All,

I have never stated that all of academia was attacking the industry but there are years of overwhelming evidence that many are. You have to acknowledge there is a problem before you can fix the problem, Phil. Many academics have disguised this attack as “conservation” when in fact it is a hijacked AR agenda more along the lines of “preservation.” Most of this has been done without data and in some cases with the use of questionable data. When prompted the private stakeholders have responded to “comment” requests only to find their solutions and opinions taking up residence in a garbage receptacle. As Phil does quite often with my opinions here, for example.

If the truth were to be known I expect many academics would support the following:

A ban on the collection of wild caught herps.

A ban on the sale of wild caught herps.

A ban on the possession of any herp species that could remotely be linked to the possibility of damaging wild populations.

A ban on any herp species that could pose a public health threat in some way.

A ban on any herp species that could possibly threaten public safety.

The fact that the regulatory agencies, academics, the peer-review process and funding agencies are all part of one big family is most disturbing. This is a major problem which needs addressing.

Now, do academia and their supporters have a leg to stand on? Are their concerns just designed to shut the industry down? I don’t think so. They have valid points and concerns. We have dropped the ball on our end as well. The problem lies in how these concerns are addressed and resolved. Conservation means “wise use.” What does “wise use” mean exactly? We all have our own opinion. Also, all to often law enforcement has been left out of the process or has been a brick wall to win/win regulations.

Academia and their regulatory pupils have consistently followed the severely flawed precautionary principle to advance their agenda. More on the precautionary principle can be found here: http://www.reason.com/news/show/30977.html.

The division that stands between the private sector and the academics/agency biologists was not created nor pushed by me. Quite the contrary. It was created by their agenda, their ego and their elitism based on real concerns about the industry. I have been working with other members of PARC to bridge this divide. Do you see the confusion? You have one member of a group working to bring people together and another tearing it down. You have some academics trying to ban boas, pythons, and anacondas and then you have Phil saying that academics aren’t trying to ban things. You have academics trying to shut down turtle breeding, collecting and commerce but then you have them saying, “Let’s work together.” I don’t get it. Based on this and past behavior I question what the future will hold for academics/agency biologists and private stakeholders.

Welkerii
El Paso, TX

[ Hide Replies ]

• The Real Agenda - OHI, Sun Nov 9 20:01:20 2008