Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collecting?

[Kelly Mc]

Matter fact, I still think Obama is a Muslim

I have heard this supposition before, some years back. But it has yet to be verified.

It is the same re Sarah Palin, about her having fully formed teeth lining her cervix.

[Fieldnotes]

That's a joke right

Obama was raised in a Muslim family, his name alone, Barack Hussein Obama is named after Muslim text, so forth and so on. From the mouth of Obama himself, "raised Muslim."

He is a serial liar and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is a safe bet.

As i said, its not about his religion, its about him being a liar.

[Kelly Mc]

Good to know I guess. Obama is a muslim, just like Madonna said.

As for the lying thing, he's probably only trying to fit in with the other presidents.

[gbin]

That's a joke right

Obama was raised in a Muslim family, his name alone, Barack Hussein Obama is named after Muslim text, so forth and so on. From the mouth of Obama himself, "raised Muslim."

He is a serial liar and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is a safe bet.

As i said, its not about his religion, its about him being a liar.

Ah, I get it. Post something that at first glance just seems like a joke you're aiming at me, but that you really hope will prompt Scott to make a whole (in this case more than 2-year-old) thread that apparently still bothers you (and/or a friend of yours, hmmm?) go bye-bye, huh? (Interested folks can search the combination of "Obama" and "Muslim" to get Fieldnotes' supposed joke and identify his likely friend.) Clever, but given how on-topic this thread is I don't think he'll do that just to protect your (or anyone else's) sorry butt.

Anyone have anything on topic to contribute to this thread (bearing in mind that it's an old and long thread already, so it might be hard to find ground it hasn't already covered)?...

Gerry

[Kelly Mc]

I have an idea. But its not about terms.

What if herpers that collect a specimen/s are encouraged to log them in an appropriation in a data base, or a created data base for the purpose of registering specimen/s collected along with stats and purposes.

It seems like a rational thing to do, and transparency is healthy.

[simus343]

From my understanding, the term herping translates to the process of finding reptiles and amphibians. This being said, field herping would be the process of finding reptiles and amphibians in the field. The nomenclature of the activity does not once mention anything about what people do with these reptiles. Contributing to the actual thread, not the off-topic rants -- I believe it is up to the individual field herper as what to do with his or her animals.

Collection of wild animals can be good or bad, depending on the reason, methods of collection, and amount taken from the wild. I am pro-conservation and work in habitat and ecosystem restoration, but there are times when it can be justified from a conservational point of view. To help collection be used and potentially regulated towards the betterment of the animals, I agree with what Kelly MC said that people should list for what reason the species of question if taken from the environment that it is found in.

[Kelly Mc]

Other than one poster, I am wondering why no one has an opinion on listing collected herps?

It couldnt be because it interfers with privacy, in a herping age that documents Everything - listing every newt in the data bases, capturing every detail of every trip, every pip of every egg we produce in pics for all the world to see.

So why not what we collect, as well? Why not share that beyond a circle of trusted, like minded friends?



There is "minimal effect on populations" so Collecting shmollecting, right?

Im just a boots on the ground reptile worker and herpetoculturist. I have made choices like everyone else. Perspectives change. Choices keep coming. I have no agenda but my own personal niche of harm reduction on my own often conflicted path.

There are alot of things we dismiss, or lump with vogue inflamatories, even though reality would exist with or without them.

[gbin]

Sorry, Kelly, I didn't check up on this thread for a couple of days or I'd have given you my thoughts on your suggestion already.

I could see requiring commercial collectors to log every animal they take from the wild (along with requiring them to pay a license fee that's high enough to cover the administrative costs for such a program), but it seems too onerous for both personal collectors and whatever bureaucracies would be responsible for tracking their take. I definitely like the idea of getting a real handle on demand, but I think more typical hunting licenses and hunter surveys are a perfectly fine way to do that with amateur hunters.

And it's at least in part because live herp collecting has no meaningful effect (far short of even a minimal one) on populations that I feel this way, by the way. Tracking every frog, salamander, lizard, and snake that every man, woman and child takes home from the field is simply not in any way justified for the management of the resource.

I also think trying to do that would make an awful lot of currently law-abiding citizens into law breakers, as many people would take animals home without realizing that they need to register them, and many more would just consider it too ridiculous to register them.

Gerry

[Kelly Mc]

No no Gerry I wasn't suggesting it be a law, or necessity in any way, but a part of our culture as herpers, a completely voluntary act, same as listing non taken herps on data bases.

It is as if there is a silent umm about it. Not so much from those who occasionally collect, but those who have expressed the "Im Sick of The Holier Than Thou Types"

If they really feel that way, than why not a "Why Sure!" Instead of : "..umm"

If a person feels completely cool about collecting a herp, why is it the only thing they don't present openly, like all the other stuff that is documented?

[Soopaman]

If a person feels completely cool about collecting a herp, why is it the only thing they don't present openly, like all the other stuff that is documented?

Possibly it's because of the "holier than thou" types that pass judgement upon, and subsequently shun those of us that choose to do legal and responsible collecting.

The group of people submitting to such a database will inevitably become the same group of people that never receive any help herping in areas outside of their home range, even when their true intent is just enjoyment/photography.

[Kelly Mc]

If a person feels completely cool about collecting a herp, why is it the only thing they don't present openly, like all the other stuff that is documented?

