The problem with a forum like this...

...is that opinions on ethics, conservation, and the environment generally are predicted on emotion, mis-information, dogma, and some form of religious doctrine. You can't even begin to discuss the issues unless you're in the same universe with regard to your belief system! Think I'm nuts? Try reasoning with the Israelis on Palestinians and the Palestinians on Israelis....There really is little value to this forum's approach in my opinion.

What's the point? To gain other's "approval" of certain behavior? To find camaraderie on a particular not-so-cut-and-dry perspective? To "vote" on controversial issues? This forum has chosen to engage subjects that are (and probably should remain) deeply personal. I certainly don't want anyone inflicting their environmental conservation ethic on me no matter how indignant they feel and how I feel about scientific collection, baiting, cutting vegetation, etc., will (and should) not be inflicted on you. At the least, perhaps the moderators could provide some sort of context or better state the need at hand for this forum. I just hope that it doesn't turn into an all-out self-righteous bitching forum.

Really, there are few correct (though many righteous) answers to the questions on the ethics of wildlife engagement (photographically or otherwise), positions on environmental issues, and what does or does not constitute "conservation." I'm not being a sour puss here and in fact have a fairly long career behind me with one of the largest state Fish and Wildlife agencies in the county. I have a lot of experience with regard to wildlife biology, vertebrate research (mostly avian and bat ecology), environmental education, and issues of landscape ecology and ecological literacy. In my experience, there is little to be gained by fostering a wide-open forum with such volatile teasers as those in the forum title.

There are those who look at wildlife as "individual souls" while others see animals solely as a species or community matrix (living systems). There are those who cannot resolve the relative (individual or intrinsic) "value" or "importance" of animals be they worms or higher trophic level vertebrates. There are even those who suspect that there is a measurable decline to the general environmental well being by not-so-ethical landscape and wildlife photographers running rough shod across the land! And what about the aliens? And so it goes...

Generally, however, there is a good rule of thumb...the more certain an opinion on these subjects appears, the more suspicious one should be! You'll have the nature camp, the nurture camp, and....oh yeah, the God's will camp!

Have fun and please let me know if you get to any "truths" on these subjects--there are many learned folks with a lot of experience with these deep questions who would love the help! I know I would. Just some friendly feedback. I'll come back and visit this forum again sometime soon.

Cheers!

Eric, one of the reasons this forum is here is because these issues were already being discussed. Rather than censor them we simply segregated them so that folks have a choice - look or don't look.

As I read some of the recent threads on these sorts of issues I have come to the conclusion that not everyone has the inability to have an open mind. If I need any proof of such a realization I need only look in the mirror. If I, the epitome of stubbornness, can take something meaningful and learn from these conversations, then there is a chance for anyone.

Thanks for your post.

Well put Greg... I can really see your point Eric and I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I applaud the decision to make this a separate forum precisely for the reasons you outlined above. For many it will be a place to read and think about a perspective different from their own. Maybe it will change some minds, maybe not. Maybe folks will feel like they have the same feelings about a topic as most of their peers, maybe they will find out the opposite. Because it is a separate forum, away from the "must check" forums of phototopics and digital, it will allow those that do not wish to debate these types of issues a "conflict free" experience in phototopics. In short, one can just choose not to read this forum.

Judging by the number of responses and comments to the issues presented here, I would definitely say that many members find "value" in discussing these topics. If nothing else, it helps one to clarify their own position on the various issues.

I do find, when reading politically charged topics like these, that if I read critically I can learn something. Often that can help me better state my own positions, but at least it can help me better understand the opposing point of view.

There will always be dunderheads in any political argument, though, and the trick is to ignore them, while extracting the value from everyone else's contributions, even if neither your mind nor theirs will change.

One anonymous piece of wisdom I picked up on the internet: If you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same.

-Paul

Eric Larsen wrote:
Generally, however, there is a good rule of thumb...the more certain an opinion on these subjects appears, the more suspicious one should be!

Like my quote says

..

Eric Larsen wrote: Really, there are few correct (though many righteous) answers to the questions on the ethics of wildlife engagement (photographically or otherwise), positions on environmental issues, and what does or does not constitute "conservation."

