If Not Science then What?

               This Thursday I had the opportunity to witness policy in the making. It was truly one of the greatest experiences I have had the chance to be a part of despite the fact that I had the greatest fear I have ever felt at the end of my experiences. I have always been curious as to how policy is made and on Thursday March 29 2012 I saw exactly how it is made. It is made with a complete ignorance of the facts. Senator Knotts of Lexington county proved without a doubt that the people who get the final say the final vote do not care about the science that is researched by biologists to get facts on things like diseases and effects of overpopulation on the environment and that it is instead uneducated people that makes law. I was honestly furious at the lack of professionalism of the senators during the hearing as one was texting or on the internet on his phone most of the time and others were not paying attention unless the person speaking was in favor of the decision the senators had already made before stepping foot into the room. Dr. Lanham presented the senators with enough scientific evidence in a well organized and well thought out manor that I felt a rock could have been swayed into an educated decision to be for the passing of the bill which was to outlaw the baiting and the taking of deer over bait in the upstate of South Carolina game zones 1 & 2. Due to a rather suspiciously large loophole found in the current law allowed the taking of deer over bait just not the baiting, and yes the term bait does include protein pellets DNR since you never answered the question the  Senator from Charleston posed,  Senator Knotts continually showed his ignorance with statements like "Chronic Wasting Disease is all the way out in Missouri why should we be worried about it here", and "I have killed many wall-hangers over a corn pile in the day time those deer aren't going nocturnal." My question for the senator is how can a man that is so hard headed and so obviously ignorant honestly think that he knows better than the research that professional biologist have worked to obtain?
               The impression I got from this hearing is that the people who are making the laws for our wildlife vote in such a way that they will be able to do what they want when they want without limitations. This is a scary truth that was revealed to me in this experience. Something else that was revealed to me is that you can try an educate someone to the fullest of your ability but those who choose ignorance will never be taught. One issue that was brought up was how can the government tell a landowner they cannot put corn out on their land they pay taxes on. At a firs glance, a blind man's glance, this seems to be a real issue, but saying that would be the same as saying its legal to sell drugs or kill another human just as long as it is done on your property. It is ill thought out statements like these that power our policy. The words that made the most impact at this hearing were those of non-educated statements. They were of those that had no scientific evidence. Words that had no reason to have an influence, but because those words followed the decision the senator had already made practically nullified any scientific attempt that was made that morning.
               I am sorry to say that the system is not fair. I am disgusted to say that irrational decisions are made to supply the here and now. Most of all I am fearful for the future of wildlife management if things continue down the path I saw on this date. Do not be surprised if your great grandchildren have to go to a zoo or worse a museum to see the last white-tailed deer in North America. With the lack of scientific policies being made this is the exact direction our natural resources are headed.

Food for Thought

I do not have an article for this entry, this is just something I have thought about and I have had on my mind. I like to think of myself as a conservationist but in a way that benefits not just wildlife but mankind as well. I am all for saving a species from extinction or moving towards clean energy to prevent climate change, but I have often though "what if this species is supposed to die out?" What if by preventing the extinction of a species we are instead of helping the environment by restoring the numbers but are actually causing harm by not allowing a new species to come in or an evolutionary divergence to occur by keeping a small amount of genetic information around in an areas they harshly but honestly no longer should be in? Darwin and Wallace came to the conclusion of evolution and natural selection many years ago, before any type of conservation efforts were put into place and now it seems the main goal of any environmentalist is to maintain what we have now or go back to how it was at X time period. My thought is how can new genetic material be formed if we do not allow some to completely disappear. I am not saying go out and kill all the polar bears or death to endangered species, that is not at all what I am talking about, but I am posing the question for discussions sake what if the plan, the environment's push for new genetic material, the path nature has been on for millions of years is for these species we strive so hard to keep alive or restore are supposed to die out. As Aldo Leopold talks about in his encounter of a green fire in the eyes of a dying wolf, the species and the environment surrounding knows whats best not us. Like the title suggests, its just food for thought.

Deer Management Problems are Everywhere

In this article the problem with deer management in Wisconsin is addressed. The density of deer is too great in the majority of the state. Policies are in the process of being made for these over populated areas to reduce the numbers to healthy levels since the total population is estimated at 44% higher than the state's goal. Some of the states zones are below the projected population levels but I feel that the greater problem that has a greater need to be addressed is the over abundance of deer in the rest of the zones. Studies have shown that populations above healthy levels are detrimental to not only the species health but also to other species in the area the deer are in. The local DNR big-game ecologist suggests that they look at each zone individually and deal with them separately for management so the levels can be individually handled. I somewhat disagree with this idea. I feel the best way to deal with population problems is to look at land and environments as a whole. Deer do not see boundaries as we do. They do not have zones they do not have boarders. I say this as a South Carolina citizen which I know we have all sorts of problems with our populations with the lower state baiting, lazy in my opinion, and management "techniques" such as bag'em and tag'em and brown is down being practiced throughout the state. In order to bring populations to healthy levels I feel very strongly that one policy practiced by a state or environment as a whole needs to be put into place and be strictly enforced.