A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Extended discussion forum.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Daryl Eby » October 13th, 2011, 4:08 pm

gbin wrote:I'm not interested in helping, nor even lending the slightest shred of credibility to, such an elitist approach or outcome as this kind of stuff suggests is the goal.
Perhaps that is exactly why you need to be involved. Your voice (and that of all other field herpers) counts as much as theirs and needs to be considered if any eventual outcome is to reflect the community. I often disagree with you and occasionally get exasperated by your approach, but you do give voice to a significant segment of herpers that may not always speak up.

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by jonathan » October 13th, 2011, 4:17 pm

If multiple people disagree with each other, and those people speak as if they're really, really important and their negative opinions of others are objective facts, then I don't think we will get anywhere.

If we can take ourselves a little less seriously, and be a little less dramatic, we'll have a better chance at having a positive impact on each other.

I should know, because I've made some stupid comments and taken some things way too personally in the past....but I've never threatened to take my ball and go home. And I'm learning to address arguments, rather than persons, and not to read way too far into other people's posts (still have a lot to learn). And I know my opinion needs to be complimented by a lot of other differing opinions.

Perhaps it's easier for me to take myself less seriously, because I'm younger than all of you and have probably been herping seriously for less time than all of you too. But it's not really a skill we should lose over time. None of us really think we know everything, and the most experienced of you definitely know how limited your own personal knowledge is compared to the body of knowledge out there. We also should know that our own personal approach won't work for everyone. Let's do our best to work together on this and take each other seriously.

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Daryl Eby » October 13th, 2011, 4:20 pm

Very well said Jonathan!

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 13th, 2011, 4:30 pm

Daryl Eby wrote:
gbin wrote:I'm not interested in helping, nor even lending the slightest shred of credibility to, such an elitist approach or outcome as this kind of stuff suggests is the goal.
Perhaps that is exactly why you need to be involved. Your voice (and that of all other field herpers) counts as much as theirs and needs to be considered if any eventual outcome is to reflect the community. I often disagree with you and occasionally get exasperated by your approach, but you do give voice to a significant segment of herpers that may not always speak up.
Only a fool plays a rigged game, Daryl and Jonathan. Be careful not to help folks who have no interest in genuinely working together/taking others seriously.

And we don't really disagree on very many things, Daryl, though I understand why you might want to distance yourself a bit from someone as outspoken as myself. ;)

Gerry

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Daryl Eby » October 13th, 2011, 4:45 pm

gbin wrote:And we don't really disagree on very many things, Daryl, though I understand why you might want to distance yourself a bit from someone as outspoken as myself. ;)
Surely you have not forgotten our past arguments. Some got quite heated as I recall. Though lately, we do seem to be agreeing quite often (you must be getting smarter). As for distancing myself, I have no need for that. I'm glad to stand with you when you're right and oppose you when you're wrong. Of course whether you are right or wrong is determined by if you agree with me. :D :beer:

User avatar
-EJ
Posts: 1078
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:17 am

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by -EJ » October 13th, 2011, 4:51 pm

awwwww... are we male bonding????

User avatar
Daryl Eby
Posts: 963
Joined: June 27th, 2010, 12:27 pm
Location: Terlingua / Marfa, Texas
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Daryl Eby » October 13th, 2011, 5:01 pm

-EJ wrote:awwwww... are we male bonding????
I guess you could call it that. I'd call it "giving respect where respect is due". There's room for one more, but its a two way street.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 13th, 2011, 5:10 pm

gbin wrote:
hellihooks wrote:One thing we haven't specifically addressed is...WHO is the intended audience? Certainly not primarily us old farts, who's belief systems are all but cast in stone. I would suggest that these guidelines be primarily for novice herpers, so that they can herp ethically, right off the bat, and not have to go through the trials and errors we all did, to be even able to comment on what is or isn't ethical.
Are you guys kidding. You know Gerry, somewhere in a earlier thread, you labeled yourself as a Literalist and kinda admitted to being somewhat 'dense'. Though I REALLY didn't want to bring that up....I'm starting to believe you. I try to pick my words carefully, so as to not offend, or make gross generalizations. Please notice the words in bold...they are modifiers, and qualify a statement.
Either you have a serious comprehension problem, or you let your emotions blind you to what is actually being said. You do seem to ask a lot of people to explain what they said... :roll:
I'm not interested in squabbling or arguing with anyone. I really think that 'what we have here, is a failure to communicate'... for whatever reason. I, for one, will try to adjust my writing style to be more understandable, but you must understand, there are actually rules in formal critical discourse, and things like logical fallacies and gross generalizations typically get you asked to leave, by those who abide by those rules. I have participated in these types of discussions for about the last decade, as a philosophy student, and it's actually kind of difficult for me to adjust my communication style to less than the 'high-brow' level I'm accustomed to. But I will try:

It is more important to make these guidelines 'kid-friendly' as they and others new to the hobby, don't have years of experience to rely upon, when faced with ethical choices in the field. Those of us who have been herping for years, have had a lot more time to think about these things, and are probably pretty comfortable with who we are as herpers. Better?
Also, please consider, I've been giving reptile educational talks to MOSTLY kids since the early 80's. I'm all about the future of the hobby, not arguing over who's better or worse than others.


I WILL admit that identifying your target audience, is typically a first step when trying to persuade, rather than present. my bad.
That said...That IS the purpose of philosophical debate... to win others over to your ways of thinking, for you believe those ways to be best. I've repeatedly stated that I have adopted the NAFHA's standards, as my personal standards, so any accusation of 'eliteism' should be directed at the NAFHA at large, for I only try to represent their creed, as best I can.

User avatar
-EJ
Posts: 1078
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:17 am

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by -EJ » October 13th, 2011, 5:12 pm

The words you read on a forum... at the moment... are not an indication of respect or disrespect.
Daryl Eby wrote:
-EJ wrote:awwwww... are we male bonding????
I guess you could call it that. I'd call it "giving respect where respect is due". There's room for one more, but its a two way street.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 13th, 2011, 5:39 pm

Daryl Eby wrote:
gbin wrote:And we don't really disagree on very many things, Daryl, though I understand why you might want to distance yourself a bit from someone as outspoken as myself. ;)
Surely you have not forgotten our past arguments...
Not entirely, but I try to make it a point in my life not to hold onto such things - plus I've a terrible memory. As I recall, though, one of the things we argued about most vigorously was... how outspoken (you might prefer some other word) I sometimes am. :)
Daryl Eby wrote:
-EJ wrote:awwwww... are we male bonding????
I guess you could call it that. I'd call it "giving respect where respect is due". There's room for one more, but its a two way street.
I'm not touching this. :lol:
hellihooks wrote:... Please notice the words in bold...they are modifiers, and qualify a statement.
Yeah, your writing is full of qualifiers, all right. Just like the example I brought up to you a while ago: "Like those talking heads who run around to whatever television shows will give them airtime, saying things like 'Now, I'm not saying that Obama is secretly a Muslim, but there certainly seem to be a number of people out there who see it as a possibility.'"

