Tim Smith Posted June 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 But let's not put aside or downplay all the other wonderful things the ISA has done prior to and outside the grant program. Absolutely, Don. The ISA has a long record of accomplishment that the granting program merely serves to enhance and refine. ...and yes the blog is clear that the rationales were not part of the ISA approval process. It was there before and I've emphasized it recently since it was pointed out that some of my writing isn't entirely PC . Maybe if the list of 19 were welcome on the ISA web site no one would have to go to my blog and have their sensibilities offended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Ferguson Posted June 12, 2008 Report Share Posted June 12, 2008 Maybe if the list of 19 were welcome on the ISA web site no one would have to go to my blog and have their delicate sensibilities offended. What makes you think the list of 19 were not welcome on the ISA web site? It's really too bad you feel you have to add comments of that nature, they don't do anything to support any of the valuable information in your posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Smith Posted June 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 What makes you think the list of 19 were not welcome on the ISA web site? It's really too bad you feel you have to add comments of that nature, they don't do anything to support any of the valuable information in your posts. Scott, I hope you'll forgive me for passing over your question and focusing instead.. ..on the fact that it appears you also want the philosophies posted on the web page. Is that the case? If so, that would be some excellent support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kast Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 I find it interesting, that there is always that one person, who enjoys upsetting the balance of things. They will dispute any statement, twist and turn words into something that wasn't said and avoid any point that proves them in the wrong. They know just how much to turn the knife to get a reaction out of people, (Reactions that I, myself are holding back right now). For it’s those reactions, which feed the fire and give them fuel to continue. Subsequently the game goes on until the wrong players quit and nothing is accomplished. It’s sad that people, who have the potential to do so much, let their veiled issues get in the way of original reason we are all here. I heard someone say just the other day.... if you ignore them, they'll eventually give up on the game. So Mr. Smith.... game over. You’ll have to play by yourself from now on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Smith Posted June 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 I find it interesting, that there is always that one person, who enjoys upsetting the balance of things. They will dispute any statement, twist and turn words into something that wasn't said and avoid any point that proves them in the wrong. They know just how much to turn the knife to get a reaction out of people, (Reactions that I, myself are holding back right now). For it’s those reactions, which feed the fire and give them fuel to continue. Subsequently the game goes on until the wrong players quit and nothing is accomplished. It’s sad that people, who have the potential to do so much, let their veiled issues get in the way of original reason we are all here. I heard someone say just the other day.... if you ignore them, they'll eventually give up on the game. So Mr. Smith.... game over. You’ll have to play by yourself from now on. Jim, I'm genuinely sorry you feel this strongly. I can assure you there is no fire here to feed on this side and your negative feelings toward me are not returned on this side. I have fished with you and I know you are an admirable man. I regret you do not feel the same. My agenda here has been straightforward since the first post. It's in the first post. I do want the ISA to genuinely adopt those philosophies and I would like us...if this is still an us...to make it clear that these philosophies articulate our views...or don't. I would genuinely like to have the Philosophies posted on the site, and I was quite sincere when I asked Scott if that was his desire as well. He hasn't answered and I still don't know. Yes, the ISA approved the philosphies. As long as they were appearing in places like the Bulletin and with the information sent out in conservation program, I was ok with that. They were in place. We were headed in a good direction. I do see recent trends that make me question if they are still accepted here. If they are valuable, I'd like to see evidence of that. If Scott agrees they should be on the web page, I'd be genuinely glad to know that. The point is not to upset the balance. The point is to encourage more forceful leadership from the ISA in some of these areas and a wide understanding of those points in the philosophies in the membership and the general public. I don't think you can point out a spot where I have twisted anything here. There has been a bit of debate and it has been respectutful for the most part. The side conservations about "coached" posts and nefarious motivations, yes, those have been discouraging...and somewhat offensive. I can assure you, Jim that conservation is no game to me. I've pressed this issue because I think this is an important exchange. The point is not to upset you. I'm genuinely sorry if you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Smith Posted June 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 Subsequently the game goes on until the wrong players quit and nothing is accomplished. A discussion/debate is not something to quit over. No one should be contemplating that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve S. Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 This thread seems more like an inside debate between a former science director and officer and the present officers of the ISA. At the beginning, I thought this thread would generate some constructive discussion. Perhaps the thought process is to stay out of what we don't know. I can sense that a few nerves have been struck. Well, those are my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Smith Posted June 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 At the beginning, I thought this thread would generate some constructive discussion. That was the intention of the original post, Steve. I'd like to see these ideas thought about and hopefully used to anchor the conservation philosophies rather than getting lost in the shuffle over time. This wasn't a contentious issue before and it shouldn't be now. Maybe things will be calmer today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Ferguson Posted June 13, 2008 Report Share Posted June 13, 2008 It's ok to put the list on our forums. I just assumed that's where they were going to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm M Posted June 15, 2008 Report Share Posted June 15, 2008 Mike As far as I'm concerned you are far and away doing the best job as Conservation Director that we have ever had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Smith Posted June 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 If there is now a general consensus that the philosophies can be on the conservation web page and in the public eye, that’s great. If, as I expect, the ISA follows through with specific programs in line with those philosophies that document will have accomplished its’ goals. I hope the ISA is willing to sponsor that discussion and whatever educational value is contained therein. Given the direction this thread taken, that obviously isn’t going to happen here. I’ll try again by posting specific points from the philosophies on other threads and hopefully those can stay on point. As for closure in the circus that has become this thread… Mike, you are indeed the best Conservation Director the ISA has ever had. I don’t know how many times I have to say that before you don’t think I’m “tearing apart” the work done here. I’m reading your post above and having a very difficult time understanding how a great deal of it relates to the original topic in this thread. I don’t know who you’re arguing with but it isn’t me. Mr. Kast. You are indeed an admirable man. I hope you are enjoying your time as an ISA officer. I was one of the people who advocated strongly on your behalf and I still think that was the right call. However, let’s also be clear that you are barely coherent on this thread. I have already resigned. No one else needs to do that. If you feel I haven’t done enough for conservation, perhaps we should sit down and compare our accomplishments and relative investments of time, effort, personal safety, and finances. I have to make choices about where I invest my energy. Your post provides a more than adequate demonstration of why I've chosen other paths. Scott. I’m glad you want the philosophies posted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Clifford Posted June 16, 2008 Report Share Posted June 16, 2008 During my tenure as Science Director, 19 conservation philosophies were debated, ammended, approved and offered to potential conservation grant applicants as an introduction to the conservation goals of the ISA. I've stepped down as an Executive Officer to focus elsewhere but those philosophies and the granting program still exist. I've posted the Philosophies here... http://brooksmith.blogspot.com/ ...and am in the process of writing rationales to support each point. This thread is begun with the hope that members with a serious interest in conservation will invest some time and thought to reading, digesting, discussing and critiqueing those points. There are weighty issues here. I'd be willing to cover them in as much detail as the forum readers deem necessary. If the leadership of the ISA is still committed to this path, I'm sure the membership would like to know. Not arguing in the least. I answered your questions and responded to remarks regarding the philosophies and the grant program. You questioned in the original post if the ISA leadership is willing to sponsor them, and questioned it again in your post above. I addressed that issue directly. Everything I posted is directly related to this thread. I pointed out that the majority of members will never see the thread, but we still continue to use the conservation forum in the hopes that the few that see it will respond or step up to help with the cause. Not much anybody can do about that. As well, the grant program was brought up, and I posted where our members have stated they would like to see our efforts directed. My point was simply to say that we can "attempt" to sponsor all 19 of the philosophies, but we only go as far as our limited resources allow us. We have far less to work with than some may believe. We've been successful through hard work, and a lot of good fortune here and there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.