Log in:  

Register

Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

01 Sep 2015 18:11

I hear bear is pretty tasty too, so there's that
patricknd
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,261
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 18:51
Location: houston texas

02 Sep 2015 03:32

jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

02 Sep 2015 16:22

Archibald wrote:"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?


It's interesting how often this seems to come up in discussion these days. It seems a very common misunderstanding of the intent when someone recommends "listening to experts". Of course they aren't 100% correct all the time, and surely no thinking person would suggest they are, so I'm not sure why that's a useful point. The point is that we have to make decisions or take views all the time without 100% confidence in our information. Every day we do this, and we do it happily.

What I mean when I say "trust the experts" is that we should trust that they are the best informed, that they have the experience, training and judgement to make the best (not the incontrovertibly correct) decision in this (or any other) situation. This requires accepting that there are those who are more informed on a topic than we are, trusting others to do their jobs well, and accepting a reasonable level of risk that these folks are human and can be wrong. We simply live with that.

If there is a specific reason to question the experts, by all means let's hear it, and let us have that discussion. However if all we have is the fact that "experts aren't always correct", then there isn't anything to discuss. Conceded. So what? They still know more than anyone here about the situation. In lieu of any particular information, simply dismissing the judgements of experts out of hand seems foolish to me.


Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?


Are they in it to "make money"? I know several park employees, and that is literally the last thing they're in it for, as they can all (and many have) make a LOT more money doing other things. They do that job because they love the National Parks. But yes, they have a park to manage, because WE all want the park. And we the public want reasonable assurances of safety, and thoughtful, strategic management of the parks.

If you think the Rangers are "selling" anything and motivated by getting more and more people in the parks, you've not spent much down time with any Rangers. Sort of the opposite of what they're after, frankly. Is the upper management motivated to keep the park open? Of course. Why? Demand.

I think your view on the motivations of park employees is rather off-base.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

02 Sep 2015 19:32

red_flanders wrote:
Archibald wrote:"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?


It's interesting how often this seems to come up in discussion these days. It seems a very common misunderstanding of the intent when someone recommends "listening to experts". Of course they aren't 100% correct all the time, and surely no thinking person would suggest they are, so I'm not sure why that's a useful point. The point is that we have to make decisions or take views all the time without 100% confidence in our information. Every day we do this, and we do it happily.

What I mean when I say "trust the experts" is that we should trust that they are the best informed, that they have the experience, training and judgement to make the best (not the incontrovertibly correct) decision in this (or any other) situation. This requires accepting that there are those who are more informed on a topic than we are, trusting others to do their jobs well, and accepting a reasonable level of risk that these folks are human and can be wrong. We simply live with that.

If there is a specific reason to question the experts, by all means let's hear it, and let us have that discussion. However if all we have is the fact that "experts aren't always correct", then there isn't anything to discuss. Conceded. So what? They still know more than anyone here about the situation. In lieu of any particular information, simply dismissing the judgements of experts out of hand seems foolish to me.


Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?


Are they in it to "make money"? I know several park employees, and that is literally the last thing they're in it for, as they can all (and many have) make a LOT more money doing other things. They do that job because they love the National Parks. But yes, they have a park to manage, because WE all want the park. And we the public want reasonable assurances of safety, and thoughtful, strategic management of the parks.

If you think the Rangers are "selling" anything and motivated by getting more and more people in the parks, you've not spent much down time with any Rangers. Sort of the opposite of what they're after, frankly. Is the upper management motivated to keep the park open? Of course. Why? Demand.

I think your view on the motivations of park employees is rather off-base.


Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

02 Sep 2015 19:38

jmdirt wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
Archibald wrote:"experts" aren't always correct. This has been proven time and time again over centuries. You can't take what is said as being 100% correct, or in blind faith... Depends on individual expouting those judgements and the reasoning behind them - isn't that what the this discussion is about; some 'expert's' opinion and reason as to why the bear was killed?