Perhaps that's true...but I'm not sure why that's a reason not to talk about such matters. To draw an analogy, there are "few correct answers" (I would go a step further and say no correct answers) to what constitutes a "good" image or "what is art" or any other subject falling under the broad heading of "aesthetics," but I can't imagine anyone suggesting that such topics aren't worthy of discussion. In fact, our views of such things may well change based on open, critical, informed discussion. And so it is as well, I submit, with matters involving the environment, conservation and ethics.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's precisely the lack of objectively "correct" answers that makes discussion of such topics so vital.

--Kerry

Kerry wrote:In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's precisely the lack of objectively "correct" answers that makes discussion of such topics so vital.

Indeed! But to get full value out of a discussion people need to carefully read and try to understand the other point of view before responding. Knee-jerk reactions don't help anything.

I tend to take a middle of the road stance on many conservation, wildlife, and environmental issues. And this makes me take hits from both sides of the argument :roll: since people with polarized opinions react to the parts of my argument they disagree with, while ignoring the parts that support them. It's an endless source of frustration for me when I get into those discussions...

This world is made up of shades of grey, and to paraphrase something I saw in a novel once: It's been my experience that those who only see the world in black and white are crackpots.

-Paul

..

Geo wrote:of course, if an open mind is´nt there in the first place, you might as well go fishing

Yup. Refer to the quote I posted earlier in this thread!

-Paul

..

:roll:

Actually, I was referring to:

If you argue with a fool, chances are he is doing just the same.

Eric,

I like to thnk that most people have an open mind and are willing to listen to varied opinions. They may not agree but at least they know what the "other" side is all about. Maybe I am just an optimist, but I normally give folks the benefit of the doubt.

I just don't subscribe to your thought process, you are basically saying that since you think people will not agree there is no point in having any discussions? I think that is a very shortsighted perspective.

Paul Skoczylas wrote: Indeed! But to get full value out of a discussion people need to carefully read and try to understand the other point of view before responding. Knee-jerk reactions don't help anything.

Of course...intelligent, thoughtful discussion is always the goal...and ought to be regarding the discussion of any topic.

--Kerry

Okay, this did turn out to be fun.

HA! I love it!

Of course, everyone who has chimed-in is indeed right...but you guys are way too accommodating and kind!

Greg, Dennis, Kerry, Geo...really you guys are giving me way too much consideration and respect...and your perspectives are wonderful by the way.

Juan, yes, you're right of course and I happen to agree with you entirely. Actually, I'm an optimist at the core but I'm afraid a couple of decades of spinning around on these discussion topics has unfortunately oozed out of my cerebral cortex by way of my pie hole...sorry for the rant! Points well (and humbly) taken.

Andrew, Paul...you guys crack me up!

Truthfully, you all are great. I'm appreciative but remain not-so-enthused about this forum topic--but that's my problem!

Cheers

Thanks for the smile Eric!

Eric Larsen wrote:Andrew, Paul...you guys crack me up!

Thanks, I guess... But I didn't say anything intended to be funny.

-Paul

Eric Larsen wrote:...is that opinions on ethics, conservation, and the environment generally are predicted on emotion, mis-information, dogma, and some form of religious doctrine. (...) Think I'm nuts? Try reasoning with the Israelis on Palestinians and the Palestinians on Israelis....There really is little value to this forum's approach in my opinion.

Interesting that in the first paragraph of your post you exhibited a prime example of mis-information and prejudice. This is not a knock, just a plea to keep an open mind. What you demonstrated above is exactly how uninformed opinions are formed, propagated, and ultimately perpetuated.

Guy

The problem with a forum like this is that some people do not understand the function of a forum like this. That function is to educate and help the "lurkers" out there understand the issues. Think of it like a newspaper: a few people write (or post), but many people read. It can be difficult to stay informed, what with "American Idol", "Survivor", and Wrasslin'. Who's got time to read or watch the news or research a subject? I'm sure many people are not even aware of most of these issues. Heck, I never knew about the Homer eagle feeding deal until I saw it on this forum, so I thank you for learnin' me something! And BTW, I'm not sure how I feel about the feeding.

Jack