Possibly it's because of the "holier than thou" types that pass judgement upon, and subsequently shun those of us that choose to do legal and responsible collecting.

The group of people submitting to such a database will inevitably become the same group of people that never receive any help herping in areas outside of their home range, even when their true intent is just enjoyment/photography.

Yes, it is unrealistic to think that a demystification of the breach between the two types would occur.

I know a person who collects in an extremely measured way for his small and cherished Ca collection. He is one of the most moral persons I have ever met.

[gbin]

Yes, it is unrealistic to think that a demystification of the breach between the two types would occur.

Sorry, but I (of course) disagree. The existence of people here who make no secret of the fact that they collect and see nothing whatsoever wrong with it and also others here who make no secret of the fact that they don't collect but see nothing whatsoever wrong with it demonstrates that this gap can be bridged. As I see it, two things are required:

1) People who don't collect should nonetheless endeavor to keep open minds toward the practice (as they should on all subjects); they should make an effort not to allow their passion for the animals to keep them from employing reason and accepting evidence. Reason and evidence both abundantly tell us that collecting doesn't by definition harm the animals involved (animal welfare is an individual issue that can and should be dealt with) and certainly isn't harming the animals' populations (live herp harvest is simply a non-issue for the populations involved, regardless of what one might have been led to believe). It really comes down to personal preferences, then, and that's just not something to go to war over no matter how strong one's personal preferences might be.

2) People of good will, whether or not they collect, should stand up to bullying (on any basis) when they see it. People who collect (or are separated from ourselves by some other harmless difference of viewpoint) aren't demons and don't deserve to be treated as demons.

Long, diverse experience has shown me that even people who have been badly misled by their own passions can generally be educated enough to change paths, that an open mind can be cultivated even if one has been encouraged all of one's life to keep his/her mind shut and stay on the straight and narrow. And although it's actually harder, especially in a medium that favors anonymity (and thereby base impulses such as those behind bullying) as the internet does, people can be encouraged to stand up to bullying, too. I spend a fair amount of my time here working on these two issues and I recognize that others do so as well. Will we prevail? I don't know, but I retain enough hope to continue the effort - and I know the effort will really only be pointless when everyone decides it is such.

In contrast, we don't have to open everyone's mind, nor turn everyone into someone who will stand up against bullying on their own or others' behalf (let alone stop bullying itself). We just have to reach enough people, a critical mass, for union and united action to be achieved.

"Hope for the best while expecting the worst." It's really a fairly happy, meaningful way to live.

Gerry

[Kelly Mc]

Reason and evidence both abundantly tell us that collecting doesn't by definition harm the animals involved (animal welfare is an individual issue that can and should be dealt with)

Gerry

Ok Gerry, but How? How can a wild animals welfare once taken into captivity be an individual issue that can be dealt with?

Who is going to know it is breathing stale air in a plastic box and does not get fresh water that day, or the day after or the next and the next and the next even though there is crap in it, but its cool - as long as it gets changed the day it gets fed. Because we want to keep it in good shape - its a big female.

We mustn't Demonize . Ok.

We mustnt Trivialize either.

[Kelly Mc]

Gerry by Trivialize - I mean it the same way you do when you speak of demonizing persons.

There is an aspect of herp attitude that is a clear affectation. Of Edgy Coolness, and empathetic remoteness, like its somehow more "Jaded Pro" to take on that demeanor with snakes, as if they have no neural capacity or sensate realities.
It is fortified by the Terror of involved with herps persons being associated with "The Activists" Its almost tragic irony - simple concern for an animals quality of life shoved quickly underfoot because of keeping up appearances.

To me these affectations don't seem scientific or pro, it just seems willfully less observant. If new technologies and methods were developed that Proved the effects of suppressed sensate and neural functioning, the convenient intangibles of what constitutes welfare and suffering in an organism of limited outward expression - then what?

[Soopaman]

Gerry by Trivialize - I mean it the same way you do when you speak of demonizing persons.

There is an aspect of herp attitude that is a clear affectation. Of Edgy Coolness, and empathetic remoteness, like its somehow more "Jaded Pro" to take on that demeanor with snakes, as if they have no neural capacity or sensate realities.
It is fortified by the Terror of involved with herps persons being associated with "The Activists" Its almost tragic irony - simple concern for an animals quality of life shoved quickly underfoot because of keeping up appearances.

To me these affectations don't seem scientific or pro, it just seems willfully less observant. If new technologies and methods were developed that Proved the effects of suppressed sensate and neural functioning, the convenient intangibles of what constitutes welfare and suffering in an organism of limited outward expression - then what?

Kelly, sometimes, I have utterly no idea what in the hell you are saying.

[Kelly Mc]

Try.

There are tons of stuff I don't understand that people share.

Just try. If my wording is inadequate or somehow strange still try and see what you think.

[hellihooks]

Kelly said it's hard to tell what herps really feel about captivity, since they're 'hard to read' and perhaps one day new technologies will show we're mistreating them more than we might think, or care to admit. i LOVE the way she writes... jim

[gbin]

I believe I'm putting captive animal welfare into proper perspective, not trivializing it.