It's interesting how often this seems to come up in discussion these days. It seems a very common misunderstanding of the intent when someone recommends "listening to experts". Of course they aren't 100% correct all the time, and surely no thinking person would suggest they are, so I'm not sure why that's a useful point. The point is that we have to make decisions or take views all the time without 100% confidence in our information. Every day we do this, and we do it happily.

What I mean when I say "trust the experts" is that we should trust that they are the best informed, that they have the experience, training and judgement to make the best (not the incontrovertibly correct) decision in this (or any other) situation. This requires accepting that there are those who are more informed on a topic than we are, trusting others to do their jobs well, and accepting a reasonable level of risk that these folks are human and can be wrong. We simply live with that.

If there is a specific reason to question the experts, by all means let's hear it, and let us have that discussion. However if all we have is the fact that "experts aren't always correct", then there isn't anything to discuss. Conceded. So what? They still know more than anyone here about the situation. In lieu of any particular information, simply dismissing the judgements of experts out of hand seems foolish to me.


Now, going back to the NP - I completely get their position - they have a Park to run and money to make from the visitors coming to it, so they can't just shut the park because it's the birthing season for bears. They're hard pushed for funds, so would be reluctant to reduce those funds any further. Hence why the exercise becomes nothing more than PR damage control... "Hey folks, don't worry about that bear attack we just had coz we killed this rogue animal, so roll up, roll up!"...
So, were the "expert" rangers selling a story or were they completely correct on the situation and justification of killing this bear?


Are they in it to "make money"? I know several park employees, and that is literally the last thing they're in it for, as they can all (and many have) make a LOT more money doing other things. They do that job because they love the National Parks. But yes, they have a park to manage, because WE all want the park. And we the public want reasonable assurances of safety, and thoughtful, strategic management of the parks.

If you think the Rangers are "selling" anything and motivated by getting more and more people in the parks, you've not spent much down time with any Rangers. Sort of the opposite of what they're after, frankly. Is the upper management motivated to keep the park open? Of course. Why? Demand.

I think your view on the motivations of park employees is rather off-base.


Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.

Oh man I think you are wrong. The rangers I know and the ones I have interacted with are the exact opposite of the politically driven.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,308
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

02 Sep 2015 19:41

jmdirt wrote:Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.



Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?

Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

03 Sep 2015 03:16

Oh, come on...
The rangers may well not be in agreement with what they must do, but they do their bosses bidding - as jmdirt points out. Boss-man or even those above him, wants/needs money for the park to operate, and the more punters through the gate, the easier that is. Not only to pay the rangers, but to run the park and keep it open...
That, Mister Flanders, is what my entire post alluded to - that the rangers, while considered "experts in the field" may be towing the line they have to - despite believing in the opposite.
Being 'wary' is not total distrust either, but keeping an open mind on what you're told by 'experts'.

Don't know if you're a parent, but the day you become one, you're inundated with experts in all manner of what to do... it's an utterminefield.

"Listen to all, then sort through the sh*t to find the truth"
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,688
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re:

03 Sep 2015 14:47

Archibald wrote:Oh, come on...
The rangers may well not be in agreement with what they must do, but they do their bosses bidding - as jmdirt points out. Boss-man or even those above him, wants/needs money for the park to operate, and the more punters through the gate, the easier that is. Not only to pay the rangers, but to run the park and keep it open...
That, Mister Flanders, is what my entire post alluded to - that the rangers, while considered "experts in the field" may be towing the line they have to - despite believing in the opposite.
Being 'wary' is not total distrust either, but keeping an open mind on what you're told by 'experts'.

Don't know if you're a parent, but the day you become one, you're inundated with experts in all manner of what to do... it's an utterminefield.

"Listen to all, then sort through the sh*t to find the truth"


So you're speculating that there is some political pressure on park managers to keep the park open. Any evidence for this? I'm sure it's possible, but do you have any reason to believe this came into play? Is the killing of this bear some deviation from regular park policy, or is it your position that park policy is formed due to politics alone? Do you really think having a bear who has shown to eat a human and store the carcass for food a good thing to have roaming around one of the most populated parks in the world?

