• GOP Prepares to "Roll Back" Endangered Species Act
    82 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684373]So why can't the information still be divulged besides, "Too complicated"? Surely as a practitioner of science, it is only for the better with knowledge being shared. Who cares if it's a layman reading it, but other scientists outside of the agency might want to know. What harm does releasing the qualifications of which they classify species going to do?[/QUOTE] In short, it can be that it is too complex. How do you expect someone to explain something that might require a PhD worth of work to appreciate fully? The data is out there, but it can be very technical stuff. There are an abundance of differences present between apparently similar species, but they may not always be "visible" to the untrained eye. The species concept is a difficult one, plain and simple. This doesn't mean that the species concept is any less useful in serving to protect diversity of organisms.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684373]So why can't the information still be divulged besides, "Too complicated"? Surely as a practitioner of science, it is only for the better with knowledge being shared. Who cares if it's a layman reading it, but other scientists outside of the agency might want to know. What harm does releasing the qualifications of which they classify species going to do?[/QUOTE] That question was already answered in the very article YOU posted. It'd be expensive and difficult to keep the database updated, there could be legal trouble, it could reveal endangered species locations to poachers etc.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51684383]In short, it can be that it is too complex. How do you expect someone to explain something that might require a PhD worth of work to appreciate fully?[/QUOTE] "Too complicated" is one of the worse reasons for bureaucracy to hide behind. If this is your best answer, then I am dumbfounded you can't see why this actually is counter-productive move for scientists. There are people out there that could understand it and critique it. You know that. [editline]17th January 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;51684386]That question was already answered in the very article YOU posted. It'd be expensive and difficult to keep the database updated, there could be legal trouble, it could reveal endangered species locations to poachers etc.[/QUOTE] Absolutely weak reasons. Fucking keeping the database up and running would be too expensive? It's fucking releasing a report on why they classify things the way they do! How much do you think that costs in their budget? Anyone with an understanding of how much this shit costs knows this is retarded to hide behind. Also that database already exists. Legal trouble is a load of shit unless you give something specific. And revealing the location of species to poachers? Yeah, I think they got the fucking internet and haven't had a problem before being poachers to find species they hunt. Better yet, they can go ask the disgruntled land owner where they can find that species and go "scorched earth" policy on them like the report suggests.
[QUOTE=Dom Pyroshark;51684386]That question was already answered in the very article YOU posted. It'd be expensive and difficult to keep the database updated, there could be legal trouble, it could reveal endangered species locations to poachers etc.[/QUOTE] This is exactly it. Do you really expect people to go through and create [I]another[/I] database listing the reasons for different systems of classification? There are rule sets prepared for the classification of different organisms by international groups of scientists already that more than suffice. The rule sets are a pain in the ass for those of us with a background to deal with. You can't demand that we as scientists do a shitload of work without additional funding, which you know damn well that the Republicans won't support. This bill was clearly done either out of ignorance or to undermine the ESA. [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature_codes[/URL] [B][URL]http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php[/URL][/B] Read through and tell me that you understand all of this. The information is out there and accessible. Explaining it to lawmakers requires an understanding of the individual rulesets used by taxonomists.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684373]So why can't the information still be divulged besides, "Too complicated"? Surely as a practitioner of science, it is only for the better with knowledge being shared. Who cares if it's a layman reading it, but other scientists outside of the agency might want to know. What harm does releasing the qualifications of which they classify species going to do?[/QUOTE] Here's the [URL="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4315/text"]fulltext[/URL] of the bill in question. The bulk of the bill fixates on making details of lawsuits public. I generally think scientists should disclose as much information as they can to the public when appropriate, but it is interesting to me that this bill makes no provisions for these agencies to actually implement this database. If it's critical that the public has this data in an easily searchable database, why wouldn't you fund that measure? Why wouldn't you conduct a cost analysis of the project? I personally hope that we can eventually publish such data publicly, but it doesn't seem like good planning to mandate a project without actually providing the resources for it to be carried out.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51684408]This is exactly it. Do you really expect people to go through and create [I]another[/I] database listing the reasons for different systems of classification? There are rule sets prepared for the classification of different organisms by international groups of scientists already that more than suffice. The rule sets are a pain in the ass for those of us with a background to deal with. You can't demand that we as scientists do a shitload of work without additional funding, which you know damn well that the Republicans won't support. This bill was clearly done either out of ignorance or to undermine the ESA. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature_codes[/url] [B][url]http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php[/url][/B] Read through and tell me that you understand all of this.[/QUOTE] Look I am not a taxonomist, you can hammer that point at me all day and I accept that. But anyone with a knowledge on how the scientific method works, you release your results and methods for others to critique and come to the same conclusion. Now everyone should understand what you are supporting. You would rather a small amount of scientists at an government agency never have to release how or why they classify things as such. The only reason you offer is, "It's too complicated." So again, where is the harm in releasing this information? Why is it public sector scientists in taxonomy and citizens, that pay for this classification anyways with their tax dollars, not get to see their method?
