Posted by:
wstreps
at Fri Feb 13 14:27:41 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by wstreps ]
Having read this "paper" it's clear that it represents nothing more then another attempt to undermine the truth thru the use of propaganda veiled as unbiased scientific evidence . The issue is very poorly researched by their own estimation (Fishing for grant money ) The paper concludes that a BAN on the trade of non native wildlife is a good idea. ( Pat on the back from activist groups ) .
At what point do the academics who are clearly using their position for personal agenda begin to become accountable for their lack of ethics ? How about a study on the negative economical, environmental and social impacts caused by fraudulent information introduced by scientist working from a corrupted bias.
Was it a coincidence that Florida , California and Great Britain were chosen as the three primary test jurisdictions ? These three places represent ground zero locations for anti ownership activist and no doubt the academics are greatly " influenced " by their presents. In other words home field advantage. Maybe it's time for someone to do a paper entitled the Science of buying scientist a study in corrupted ethics.
Ernie Eison
Westwood Acres Reptile Farm Inc.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: TOM CRUTCHFIELD tell us how it really is - wstreps, Fri Feb 13 14:27:41 2009