So far as I'm concerned, you've by now made yourself amply clear as to your true intent and methods, regardless. The only question that remains for me is how many players in this game - not to mention whether the fellow who started it - are participating in trying to rig it, and at some point (maybe now) that question becomes irrelevant. As I said, only a fool plays a rigged game; that holds true no matter who is ultimately responsible for rigging it.
hellihooks wrote:... I've repeatedly stated that I have adopted the NAFHA's standards, as my personal standards, so any accusation of 'eliteism' should be directed at the NAFHA at large, for I only try to represent their creed, as best I can.
Gee, I reckon you can come up with the name more readily than I can, Jim... What's it called when someone in an argument pretends that a criticism is aimed at others rather than just him/self, in order to unfairly make the person who offered the criticism look bad? ("You might be poor, but that doesn't justify you stealing that money!" "How dare you claim that poor people are thieves!") It's especially disgusting that even as a leader in NAFHA you'd try to use that organization and its many other members, who bear no responsibility whatsoever for your behavior, as a shield for it.

As I said, what a piece of work you are...

Gerry

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by jonathan » October 13th, 2011, 6:05 pm

alriiighty then, never said that we'd all catch the idea on the first try....


A note on personal insults - the person you're talking to isn't going to change their fundamental character because you call them names. And no one else on this forum is going to believe your name-calling about them unless they already believe it themselves. So what's the point of doing it? Everyone who reads your comment either already believes the same thing you do and doesn't need to hear it, or doesn't believe it and is going to think you're a jerk. Either way, it's not going to add a thing to the discussion.


p.s. - if you really need to insult the person personally, PM will work just as well. And if you really need to talk to your like-minded friends about what an a-- so-and-so is, PM again works really well. But making the insult public adds nothing to the discussion, because the rest of us already form our own opinions about the person based on what we see and are just going to lose more respect for the person who feels that personal insults need to be part of their herping discussions.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 13th, 2011, 6:40 pm

I have no interest in personal squabbles, and I have no desire to engage in personal criticisms (let alone name-calling). But sometimes personal criticism - which is hardly equivalent to personal insult, just to be clear - is decidedly called for. I believe there is ample evidence of Jim's attempting to undermine a fair process for coming up with ethical guidelines for our community (and maybe some, too, of the process having been undermined from the outset - I'll wait to see what Chad has to say about all of this before going any further toward deciding what I think about that). I therefore acted to expose and denounce that behavior, which I believe is the right thing to do in such a situation. I further believe that refusing to participate in an unfair process is both the right and smart thing to do. If you disagree with any of this, Jonathan, then we simply disagree; it's not a question of me needing to be taught to play nice.

You're right, though, about any comments I might have made about Jim as a person rather than about his behavior here. I didn't say much about the former, but I should have kept that part to myself and restricted my writing here to the latter. I'll try harder at that, but I'm only as human as the next guy, and can be provoked. :oops:

Gerry

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by jonathan » October 13th, 2011, 6:46 pm

Thanks for the second part Gerry. But remember, if there's "ample evidence" of anything, then we can see it as well as you can, and we don't need others to call it out for us.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 13th, 2011, 6:57 pm

jonathan wrote:... remember, if there's "ample evidence" of anything, then we can see it as well as you can, and we don't need others to call it out for us.
Nonsense. No one sees everything, nor even everything for which there is ample evidence, without help. (I strongly suspect that you can come up with plenty of examples for yourself, if you try.) We should all look out for each other. And in particular, people who genuinely believe in things such as openness, honesty and fairness should expose and denounce behavior to the contrary whenever they encounter it. Way too many people let such behavior pass, even if they see it, because they don't feel sure enough of what they're seeing, they don't want to make waves, they think maybe it's the wrong time or place to say anything, etc. In my opinion, that adds a lot of validity to that old saying, "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."

Gerry

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by jonathan » October 13th, 2011, 7:09 pm

Gerry - what you're saying is generally true for some subjects, but it doesn't follow for personal insults. People's opinion of others is developed from a very complex set of interactions with that person and a lot of conscious and unconscious cues. No one is going to change their entire viewpoint of Jim and Jim's motive just because you started personally insulting him. Do you think anyone in this discussion is going to say, "Well, I was taking Jim seriously despite his different viewpoint, but now that Gerry called him out I too will refuse to continue further dialogue with him"?

Furthermore, once you accuse another party in a discussion of dishonest motives, the discussion with that person is over. Once you accuse Jim of that, you and Jim can't get any further at all. Now, that seems to be what you want, but none of the rest of us want that (as shown by the fact that we're still here, participating in the discussion). So I would recommend that if you really want to drop out, you drop out, and if you really want to continue, you continue in a productive manner that allows discussion to progress.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 13th, 2011, 7:55 pm

Well... I tried. The only way my reputation will suffer, is if I take anything you have to say seriously, and allow you to provoke me, again. But I have to ask, both because I'm truly concerned (as a Mental Health Care Professional) and because it directly affects the progress of these talks: Do you have Mental Health 'issues', for which you take medication? If so... see your Dr. to adjust your dosage(s). If undiagnosed, pls (for your own sake) consider a consult. I have serious concerns... :| To be clear...I'm NOT calling you crazy, I just personally suspect that you are. Furthermore, I do not find you competent to lead these discussions.

Jonathan... yeah...I know... shoulda PM'd this, but these continuing public assaults on my character are starting to chaff.... :lol: :lol:

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 13th, 2011, 8:04 pm

jonathan wrote:Gerry - what you're saying is generally true for some subjects, but it doesn't follow for personal insults....
Jonathan, you might see any criticism one makes of another's behavior as a personal insult, but that doesn't make it so. Accordingly, I don't care what opinion people have of Jim (or me, for that matter); I care that they take note of, and hopefully action on, behavior that I see as detrimental to our community, its endeavors and its interactions here. And it's not true that personal criticism must create an insurmountable breach between people, either. We're all of us - yes, most certainly me, too (obviously) - capable of bad behavior. Warranted personal criticism can help us to change for the better, if we've a mind to, and if we don't it can still at least tip people off to be careful in any dealings with us that might be affected by the bad behavior. In any event, it doesn't mean and I never so much as tried to suggest that people should have nothing to do with the person whose behavior is being criticized.

What I want is everyone to genuinely commit to an open, honest and fair process for coming up with a set of ethical guidelines for our community, and for folks to be wary of advancing the pet causes of one or a few people who appear to have a very different kind of process in mind. And if I come to feel that a game (be it this one or any other I encounter) is fixed such that everyone can't get a fair deal, I feel an obligation to sound out a warning. Nothing you could possibly say is going to change that, and certainly not mischaracterizing what I've been doing.