It seems to me that in truth there is only so much we can really do. We can establish standards for proper animal care, we can establish laws requiring that those standards be met, we can employ whatever ideas we can come up with to encourage private persons to meet those standards, we can even actually monitor commercial operations to ensure those standards are being met in that setting, and of course we can have meaningful penalties for private persons or commercial operations failing to meet those standards. It's just not realistic to think we can keep track of every animal anyone might ever keep for any reason. Heck, people in general care a whole lot more about people than they do about animals, and we're never going to track every child every parent ever has (and lots of child abuse/neglect in lots of forms is going on all around us all the time, you can be sure), either.

I don't know that I'd want us to, either, even if we ever had the willingness and ability. I don't know if "privacy" is quite the right word, but there's some basic principle to be upheld here that suggests government shouldn't be any more involved in people's personal lives than is really warranted. (Some would say this principle extends to commercial enterprises, too, but I don't.) And sorry, but the fact that some animals suffer due to poor captive care isn't anywhere near justification in my mind for (overre)acting as if all do. Animal suffering is unfortunate, to be sure, but even without human involvement of any kind virtually all wild animals suffer at various points in their lives - often terribly - and especially right before their deaths, and a great many of them die much earlier than their lives' potential, too. People suffer and die early and terribly, too. It's part of living and we're never going to end it. Even taking the most draconian measure imaginable toward animal keeping, disallowing it entirely (which a great many would disobey, anyway), won't end it.

I know that's really hard for some people to accept, and they (you) have my sympathy for your heightened sensitivity to the issue of animal suffering, but the bottom line remains that there's really no alternative to acceptance. We can make strides - even great strides - yet in improving animal welfare, and I'm all for that. I just don't see the pursuit of a log of every animal kept in captivity ever going anywhere or accomplishing anything (except to push an awful lot of animal keeping underground).

I love your passion, though, Kelly, even when it carries you away. (I'd include the "thumb's up" or "clicking mugs" emoticon here, but given the gravity of the discussion it would seem, well... trivial.)

Gerry

[gbin]

Kelly said it's hard to tell what herps really feel about captivity, since they're 'hard to read' and perhaps one day new technologies will show we're mistreating them more than we might think, or care to admit. i LOVE the way she writes... jim

Oh, right, I understood that and meant to comment on it in what I just posted but somehow failed to do so. Good catch, Jim.

Here's the thing about those studies that are being done nowadays to tease out what animals feel in much fuller detail than we now have. If they lead to practical changes in what we do with animals to reduce their suffering while still making use of them then I'm all for it. But neither I nor the vast majority of humanity is ever going to make eliminating their suffering our #1 priority. Most of us are still going to eat animals, and we're still going to handle them as food in ways we find feasible - and even just tasty - too. An awful lot of us are going to continue keeping animals for other than food purposes, as well. So be it. Animal suffering would continue even if humans disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow. It's part of life.

You know, to help people keep perspective on this issue, maybe some folks should do a few comparative studies, e.g. look at what a cow feels being kept for however many years of its life in a pen and then butchered by an explosive blow to its head for its meat and skin by people, versus what an antelope feels living free on the veldt and then being chased, hamstrung, disemboweled and eaten alive by hyenas. Of course, even if we had a perfect understanding of animals' sensations and responses to sensations we'd still lack the ability to interpret those things just as they did. The best we can do is interpret them as humans trying to imagine being animals (and the worst we can do is interpret them as humans imagining the animals are also humans, which far too many people do).

Gerry

[hellihooks]

Perhaps it's time I get started on my 'Herping Ethics' book... which I plan on being very comprehensive, covering every aspect of every activity associated with herps. It won't however, be 'My Opinions'... I plan to solicit a concordance of opinion from every branch/species of herping as to what they agree (among themselves) what they consider 'proper' and justifiable.

As Gerry says... none of it can (or possibly should) be 'actionable'... but... might get a few folks thinking bout what and how they do things... which is always good... jim

So yeah.... see ya next year....

[Kelly Mc]

Gerry I meant Trivialize in general. Not toward you.

I have not had a soft life, am not a soft person. Any heightened sensitivity i have just makes me want to work. Its been interesting typing it out these past few years and having someone like you, and Jim far away speak back to me.

[Kelly Mc]

I did want to say that only through examination of the specific species pathways of perception could we ever learn anything accurately about it.

I do not think the perceptions of humans can be willingly seperated from our own morphologies.

I actually think that is one of the things we have lost, and that other animals, are skillful at. Especially the larger mammal carnivores. Good for hunting.

I dont bleed for the world or any of that crap. And mostly i cant stand people. But I like animals and think they deserve a little class in the way we treat them.

Even good undertakers treat the dead with dignity.

[gbin]

Gerry I meant Trivialize in general. Not toward you.

I have not had a soft life, am not a soft person. Any heightened sensitivity i have just makes me want to work. Its been interesting typing it out these past few years and having someone like you, and Jim far away speak back to me.

I believe I understand, Kelly, but I must admit I'm not entirely sure. I wanted to clarify my stance for everyone, anyway, as I could readily see some people taking me as trivializing animal welfare concerns in the conventional sense.

Likewise to be clear: I didn't mean heightened sensitivity as in "The Princess and the Pea" , but rather as in particularly empathetic - and yup, I knew it was particularly for animals. As I said, I greatly admire your passion for their well-being. Don't forget that people are just especially clever/destructive animals (however much some might want to deny it), though.

