Michael, I too have an extensive background in zoology, with numerous publications. I earned a Ph.D. in Zoology from Oklahoma State University, and taught ecology, ichthyology, and other courses, and researched for many years. I too have seen firsthand the role of animal collection for commercial purposes. I would agree that some populations can be harvested from sustainably, and some are. I would agree that most of those that are are game or food species that are managed much more intensively than are non-game, non-food species.
A question. Do commercial operators like yourself pay the same kinds of license fees as do sport and commercial fishers? Are your permits as tightly regulated? Yes, I know that the most common response of management agencies to commercial harvest of something like Gray Kingsnake, or Collared Lizard (I purposely chose one very rare species of great conservation concern and one common species that is seemingly not threatened) is to ban collection. What, given the realities of funding and funding sources would you have the management agency do? Do they have the personnel and funding to handle each species population separately, the way they do for game and commercial food fishes? Perhaps your industry would be able and willing to provide the money (that is how game and commercial food species management is funded). Why don't you propose that to the state of Texas, and to USFWS? Perhaps with such funding, management plans that would be science based could be developed for each separate population of potentially commercially harvested wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and invertebrate. Then those plans could be implemented with appropriate permitting and enforcement. Or is it simply not worth the cost? If so, then the system of protection by forbidding harvest seems the only practical mechanism of protection. It is difficult to separate whether a commercial collector is advocating for conservation, or for profit. You seem to be interested in sustainability. That of course would be in the long-term self interest of a commercial collector, but a good many seem (like some commercial fishers) to be interested only in short term gain. Sincerely, mcneely ---- "Michael E. Welker" <sustainableharve...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello David, > > I have an AS degree in Zoo Animal Technology from Santa Fe Community College > and am the former head of the Reptile Department at the Central Florida Zoo. > I have a BS in Wildlife Science from North Carolina State University and have > worked on field research projects for the University of Florida, The Florida > Museum of Natural History, The USDA Forest Service, the University of Central > Florida and the University of Alabama. I have authored around a dozen small > communications in Herp Review and co-authored the article: Gizzard Shad > Thiamaninase Activity and Its Effect on the Thiamine Status of Captive > American Alligators in the Journal of Aquatic Animal Health. I have a GIS > Graduate Certificate in Environmental Information Systems. And just completed > my Masters in Environmental Policy and Management from the University of > Denver to which a manuscript is in prep for the Journal of Wildlife > Management from my Masters Capstone titled: Regulation of the Amphibian and > Reptile trad! e in Texas: A review of the "White and Black Lists" with recommendations for improvement. I have kept, worked with and tried to conserve herps all of my life. So, yes, I have a very educated and experienced agenda. I am quite qualified to make the comments I do. I also need to earn a living just like you, however, I am very poor (so I am not in it for the money) and just love what I do. Further, I had the "conservation at all costs" mentality during the 90's before my wildlife science degree and personally know many academics that feel the same way. Yes I do acquire live specimens for researchers, hobbyists and myself, and breed herps and rodents through my business Ocotillo Herpetofauna & Invertebrates. So I know how and why this agenda negatively affects the reptile industry, small businesses and hobbyists while not conserving herps and basically protecting them into extinction. We won't get into Constitutional rights and the many other issues associated with this subject! topic. And since I am educated in wildlife management and conservatio n biology I am quite familiar with the scientifically backed methods that could be used to correctly, and fairly regulate the reptile industry to conserve herps creating a win/win situation with the private sector and small businesses rather then the current banning agenda which alienates the private sector. > > As you can probably guess I have to get back to my animals. I take excellent > care of them. But I could go on and on about the facts I have thrown out on > this forum. I just don't have the time. Maybe we can start to explore some of > the statements I have made. However, many of you would have to do some soul > searching to admit the agendas within you and how these agendas affect > others, your research, your teaching and what you advocate for? > > I apologize for being so harsh. I am very passionate about this topic. > > Mike Welker > El Paso, TX > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: mcnee...@cox.net > To: Michael E. Welker ; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general > public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > > > Michael, do you operate an animal collection and sales business, this one: > > Michael E. Welker, dba Ocotillo Herpetofauna & Invertebrates, 3697 > Yanagisako, 79938 ? > > If so, is it possible that your pecuniary interests give you an agenda > which you are pushing in these comments? > > Sincerely, David McNeely > > ---- "Michael E. Welker" <sustainableharve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Malcolm, > > > > I would also say that a group of like minded scientists could knowingly > or unknowingly push an agenda. Mis-use or abuse of the pre-cautionary > principle is common through much of wildlife and environmental science. A > group of scientists who believe that turtle collection or commercial > collection (for instance) is bad, could affect data interpretation and the > expression of like minded opinion