Gerry

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by jonathan » October 13th, 2011, 10:30 pm

I certainly do not see every criticism of behavior as a personal insult. In fact, I hope it's clear that I have issues with some of the behavior in this thread. However, I did find the things you said to be personal insults. And there were personal insults back. And I really doubt that the volley of insults back and forth has clarified anything for anyone else.


For instance, when you say:

"What a piece of work you are."

I see that as clearly a personal insult, and completely unhelpful to dialogue.



Now, when you say:

"That kind of stuff goes way beyond nonsense, really. It's utter bull$hit."

you might try to claim that's a "criticism of behavior", but really it doesn't help any more than a personal insult does. It's so vague and negative that no one is given any information at all. You're just using strong language to attack him, but you haven't said anything except "I dislike what he said." No one is going to say, "Wait, he's right, it is bull$hit!" just because you made a sentence using the word.



On the other hand, when you say:

"it would be great if you'd try to distill it down to something concise and manageable. (I suggested trying for a single sentence.)"

there's the possibility that you're being a little snarky, but in truth that is a constructive criticism that someone might actually listen to and the discussion might actually benefit from.


I do think there's a difference between those three types of comments (personal insults, criticisms that function the same as insults, and constructive criticisms), and I think that comments like the third one are the only ones that push the discussion in a positive direction.

You're free to disagree with that, and I know you do because we've had similar discussions on other threads. But can you give an example from another thread where this approach that you're using right now worked out positively?

TimCO
Posts: 891
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:27 am
Location: Colorado

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by TimCO » October 13th, 2011, 10:42 pm

Keep the pissing contest on a PM.

Retes
Posts: 78
Joined: August 18th, 2011, 7:47 am

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Retes » October 14th, 2011, 6:43 am

Hi Guys, THIS IS THE INTERNET, in case you have not noticed, the internet is based on a completely different reality then, Well, the ones the snakes live in.

Here anyone can say anything and be anyone. Its a world of 1's and 0's.

So what happens is any issue of importance becomes a chess match of words.

I think this subject like any subject requires a point person to keep the issue current. You know, where does it stand.

For instance when I keep harping on defining what is unexceptable interference, and the variation of that, no one gives me a consenus. I get, I say its this or that and your stupid for not knowing that. hahahahahahahahaha

Well no offense, Its one persons opinion and a forum consists of many people. We still all have different ideas of just that one subject, muchless the greater overall area of ethics.

What is needed is a point person assigned by the owner of this forum, or have the owner be the point person.

After all, all the members will come and go. But the forum will be the forum. It is the entity.

For instance, when I built zoos and zoo enclosures. I would meet with the zoo staff. It was common for zoos to assign a keeper to assist in design. I would ask, how long as that keeper been here? the answer would be anywhere from a few days to a long period,

That keeper would often base the enclosure design on a particular individual animal.

First let me say, its not about that keeper or animal being right or wrong.

Heres the point, an exhibit in a zoo, represents the zoo as an entity. Its permanet, The keepers come and go, the individual animals come and go. The habitats are based on the direction of the zoo, not its tiny parts.(consider, this is just an example)

So here, the ETHICS need to be based on the direction of this site, not its tiny parts.

All I have gathered from this thread is, there is a need for setting ethics, or guidelines. That need is because of the apparent success in recruiting new members, as in, lots of newbies.

So come on guys get with it. Someone of responsibility grab this bull by the horns.

Behaviorally speaking, you cannot leave any two or more animals locked up in a box. Sooner or later, they will beat the crap out of eachother. Cheers

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 14th, 2011, 6:55 am

jonathan wrote:For instance, when you say:

"What a piece of work you are."

I see that as clearly a personal insult, and completely unhelpful to dialogue.
And I agree entirely. As I said, I'm as human as the next person, and can at least occasionally be provoked.
jonathan wrote:Now, when you say:

"That kind of stuff goes way beyond nonsense, really. It's utter bull$hit."

you might try to claim that's a "criticism of behavior", but really it doesn't help any more than a personal insult does. It's so vague and negative that no one is given any information at all. You're just using strong language to attack him, but you haven't said anything except "I dislike what he said."
That's simply not true. Go back and look: In the very same post I pointed out what was wrong with said bull$hit. I have also, both before and after that post, said plenty to provide context to my criticism. There's nothing vague about what I'm attacking here, and your not agreeing with me or still not understanding me (whichever the case may be) doesn't change that.

And my criticism remains. While it is indeed personal in that it deals specifically with his behavior, I am convinced both that it is valid and that it belongs in this venue. Attempts to undermine a process of importance to the community, to fix a game in which everyone has a stake, should be exposed and denounced. So far as "push[ing] the discussion in a positive direction" goes, you can argue for fairness until you're blue in the face, but in the end you can't win in a fixed game, so it's foolish to try. As persuaded as I am of his continuing efforts to fix the game, and as much as I now fear that such efforts have been successful, I view it as a personal obligation of mine to sound a warning about it. Nothing more and nothing less.
jonathan wrote:... when you say:

"it would be great if you'd try to distill it down to something concise and manageable. (I suggested trying for a single sentence.)"

there's the possibility that you're being a little snarky, but in truth that is a constructive criticism that someone might actually listen to and the discussion might actually benefit from.
You can view what I've done and am doing however you wish, of course, but for the record I'll state that there was nothing snarky in what I wrote to Frank. I was simply trying to advise someone who obviously felt he had something important to say about this stuff on how he might say it in a way that would make it maximally useful.
Retes wrote:What is needed is a point person assigned by the owner of this forum, or have that person be the point person.
...
So here, the ETHICS need to be based on the direction of this site, not its tiny parts.
We agree again, Frank. With the provisos that 1) the direction of the site is the total of its tiny parts, not just somebody's preferred selection of them, and 2) if the point person doesn't employ an open, honest and fair process, it shouldn't be supported by anyone who cares about such things.

Gerry

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by jonathan » October 14th, 2011, 7:35 am

gbin wrote:
jonathan wrote:Now, when you say:

"That kind of stuff goes way beyond nonsense, really. It's utter bull$hit."

you might try to claim that's a "criticism of behavior", but really it doesn't help any more than a personal insult does. It's so vague and negative that no one is given any information at all. You're just using strong language to attack him, but you haven't said anything except "I dislike what he said."
That's simply not true. Go back and look: In the very same post I pointed out what was wrong with said bull$hit. I have also, both before and after that post, said plenty to provide context to my criticism. There's nothing vague about what I'm attacking here, and your not agreeing with me or still not understanding me (whichever the case may be) doesn't change that.
Do you see the difference between the part I quoted and the part where you "point out what was wrong" or do constructive criticism? You can explain what you disagree with in someone's statement without saying it "goes way beyond nonsense" and "is utter bullshit". As I pointed out, those insults are so vague and negative that no information at all is added by them.