And in case I never mentioned it to you before, some of my earliest discussions with my wife (then just a friend) were about whether people weren't giving enough thought to the (un)happiness of zoo animals. I guess I was more persuasive to her than the reverse, as she eventually joined me in the zoo world. She's probably still more closely aligned with your views on such matters than with my own, though. Part of what makes life interesting, I reckon.

It seems to me that people vary a lot in how adept they are at thinking in someone or something else's skin. When folks exhibit extremes, though, it seems that they're almost always extremely bad at it.

Gerry

[hellihooks]

this discussion bleeds over into one of my favorite philosophical (and, as of yet, unresolved) questions... Moral standing. What creatures rate it, and 'WHY'. We humans are abstract creatures in a 'material realm' and tend to force our abstract purview on all we survey. I (in my efforts on the subject) use/scale the possibility of possession of an abstract ability, as one criterion in an a amalgamate of criteria I combine to produce 'Moral Standing' scores for every lifeform on planet Earth. In my treatment... people do NOT top the list...which makes me think I'm on the right track... jim

Edit... interestingly enough (IMO) more and more 'animals' are being credited with a possession of some degree of 'abstract abilities' all the time... to the point where possession of such can no longer be used as a defining characteristic of Man/Great Apes.

[Verhoodled]

Threads like this make me cast the first Yea towards nuking these forums and chapters. A simple question devolves into political bipartisan slander. An abortion of the concept of free an open discussion to facilitate the pursuit of enlightened discussion.

Everybody owes the thread originator an apology. There is a higher road this dicussion could have taken.

Mighty ironic to see those who debate taxonomy to so quickly ascribe political labels upon others.

Check political attitudes at the door, folks. Nobody is as narrowminded as they force themselves to be. Including, precisely, you. Unless, of course, this offends you. In which case, have a cookie!

For the forums: keep it on topic. Keep the personal tartuffery to PMs.

I say this as a NAFHA heretic who believes only one forum and precious few posts are needed, given how much bile and baseless stupidity gets cast about as evidenced by this thread. The shared passion for herps and the discussion thereof gets so comically too confusing for some of you. What unites us ceases to be what binds us as it devolves into the above stupidity.

And only do it, if only just to humor me for the next 4-5 months. I'm outta the NAFHA after that. I won't return. Don't hate the place. Just have too much business elsewhere. Promise & kiss on the nose, pumpkin. At which point you're welcome to be as politically stupid and infantile as you need be with each other, in order to impress exactly no one still. External agencies searching for credibility included.

To whomever this note pisses off: thanks. You're precisely the target I'm aiming at. Nice to know I'm zeroed in and pissing off the right person. To those more interested in Reason, Herps, and Enlightenment: Thanks. We all get passionate and off-key from time to time, myself included (truly!), and we can always pause, then refocus with those interested in the free exchange of ideas.

Which is how your father and I met Adrian.

Love and kisses from home.
Monty

[gbin]

Thanks for your kindness and clarity, Monty. This is a pretty emotionally charged issue for some folks, though, so I expected it would get contentious when I started the thread. ("Hope for the best but expect the worst," I always say.) Indeed, that emotionality is the root of the problem, as I see it; all too often people ignore rational argument and evidence because they prefer to unthinkingly follow where their hearts want to lead them. Passion can be a wonderful thing to bring to bear on a subject, but it can also be wastefully or even destructively misdirected all too easily.

Gerry

[luv_the_smellof_musk]

Unless it's an unusual circumstance, I don't see why anyone on this forum should be upset about a legally collected animal. If collecting that one animal did the population in, don't you think there were other factors that would have finished the job to begin with? Because there's literally nothing that can be done about the growing billions of people around the world causing mass extinctions, a lot of focus and indeed hocus pocus goes on about some guy collecting an snake or two, as if it would change something had that not happened. The energy being spent trying to prevent an individual snake from being collected would be better spent preserving large blocks of habitat and educating the public why we shouldn't let the human population continue to grow out of control.

[Aaron]

To be a real field herper you need to love herps and live in a field, not a house.

[Kelly Mc]

Unless it's an unusual circumstance, I don't see why anyone on this forum should be upset about a legally collected animal. If collecting that one animal did the population in, don't you think there were other factors that would have finished the job to begin with? Because there's literally nothing that can be done about the growing billions of people around the world causing mass extinctions, a lot of focus and indeed hocus pocus goes on about some guy collecting an snake or two, as if it would change something had that not happened. The energy being spent trying to prevent an individual snake from being collected would be better spent preserving large blocks of habitat and educating the public why we shouldn't let the human population continue to grow out of control.

I don't see anyone saying that. I know a few people who are deeply involved in California fauna and field herping, whom also maintain an astutely attended wild caught collection with museum level quality.

Rather, a cavalier attitude projected publicly about One Animal, cannot help but create a picture of our regard for them all, as a whole.

[jonathan]

That's a joke right

Obama was raised in a Muslim family, his name alone, Barack Hussein Obama is named after Muslim text, so forth and so on. From the mouth of Obama himself, "raised Muslim."

He is a serial liar and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is a safe bet.

As i said, its not about his religion, its about him being a liar.

hahahahahahahhahahahaha

I don't want to divert it again, but I didn't see this before and I can't help LOL at it.

Will, for your education:

Everyone who raised/sired Obama was from Kansas, Hawaii, Kenya or Indonesia. NONE of those places have a notable Muslim Brotherhood presence.