Politics is the business of human interactions and compromise. A compromise needs to be found between public safety and the welfare of the wildlife. I'm sure park policy reflects this reality. It also reflects the reality that the public demand for the park to stay open influences park policy. I don't see the problem in any of this. Without the park there wouldn't be a single brown bear in the general area of Yellowstone. Without the public there is no park.

Not sure what's confusing about that.

If you're equating every nitwit who writes a parenting book with the people who use a process based in science, review and evaluation which results in park policy, there's not much to talk about as you're making ridiculous, specious comparisons.

Show my how your view is more informed or relevant that the experts (who actually are experts) in this case, and how their decision was wrong and it might be an interesting conversation. Short of that, your arguments fail for me. Completely.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

03 Sep 2015 15:09

red_flanders wrote:
jmdirt wrote:Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.



Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?

Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.


The pressure is coming from Jarvis, and trickling down to each park director. The parks make about $25 billion a year.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

03 Sep 2015 18:59

jmdirt wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
jmdirt wrote:Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.



Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?

Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.


The pressure is coming from Jarvis, and trickling down to each park director. The parks make about $25 billion a year.


"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."


First let me say I see nothing wrong with this approach. The policy seems reasonable and well-considered.

Is the argument here that the park managers acted against policy due to intervention from Jonathan Jarvis?

Is the argument that park policy is wrong, and that policy was set with some undue or unwarranted influence of money or Jonathan Jarvis?

Is there any evidence Jarvis influenced policy or the decision to kill this bear in some inappropriate way?

Either way, is there a better policy that folks are espousing?

Honest questions. I've looked and can't find any answers to my questions. Lots of complaining about the decision and blame-assigning and accusations of "politics" (without presenting any evidence), but no alternate suggestions on what's to be done in a case like this.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

03 Sep 2015 20:44

red_flanders wrote:
jmdirt wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
jmdirt wrote:Your first point is correct. However, the park director has political pressure, that will influence his decision (and I strongly believe it did in this case). Which slides directly into your second point. Park directors (we're not talking about every ranger, tour guide, etc. who loves the parks) have to answer to the feds (I guess technically they are feds) and there is a political (national) agenda for keeping the parks viable.



Thanks. What specifically is the nature of the political pressure, and from whom is it coming? Why do you believe the pressure existed and was a factor?

Sorry if this pressure is outlined upthread and I missed it, I was simply reacting to what read as vague distrust of experts.


The pressure is coming from Jarvis, and trickling down to each park director. The parks make about $25 billion a year.


"As managers of Yellowstone National Park, we balance the preservation of park resources with public safety," said Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Dan Wenk. "Our decision takes into account the facts of the case, the goals of the bear management program and the long-term viability of the grizzly bear population as a whole, rather than an individual bear."


First let me say I see nothing wrong with this approach. The policy seems reasonable and well-considered.

Is the argument here that the park managers acted against policy due to intervention from Jonathan Jarvis?

Is the argument that park policy is wrong, and that policy was set with some undue or unwarranted influence of money or Jonathan Jarvis?

Is there any evidence Jarvis influenced policy or the decision to kill this bear in some inappropriate way?

Either way, is there a better policy that folks are espousing?

Honest questions. I've looked and can't find any answers to my questions. Lots of complaining about the decision and blame-assigning and accusations of "politics" (without presenting any evidence), but no alternate suggestions on what's to be done in a case like this.


What policy? All that very general statement says is that they can do whatever they want. If the park policy is to kill Griz who kill people hiking in OFF TRAIL areas, then yes the policy is wrong. Is there evidence that Jarvis wasn't part of the decision? If that is the case there is more wrong than it appears. My alternative suggestion is to let wild areas be wild (it wasn't like the Griz was in the parking lot at the lodge).
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Griz Kills Man, Rangers Kill Griz

03 Sep 2015 23:28

jmdirt wrote:What policy? All that very general statement says is that they can do whatever they want.


Indeed, I should have used "decision". I don't know if there is any policy. From what little I know from reading about the situation, I agree with the decision. Since I don't know all the details, I'm happy to let the experts make the call since that is their business.

Is there evidence that Jarvis wasn't part of the decision?


