That shouldn’t be a hard question for Rob to answer ….if he’s granted permission to speak.
Maybe others that we do not suspect follow along with the Compassionate Conservation train of thought.
Rub shoulders long enough and some will rub off.
That shouldn’t be a hard question for Rob to answer ….if he’s granted permission to speak.
Maybe others that we do not suspect follow along with the Compassionate Conservation train of thought.
Rub shoulders long enough and some will rub off.
See! I know your style.
Are you assuming someone in BCWF controls who's allowed to say what? ****, don't give that guy my number. It might not end well for him.
And who is it who isn't being given permission to say anything? Are you referring to me? There's no way you mean me. I mean, I think anyone who's spent any time on this forum knows that if you take the cork outta my pie hole I'll generally be the last one left talking.
Expand on who you think is following along with the compassionate conservation train of thought. Show your math. If your answer is correct then we can solve that problem. If all you're going to do is suggest that there might be monsters under the bed? Wow.
If true, could be big.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Rob, study up on genetics.
The ewe is a factor as well and in “viable, thriving” populations and she will be part of the genetic makeup of the next generation.
Thanks for that link. Reading it now. There's some good math based info there (one big ram sired 1/3 of lambs one year, and another sired 1/4 of all lambs over 6 years) but a notable absence of math based info right after "Some rams get big by 4 and if they get taken out of the population..." which begs the question: in a long term study of a population did you record which rams got big young and how many got killed young?
Maybe that's in the paper later, but (especially in this day and age) what *isn't* reported is often a very important data point.
I say that to show you that I'm looking into this, but I think it would be cool if others who don't like Festa-Bianchet's science prepared some good questions for him. Tough questions can be very enlightening, especially if asked the right way.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
See...caught you red-handed stirring the pot!
Anyway, register for the webinar and ask the guy some tough questions. Nobody will get hurt.
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
There is something to be said about free speech no doubt. Also something to be said about giving someone a platform. Generally a conservation group who gives a platform to someone to present a topic has at least a general acceptance or belief in that person and the validity of what they are saying through the organizations platform. Quite simply, a platform isn't given by an organization who opposes that person's views (nor would anyone expect it)
Obviously some members who organized the presentation see value in what Marco is pushing. No judgment in that one bit as that's bound to be the case with a bunch of viewpoints), but the platform is not given to those at will just in the name of free speech. It's obviously acknowledged that some support his message and want it shared.
Few points.
The Wild Sheep Foundation hosted the 7th World Mountain Ungulate Conference in Bozeman in 2019. Some of the speakers? Shane Mahoney, Val Geist....Marco Festa-Bianchet. Now I'm pretty sure that both Shane Mahoney and Val Geist (may he rest in peace) were not compassionate conservationists. If Festa-Bianchet *is* a compassionate conservationists, which viewpoint was WSF accepting or believing?
These webinars are organized by a group of people, the majority of them paid staff, and they're all tasked with getting interesting people who are willing to speak on conservation issues and draw an audience. They've got a bunch of people to commit to doing presentations, which is a very good accomplishment. Actually providing long term, recurring and topical content is a tough challenge. We've done them on wildfires, salmon, pinnipeds, cougars, CWD, road density, carnivore management, moose, forest practices, steelhead, etc. I am in a position at BCWF where I could object to this guest, as could other directors, but there is clearly value in having him speak, and the value does not reside in the message that he's pushing.
Nobody has said that Festa-Bianchet is getting a platform because BCWF is fighting for free speech. I see value in a controversial person being allowed to speak because I believe in free speech, not because I think the particular person's message has value and I want to support it. I trust the audience to make up it's own mind because I respect them and I believe that the et result will always be positive. I don't know who supports Marco Festa-Bianchet's message but I know a lot of people would want it shared simply because the believe more information is always good.
I raised the free speech aspect not because BCWF is a newly minted free speech crusader who's next webinar guest will be Dr. Jordan Peterson; I raised it to point out that the alternative is to deny the audience the ability to hear a guy like Festa-Bianchet because some people don't like what he says. That's a bad alternative for conservation because conservation is a field strewn with disagreement over the science and a lot of provocative subjects.
Here's some examples the value in what Festa-Bianchet is going to say (and I haven't even heard the presentation yet):
1) Is he actually a compassionate conservationist? Some say he is. It would be good to confirm that.
2) Is he attempting to change BC regs so that he gets a control group for a pet project of his, or is he asking a valid question that conservationists would like to see asked and answered?
3) Is he an anti-hunter?
4) If the answer to 1,2 & 3 are yes, who else agrees with him and how much influence do they have?
You see the point. That list could go on an on. Just ask Bill Burr about reasons and how many there are (if you haven't seen it, treat yourself. Don't tell anyone I laughed at it. They'll think I support wife beating! It's hilarious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rksKvZoUCPQ)
Rob Chipman
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders" - Ed Abbey
"Grown men do not need leaders" - also Ed Abbey
Fair points Rob. I guess I was likely in your spot years ago when I hadn't heard his comments as well as counter arguments and seen everything I've needed to see to come to my conclusions. I understand that's a different spot than many in BC so I don't see the value (because I've gone down the road already). Will be intetesting to see where our residents land after hearing the message and counter arguments.