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51684426] I personally hope that we can eventually publish such data publicly, but it doesn't seem like good planning to mandate a project without actually providing the resources for it to be carried out.[/QUOTE] This seems to sum up anything the GOP is doing lately.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684429]Look I am not a taxonomist, you can hammer that point at me all day and I accept that. But anyone with a knowledge on how the scientific method works, you release your results and methods for others to critique and come to the same conclusion. Now everyone should understand what you are supporting. You would rather a small amount of scientists at an government agency never have to release how or why they classify things as such. The only reason you offer is, "It's too complicated." So again, where is the harm in releasing this information? Why is it scientists in taxonomy, that pay for this classification anyways with their tax dollars, not get to see their method?[/QUOTE] Scientists and agencies were given funds to conduct [I]specific[/I], well defined projects. Now you want to change the specifications of that project without asking them what they need or providing them with what they need to get it done. What is the solution?
??? The information is out there. It's fucking stupid to try to explain to you that most people don't know jack shit about biology. I'll grab a couplet from a dichotomous key we use: [QUOTE]1 Sporangia borne directly on reflexed marginal lobes of ultimate segments, lobes separate and distinct; veins of ultimate blade segments prominent, dichotomously branched, essentially parallel distally. 1 Adiantum + Sporangia borne on abaxial leaf surface or, if seemingly attached to marginal lobes of ultimate segments, lobes confluent and poorly defined; veins of ultimate blade segments obscure or, if prominent, then pinnately branched and more divergent distally. (2)[/QUOTE] Yeah, lets magically turn this complex field into something everyone's grandma can understand! No need for PhDs or experts anymore! We need to have complex rule sets because the differences between organisms are not always clear to the untrained eye. Different systems are required because different organisms use different methods to reproduce. Rule set X for plants can't be used to classify ground squirrel species. If those law makers want to spend fucking forever learning those systems they can go ahead.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51684453]??? The information is out there. [/quote] Is it? Where can I find the ESA's method for classifying species as endangered? [quote] It's fucking stupid to try to explain to you that most people don't know jack shit about biology. [/QUOTE] Nice to know some scientists still don't understand that sharing peer-reviewed information and methods is the height of scientific achievement. You are completely deflecting what I am actually arguing. I don't give a shit if I can't understand it, but I believe scientists outside of the agency should be able to see and critique it. You are advocating that bureaucracy should be able to withhold non-harmful information from citizens that payed for it. Plain and simple.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684469]Is it? Where can I find the ESA's method for classifying species as endangered? Nice to know some scientists still don't understand that sharing peer-reviewed information and methods is the height of scientific achievement. You are completely deflecting what I am actually arguing. I don't give a shit if I can't understand it, but I believe scientists outside of the agency should be able to see and critique it.[/QUOTE] Quit fixating on this shit for a second. If it's peer reviewed, other scientists can already see and critique it by definition. The fed already has problems providing funds to conservation efforts. [URL="http://business.uni.edu/economics/Themes/mahoney.pdf"]This[/URL] paper suggests that funding follows a sort of mentality where 'biggest species is best species' runs rampant. This is stupid since the size of a species has little to do with the value of that species from an ecological standpoint, but size is simply easier to measure and for the public to understand. You yourself fell for the tiny little fish meme when it came to the Delta Smelt. So we know that money already isn't going to where it needs to partly due to public perception, and now we have a bill requiring already scant funding to be diverted to a new project. Why should we pass that bill as written?