You said, "The pressure is coming from Jarvis, and trickling down to each park director. The parks make about $25 billion a year."

So I asked if you had evidence for this statement. I will assume not. I would further be curious if anyone can provide evidence (since you are inferring there's a connection and others have stated it) that money is involved in the decision in some direct or meaningful way. I don't have any evidence either way, and I don't have any insight into whether this person should or shouldn't be involved.

It strikes me that ignoring the public concerns which might exist around bears eating people would be considered by many, myself included, as an abdication of responsibility. If you don't want decisions to be made with both visitors and wildlife in mind, perhaps you should share how such a park would be funded. I personally am very pleased with the parks and how they are being managed. They are set up in a very thoughtful way to balance the needs of people and nature, and are one of the shining successes and treasures of this country. The re-introduction of brown bears to the park has been a tremendous success. Without the park, they're extinct in the US. This seems better.

If that is the case there is more wrong than it appears. My alternative suggestion is to let wild areas be wild (it wasn't like the Griz was in the parking lot at the lodge).


It's a reasonable suggestion. Personally I don't think it's the best way to manage the situation given the needs of all the constituents, but it's potentially workable. Should people be allowed to kill bears in self-defense? Would you believe them if they claimed self-defense? How many dead bears in the park would be too many before we started realizing people were just shooting or poaching them? I'd certainly be of the mind to shoot first and worry later if a bear were attacking me, but I would be concerned that some people would abuse this.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

04 Sep 2015 04:40

red_flanders wrote:
Archibald wrote:Oh, come on...
The rangers may well not be in agreement with what they must do, but they do their bosses bidding - as jmdirt points out. Boss-man or even those above him, wants/needs money for the park to operate, and the more punters through the gate, the easier that is. Not only to pay the rangers, but to run the park and keep it open...
That, Mister Flanders, is what my entire post alluded to - that the rangers, while considered "experts in the field" may be towing the line they have to - despite believing in the opposite.
Being 'wary' is not total distrust either, but keeping an open mind on what you're told by 'experts'.

Don't know if you're a parent, but the day you become one, you're inundated with experts in all manner of what to do... it's an utterminefield.

"Listen to all, then sort through the sh*t to find the truth"


So you're speculating that there is some political pressure on park managers to keep the park open. Any evidence for this? I'm sure it's possible, but do you have any reason to believe this came into play? Is the killing of this bear some deviation from regular park policy, or is it your position that park policy is formed due to politics alone? Do you really think having a bear who has shown to eat a human and store the carcass for food a good thing to have roaming around one of the most populated parks in the world?

Politics is the business of human interactions and compromise. A compromise needs to be found between public safety and the welfare of the wildlife. I'm sure park policy reflects this reality. It also reflects the reality that the public demand for the park to stay open influences park policy. I don't see the problem in any of this. Without the park there wouldn't be a single brown bear in the general area of Yellowstone. Without the public there is no park.

Not sure what's confusing about that.

If you're equating every nitwit who writes a parenting book with the people who use a process based in science, review and evaluation which results in park policy, there's not much to talk about as you're making ridiculous, specious comparisons.

Show my how your view is more informed or relevant that the experts (who actually are experts) in this case, and how their decision was wrong and it might be an interesting conversation. Short of that, your arguments fail for me. Completely.

so you can't see that there are reasons to be wary of said experts? That was your question.

You asked about why be wary of experts - I've given you conceivable examples of why to not just blindly follow their judgement/decision...
You just pointed out that they're following "park policy" - did they therefore actually make a decision or just "tow the company line"?
As to Park Policy, who wrote it and when? I'd take a punt that it was likely to have been written by a bureaucrat/govt admin or the like with more than just the interests of the wildlife at heart... they may well have consulted some 'wildlife experts', but that doesn't mean they took or used all of what they received.
Hell, you suggested there was a compromise that included the "welfare of the wildlife". Clearly, none was shown - bear was killed... By the way, where are the cubs it was protecting? Did they kill those too? Tis interesting that it's all gone quiet on their outcome and/or conclusion. Orphaned and left to fend for themselves now? Collected and sold to zoos or circuses? who knows... how's their welfare going?

Is it possible that;
- the rangers did what they had to as employees despite believing it was the wrong thing to do?
- the park policy could be out-dated and/or not entirely balanced in it's "compromise between human safety and the welfare of the wildlife"?
The actual answers could be yes or no, but either is possible as we're not aware of the definitive answer.

This has nothing to do with me being any more informed than the rangers - it's just that it's possible that there's more to it than the announcement and justification given for what was done.
Let's face it, we aren't privvy to everything that actually went on - only what was presented in various media quotes and reports.


As for this: "Without the public there is no park."
err... no, there'd just be the park - left alone from human interference... and some jobless rangers...
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,688
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re: Re:

04 Sep 2015 06:45

Archibald wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
Archibald wrote:Oh, come on...
The rangers may well not be in agreement with what they must do, but they do their bosses bidding - as jmdirt points out. Boss-man or even those above him, wants/needs money for the park to operate, and the more punters through the gate, the easier that is. Not only to pay the rangers, but to run the park and keep it open...
That, Mister Flanders, is what my entire post alluded to - that the rangers, while considered "experts in the field" may be towing the line they have to - despite believing in the opposite.
Being 'wary' is not total distrust either, but keeping an open mind on what you're told by 'experts'.

Don't know if you're a parent, but the day you become one, you're inundated with experts in all manner of what to do... it's an utterminefield.

"Listen to all, then sort through the sh*t to find the truth"


So you're speculating that there is some political pressure on park managers to keep the park open. Any evidence for this? I'm sure it's possible, but do you have any reason to believe this came into play? Is the killing of this bear some deviation from regular park policy, or is it your position that park policy is formed due to politics alone? Do you really think having a bear who has shown to eat a human and store the carcass for food a good thing to have roaming around one of the most populated parks in the world?

Politics is the business of human interactions and compromise. A compromise needs to be found between public safety and the welfare of the wildlife. I'm sure park policy reflects this reality. It also reflects the reality that the public demand for the park to stay open influences park policy. I don't see the problem in any of this. Without the park there wouldn't be a single brown bear in the general area of Yellowstone. Without the public there is no park.

Not sure what's confusing about that.

If you're equating every nitwit who writes a parenting book with the people who use a process based in science, review and evaluation which results in park policy, there's not much to talk about as you're making ridiculous, specious comparisons.

Show my how your view is more informed or relevant that the experts (who actually are experts) in this case, and how their decision was wrong and it might be an interesting conversation. Short of that, your arguments fail for me. Completely.

so you can't see that there are reasons to be wary of said experts? That was your question.

You asked about why be wary of experts - I've given you conceivable examples of why to not just blindly follow their judgement/decision...
You just pointed out that they're following "park policy" - did they therefore actually make a decision or just "tow the company line"?
As to Park Policy, who wrote it and when? I'd take a punt that it was likely to have been written by a bureaucrat/govt admin or the like with more than just the interests of the wildlife at heart... they may well have consulted some 'wildlife experts', but that doesn't mean they took or used all of what they received.
Hell, you suggested there was a compromise that included the "welfare of the wildlife". Clearly, none was shown - bear was killed... By the way, where are the cubs it was protecting? Did they kill those too? Tis interesting that it's all gone quiet on their outcome and/or conclusion. Orphaned and left to fend for themselves now? Collected and sold to zoos or circuses? who knows... how's their welfare going?

Is it possible that;
- the rangers did what they had to as employees despite believing it was the wrong thing to do?
- the park policy could be out-dated and/or not entirely balanced in it's "compromise between human safety and the welfare of the wildlife"?
The actual answers could be yes or no, but either is possible as we're not aware of the definitive answer.

This has nothing to do with me being any more informed than the rangers - it's just that it's possible that there's more to it than the announcement and justification given for what was done.
Let's face it, we aren't privvy to everything that actually went on - only what was presented in various media quotes and reports.