Obama was mostly raised by his maternal grandparents, who were Christians. His dad was an atheist and his mom was an agnostic/Christian. There was a short period from 6-10 where Obama was raised by his mom and his Muslim Indonesian stepfather. That was the ONLY time in his life there were any Muslims in his family. Since Obama went to St. Francis of Assisi Catholic school for 2 of those years and a public school the other 1.5 years, it's a safe bet that Obama's stepdad wasn't a very strict Muslim.

Obama was named after his father...who was an atheist. The only reason the name sounds "Muslim" is because his grandfather was Muslim...but his great-grandfather was Christian, FWIW.

So, please tell me what Obama's lie was again?


p.s. - My last name is Hakim...sounds pretty Muslim...does that make me Muslim too?

[Kelly Mc]

Perhaps the mistrust and suspicion of Obama being a secret member of a scary religion has more to do with the fact that he's so tall, dark and handsome.

[gbin]

Perhaps the mistrust and suspicion of Obama being a secret member of a scary religion has more to do with the fact that he's so tall, dark and handsome.

I reckon it's one of those three, anyway...

Just a reminder of what this thread is actually about:

Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collecting?

That seems to be the opinion of at least a few frequent posters here, who appear to be using pretty much any thread in which they can find a way to promote the idea to wage an undeclared campaign on its behalf. A couple of people have even been acting as if the meaning of the term has already changed, i.e. it's a done deal, so live with it. When called on this, they then argue that there's some kind of groundswell of support for the idea ("Hey, it's not that I'm necessarily even for the change myself, but so many people have obviously already adopted it! What can anyone do but accept it?") - though it's obvious they're the ones bringing it up again, and again, and again... Rather than any kind of genuine popular movement, it looks to me as if it’s instead simply an idea that one particular faction of field herpers, namely those who disapprove of animal collecting in general enough that they don't want what they do to be associated with it, has grown inordinately fond of and is eager to push hard for no matter what anyone else might think.

Because I don't like hijacking others' threads to discuss/debate this kind of thing, and because I believe we'll get a more open, honest look at the situation by dedicating a thread to it, I thought I'd ask everyone here...

Should the term “field herping” exclude animal collecting?

I say definitely not. What makes sense to me:

• Field herping = having to do with herps in the field
  
  Herpetoculture = having to do with herps in captivity
  
  Herping = having do with herps wherever (so combining field herping and herpetoculture)

Besides being nonsensical, pretending that this or that person isn’t a field herper because of what s/he chooses to collect at the end of a given hunt (be it memories, photographs, notes on personal observations or other data, or animals) seems incredibly divisive to me, when all of us should be looking for ways to unite rather than further divide our community.

That’s what I think, anyway. What say you?...

(Mind you, I haven’t opened this thread to discuss/debate the pros and cons of animal collecting. If folks feel it’s time for yet another lengthy exchange on that subject, I’d rather you started your own thread for it. I’d like for this thread to focus simply on whether “field herping” should exclude animal collecting.)

Thanks!

Gerry

I'm happy to say that since I started this thread way back when (almost three years ago, now - how about that!) I haven't seen nearly as many attempts by folks to assert on one or another of the message boards here that if you collected an animal on an excursion then you weren't field herping, or if you collect animals then you aren't a field herper. Those folks are still around, though, and even if they're not expressing it as much anymore I suspect that viewpoint is still around, too. As when I began this thread, I'd be as happy to hear from them as I would to hear from folks who feel otherwise. My whole point with this thread was to get a feel for what more than just a few particularly vociferous people thought. It's kind of odd that few if any of them have been willing to speak up plainly here where the subject is actually the topic of the thread (as opposed to the many threads where they injected it to the threads' derailment), whereas plenty of other people have been willing to say that they think field herping certainly can and often does include animal collecting, whether or not they themselves ever collect anything.

How about it, folks? Surely some of you haven't yet expressed your view on this subject in this thread (where it actually belongs). Let's hear from you!

Gerry

[Fundad]

[hellihooks]

Just a reminder of what this thread is actually about:
Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collecting?

That seems to be the opinion of at least a few frequent posters here, who appear to be using pretty much any thread in which they can find a way to promote the idea to wage an undeclared campaign on its behalf. A couple of people have even been acting as if the meaning of the term has already changed, i.e. it's a done deal, so live with it. When called on this, they then argue that there's some kind of groundswell of support for the idea ("Hey, it's not that I'm necessarily even for the change myself, but so many people have obviously already adopted it! What can anyone do but accept it?") - though it's obvious they're the ones bringing it up again, and again, and again... Rather than any kind of genuine popular movement, it looks to me as if it’s instead simply an idea that one particular faction of field herpers, namely those who disapprove of animal collecting in general enough that they don't want what they do to be associated with it, has grown inordinately fond of and is eager to push hard for no matter what anyone else might think. Gerry

What this whole thread was about was you proving that I was on some sort of mission to change the meaning of the term 'Field Herping' to exclude any collecting. You refused to accept me at my word, that ALL I was saying was that sometimes the meanings of words change.