[QUOTE=1legmidget;51684500]Quit fixating on this shit for a second. If it's peer reviewed, other scientists can already see and critique it by definition. The fed already has problems providing funds to conservation efforts. [URL="http://business.uni.edu/economics/Themes/mahoney.pdf"]This[/URL] paper suggests that funding follows a sort of mentality where 'biggest species is best species' runs rampant. This is stupid since the size of a species has little to do with the value of that species from an ecological standpoint, but size is simply easier to measure and for the public to understand. You yourself fell for the tiny little fish meme when it came to the Delta Smelt. So we know that money already isn't going to where it needs to partly due to public perception, and now we have a bill requiring already scant funding to be diverted to a new project. Why should we pass that bill as written?[/QUOTE] You know releasing a report of information they already use does not put a dent in their budget. I can look later, but I am sure that the bill proposed most likely already laid out how the budget would be used to release a report.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684469]Is it? Where can I find the ESA's method for classifying species as endangered? Nice to know some scientists still don't understand that sharing peer-reviewed information and methods is the height of scientific achievement. You are completely deflecting what I am actually arguing. I don't give a shit if I can't understand it, but I believe scientists outside of the agency should be able to see and critique it.[/QUOTE] I may have been misunderstanding what you were getting at. The criteria needed to define any arbitrary species are different. The needs of a stable population for any species may be different. This is one of those times where a subjective policy led by experts is appropriate. The goal should be preservation of diversity. Unless we are seeking to prepare studies for every sampled species that appears to be at risk a rigid set of criteria wouldn't be appropriate.
[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;51684517]I may have been misunderstanding what you were getting at. The criteria needed to define any arbitrary species are different. The needs of a stable population for any species may be different. This is one of those times where a subjective policy led by experts is appropriate. The goal should be preservation of diversity. Unless we are seeking to prepare studies for every sampled species that appears to be at risk a rigid set of criteria wouldn't be appropriate.[/QUOTE] I really don't think you understand the point I am trying to make here. Maybe someone else can reexplain what I am getting at, but I feel I have laid it out pretty simply that this isn't an issue of the classifications are, but why I think others should be able to see them for the better besides the agency workers who have obviously done a bad job in the past.
[QUOTE=Tudd;51684514]You know releasing a report of information they already use does not put a dent in their budget. I can look later, but I am sure that the bill proposed most likely already laid out how the budget would be used to release a report.[/QUOTE] It does cost money lad. It costs money, manpower, and time. Have you talked to many professors, grad students, or post docs? It's not that hard to find folks pulling 100+ hours a week trying to scrape by to meet the demands already put on them. The bill you're mentioning [B][U]does not[/U][/B] provide measures for any of these things. I already linked to it. You can sit there and pretend that this doesn't cost the public anything for as long as you want. That simply isn't the case, and had you done your due diligence before getting up in arms about it you would have seen that. I'll state again, the public ought to have as much open data as possible. I'm not even a fan of researchers taking government money and locking their findings behind paywalls. The Transparency Act as written however does little to address the actual costs in developing and maintaining the proscribed database. That makes it a bad law in my book. Should Republicans or Democrats propose similar legislation while providing the resources necessary to implement such a project I would be totally for it.
My mood always gets curb stomped by some bullshit going on in the headlines. ... well this is awkward.
[QUOTE=Callinstead;51684672]When ever I cheer up, my mood always gets curb stomped by some bullshit going on in the headlines. ... well this is awkward.[/QUOTE] The ESA had some borderline hilariously strict rulings though, which were messing with a lot of people's lives and progress. It's one thing to be concerned about protecting endangered species, but its existence was also causing a lot of sore spots in people that wanted to work on property that barely bordered an eagle's stray feather. [URL=https://www.macalester.edu/academics/environmentalstudies/students/projects/citizenscience2007/endangeredspecies/criticism.html] Here's some common criticisms people are holding toward the ESA. [/URL] It's not a total downer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.