As for this: "Without the public there is no park."
err... no, there'd just be the park - left alone from human interference... and some jobless rangers...


No, there would simply be no park. It would be developed land of some kind or another. Unless you're assuming all the humans are gone in this scenario, at which point the conversation is moot.

Me? I like the park and the humans and the wildlife.

Anything is possible. But as the last posts outline, there is no evidence of overt political involvement, and an utter lack (by all concerned) of specific information to serve as a basis for mistrust of those in charge. There is only wild speculation and in this case some kind of baseline distrust of anyone employed by the government.

Makes no sense to me.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

04 Sep 2015 12:56

Archibald wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
Archibald wrote:Oh, come on...
The rangers may well not be in agreement with what they must do, but they do their bosses bidding - as jmdirt points out. Boss-man or even those above him, wants/needs money for the park to operate, and the more punters through the gate, the easier that is. Not only to pay the rangers, but to run the park and keep it open...
That, Mister Flanders, is what my entire post alluded to - that the rangers, while considered "experts in the field" may be towing the line they have to - despite believing in the opposite.
Being 'wary' is not total distrust either, but keeping an open mind on what you're told by 'experts'.

Don't know if you're a parent, but the day you become one, you're inundated with experts in all manner of what to do... it's an utterminefield.

"Listen to all, then sort through the sh*t to find the truth"


So you're speculating that there is some political pressure on park managers to keep the park open. Any evidence for this? I'm sure it's possible, but do you have any reason to believe this came into play? Is the killing of this bear some deviation from regular park policy, or is it your position that park policy is formed due to politics alone? Do you really think having a bear who has shown to eat a human and store the carcass for food a good thing to have roaming around one of the most populated parks in the world?

Politics is the business of human interactions and compromise. A compromise needs to be found between public safety and the welfare of the wildlife. I'm sure park policy reflects this reality. It also reflects the reality that the public demand for the park to stay open influences park policy. I don't see the problem in any of this. Without the park there wouldn't be a single brown bear in the general area of Yellowstone. Without the public there is no park.

Not sure what's confusing about that.

If you're equating every nitwit who writes a parenting book with the people who use a process based in science, review and evaluation which results in park policy, there's not much to talk about as you're making ridiculous, specious comparisons.

Show my how your view is more informed or relevant that the experts (who actually are experts) in this case, and how their decision was wrong and it might be an interesting conversation. Short of that, your arguments fail for me. Completely.

so you can't see that there are reasons to be wary of said experts? That was your question.

You asked about why be wary of experts - I've given you conceivable examples of why to not just blindly follow their judgement/decision...
You just pointed out that they're following "park policy" - did they therefore actually make a decision or just "tow the company line"?
As to Park Policy, who wrote it and when? I'd take a punt that it was likely to have been written by a bureaucrat/govt admin or the like with more than just the interests of the wildlife at heart... they may well have consulted some 'wildlife experts', but that doesn't mean they took or used all of what they received.
Hell, you suggested there was a compromise that included the "welfare of the wildlife". Clearly, none was shown - bear was killed... By the way, where are the cubs it was protecting? Did they kill those too? Tis interesting that it's all gone quiet on their outcome and/or conclusion. Orphaned and left to fend for themselves now? Collected and sold to zoos or circuses? who knows... how's their welfare going?

Is it possible that;
- the rangers did what they had to as employees despite believing it was the wrong thing to do?
- the park policy could be out-dated and/or not entirely balanced in it's "compromise between human safety and the welfare of the wildlife"?
The actual answers could be yes or no, but either is possible as we're not aware of the definitive answer.

This has nothing to do with me being any more informed than the rangers - it's just that it's possible that there's more to it than the announcement and justification given for what was done.
Let's face it, we aren't privvy to everything that actually went on - only what was presented in various media quotes and reports.


As for this: "Without the public there is no park."
err... no, there'd just be the park - left alone from human interference... and some jobless rangers...

Cubs to Ohio zoo.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2015 04:29

red_flanders wrote:No, there would simply be no park. It would be developed land of some kind or another. Unless you're assuming all the humans are gone in this scenario, at which point the conversation is moot.