Now, going back to your strong desire to save the discussion by calling out certain people in it and negatively attacking their motives and entire participation in the discussion - can you point out any times on this forum where this has worked out well for you?

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 14th, 2011, 7:59 am

Yeah... this is getting nowhere, fast. Since I will obviously not be able to express any personal opinions (like the guidelines should be geared towards the next generation) without being called a liar and conspirator, I will volunteer to moderate... as in, order the topics, record the consensus, try to keep discussions on track, ect. I have no problem remaining outside of the discussion, and keeping my opinions to myself, for I'm sure other Nafha members will represent the Nafha's standards, even if obliquely.
My typing is done with one hand, and is quite a chore, and slow (WISH I could afford Dragon) and I work bout everyday, but I should be able to daily condense and distill the opinions proffered, and when appropriate seek a consensus via poll, or perhaps give a topic it's own thread, to be discussed further.
If agreeable to most, I will begin working on an outline of topics, and present them for consideration, as to what order they should be addressed in. As in, (as Gerry suggests) what are our priorities... in other words, which issues are paramount.... Collecting? Habitat? Impact on herps? ect.

I really think that even a temporary ethics pg would really help, where we could organize the topics by threads, so that 1) we don't monopolize the majority of FHF's 1st pg... 2) people can go right to the issues they feel most strongly about, and 3) we have some semblance of order.

So.... 1st order of business... page or no page? :| (see... even my emoticon is neutral...lol) jim

Postscript... I do, BTW agree with Gerry that 'If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem' and by moderating only, I can still contribute to this process... :thumb:

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 14th, 2011, 8:42 am

jonathan wrote:Do you see the difference between the part I quoted and the part where you "point out what was wrong" or do constructive criticism? You can explain what you disagree with in someone's statement without saying it "goes way beyond nonsense" and "is utter bullshit". As I pointed out, those insults are so vague and negative that no information at all is added by them.
I recognize that there is a difference between an argument and an emphasis of that argument, if that's all you're getting at. You've been representing the situation as if the argument weren't there, though, and the emphasis was therefore nothing more than an unwarranted personal attack. That's not the case. We are indeed talking about a personal attack, dealing as it does with a person's behavior (and perhaps more than one person's behavior, at that), but it has all along been warranted and explained. And again, if we disagree on whether whatever emphasis I used in conjunction with my argument was called for/productive/what-have-you, then we disagree.
jonathan wrote:Now, going back to your strong desire to save the discussion by calling out certain people in it and negatively attacking their motives and entire participation in the discussion - can you point out any times on this forum where this has worked out well for you?
I'm not interested in trying to defend your (mis)characterization of my behavior here. I've gone on at length about how I see things, why I see them that way, and what actions on my part I felt were/feel are called for. I will say that at quite a number of times in my life, sometimes I and other people and sometimes only other people have directly benefited by my blowing the whistle on a crooked game of one sort or another, and even if I'd never seen such a benefit for anyone, I would nonetheless act as I believe is right for its own sake. If that's not enough to clarify things for or otherwise satisfy you, oh well.
hellihooks wrote:I will volunteer to moderate...
I'm sure you will. :roll:
hellihooks wrote:... I have no problem remaining outside of the discussion, and keeping my opinions to myself...
This is about as close as one can come to deserving a sarcastic response, but I'll just play it straight. There is extremely little doubt in my mind that you would use a position of greater authority in this process, such as moderating it, to more thoroughly subvert it to your own desires. To me you would be absolutely unacceptable in such a role, and your placement in it despite all you've written recently in this and other related threads would be the most compelling evidence yet that not only have you been trying to rig the game, the game is indeed already rigged by your and others' efforts. (Still waiting for any comment from you about all this, Chad.)

Gerry

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 14th, 2011, 9:17 am

It's worth a try... if you think that I, at any time as a moderator, am being ANYTHING less than impartial... I'm sure you'll speak up.
I've already suggested that we employ your approach by prioritizing topics/ideals (If I in fact, understand your position correctly)... so I don't see that I could be more even-handed than that.
Besides...if the majority of people agree to me moderating, you will NEED to stick around to, to make sure that there is no conspiracy afoot. :roll: :lol: :lol:
I'm not even any longer sure EXACTLY what it is I'm supposedly secretly trying to accomplish.... :roll:
I have to go finish a brake job on my car, finish a job, and buy materials for another job (roofing...yuk) starting tomorrow, so won't be back till tonight.
edit... BTW... the moderator is NOT a position of authority... it is basically a glorified secretary... taking minutes and keeping track of whats been discussed. It is a BIG step down from active participation, and one that I DO NOT relish.

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 14th, 2011, 10:58 am

hellihooks wrote:It's worth a try...
No, in my opinion it's decidedly not. Given the various things you've written in this and other threads, I consider you absolutely unacceptable for moderator or any other role in this process where you might have or even just perceive that you have more power than others over it. And I've moderated numerous professional meetings/committees (including some tasked with coming up with things such as guiding documents) before and participated in numerous others moderated by others, so please don't waste any time trying to convince me that people can't use it as a position of power over others if they've a mind to. (And no, lest anyone think of suggesting it, I am not interested in moderating this effort. Depending on whether/how Chad finally responds to this aspect of the discussion, I'd probably support his moderating it.)
hellihooks wrote:... you will NEED to stick around...
Don't worry, I intend to do so regardless of how things develop. I said that I don't intend to waste my time and effort trying to play a rigged game (and I suggested that others likewise refrain from playing it), if that is indeed what we have here, but I didn't say that I intend to simply walk away from it. And as for your veiled suggestion that I should be disregarded as nothing but a conspiracy nut (which I'd been expecting for a while now, by the way - gee, Jim, what's that called when you try to cast doubt on an opponent's argument by demeaning the opponent him/herself rather than actually dealing with the argument?...), I'll point out that a conscious, organized conspiracy isn't required for a few like-minded individuals who think the end justifies the means to stack the deck against contrary opinions.
hellihooks wrote:I'm not even any longer sure EXACTLY what it is I'm supposedly secretly trying to accomplish.... :roll:
I believe that you're much more interested in promoting your personal beliefs concerning ethical guidelines for our community than in pursuing an open, honest and fair process that gives everyone an equal say on them, and that as a result you (consciously or unconsciously, and I don't really care which it is) look for opportunities to direct the discussion accordingly. You should be a participant in the discussion, no more and no less than any other interested person. "One person, one vote" regardless of age, experience level (in field herping, philosophy or whatever), degree of NAFHA participation, personal set of beliefs, evolutionary state, what-have-you. But you appear to be continually striving to be more than that, and perhaps because certain other person(s) share your view of what our ethical guidelines should be like, you appear sometimes to be gaining traction as a result of your efforts. Does that help refresh your memory?