It's kind of odd that few if any of them have been willing to speak up plainly here where the subject is actually the topic of the thread (as opposed to the many threads where they injected it to the threads' derailment), whereas plenty of other people have been willing to say that they think field herping certainly can and often does include animal collecting, whether or not they themselves ever collect anything.
Gerry

It because no one (including me) has ever thought or said that... it's ONLY YOU... insisting that that's what I was 'pushing' who has EVER suggested it. Just because people stop talking to you does not mean you won the argument (despite what you might think) it just means they don't want to talk to you.

For the record, this whole thread was an exercise in pettyness, on your part. http://vimeo.com/49536601#t=11

[gbin]

What this whole thread was about was you proving that I was on some sort of mission to change the meaning of the term 'Field Herping' to exclude any collecting. You refused to accept me at my word, that ALL I was saying was that sometimes the meanings of words change.

. . .

It because no one (including me) has ever thought or said that... it's ONLY YOU... insisting that that's what I was 'pushing' who has EVER suggested it. Just because people stop talking to you does not mean you won the argument (despite what you might think) it just means they don't want to talk to you.

For the record, this whole thread was an exercise in pettyness, on your part. http://vimeo.com/49536601#t=11

Whatever you say, Jim...

For those who are a bit less narcissistic:

... My whole point with this thread was to get a feel for what more than just a few particularly vociferous people thought...

How about it, folks? Surely some of you haven't yet expressed your view on this subject in this thread (where it actually belongs). Let's hear from you!

Gerry

[hellihooks]

What this whole thread was about was you proving that I was on some sort of mission to change the meaning of the term 'Field Herping' to exclude any collecting. You refused to accept me at my word, that ALL I was saying was that sometimes the meanings of words change.

. . .

It because no one (including me) has ever thought or said that... it's ONLY YOU... insisting that that's what I was 'pushing' who has EVER suggested it. Just because people stop talking to you does not mean you won the argument (despite what you might think) it just means they don't want to talk to you.

For the record, this whole thread was an exercise in pettyness, on your part. http://vimeo.com/49536601#t=11

Whatever you say, Jim...

For those who are a bit less narcissistic:

... My whole point with this thread was to get a feel for what more than just a few particularly vociferous people thought...

How about it, folks? Surely some of you haven't yet expressed your view on this subject in this thread (where it actually belongs). Let's hear from you!

Gerry

And right away... with the name calling. No one but you has ever imagined that the meaning of 'fieldherping' was under attack... no one (I've heard of) thinks the name NEEDS changing... it was a stupid topic 3 yrs ago... it's stupid now. Change the title to "Who wants to argue... about NOTHING" Good luck finding any takers... I sure as hell won't be one. I wanna call it 'Herpapaloosing'

[gbin]

And right away... with the name calling. No one but you has ever imagined that the meaning of 'fieldherping' was under attack... no one (I've heard of) thinks the name NEEDS changing... it was a stupid topic 3 yrs ago... it's stupid now. Change the title to "Who wants to argue... about NOTHING" Good luck finding any takers... I sure as hell won't be one. I wanna call it 'Herpapaloosing'

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, Jim...

Everyone else, please don't let one particularly vociferous person deter you from contributing to this thread if you would like to do so. If you wouldn't, though, and the thread drifts back down on the board, then that's fine with me, too. I'm simply not inclined to let one person chase others away from the thread against their wishes just because he has deluded himself into thinking it's all about him and in any event finds his past participation in it personally embarrassing.

Gerry

[Fundad]

[regalringneck]

... good lord, long after this silly thread shoulda died & here i am typing @ it :p

fwiw; i agree w/ mr. helleri-hooks & his recent post; i too thought the title (& many of the subsequent posts) was/were absurd, & thus this huge pyggpost was a turnoff for me.
This last page though has some interesting stuff; kelly as usual hits some interesting chords w/ her complex thinking & choice of language, monty & helleri have some interesting txts too. as is often the case, i find myself in near complete agreement w/ dr b.'s analysis & discussion of the subtopic; animal welfare.
fundad's video of bush & osama (bama?) skipping 2gether tho was the best & dang i wish i knew how to capture those wee videos for future emale inclusions.
I think the OP owes us a tabulation what all this pounding of the keyboards means, i suggest the use of scaled venn-diagram ...

[gbin]

Hey, I was happy to let this thread drift down the board, as it seemed everyone who wanted to contribute to it had done so. People other than I keep bringing it back, most recently Brian and Jim, Brian apparently just to stir things up and Jim obligingly to indulge his narcissistic outrage over it.

For what it's worth, though, I think it was indeed a meaningful thread from the beginning. But then I meant it from the start as just what I said it was rather than as Jim has repeatedly and delusionally misrepresented it: I wanted to try to obtain the views of more than just a few particularly vociferous people on whether folks here thought a person wasn't a field herper/wasn't field herping if s/he collected animals. If there's any silliness involved, in my view it stems from such thinking, but such thinking was indeed being expressed with some frequency on these message boards at the time I started this thread, so I did indeed want to know what most people (rather than just the loudest people) thought about it. People were and are welcome to view the topic or the thread dedicated to it however they wish, I just wanted to know the views of those willing to share them.