in peer-reviewed and other literature. > Further, many scientists make statements that MAYBE true but at the extreme > end of the spectrum because it fits this agenda. They can also heavily > influence regulators because regulators usually come from the same vine and > usually are of like mind. As both a scientist and a private business owner it > is really plain to see. In one way I don't blame scientists in that you have > to present a worse picture then actually is occurring or COULD OCCUR to get > some of what you want. The "could occur" part is the part where abuse of the > pre-cautionary prin! ciple comes into play. From my own experiences it appears that deep inside many scientists are animal or environmental lovers and they take this love to far. And it shows in their literature, statements and activism. This causes them to lose some credibility and to look like agenda pushers in disguise. Especially since there are scientifically sound management approaches to many of the problems that create a win win. > > > > If a scientist is against hunting, collecting, commercializing or captive > propagation of flora and fauna you don't think that influences them or their > work? Is he or she of such great mind because they have letters after their > name that their opinion is the only course of action? Or that they are the > only ones who have the "right" to work with these animals? In the name of > science? If supporting the "conservation at all costs agenda" earns them > accolades from like minded colleagues you don't think they will perpetuate > the agenda? Is the pushing of this agenda at the expense of the rights, > loves, hobbies and businesses of the private citizen okay? > > > > I know some academics have the banning agenda. Why? Because wildlife > management techniques can be used to conserve species and they are rarely > used for anything other then game animals. Many don't stand up and say let's > manage. Let's regulate. Why? Because of the mis-use of the pre-cautionary > principle and the mind set of no hunting, no collecting, no commercialization > - the banning agenda. > > > > Mike Welker > > El Paso, TX > > > > PS: Scientists are bottom line thinkers too. They have to pay bills just > like everyone else. I understand your point I am just saying. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: malcolm McCallum > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 9:55 AM > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general > public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > > > > > > Technically, academic scientists have a specific responsibility to > > work for the greater good. > > Therefore, their 'agenda' should be for the greater good. > > > > However, in my experience you are correct that many DO NOT work for > > the greater good of society and the planet, > > but rather for their own advancement. No, the scientist as an > > individual should be trusted no more than the CEO as > > an individual, but trends among scientists are present then you > > certainly can have confidence that there is some truth > > to it. Likewise, I think that this is generally true of CEOs, > > although sometimes you must read between the lines with > > the business folks because there profit is the bottom line motive, > > whereas in science truth is SUPPOSED to be the > > bottom line motive. > > > > Why does big business and science often bump heads? Because facts > > backed up with data can affect profits, see tobacco. > > > > Motives must always be considered with everyone, but you also need to > > evaluate motivation. We can list off the many scientists > > in history who have been killed for revealing what they knew to be > > controversial facts. I can't recall too many CEOs being so > > motivated. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:56 PM, David M. Lawrence <d...@fuzzo.com> > wrote: > > > Why should scientists be trusted any more than a government or > business > > > spokesperson not to spin a story the way you like it? Sorry, but > scientists > > > have agendas, too. A lot of sorry journalism has been committed by > > > journalists who acted as cheerleaders or lapdogs for influential > scientists. > > > > > > You guys seem incredibly naive on this point. You really, really need > to > > > think through what you are asking for. Of course, on an individual > basis, > > > you may be pure as the driven snow, but I've been in science far too > long to > > > expect a lot of purity of motive. Most of the time, scientists may > have > > > blind spots in minor matters, but when the blind spots are in major > ones -- > > > or when a scientist has something other than good science on the > agenda -- a > > > lot of harm can be done to the public's understanding. > > > > > > The public's interests are not served when journalists cast aside > their > > > independence in the name of, uh, accuracy. > > > > > > You've been getting some good advice from my colleagues (and maybe a > bit > > > from me) on how to improve how you are represented in the press. Why > don't > > > you try more of that than requesting something most ethical > journalists will > > > never grant you. Like I said, I will occasionally show copy to a > source, > > > but that is anathema to most of my colleagues. > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > On 4/10/2011 10:29 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: > > >> > > >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Wayne Tyson<landr...@cox.net> > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I am not suggesting that there be a LAW that reporters clear their > > >>> stories with the interviewee, but a CUSTOM. Getting at truth is the > issue, > > >>> reducing > > >>> error. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is not a matter of > suffering in > > >>> silence or writing the editor and getting a "correction" buried in > an > > >>> obscure corner of some obscure page. The place to work on the issue > is > > >>> where it starts. Maybe those being interviewed should insist that > the > > >>> reporter > > >>> explain back to the interviewee what she/he has just heard, like a > pilot > > >>> repeating a clearance to an air traffic controller. APPROVAL is NOT > the > > >>> point--getting it RIGHT is the avowed MUTUAL goal. So I don't > disagree > > >>> with Dave's point, but it's not my point. > > >> > > >> Wayne makes an excellent point. Dave, the reason it would be a bad > > >> idea to have a politician check a story before you publish it is that > > >> it would interfere with conveying the facts to the public. And the > > >> reason why it would be a bad idea NOT to have a scientist check a > > >> story before you publish it is that it would interfere with conveying > > >> the facts to the public. The same goal may be served by different > > >> actions in different circumstances. > > >> > > >> Jane Shevtsov > > >> > > >> > > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David M. > Lawrence"<d...@fuzzo.com> > > >>> To:<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 4:22 AM > > >>> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the > general > > >>> public: are scientists making science readily accessible? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> Let's do a thought experiment here. Do we want journalists clear > pieces > > >>>> with politicians, powerful political interests, and attorneys > persons > > >>>> accused of serious crimes first? If not, why should journalists do > the > > >>>> same > > >>>> with scientists? I personally know a handful of scientists whose > word I > > >>>> would never take for granted -- and I damn sure wouldn't get their > > >>>> approval > > >>>> of a story I wrote involving them first. > > >>>> > > >>>> Many of us who specialize as science/environment reporters work > very > > >>>> hard > > >>>> at getting facts correct and in making sure we get them correct by > > >>>> running > > >>>> quotes past sources. Many of my colleagues won't share an advance > copy > > >>>> of a > > >>>> story with a source (for the implications above). I understand why > -- > > >>>> it > > >>>> creates a huge ethical problem for journalists -- how can we > fulfill our > > >>>> CONSTITUTIONALLY recognized (in the U.S., at least) role as an > > >>>> independent > > >>>> source of information when we submit our stories to our sources for > > >>>> approval? We cannot. > > >>>> > > >>>> I can assure you that you don't want to live in a society where > such > > >>>> clearing is required. There is no shortage of evidence to support > my > > >>>> statement. > > >>>> > > >>>> There is an unfortunate trend in the news business in which > specialist > > >>>> reporters -- such as science and environment reporters -- are > removed > > >>>> from > > >>>> their beats (because the news publication cannot or does not want > to > > >>>> support > > >>>> such specialist beats) or are removed from their jobs altogether. > The > > >>>> coverage gets picked up in a haphazard fashion with more > generalist or > > >>>> less > > >>>> experienced people who often don't work as hard to understand the > > >>>> material > > >>>> or make sure they understand the material. Even when we are > allowed to > > >>>> specialize, we are forced to achieve unrealistic "productivity" > targets > > >>>> that > > >>>> may make it difficult to adequately examine our copy for things > that > > >>>> need to > > >>>> be checked out with a source. And once we file, other people take > our > > >>>> stories and edit them either to fit the space or time available, > or to > > >>>> suit > > >>>> their own interests (there has been an interesting thread on a > science > > >>>> journalism list recently where my colleagues discussed stories > they've > > >>>> asked > > >>>> to have their name taken off of the byline). > > >>>> > > >>>> And Wayne, my sympathies to your wife. I see those "documentaries" > > >>>> where > > >>>> I would have been embarrassed to have been interviewed in. They'll > ask > > >>>> a > > >>>> scientist about emerging diseases, then the scientist will find > himself > > >>>> seeming to endorse an oncoming zombie apocalypse. Those programs > are > > >>>> not > > >>>> "journalism." They are entertainment, nothing more. I wish I could > > >>>> offer > > >>>> better advice on how to weed out requests to be interviewed for > such > > >>>> programs. I don't know enough about how they approach sources to > know > > >>>> what > > >>>> to say. > > >>>> > > >>>> Dave > > >>>> > > >>>> On 4/9/2011 7:34 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters > can > > >>>>> get > > >>>>> it wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they > were > > >>>>> CERTAIN that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in > > >>>>> presuming > > >>>>> that they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be > > >>>>> averted > > >>>>> much of the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear > the > > >>>>> piece > > >>>>> with the originator of the information/testimony. ... > > >>>> > > >>>> -- > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>> David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > >>>> 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > >>>> Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > > >>>> USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ > > >>>> > > >>>> "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo > > >>>> > > >>>> "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > >>>> > > >>>> "No trespassing > > >>>> 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> ----- > > >>>> No virus found in this message. > > >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > >>>> Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: > 03/16/11 > > >>>> Internal Virus Database is out of date. > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786 > > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com > > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > "All drains lead to the ocean." -- Gill, Finding Nemo > > > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > > > "No trespassing > > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Malcolm L. McCallum > > Managing Editor, > > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > > Allan Nation > > > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > > and pollution. > > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > > MAY help restore populations. > > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > > destroy all copies of the original message. > > -- > David McNeely -- David McNeely