Gerry

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 14th, 2011, 12:18 pm

That's fine Gerry, but ultimately whether I moderate or not, is not up to you.... it's up to everyone. I too, have experience as a moderator and as a participant in University-level National Ethics Debating team. Moderating sucks... a lot of work and unremitting tongue biting... :roll: I much rather participate.
I stand on my ethos... proudly.

BTW... just so everyone is clear... you are waiting on Chad to either confirm, or deny that he is part of some 'conspiracy'? For... if he's not, the answer will be no... and if he is... then obviously he'll need to deny it, and the answer will be no. Do you see the logical disconnect and slippery slope you're on. Since you already suspect that this is the case, there is no possible outcome except Chad's denial confirming him as a conspirator, and NOW as dishonest as I... :shock:

I sincerely hope that everyone else is just waiting and hoping (as I was) that we could get this worked out, so we can continue with matters of substance, and haven't abandoned this effort as 'ruined'
That was, and is my hope, but I have gone as far as I politely can. L8r... jim

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by chad ks » October 14th, 2011, 12:25 pm

gbin wrote: No, in my opinion it's decidedly not. Given the various things you've written in this and other threads, I consider you absolutely unacceptable for moderator or any other role in this process where you might have or even just perceive that you have more power than others over it. And I've moderated numerous professional meetings/committees (including some tasked with coming up with things such as guiding documents) before and participated in numerous others moderated by others, so please don't waste any time trying to convince me that people can't use it as a position of power over others if they've a mind to. (And no, lest anyone think of suggesting it, I am not interested in moderating this effort. Depending on whether/how Chad finally responds to this aspect of the discussion, I'd probably support his moderating it.)
Gerry, I think Jim would make a great moderator, so we simply disagree on that point. I'm not sure what your problem is with him because I haven't read any of it (ftmp), which is also why I haven't responded to this aspect of the discussion. I've seen a little bit of the words you've had with one another and it didn't interest me to referee. I've corresponded with Jim for years and I think your assessment is inaccurate and unkind. Even if yall disagree, let's not create divisions based on how staunchly we apply our beliefs in what's right and wrong because both of you have good intentions.
I believe that you're much more interested in promoting your personal beliefs concerning ethical guidelines for our community than in pursuing an open, honest and fair process that gives everyone an equal say on them, and that as a result you (consciously or unconsciously, and I don't really care which it is) look for opportunities to direct the discussion accordingly. You should be a participant in the discussion, no more and no less than any other interested person. "One person, one vote" regardless of age, experience level (in field herping, philosophy or whatever), degree of NAFHA participation, personal set of beliefs, evolutionary state, what-have-you. But you appear to be continually striving to be more than that, and perhaps because certain other person(s) share your view of what our ethical guidelines should be like, you appear sometimes to be gaining traction as a result of your efforts. Does that help refresh your memory?
Gerry, this is how it's supposed to work. People should all be interested in promoting their personal beliefs concerning the ethical guidelines, and from our individual contributions we can synthesize a working description of field herping ethics and the reasons behind them. Contributors should present their opinions and then have them scrutinized, but focusing too much on people and their motivations and their tactics for discussion isn't meaningful or constructive and be distracting. I commend anyone who continues to strive to influence our community, because it's a smart community that knows BS when it sees BS.

If there is an ethics forum, I would be happy to be one of a few moderators and I would personally nominate either you or Jim, Gerry. I'm surprised that you two are in such a conflict. Remember: herping and beer! :beer:

User avatar
M.J.FRANETOVICH
Posts: 538
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:54 pm
Location: Deadhorse/California

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by M.J.FRANETOVICH » October 14th, 2011, 12:31 pm

I'm staying out of this one!!! But I will say I to vote for Jim :thumb:

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 14th, 2011, 12:33 pm

Herping and Orange Whip... :crazyeyes: I haven't had a beer in 23 yrs, 11 months, 18 days, 4 hrs and 32 min.... roughly... :lol: :lol: jim

Crote Junky
Posts: 30
Joined: January 28th, 2011, 2:42 pm
Location: Your best snake hole

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Crote Junky » October 14th, 2011, 12:39 pm

I THINK YOU ARE ALL A BUNCH OF CRACK HEADS :lol: :lol: ethics smethicas, I will Herp the way I want to and don't care who likes it.

AND gbin YOUR A MORON.



moron

|mɔˈɹαˈn|

Noun

a person of subnormal intelligence
syn: idiot, imbecile, cretin, changeling, half-wit, retard
hyper: simpleton, simple
hypo: mongoloid
cat: airhead, dimwit, nitwit, half-wit, doofus, dingbat, dumbbell, dummy, dope, boob, booby, pinhead, fool, sap, saphead, muggins, tomfool, idiot, imbecile, cretin, changeling, half-wit, retard, idiot savant, nebbish, nebbech, nincompoop, poop, ninny, scatterbrain, forgetful person, schlemiel, shlemiel, schlepper, shlepper, schlep, shlep, schnook, shnook, sheep, space cadet, square, lame, stupid, stupid person, stupe, dullard, dolt, pudding head, pudden-head, poor fish, pillock, subnormal, twerp, twirp, twit
a city in Argentina, to the west of Buenos Aires

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 14th, 2011, 12:53 pm

Thank you crote junky, for that thoughtful and well-reasoned response. :roll: and thank you Mel and Chad.
I think for the sake of all concerned, we decide if there will be a Ethics page, and then elect a moderator. no need for this public side-taking... :roll: jim

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by chad ks » October 14th, 2011, 12:54 pm

hellihooks wrote:Thank you crote junky, for that thoughtful and well-reasoned response. :roll: and thank you Mel and Chad.
I think for the sake of all concerned, we decide if there will be a Ethics page, and then elect a moderator. no need for this public side-taking... :roll: jim
Yeah, I don't consider myself as having taken any sides. I met Gerry recently and enjoyed his company over a tasty Blvrd Wheat Beer. I'm not sure what to make out of this quarrel between you two, but I know Gerry would rather me be honest then say nothing at all. :crazyeyes: :idea:

User avatar
Scott Waters
Site Admin
Posts: 678
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:08 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Scott Waters » October 14th, 2011, 1:51 pm

An "Ethics Forum"? Not needed. We can all party here on The Forum, as we have always done. This is what makes us FHF.

Dividing into sub-forums is not the path FHF has or will take as a forum. The NAFHA Chapter Forums are different, of course, but FHF has a handful of forums........then way down at the bottom some "extra forums". That's it. Especially one that is dedicated to what a thread or two can handle, like Ethics.

thanks,
scott

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Fundad » October 14th, 2011, 1:53 pm

Back to the subject.. :roll:

Frank R I understand what your saying to some degree, but I think you would be better suited giving a few examples of your "Fatal" Interferences, rather than counting on everyone, taking your word for it..

