Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77

Thread: "Political Science at Alaska Dept of Fish & Game" - Medred article

  1. #1
    Member bushrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Now residing in Fairbanks from the bush
    Posts
    4,363

    Default "Political Science at Alaska Dept of Fish & Game" - Medred article

    This was posted on game mgmt forum, but don't see it here:
    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/dispat...ka-fish-a-game

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Bedrock, Alaska
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Interesting link, bushrat.
    Very informative, and I hope accurate.

    Anybody else got a link with contrasting information?

  3. #3
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    I certainly agree with the premise of the article. I have seen the incompetence of the Department's head staff first hand, and nothing from within or without the agency to try to better itself. I disagree with anyone who says you need a person from within the department to be able to run it: in my opinion a lot of the problems that the Dept has stem from high level staff worried more about promotions and hanging on to seniority than about presenting the best science to the public and the boards.

    Medred almost lost me with his first paragraph: "The agency that stopped federal efforts to eradicate wolves in Alaska, because the science didn't support it, has become the agency leading a fight against listing the polar bear as an endangered species even though the consensus of state wildlife biologists is that the bears clearly qualify for listing." What is it that qualifies the polar bears? They are currently at or near the highest population level recorded in modern times... Their "shrinking habitat," arctic sea ice, has actually seen better than 50% growth since its peak low a few years ago... global warming, now called "climate change," has actually become global cooling over the last decade... So really, what is it that qualifies the polar bear for listing? The evidence thus far shows them to be very effective land predators as well as sea ice predators, so they can easily adapt to changing conditions if those changes do occur...

    Other than that lead in paragraph, which pretty much destroys his credibility, the rest of the article was good.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibex View Post
    Very informative, and I hope accurate.
    A good history lesson for those who weren't aware. And yes accurate, unfortunately.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    I certainly agree with the premise of the article. I have seen the incompetence of the Department's head staff first hand, and nothing from within or without the agency to try to better itself. I disagree with anyone who says you need a person from within the department to be able to run it: in my opinion a lot of the problems that the Dept has stem from high level staff worried more about promotions and hanging on to seniority than about presenting the best science to the public and the boards.

    Medred almost lost me with his first paragraph: "The agency that stopped federal efforts to eradicate wolves in Alaska, because the science didn't support it, has become the agency leading a fight against listing the polar bear as an endangered species even though the consensus of state wildlife biologists is that the bears clearly qualify for listing." What is it that qualifies the polar bears? They are currently at or near the highest population level recorded in modern times... Their "shrinking habitat," arctic sea ice, has actually seen better than 50% growth since its peak low a few years ago... global warming, now called "climate change," has actually become global cooling over the last decade... So really, what is it that qualifies the polar bear for listing? The evidence thus far shows them to be very effective land predators as well as sea ice predators, so they can easily adapt to changing conditions if those changes do occur...

    Other than that lead in paragraph, which pretty much destroys his credibility, the rest of the article was good.
    willphish4food - if you want to talk about crdibility your post here does a good job on yourself. To argue global weather patterns and biology all in one short post and use it to refute hundreds of scientific papers is really something. Also, no one said that the next head of ADF&G should come from the Department - only that they be qualified. Also, about protecting seniority again you show your lack of understanding. Most positions in ADF&G are protected meaning one can only be fired for cause or if a layoff takes place no one to bump. Sorry, but you are off base again.

  6. #6
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    So Nerka, are you part of the "consensus" that says polar bears should be listed? Also, you fail to mention that for every hundred papers proving global warming there are a hundred refuting it... course, it would be silly to believe there could ever be two sides to a scientific debate, wouldn't it? And to actually give credit to anyone who holds a viewpoint opposing your own... Horrors!

  7. #7
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    Medred has been an anti-commercial fishing mouth piece since he moved here. He and Tony Knowles are 2 birds of a feather. Thank God they've both been exposed. Knowles can't even travel to the Kenai w/o an armed trooper escort to this day. Medreds articles make good compost IMO. Thanks for the link bushrat!

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    So Nerka, are you part of the "consensus" that says polar bears should be listed? Also, you fail to mention that for every hundred papers proving global warming there are a hundred refuting it... course, it would be silly to believe there could ever be two sides to a scientific debate, wouldn't it? And to actually give credit to anyone who holds a viewpoint opposing your own... Horrors!
    Willphish4food - again more bull and no substance from you. Polar bears should be listed and the science will defend it. Relative to global warming you should not show your ignorance in public. It is not a 50/50 split as you suggest - just more bunk from you and if you want to debate science fine - but first you should learn what science it.

