5 ms·

According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine protection a

According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine protection and water quality policies.' Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action. The public response seems purely reactionary. The comments strengthen this argument with silly quips here and there like, 'we should just drop some cats', etc.. Very little rational discussion by the press and public. As opposed to Fish and Wildlife who is taking this very seriously. Armchair experts.

wurst_case 7y ago
Yeah, because those guys never get it wrong. /s It is always okay for citizens of this country to criticize the actions of our government. It is healthy to be skeptical of programs.
- wil421 7y ago
  What about times they get something right? It’s a thankless job I hope to never have.
  - rosser 7y ago
    I have an uncle who's a retired Game, Fish, and Parks warden from Alaska. From his stories, at least, it's far less thankless a job than your comment would make it out. To be sure, he caught no end of flak and abuse from people who were over their quota, or fishing in the wrong place, or poaching, or whatever, but — at least according to his telling — the majority of citizens he interacted with exhibited many-to-most of the "good" traits we associate with "outdoorsman" and such.
    - wil421 7y ago
      Good, next time I’m fishing and get approached by the DNR I’ll be sure to thank them. Fishing is weird in some ways. My trout stamp directly funds the stocking and protection of trout waters in Georgia. The parking passes I use for fishing and kayaking locally directly fund those parks and rivers. The same in Florida, my saltwater license is funding the restocking of Redfish and other species that were wiped out by Red Tide and hurricanes last year. For hunting and fishing you have a vested interest in the wildlife. I’ve seen hunters on TV call the DNR on themselves because they are that dedicated to the outdoors.
- benchaney 7y ago
  Are you suggesting that because experts are imperfect, we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously? That makes no sense. Please clarify.
  - rosser 7y ago
    > It is healthy to be skeptical does not imply > we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously
    - weberc2 7y ago
      It's implied by the context of the thread. The subject is "ignorant reactionaries". No one has challenged that characterization, so we're left assuming that the commenter is arguing that "ignorant reactionaries" are equivalent to "healthy skeptics".
      - rosser 7y ago
        > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. [0] It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        hombre_fatal 7y ago
        The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark. I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.
    - 7y ago
mr_tristan 7y ago
Unfortunately there's a warranted general skepticism for any US federal agency, due to the people at the top. The current cabinet secretary was a former oil lobbyist, and seems to have put significant restrictions the scope of environmental impact research via order (https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059865 https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059865). It's hard to get a sense of perspective, because everything is so politicized. But it is what it is, and I think questioning and skepticism is healthy, given the environment.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  Either the skepticism leads to new knowledge and better policy alternatives; or it just sounds reactionary or partisan.
empath75 7y ago
I'm in favor of protecting animal species from human beings, but i'm not entirely sure we should be in the business of choosing winners and losers in nature. Invasive animals are still animals and those mice didn't do anything wrong by going there. Let them do what they do.
rjf72 7y ago
One philosophical question. This action is one that's going to be controversial. You are planning on dropping 1.5 tons of rat poison on a group of islands that has extensive native wildlife and is not especially far from human inhabited lands. Before the public has their say, should the default decision be 'we do this' or 'we don't do this'? In other words, if the response from the public is mixed - what ought be the default decision? I don't think there's a right answer here, but differences in opinion on this topic might explain why people see this very differently. One group might see the failure of people to create compelling technical arguments that the experts did not consider to be sufficient reason to carry forward. Another group might see the government's failure to convince the public of the plan's validity to be sufficient reason to scrap it. I also wouldn't extrapolate this to things that are inappropriate. For instance when major loss of life or other such issues are in play, there's little time or relevance to see what the public has to say. So I'm speaking only of cases such as this where the consequences for inaction are relatively low.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
I find it highly amusing that in response to your "well clearly the government experts who aren't emotionally involved in the local situation think this is the best thing to do" response everyone starts questioning the judgement of the government. Were this nearly any other topic most people on HN would be singing its praises and extolling about how government is all that is good in the world. Cognitive dissonance much. I don't care which side you pick, both have some merit, just pick one and stick to it.
grecy 7y ago
> According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine protection and water quality policies.' Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action. And how many years ago would they have recommended dumping Roundup in places to fix a weed problem? How many years ago did doctors actually recommend smoking cigarettes to help with breathing problems? How many years ago did we intentionally spray ourselves with DDT? All of those things were done on the advice of 'Experts who make this their livelihood'. But now we've learned better, and that advice is now seen to be utterly terrible. The very name of the thing, 'rat poison' should give us a fairly good understanding of what we will learn in the coming decades about how short-sighted of a suggestion this is, just like all the others I have listed.
- trixie_ 7y ago
  Armchair expert case in point. If you think you know a better way, then do the work and propose a rational solution to the problem at hand. Saying, 'experts have been wrong therefore my opinion is just as valid' is a poor contribution to a rational discussion.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - grecy 7y ago
    As with all the examples I listed, doing nothing would be better than pouring on massive amounts of toxic chemicals. I'm not saying "experts have been wrong, therefore listen to me", I'm saying "Using toxic chemicals to fix a problem is often a very, very bad idea".
    - trixie_ 7y ago
      I wonder if you were in a room with Fish and Wildlife employees, how long it would take you to realize that you are way out of your depth.