I can't help but note, too, that since I started this thread, the folks who were pushing the idea that field herping by definition meant no animal collecting have done a lot less of it. That might be a coincidence, but I'm not so sure. I offered to tabulate the results here once but no one was interested, and I have to agree that there seemed little point given that even the folks who'd been pushing the aforementioned idea seemed unwilling to own up to it here, and everyone else pretty much said "Of course collecting doesn't mean someone isn't a field herper/isn't field herping." And I repeat, I didn't start this thread to argue over anyone's view, but just to survey everyone's views (everyone who was willing to participate, that is); if anyone felt/feels they couldn't/can't express themselves here honestly, that's not due to my lack of effort to give them a thread in which to do so. All that personal crap was brought here by other people and I believe I've done a reasonable job of trying to look past it and keep the thread on topic. And whoever is free to hold a different view than me about that, too. (I'm sure Jim does, at the very least. )

Finally, as I said, though I can readily agree that it might be best for this thread to finally drift down the board once and for all, as its author I'm not inclined to let anyone chase it off the board, be it because he narcissistically believes it's all some kind of veiled message to him or for any other reason. If people want to express a view on the topic, then I want them to feel free to do so. Indeed, I am interested in them doing so - whether they share my particular view or not.

So, John, do you care to express whatever thoughts you might have on the topic? That's really all this thread is for, and all I care about reading in it.

Gerry

[Soopaman]

Gerry, you say you are more than happy to let the thread die and drift down the board, yet you keep replying to it and then asking for more opinions.

My only opinion, at this point, is that you're the vociferous twat we should be ignoring on this thread and this board. You keep stirring up arguments and pretending to be misunderstood. Sometimes I agree with your point but you're always a jackass about it. I'm beginning to think you do this crap because you have no other form of entertainment. Maybe you'd be better suited to live with the trolls on reddit and 4chan.

I hate to be so blunt but no one else seems to be able to say it.

[hellihooks]

I'm not going to go through all the effort to dig up the previous Thread, that directly lead to this one,(What is the meaning of the term Fieldherping?)(?) where Scott had to intervene in the big 'flameout' with Gerry accusing me of 'weasling' and me calling him 'badger boy' (one of the very few times I've ever called someone a name, at these forums). To my eternal dismay...I'm sure plenty of people remember it, and I'm forever embarrassed I allowed Gerry to drag me down to his level.

In that thread, I suggested that with the advent and growing popularity of 'citizen science', there might come a time when more people equate data-collection to fieldherping (think I used Robert/Nicholas Hess, as examples) rather than the more traditional all-inclusive definition. I stand by that.

From that, Gerry extrapolates/imagines some covert insidious plot to change the meaning of the term 'fieldherping' to exclude collection. To stay directly on point, I ask Gerry to name one person, at any time, anywhere, who has ever said that. And... like Gerry, invite anyone who thinks that to (by all means) stand up and be counted.

If no other derailments are in the offing, I suspect there will be no more replies (cept for Gerry's last insulting words of course) and this stupid congenitally-defective miscreant of a post will finally die the death it so richly deserves.

Given no more replies, Occam's razor will suggest either 1) Jim was right, and this is a stupid question, not deserving an answer, (which BTW is, and always was 'NO') or 2) Jim is right and no one wants to talk to Gerry (I'd go with both...but that's just me )

but hey... look on the bright side Gerry... this gives you yet another chance to ignore logic and common sense and spend the NEXT three years blaming the death of this thread on me. Be my guest... I stand by Mercy-Killings, as Moral. (next derailment??)

[regalringneck]

... i dunnoe if i can be any more clear dr. b., but i will type that i do wish the cheap shots would hold their fire ... but hey a ? i've always wrestled w/ & suspect alot of others do too ... is; does field herping always have to be done in the field, or can it be done in the stream ....

[gbin]

If folks here have come to know me at all, then they should probably realize that I say what I mean and I mean what I say. And as I've said, I'm fine with this thread drifting down the message board if it's because everyone who cares to contribute to its topic has done so - accordingly, I'm not the one who recently revived it after it had lain dormant for some time - but I'm not about to see it chased off the board because of someone's narcissistic delusions about it or any threads that might have preceded it, nor because someone simply thinks it presents a good opportunity to stage personal attacks or otherwise stir up trouble. This thread isn't about me or anyone else no matter how shrilly certain individuals might whine otherwise, and it isn't about arguing about our respective views of its title question, either. Its actual purpose remains what it has been from the very start: to simply hear the views of people here at FHF on the question of whether the term "field herping" should exclude animal collecting (i.e. whether someone shouldn't be considered a field herper or his/her activity field herping if s/he collects). That's it.

Try to trigger a flame war with me to get people to abandon the thread or Scott to delete it and I won't indulge you. Manage to turn the flames up high enough all on your own to get Scott to delete it and I'll simply start another thread on the exact same subject. I believe such a thread has had and still has a purpose here, as I mentioned, and even if it didn't, I'm not about to give in to attempts at cyber-bullying.

So have fun playing your games (or indulging your neuroses, as the case may be), those of you who are so inclined. I reckon I'll still be here when you tire of such. And for everyone who cares to comment on it, the question will still remain, too:

Should the term "field herping" exclude animal collecting?

Gerry

[Aaron]

Maybe this shoulda been a poll instead?

[gbin]

Three years ago(!) when I started this thread I thought about simply posting a poll, Aaron, but I decided against that because I wanted people to be able to express their own views rather than simply choosing from among whatever views I offered them. Polls are easier, but open surveys such as this are more informing. When people choose to use them to inform, of course...