Just food for thought. Plus you might teach somebody something in the process.

Though I will have to say, each species is going to have its own degree of being effected by "interference".

Fundad

User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 3:28 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by gbin » October 14th, 2011, 3:22 pm

chad ks wrote:Gerry, this is how it's supposed to work. People should all be interested in promoting their personal beliefs concerning the ethical guidelines, and from our individual contributions we can synthesize a working description of field herping ethics and the reasons behind them...
There's certainly a lot more to it than that, Chad - as I pointed out rather clearly in the very post from which you quoted.

It's meaningless for various people to promote their personal beliefs in a discussion meant to result in a set of ethical guidelines for the community if the process used to create those guidelines isn't actually open, honest and fair. The process is really the crux of the matter for me - not Jim and his numerous efforts to subvert it - and that's what I want to hear you elaborate upon. Do you support a democratic process (the"one person, one vote" approach that I mentioned), some kind of super committee, a benevolent dictatorship kind of thing, or what? Should someone like you or Jim speaking in favor of something matter more than someone like EJ, JDM, Frank or whoever speaking in favor of something else? I realize that an awful lot of people don't care about process, but I also realize that process is actually vitally important. If the process lacks real integrity, i.e. if the game is rigged in favor of certain players, the product too will be invalid. So if you will, please outline the process you think we should be pursuing, particularly in terms of how you think we should integrate divergent viewpoints, and specifically addressing whether you think anyone's opinions about what to include or exclude in these guidelines should count for more than anyone else's.

I am curious about one thing specifically with respect to Jim and you, though (and other people and you), and I think your answers here might be rather instructive as well. You started this thread, but have played a fairly small part in it through the many posts/pages since. Apparently you're not even bothering to read all of the contributions to it (which I would think at a minimum you would feel some obligation to do). Here's what I'm wondering: You mention that you've corresponded with Jim for years, and I certainly understand that; I'm happy for you both that you have a closer relationship than merely interaction on an internet forum. But, have you two (or you and certain other people) been corresponding privately about the topic of this thread since you initiated it? If so, why did you choose to have whatever conversation(s) in private rather than here in the thread?

Yes, I am serious about the questions I've asked, and yes, I will seriously be watching for whether/how you reply to them.
chad ks wrote:... I know Gerry would rather me be honest then say nothing at all. :crazyeyes: :idea:
I'm hoping for it, but I'm not counting on anything at this point. I certainly find it concerning that you didn't bother to fully familiarize yourself with the current situation before rendering an opinion on it - which suggests you're more inclined to perpetuate your initial biases than to make truly informed decisions about this stuff - and much worse still, that in your response you sidestepped the essence of my criticism of the process being promoted (and used?) here (that question of whether it's open, honest and fair to all participants). Was that careless or deliberate on your part? As I said, at this point it's not at all clear.

Gerry

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Fundad » October 14th, 2011, 4:12 pm

chad ks wrote:
Gerry, this is how it's supposed to work. People should all be interested in promoting their personal beliefs concerning the ethical guidelines, and from our individual contributions we can synthesize a working description of field herping ethics and the reasons behind them...

There's certainly a lot more to it than that, Chad - as I pointed out rather clearly in the very post from which you quoted.

It's meaningless for various people to promote their personal beliefs in a discussion meant to result in a set of ethical guidelines for the community if the process used to create those guidelines isn't actually open, honest and fair. The process is really the crux of the matter for me - not Jim and his numerous efforts to subvert it - and that's what I want to hear you elaborate upon. Do you support a democratic process (the"one person, one vote" approach that I mentioned), some kind of super committee, a benevolent dictatorship kind of thing, or what? Should someone like you or Jim speaking in favor of something matter more than someone like EJ, JDM, Frank or whoever speaking in favor of something else? I realize that an awful lot of people don't care about process, but I also realize that process is actually vitally important. If the process lacks real integrity, i.e. if the game is rigged in favor of certain players, the product too will be invalid. So if you will, please outline the process you think we should be pursuing, particularly in terms of how you think we should integrate divergent viewpoints, and specifically addressing whether you think anyone's opinions about what to include or exclude in these guidelines should count for more than anyone else's.

I am curious about one thing specifically with respect to Jim and you, though (and other people and you), and I think your answers here might be rather instructive as well. You started this thread, but have played a fairly small part in it through the many posts/pages since. Apparently you're not even bothering to read all of the contributions to it (which I would think at a minimum you would feel some obligation to do). Here's what I'm wondering: You mention that you've corresponded with Jim for years, and I certainly understand that; I'm happy for you both that you have a closer relationship than merely interaction on an internet forum. But, have you two (or you and certain other people) been corresponding privately about the topic of this thread since you initiated it? If so, why did you choose to have whatever conversation(s) in private rather than here in the thread?

Yes, I am serious about the questions I've asked, and yes, I will seriously be watching for whether/how you reply to them.

chad ks wrote:
... I know Gerry would rather me be honest then say nothing at all. :crazyeyes: :idea:

I'm hoping for it, but I'm not counting on anything at this point. I certainly find it concerning that you didn't bother to fully familiarize yourself with the current situation before rendering an opinion on it - which suggests you're more inclined to perpetuate your initial biases than to make truly informed decisions about this stuff - and much worse still, that in your response you sidestepped the essence of my criticism of the process being promoted (and used?) here (that question of whether it's open, honest and fair to all participants). Was that careless or deliberate on your part? As I said, at this point it's not at all clear.

Gerry


Report this post
OMG Stop already Gerry this thread "isn't about YOU!!!"

Fundad

TimCO
Posts: 891
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:27 am
Location: Colorado

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by TimCO » October 14th, 2011, 4:16 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

chad ks
Posts: 632
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 12:31 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by chad ks » October 14th, 2011, 4:54 pm

gbin wrote: There's certainly a lot more to it than that, Chad - as I pointed out rather clearly in the very post from which you quoted.

It's meaningless for various people to promote their personal beliefs in a discussion meant to result in a set of ethical guidelines for the community if the process used to create those guidelines isn't actually open, honest and fair. The process is really the crux of the matter for me - not Jim and his numerous efforts to subvert it - and that's what I want to hear you elaborate upon. Do you support a democratic process (the"one person, one vote" approach that I mentioned), some kind of super committee, a benevolent dictatorship kind of thing, or what? Should someone like you or Jim speaking in favor of something matter more than someone like EJ, JDM, Frank or whoever speaking in favor of something else? I realize that an awful lot of people don't care about process, but I also realize that process is actually vitally important. If the process lacks real integrity, i.e. if the game is rigged in favor of certain players, the product too will be invalid. So if you will, please outline the process you think we should be pursuing, particularly in terms of how you think we should integrate divergent viewpoints, and specifically addressing whether you think anyone's opinions about what to include or exclude in these guidelines should count for more than anyone else's.
Gerry, none of us has any power to dictate, this is a community where the participants can read and evaluate the ideas as they come, and that's the point of the deliberation part of forming this ethics list. Good ideas will stand on their own merit, regardless of who brings them to the table. Bad ideas won't, and I don't think any major engineering is required. I really don't understand your paranoia re: some kind of rigged game.