  9. #9
    Member fullbush's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    2,674

    Default

    I thought the ocean temp was dropping?

  10. #10
    Member willphish4food's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Willow, AK
    Posts
    3,360

    Default

    Merry Christmas!

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by willphish4food View Post
    . . for every hundred papers proving global warming there are a hundred refuting it... course, it would be silly to believe there could ever be two sides to a scientific debate, wouldn't it? And to actually give credit to anyone who holds a viewpoint opposing your own... Horrors!
    Anyone interested in the "climate change/global warming" debate should check this discussion:

    http://diegetics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176

    Some of the boys there have got their **** together where "science" is concerned, and anyone who thinks the so-called "science" of global warming is a cut-and-dried, done deal hasn't done their homework. Check it out.

  12. #12
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Anyone interested in the "climate change/global warming" debate should check this discussion:

    http://diegetics.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=176

    Some of the boys there have got their **** together where "science" is concerned, and anyone who thinks the so-called "science" of global warming is a cut-and-dried, done deal hasn't done their homework. Check it out.
    This is a link to a Media Blog displaying a lot of largely uneducated bloviation... More hot air from joe six-pack isn't going to dispel global warming, sorry.

  13. #13
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    This is a link to a Media Blog displaying a lot of largely uneducated bloviation... More hot air from joe six-pack isn't going to dispel global warming, sorry.
    Check the link and decide for yourself . .

  14. #14
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    Check the link and decide for yourself . .
    Oh, by all means, do decide for yourself.

    This is a good link too, very well reasoned and insightful:
    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iofthetaiga View Post
    Oh, by all means, do decide for yourself.
    This is a good link too, very well reasoned and insightful:
    http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/
    Well, now, that's just silly. Rather than indulge slanderous ridicule, post your objections over there . . I'd love to see them.

    Thanks . .

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fullbush View Post
    I thought the ocean temp was dropping?
    I think we need Al Gore to answer that one.. What ever happened to Al Gore? First he invented the internet, then he invented global warming, and then he goes and disappears on us.

  17. #17

    Default

    I got "See Spot Run" in my stocking , too!!

    Perhaps by the time we wade thru that tome, the thread will have evolved in relation to post #1. FYI - The guys over on the game management forum have had it with 'edumucated elites', as well - maybe we can just combine the threads and put a certain death to stinkin' science ASAP, so we can get back to whatever pumps us up.

  18. #18

    Default

    Oh yea - Here, too, in the ' Acting Commissioner (FYI) ' thread, we note science and education are getting their due.
    Carry On Men


  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,521

    Default

    Ignorance is curable stupidity is forever. The global warming naysayers are not curable. Sorry. Also, it may be fun to hate science but the next time you have a doctor appointment that catches a cancer with a new test or piece of equipment or a new and cheaper fuel is developed or an understanding that elimination of a one animal means the elimination of prized animals in an ecosystem you anti science folks should take a look in the mirror and see how stupid you look. Sorry but this Alaskan anti-intellectual crap is just that crap.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,521

    Default

    The following was sent to me by a recently retired Sport Fish biologist from Soldotna. Thought it was pretty funny but very true. Not a commercial fisheries biologist but from a person who had to work everyday with some of the individuals mentioned on this forum and in the article.

    Thanks for the link. Interesting column by Medred.

    Could not restrain myself from a number of laughs, however. Medred’s “professional” sources for insight into the problems at Fish and Game were some of the very, absolute worst offenders at the playing the political card game! And of course, these same fellows were in a core group that were the absolute worst at understanding and utilizing science based decision making.

    The names Kevin Delaney, Kelly Hepler and Dave Rutz can certainly bring a pained smile to my face as well as memories of how “dunder-headed” they could be…

    Kevin was the “racket-ball biologist”: Kelly was the “short-course biologist” : and Dave was the “I’m away from my phone biologist”!

    Reading about Kevin shedding “crocodile tears” that Alaska’s turn to political based solutions in lieu of science based solutions was especially laughable given his tenure with the Department. The triumphirate of Paul Krasnowski, Kevin and Kelly (throw in the current tin-horn biologist/political apologist – Doug Vincent-Lang, too) and you’ve got a significant history of professional leadership that caused the Department to become mired in a morass of political infighting, dead ends and poor vision.

    Maybe Kevin and company don’t recognize that there are a sizable number of retired biologist’s still living in Alaska that have vivid memories of their “service” to the State of Alaska!

    Of course, if I were in his shoes and had a chance to rewrite history (ala George W.) I’d be mugging it up with ol Craig, too!

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •