Comments on: Parochial conservation

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:37:18 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by conservbytes: Parochial conservation: http://wp.me/phhT4-T3...

By: CJAB

CJAB — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:30:37 +0000

What are you on? Relevance to discussion…? Please enlighten us.

By: comdenom

comdenom — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:27:23 +0000

This is thinking?
“Scientists from Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation have conducted years of research on homes lost to bushfires. They discovered that 90 percent of homes were not destroyed by the advancing fire fronts but instead were consumed by other small fires started by embers lodged around the structures after the flames had passed. Houses occupied when fire burned around them had a three to six times greater chance of survival. This improved outcome was a result of residents preparing their structures with proper bushfire defensive techniques prior to a fire’s arrival. Occupants who remained inside their homes kept destruction at bay by actively patrolling attic spaces and other rooms, using buckets of water to extinguish any developing threats. Once the intensity of the fire subsided, homeowners went outside to extinguish any embers or direct flames threatening their structures.”

By: CJAB

CJAB — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:20:24 +0000

Oh yes, we bow down to your great sacrifice for the benefit of the world. Without the US’s benevolence, why, what a terrible world it would be.

Please – try pushing your arrogance (and you have the nerve to call ME pompous!) on the other conspiracy theorists, Luddite CC denialists and backward imperialists. There are plenty of sites where your warm and fuzzy views will be applauded. Unfortunately for you, this site generally appeals to thinkers.

By: comdenom

comdenom — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:23:32 +0000

This certainly reads like conservation arrogance, under the assumption that nobody but you guys know what’s best for the earth while simultaneously biting the hands that feed you. Don’t think for a moment you haven’t benefitted from US funding, the US pumps hundreds of billions of dollars annually across the globe.

Always being the first on scene delivering aid in a catastrophe at the same time delivering the most financial aid than any other nation, is that what you mean when talking about how they treat everyone else?

Or are you talking about the push weight and popularity promotion from the US on climate change despite the IPCC’s science was based on a Climbing Magazine article that’s given you the very opportunity to capitalize on that market from your pompous podium? You blatantly reveal immaturity by calling people vicious names that disagree with your agenda and still assume your critique is credible.

By: CJAB

CJAB — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:18:34 +0000

Why not? I would, but Americans can be a bit sensitive about being treated like they treat everyone else.

By: Mark Jordahl

Mark Jordahl — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:33:46 +0000

While I agree that local communities often do not have the skills or expertise to make scientific decisions for biodiversity conservation, it is disingenuous for Noss to suggest that “Academic researchers, conservation non-governmental organizations and other ‘foreign’ interests” don’t have their own agendas. The conservation NGOs need to maintain their budgets, as do researchers. I’m not sure what “other foreign interests” he is referring to, but I’m sure they have their own agendas as well. You can read Conservation Refugees by Mark Dowie to see how well that can work out.

I haven’t read the full Nature article yet, but it seems to draw from the arrogance that taints a lot of development and conservation work here in Africa. If the local expertise isn’t there, how about using some of those conservation or research dollars to TRAIN locals in the conservation sciences who have a deeper understanding of the sociological realities of the area?

Would we let a conservation NGO from Zimbabwe come to the U.S. and start evicting ranchers from their lands in Wyoming to save the wolves? I don’t think so.

By: Tweets that mention Parochial conservation « ConservationBytes.com -- Topsy.com

Tweets that mention Parochial conservation « ConservationBytes.com -- Topsy.com — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 14:11:51 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ResearchBlogging.org and ConservationBytes, ConservationBytes. ConservationBytes said: Parochial conservation: © cagiecartoons.com A little bit of conservation wisdom for you this weekend. In last we… http://bit.ly/9eX8Gb [...]

By: Geoff Russell

Geoff Russell — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 04:49:33 +0000

I’ve seen enough local parochial ignorance to side with Noss, but it is
too simplistic to say “base the decision on science” because science
can’t give you goals, it can, at best tell you how to reach a goal, but
not what it should be. Second, experts usually “fly in and fly
out”, and don’t have to live with or implement their advice. Third, it will
rarely be true that individuals optimising their own interests will optimise
globally (agreed) interests. The third problem is the toughest of
all. A groundwater irrigated dairy industry is an example. In most
cases, the groundwater is slowly depleted. The
wells keep getting deeper, eventually the groundwater will run out, but
that might be 50 years away … who thinks that far in front? The Victorian
dairy industry is a similar example, but instead of just groundwater, it’s
the Murray. Of course the individuals here aren’t just the dairy farmers
but also the dairy consumers … each of whom is acting in their own
best (taste) interests while agreeing with the importance of the
global interest (the health of the Murray).

By: CJAB

CJAB — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:10:20 +0000

Classic American arrogance, xenophobia and disconnectedness. Wake up – there’s a world out there.