volunteer, the local warden with some projects, and he seems pretty well up on things.

I'm a "backwoods biologist", I guess, and I put a lot more faith in what I see in the woods and fields, then what I'm told by people that seldom get out of an office.

 

[cjcj]

Marlands if i could think of 1 legitiment reason that 5 game wardens would intentionaly lie to me about the elk i would see your point, but i can`t so i won`t, 1 pt. every game warden i know has a 4 yr. college degree, not to mention they go thru law enforcment school, or acadamy, i think that i was the first one to report this to them at that time, but i can`t say for sure but they acted like i was wrong so it pissed me off, one even went so far as to say that there are no elk because they couldn`t cross the grand canyon! it`s a fact that in the last 5 yrs. or so they have a elk hunt up there now.

 

[Michaelr]

1pt,
I'm not against things that benefit wildlife in the least.

I was just giving itchaca a hard time about starting threads that are kinda lame.

I just think there are alot better topics to argue about

If I ever find a dead duck, or we are asked to install ladders in our tanks I wont have a problem doing so..

 

[Idaho Ron]

michaelr, You said
"If I ever find a dead duck, or we are asked to install ladders in our tanks I wont have a problem doing so"
As I understand it you have water tanks for cattle. I don't know where you are at but lets say you are in the mountains. If you were to add the ladders on your own, this would enhance the habitat for mountain grouse, and other species.
You also said, "I'm not against things that benefit wildlife in the least."
Then why do you have to be asked? Why not do what is right and put in the laders, and enjoy the rewards of doing what is right. Ron

 

[Michaelr]

because at this time it would be neither a benefit or a hinderance,

Our tanks are set up to capture springs or creeks, we then install a drain pipe that drains about 10 yards below the tank to keep it from being a mud hole around the tank, and the spring creek has the same flow or close to it that it had before the tank was installed.
we have never had a problem with animals or birds getting stuck in the tank, thus no need for ladders.

 

[MarlandS]

Cjcj, What point was I trying to make ? I just asked a couple of questions that's all.

I've heard lot's of first hand accounts from people and have seen a couple of less than honorable actions by wardens. And I just wondered what your opinion was.

 

[1_pointer]

Ten Bears- My statement regarding wardens was regarding my personal experience with them. They are there to enforce the laws not to make predictions. In my experience I have never seen a game warden collecting data that with stand any sort of scientific scrutiny. Though they may be educated in wildlife biology, that is not in their job description. They are to enforce the laws, not to set them. A professional biologist provides the data that will hopefully allow for construction of self-sustaining laws. But, I am not sure the biologist should be the one to construct the laws, as that could get dicey with a conflict of interests. It's sad that many of our laws are made by peole with little to no understanding of the natural world or the data presented to them.

IMO, there are too few of them because of the rediculous amount of area they are to cover and the pittance they recieve for a paycheck.

 

[Ten Bears]

1-P.
I forwarded a copy of what you said to a warden freind of mine. Here is his response. "First off, many of the officers in Idaho have had other positions in the department before becoming an officer. I for one held a position as a research biologist, but I like the enforcement aspect of my current job. Go to the state job service web site, and look up the definition for senior conservation officer, and let him know what my job entails."

From:
http://www.dhr.state.id.us/specs/00863.asp

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> CONSERVATION OFFICER, SENIOR CLASS NO. 00863

CLASS PURPOSE

To enforce federal and state fish and wildlife statutes and regulations; perform fish and wildlife management activities; provide education and information to the public; provide training; perform related work.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The SCO collaborates with department staff to develop resource management recommendations. This includes taking the lead in collecting data for population surveys, mortality causes and migration movements, etc.; organizing and coordinating volunteers, determining relocation sites and trapping methods, sedating animals, collecting blood samples, transporting animals, taking census and brood counts, angler creel surveys, summarizing and analyzing data for making recommendations and writing reports. Some areas may not have statistical data and SCO provides anecdotal information for management decisions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> While the main focus of the work is on enforcement and resource management, there are ancillary responsibilities such as analyzing land and water use practices (mining, timber harvest, road building, fires, livestock grazing, etc.). This includes coordinating and partnering with state and federal land management agencies and private land owners to develop recommendations that would minimize impacts to fish and wildlife, recommending mitigation steps, and developing partnerships with landowners to develop/implement habit improvement projects and public access.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know, but it sounds a lot more then like just a cop to me.