Me? I like the park and the humans and the wildlife.

Anything is possible. But as the last posts outline, there is no evidence of overt political involvement, and an utter lack (by all concerned) of specific information to serve as a basis for mistrust of those in charge. There is only wild speculation and in this case some kind of baseline distrust of anyone employed by the government.

Makes no sense to me.

so it makes no sense to you that 'experts' could be towing a company line given to them by their bosses? Or that certain things are done more for PR than being the right thing to do?
Never heard of either happening before? Ever?


and, yes, it's also possible that without human interference that the "park" would remain as the wilderness it once was. Not all land has to be developed, although we are talking the US, so I'll give you that one
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,688
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

Re: Re:

08 Sep 2015 04:52

Archibald wrote:
red_flanders wrote:No, there would simply be no park. It would be developed land of some kind or another. Unless you're assuming all the humans are gone in this scenario, at which point the conversation is moot.

Me? I like the park and the humans and the wildlife.

Anything is possible. But as the last posts outline, there is no evidence of overt political involvement, and an utter lack (by all concerned) of specific information to serve as a basis for mistrust of those in charge. There is only wild speculation and in this case some kind of baseline distrust of anyone employed by the government.

Makes no sense to me.

so it makes no sense to you that 'experts' could be towing a company line given to them by their bosses? Or that certain things are done more for PR than being the right thing to do?
Never heard of either happening before? Ever?


and, yes, it's also possible that without human interference that the "park" would remain as the wilderness it once was. Not all land has to be developed, although we are talking the US, so I'll give you that one


There have been commercial pressures on that park since before it was protected with National Park status. I assure you there would be no park or wilderness there without the National Park designation. You can easily research that.

Of course I've heard of people doing things for the wrong reasons happening before. But again, until someone shares some evidence that this is what happened in this particular situation, that fact is meaningless.

If you have some evidence of whatever it is you're claiming, by all means, let's hear it and be convinced. Short of that, not sure what there is to discuss.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

09 Sep 2015 04:45

red_flanders wrote:There have been commercial pressures on that park since before it was protected with National Park status. I assure you there would be no park or wilderness there without the National Park designation. You can easily research that.

Of course I've heard of people doing things for the wrong reasons happening before. But again, until someone shares some evidence that this is what happened in this particular situation, that fact is meaningless.

If you have some evidence of whatever it is you're claiming, by all means, let's hear it and be convinced. Short of that, not sure what there is to discuss.

Now, you want specific evidence? You want a "beyond all reasonable doubt", while I've given you plenty of reason to doubt...
and that answers the question of why I'd be wary of 'experts' - which was your original question.

being "wary" just means not being completely naive and blindly accepting what you're told as "the truth"... to consider that there may be a bigger picture and/or influences going on behind the scenes... or to just apply logic and common sense to what's touted...

Then again, perhaps you should live by your sword - convince me, with evidence, that there's nothing going on in the backrooms of Parks n Wildlife, or park management/staff having to tow a company line to whatever degree - be it protecting revenue, park survival or just job survival - to keep up a good public profile purely for the punters to make sure they are not scared to come back because of the natural actions of the bear...
maybe start with those "commercial pressures on the park" you mention...
User avatar Archibald
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,688
Joined: 15 Jun 2009 17:03

09 Sep 2015 13:48

You haven't given any specific evidence, just vague notions of meddling. I don't have any either, but since I'm not making an accusation, I don't need any. I hope that at last makes some sense for you.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,664
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re:

09 Sep 2015 15:09

red_flanders wrote:You haven't given any specific evidence, just vague notions of meddling. I don't have any either, but since I'm not making an accusation, I don't need any. I hope that at last makes some sense for you.

You aren't making accusations, but you are making assumptions.
EDIT: Only speaking for myself; I'm not saying that there is meddling, I'm saying that the park service is a political body just like any government organization. Even if Jarvis started out as a park loving ranger, he has no choice but to be a politician in his current position.
jmdirt
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,336
Joined: 06 Dec 2013 17:33

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Back to top