The way I would like this process to go is like this: I've posted some conversation starters and food for thought, people responded and what has resulted is a conversation. It's had its share of tangents, but several times we've come back to some very good points. When I can, I will gather many of these points and organize them into something that resembles Gary's list, then we'll scrutinize that and everyone can pick it apart. Believe me, it isn't that difficult to do when we all try our best to respect one another and avoid conflict. What exactly is it that you think is going wrong?
gbin wrote:I am curious about one thing specifically with respect to Jim and you, though (and other people and you), and I think your answers here might be rather instructive as well. You started this thread, but have played a fairly small part in it through the many posts/pages since. Apparently you're not even bothering to read all of the contributions to it (which I would think at a minimum you would feel some obligation to do). Here's what I'm wondering: You mention that you've corresponded with Jim for years, and I certainly understand that; I'm happy for you both that you have a closer relationship than merely interaction on an internet forum. But, have you two (or you and certain other people) been corresponding privately about the topic of this thread since you initiated it? If so, why did you choose to have whatever conversation(s) in private rather than here in the thread?

Yes, I am serious about the questions I've asked, and yes, I will seriously be watching for whether/how you reply to them.
I wouldn't reduce my participation quite as much, but I intended to participate little in the first ten or so pages because I just wanted to see what people had to write and what their thoughts were. Many people participated with some very good fodder for the conversation, but the thread has been derailed a few times and now I imagine that some of those folks have been put off from the thread and will hopefully return to contribute once we get it back on target.

Re: Jim, I've corresponded with him for years in exactly the same way that I have you, off and on through PMs. In fact you and I have met, and Jim and I haven't. Believe me, there's no bias, I just genuinely disagree with your comments, that's all. :)

Jim and I have not discussed this issue with the exception of a few PMs that weren't relevant to any conspiracy, and nothing that you would find interesting.
gbin wrote:I'm hoping for it, but I'm not counting on anything at this point. I certainly find it concerning that you didn't bother to fully familiarize yourself with the current situation before rendering an opinion on it - which suggests you're more inclined to perpetuate your initial biases than to make truly informed decisions about this stuff - and much worse still, that in your response you sidestepped the essence of my criticism of the process being promoted (and used?) here (that question of whether it's open, honest and fair to all participants). Was that careless or deliberate on your part? As I said, at this point it's not at all clear.

Gerry
I'm not sure why you wouldn't give me or anyone else here the benefit of the doubt, but you should. Count on it. I sincerely have no biases Gerry, I simply thought that your comments directed at Jim were too divisive and showed no grace or willingness to get along. I've argued with you for years and I've seen the full extent of your arsenal of debate tactics, so I know what it's like to be called dishonest when I wasn't being dishonest at all. I mean this in the friendliest way, of course. Believe me I don't want to side step anything, could you clarify the core issues that you're having trouble with?

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 14th, 2011, 5:56 pm

Scott,
My concern was not having the 1st page overloaded with ethics topics, rather than the standard great fare. review the bylaws rewrite, and see how many pages that took... and that was just a revision.. :shock: Not disagreeing with your 'one community' position, just want to make sure you know what's likely coming. :thumb:

I see Gerry's points, and agree. Which is why I've advocated :1st--determining the ethical purview, which is to say, choosing the process by which we agree to try to come to terms.

One man, one vote is utilitarian, and the basis of democracy... but might not work well here, given the high number of Nafha members... which could produce a slant towards Nafha's standards.

Decision by committee and benevolent dictatorships are certainly out (asked S. Bledsoe, but he declined... :crazyeyes: :lol: :lol: )

Virtue Theory,(the means between the extremes) I initially thought MIGHT work, as 'compromise' but now believe the schisms tween certain segments are too great (Com. Coll vs Strict observation) and since every brand of herper believes in his heart that what they do is ethically acceptable, there can be no compromise point between so many stations.

Relativism (ethical choice is relative to societal contexts) isn't really worth mentioning, it is so lowly regarded in the philosophical milieu...supports Cannibalism, incest, the Holocaust, ect... :roll:

The only way to assure that these talks are 'open, honest, and fair' is to take steps to insure that they are. Honesty must be a given, for rational discourse to proceed. Open... in the sense of who may participate (which is everyone who cares to) is also a given. But I THINK Gerry means 'transparency'... which I'm not sure can be addressed without violating free will and privacy rights. I have not privately discussed the contents of these discussions with anyone, including Chad, other than to invite several people to participate or moderate.... including my Ethics mentor... Dr Susan Finsen PhD. (whose books, some co-authored with her husband, Dr Lawrence Finsen PhD., I HIGHLY recommend)
I have no knowledge of any 'behind the doors' discussions... they are generally not needed in ethical discourse as everyone is honestly promoting their beliefs, as best.
Fair... I have some concerns with... as to 'equal representation'... we need to assure that everyone has equal opportunity to present their position.... We should have a researcher, a citizen-scientist (nafha member) a photo hobbiest, a personal collector, a locality breeder, a commercial collector, and any other type of 'herper' I've missed, (or folks think should be included) to try to represent their take on what constitutes 'ethical behavior' and perhaps we can find some areas of agreement, before we tackle the differences... :D
This took me 2 hrs to type... I KNEW there was a reason I didn't want to do this... :x :lol: :lol: jim

Edit... OR... we could refine Gary's treatment.... post them as a 'general guidelines' (sticky) with links at the bottom to another sticky, where more refined guidelines for every branch of herping could be detailed.

Also... it is inevitable that sooner or later someone will assert their 'right' to herp a certain way, and even the 'experts' in the field can not agree on a definition of what a RIGHT IS. Agreeing beforehand which definition we will employ, will save days and pages of miscommunications, anger, and flameouts (sound familiar... :crazyeyes:) Trust me, I KNOW... people get VERY defensive, where 'rights' are concerned... most people can't tell you what a ' right' is... but they know they have some, and will fight tooth and nail for them... :roll: :lol: jim

Aaron
Posts: 287
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:46 pm

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Aaron » October 14th, 2011, 7:40 pm

I believe in the one hand, one beer process.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 14th, 2011, 8:07 pm

Aaron wrote:I believe in the one hand, one beer process.
If by that you mean the democratic process... we could just compare the number of nafha members to the overall number of FHF members, and pretty accurately predict how the guidelines will read.