wurst_case 7y ago

Yeah, because those guys never get it wrong. /s It is always okay for citizens of this country to criticize the actions of our government. It is healthy to be skeptical of programs.

wil421 7y ago
What about times they get something right? It’s a thankless job I hope to never have.
- rosser 7y ago
  I have an uncle who's a retired Game, Fish, and Parks warden from Alaska. From his stories, at least, it's far less thankless a job than your comment would make it out. To be sure, he caught no end of flak and abuse from people who were over their quota, or fishing in the wrong place, or poaching, or whatever, but — at least according to his telling — the majority of citizens he interacted with exhibited many-to-most of the "good" traits we associate with "outdoorsman" and such.
  - wil421 7y ago
    Good, next time I’m fishing and get approached by the DNR I’ll be sure to thank them. Fishing is weird in some ways. My trout stamp directly funds the stocking and protection of trout waters in Georgia. The parking passes I use for fishing and kayaking locally directly fund those parks and rivers. The same in Florida, my saltwater license is funding the restocking of Redfish and other species that were wiped out by Red Tide and hurricanes last year. For hunting and fishing you have a vested interest in the wildlife. I’ve seen hunters on TV call the DNR on themselves because they are that dedicated to the outdoors.
benchaney 7y ago
Are you suggesting that because experts are imperfect, we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously? That makes no sense. Please clarify.
- rosser 7y ago
  > It is healthy to be skeptical does not imply > we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously
  - weberc2 7y ago
    It's implied by the context of the thread. The subject is "ignorant reactionaries". No one has challenged that characterization, so we're left assuming that the commenter is arguing that "ignorant reactionaries" are equivalent to "healthy skeptics".
    - rosser 7y ago
      > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. [0] It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - hombre_fatal 7y ago
        The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark. I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.
  - 7y ago

mr_tristan 7y ago

Unfortunately there's a warranted general skepticism for any US federal agency, due to the people at the top. The current cabinet secretary was a former oil lobbyist, and seems to have put significant restrictions the scope of environmental impact research via order (https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059865 https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059865). It's hard to get a sense of perspective, because everything is so politicized. But it is what it is, and I think questioning and skepticism is healthy, given the environment.

jeffdavis 7y ago
Either the skepticism leads to new knowledge and better policy alternatives; or it just sounds reactionary or partisan.

empath75 7y ago

I'm in favor of protecting animal species from human beings, but i'm not entirely sure we should be in the business of choosing winners and losers in nature. Invasive animals are still animals and those mice didn't do anything wrong by going there. Let them do what they do.

rjf72 7y ago

One philosophical question. This action is one that's going to be controversial. You are planning on dropping 1.5 tons of rat poison on a group of islands that has extensive native wildlife and is not especially far from human inhabited lands. Before the public has their say, should the default decision be 'we do this' or 'we don't do this'? In other words, if the response from the public is mixed - what ought be the default decision? I don't think there's a right answer here, but differences in opinion on this topic might explain why people see this very differently. One group might see the failure of people to create compelling technical arguments that the experts did not consider to be sufficient reason to carry forward. Another group might see the government's failure to convince the public of the plan's validity to be sufficient reason to scrap it. I also wouldn't extrapolate this to things that are inappropriate. For instance when major loss of life or other such issues are in play, there's little time or relevance to see what the public has to say. So I'm speaking only of cases such as this where the consequences for inaction are relatively low.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

I find it highly amusing that in response to your "well clearly the government experts who aren't emotionally involved in the local situation think this is the best thing to do" response everyone starts questioning the judgement of the government. Were this nearly any other topic most people on HN would be singing its praises and extolling about how government is all that is good in the world. Cognitive dissonance much. I don't care which side you pick, both have some merit, just pick one and stick to it.

grecy 7y ago

> According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine protection and water quality policies.' Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action. And how many years ago would they have recommended dumping Roundup in places to fix a weed problem? How many years ago did doctors actually recommend smoking cigarettes to help with breathing problems? How many years ago did we intentionally spray ourselves with DDT? All of those things were done on the advice of 'Experts who make this their livelihood'. But now we've learned better, and that advice is now seen to be utterly terrible. The very name of the thing, 'rat poison' should give us a fairly good understanding of what we will learn in the coming decades about how short-sighted of a suggestion this is, just like all the others I have listed.

trixie_ 7y ago
Armchair expert case in point. If you think you know a better way, then do the work and propose a rational solution to the problem at hand. Saying, 'experts have been wrong therefore my opinion is just as valid' is a poor contribution to a rational discussion.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- grecy 7y ago
  As with all the examples I listed, doing nothing would be better than pouring on massive amounts of toxic chemicals. I'm not saying "experts have been wrong, therefore listen to me", I'm saying "Using toxic chemicals to fix a problem is often a very, very bad idea".
  - trixie_ 7y ago
    I wonder if you were in a room with Fish and Wildlife employees, how long it would take you to realize that you are way out of your depth.