Gerry

[Kelly Mc]

Gerry what do you think of maybe the term Field Herping could mean inclusive of those herpers that occasionally collect, but as a general and encompassing term, as one who say, photographs herps and or enters lists per data base etc, but whom also collects on occasion from the field.

And perhaps a delineating term for those whom are not or never collect, and prefer that to be clear could use a term like Photo-Herping or Docu-Herping..

I know there is dismay at what stands as division among the herping community but the plain fact is that there are strong idealogical differences in herp related pursuits that run bone deep.

I could not think of any other terms other than Photo-Herp and Docu-Herp, but that at least reflects the idea. I think folks that focus strictly on photography and /or documentation, or are very hands off, have the right to that clarity, just as much as the occasional collector has their right to not be unjustly criticized. There has been alot of vocal support to those guys not being scapegoated but the other guys who are adamant non collectors deserve support too.

Well those were some plain thoughts on your question, curious to hear what you think.


Kel

[gbin]

Kelly, I'm just one person, but I think (and others have voiced similar thoughts in this thread):

- It doesn't make any sense to try to limit the term "field herping" in ways that deny both its past and present meaning. Having been around long enough to observe the etymology firsthand, my understanding is that "field herping" comes from "herping,' which comes from "herp hunting." The earlier revision was simply an abbreviation, and the later revision was a clarification of that abbreviation (as some people in herpetoculture also describe their activities as herping, i.e. "deli-cup herping"); I suspect some folks preferred to go with "field herping" rather than back to "herp hunting" because they mistakenly think that hunting by definition means (in one way or another) harvesting the animals found, or maybe just because they like to emphasize the fact that it occurs in the field (as opposed to in captivity). In any event, "field herping" perfectly describes the pursuit in general regardless of how a specific pursuit ends; photographers have as much right to the term as do collectors, who have as much right to the term as do anecdotal observation/data recorders, etc. I suspect enough people are always going to believe this to be the case - or close enough to always to matter to this crowd, anyway - that trying to force its meaning to change is nonsensical.

- Trying to limit the term also does our community a real disservice in that it emphasizes the divisions among us. The plain fact that I see is that our ideological differences are only as strong as we insist upon making them. We can choose to focus on things that bring us together or split us apart. I will continue to choose the former rather than the latter, and I remain hopeful that others will eventually come to that choice if they aren't already there, as well. Having the herp community as united as possible is clearly best for the community and the herps which are the basis for the community.

I reckon that any folks who are determined to have a term that excludes collection - or limits it to "occasionally" (good luck defining that ) - and instead favors some other possible ends for a herp hunt (photography, observation, whatever) would have better luck if they came up with a new term. "Herp watching" would seem the easiest choice, as it emphasizes the hands-off aspect of what they're doing. Or they could split into any number of factions to satisfy their desire to be set apart, e.g. "herp photography," "herp observation," etc. But I doubt they'll get much traction with any of these, and I personally think that's a good thing.

Regardless, trying to force a change in an existing term seems to me a foolish endeavor. Language most certainly does evolve, but along its own path and at its own rate. There is ample historical precedent demonstrating that common usage must lead the way, and that conscious campaigns to direct common usage fail even when they seem to have a lot of thoughtful support behind them. I predict that if "field herping" ever does come to exclude collection in actual common usage (notwithstanding how some have tried to portray this already being the case), that will only happen when collection has not been allowed for some time, so no one any longer has collection in mind. I hope that never comes to pass, but again, I'm just one person.

To all: I asked whether people here think the term "field herping" should exclude animal collecting, and that in and of itself is the purpose of this thread. It's understandable for folks to offer not only their views but also their rationales for their views, and that's what I've tried to do here in response to Kelly's query. But I ask that we refrain - in this thread, at least - from getting into a bunch of arguments with each other over our views (let alone over purely personal nonsense, as has occasionally erupted). I know it's tough not to argue, for me most definitely not least of all , but can't we once in a while just have a thread where we express our views and refrain from jumping all over others for theirs? I'm not saying we can't disagree, but for a change why don't we just say "I don't agree. Here's how I see things..." and let it go at that? This has all along been and remains my hope for this thread, anyway.

Gerry

[Kelly Mc]

Personally I have never felt much affinity for the term Herping at all.

It doesnt have a good phonic taste nor does it evoke a sharp shape of action, the two things that chimera in a great slang handle.

I am not disagreeing with your statement of "ideological differences being only as strong as we insist on making them.." But I can say they are pretty strong, to the point of some activities and motives being found to be almost nauseating to one, by other.

People will Insist on not being associated with endeavors that are in conflict with their sensibilities and usually hold their view more meaningful than than any theoretical unification of a hobby.

[gbin]

That's the thing, Kel. This particular ideological difference of opinion might be strong in this person but not that person, and that particular ideological difference of opinion might be strong in that person but not this person, demonstrating that it is indeed both variable and optional (even if some don't feel it to be so). And when people allow one or another strong ideological difference to get in the way of uniting with others with whom they've actually a lot in common and where such a union could do a lot of good, well, I'm going to be in favor of putting aside that difference pretty much every time. You and I don't agree on absolutely everything, maybe there are even one or two things that each of us intensely dislikes in the other's views, but that's probably true about any two humans if you look at them hard enough. We shouldn't let it stop us from working together on common goals, maybe even being friends.

That's how I see things, anyway.

Gerry