Which begs the question... WHO are these guidelines being written for... Herp Nation, or the world at large... in which case we MAY want to correct for any extant Nafha bias. jim

User avatar
VanAR
Posts: 590
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:36 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by VanAR » October 15th, 2011, 5:14 am

Which begs the question... WHO are these guidelines being written for... Herp Nation, or the world at large... in which case we MAY want to correct for any extant Nafha bias.
Just curious, but what kind of NAFHA bias do you think exists?

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 15th, 2011, 6:04 am

One of data collection and limited collection for other purposes. If these guidelines are to reflect the opinions of FHF, AND we go with majority rule and there are enough nafha members in FHF, it would follow that the guidelines we write FOR FHF would reflect that.
Our opinions here at FHF, however, may or may not generalize to the world at large, and if that is the goal, we need to expand our scope of input (increase sampling size)
Now moderating, my opinions will not be expressed, so I'll need some input on
1) scope
2) process
3) resolution of term(s)
4) ethical topics

thx... jim

User avatar
M Wolverton
Posts: 424
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 1:46 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by M Wolverton » October 15th, 2011, 10:42 am

Mike Pingleton wrote:with beers.
And rakes.

Retes
Posts: 78
Joined: August 18th, 2011, 7:47 am

Re: For Fundad

Post by Retes » October 15th, 2011, 10:57 am

Hi,

I will respond to you, as there are just to many directions from too many people.

You ask for me to give examples, and in the past I have, many times.

This issue is not going to be helped by sellecting one example. Those always tend to go A or Z. Which is not the point.

You also just stated that different species would react differently or have different degrees of tolerance. Your right but theres more, even different individuals of the same species and same local react in different ways. Such is evolution.

In our field work, my partner is now considering an approach where it addresses the individual. Not a species or whatever. What causes one individual to not be impacted and others to take it to an extreme and leave their home range?

These are things that are not known or understood at this time.

Yet, there is no actual need to understand this exactly.

Ethics should allow for personal decisions by the herper. That is we should make our members aware of the possible consequences, then they as individual herpers can make their own decisions. Thats how ethics work.

Indeed, there is a range of reactions to a single type interference. By species and individual animal. How would you take all that into consideration?????

In my opinion, that would be covered by a single set of ethics that covers them all. Something like, do not interfere with a wild snake unless you have good reason, Always weight the possibility that what you do can cause harm.

In my opinion, and I have stated this many times before, if we do not break the animals natural defensive behaviors, it normally will not have to alter its routine. Many examples can be given for this.

The problem is, no one seems to want to talk about this because its not published. Which is a very academic way to address this problem.

Simply put, everyone here that has watched without interference , groups of snakes, dens, rookeries, etc. Has seen negative results once those animals were physically interfered with. As in, a drop in numbers, scattering of individuals. Lack of reproduction, etc.

In a nutshell, the studies are what impact them, but no one studies how the studies impacted the study animals. A visious circle I tell you.

In most cases its not DRIVING THE ANIMALS into extinction, but it does harm individual animals. This is where ethics should be important. Well, we shouldn't for no reason.

Now we can establish what are the good reasons to possibly harm individuals.

In my opinion, to remove a snake from its enviornment overnight and put it in a cooler, just to get a GOOD PICTURE, is unethical. Common sense applies here, for a picture, your taking a risk, not a risk for you, but you risk the future of the subject of your picture.

Even here there are exceptions, what are they?

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by hellihooks » October 15th, 2011, 1:06 pm

Frank,
I assume you're replying to Fundad's reply, which (I believe) was specifically directed to you. That is fine, and I'm very glad that both of you are participating, but with all due respect, I would ask that you both wait on this discussion until the topic comes up... or... if you like, start a thread called "Observational Ethics' and detail what you would consider the ethical guidelines for 'Observation Only Herping' would be. That would be very helpfull, Frank, as I consider you a pioneer and leader in this small but growing perspective. thx... jim
Any other volunteers to represent their preferred style of herping?

Retes
Posts: 78
Joined: August 18th, 2011, 7:47 am

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Retes » October 15th, 2011, 3:23 pm

Hi Hellihooks.

Correct me if I am wrong, but this is one of the topics listed. I think simply listing a topic without definition, is more or less worthless.

For instance, to interfere, what does that mean? Or impact, what does that mean.

Everything we do indeed interferes with all wild animals, but there must be an acceptable level we can define. Like, define what could cause harm to the individual animal. Not what DOES, but what could.

To impact an animal could also have a lot of meanings. Is it negative impact, positive impact, etc.

You seem to want ethics, but ethics must have a definition and direction.

Or something so simple as, what ethics apply to common widespread species, compared to endangered or protected species.

Its common here to see posed protected snakes, which is illegal. Not only unethical, but illegal. In this case, its unethical to break the law. hahahahahahahahahahaha

There is now 12 pages of stuff, but nothing has meaning yet. Hmmmmmmmm

Anyway, I hope our, Fundad and I, subject was within the bounds of this thread. I intended it to be. Thanks

p.s. I do wish someone would summerize where we are with this.

Retes
Posts: 78
Joined: August 18th, 2011, 7:47 am

Re: For Hellihooks

Post by Retes » October 15th, 2011, 3:34 pm

Hi Jim,

After reading some of your above stuff. I think you gone far far far far a whole lot of fars to complicated.

Ethics are simple guidelines that folks can use or not. This ethics would be in the direction this forums owners decide. However wide or narrow.

Ethics cannot be enforced, but can be offered those those that care.

The area I am concerned with is the impact on the subject the herps.

Most newbies do not have any idea how handling or cooling or removing from their environment effects or possibly effects them.

Most newbies will simply follow those before them, then in most cases stretch it a little(human nature)

My particular concern is photograghy. People catching, holding, posing, cooling and other manipulations to the animals. In this case, the animals are a tool to get good pictuces. The competition is to get GREAT pictures. Thats how many here relate to Field herping. They do not seem to care about the animals. Or even depict the animals doing what they actually do. Its all about the picture.

You know as well as I do that anyone can buy a great camera and anyone can pose a cold snake, anywhere they want. But not anyone can take a great in situ shot of important behavior.

I would think it would be of concern to this site to keep it about the animals.

Are ethics needed to address this?

User avatar
Scott Waters
Site Admin
Posts: 678
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 3:08 am
Contact:

Re: A Discussion of Herping Ethics (warning: long winded)

Post by Scott Waters » October 15th, 2011, 8:07 pm

Scott,
My concern was not having the 1st page overloaded with ethics topics, rather than the standard great fare. review the bylaws rewrite, and see how many pages that took... and that was just a revision.. Not disagreeing with your 'one community' position, just want to make sure you know what's likely coming.
LOL Again, there will be no "Ethics Forum". :thumb: Also, don't worry about The Forum and how it stacks up. I've got that forum thing handled. :)

thanks,
scott

Post Reply