panoma1 Posted September 28, 2018 Report Share Posted September 28, 2018 Frustrated by the recent apparently growing rise of anti fieldsports feeling in the general public, I have given it some thought and concluded there are two types of individual claiming the label "conservationist".............the scientific conservationist and the emotional conservationist!.......this goes for organisations too! As conservation is a science it follows real conservationists are the ones influenced by scientific evidence, the pretend conservationist are the ones driven by purely by emotion!......the individuals (and organisations) in the second category are not really conservationists, they are more accurately described as "protectionists"..........to me it's obvious who's voice should be louder in real conservation matters.........unfortunately this presently is not the case! Not an earth shattering conclusion and just my opinion, but it is interesting how in the general publics psyche, human emotions can overrule scientific fact! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted September 28, 2018 Report Share Posted September 28, 2018 5 hours ago, panoma1 said: Frustrated by the recent apparently growing rise of anti fieldsports feeling in the general public, I have given it some thought and concluded there are two types of individual claiming the label "conservationist".............the scientific conservationist and the emotional conservationist!.......this goes for organisations too! As conservation is a science it follows real conservationists are the ones influenced by scientific evidence, the pretend conservationist are the ones driven by purely by emotion!......the individuals (and organisations) in the second category are not really conservationists, they are more accurately described as "protectionists"..........to me it's obvious who's voice should be louder in real conservation matters.........unfortunately this presently is not the case! Not an earth shattering conclusion and just my opinion, but it is interesting how in the general publics psyche, human emotions can overrule scientific fact! Is it not ever thus? The third word in your final sentence provides a clue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul1440 Posted September 28, 2018 Report Share Posted September 28, 2018 It's the modern social media way I'm afraid.. and not just on conservation. No one is allowed to say anything that goes against emotional reasoning without the risk of recieving abuse. Check mumsnet out.. it's scary.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted September 28, 2018 Report Share Posted September 28, 2018 6 hours ago, panoma1 said: Frustrated by the recent apparently growing rise of anti fieldsports feeling in the general public, I have given it some thought and concluded there are two types of individual claiming the label "conservationist".............the scientific conservationist and the emotional conservationist!.......this goes for organisations too! As conservation is a science it follows real conservationists are the ones influenced by scientific evidence, the pretend conservationist are the ones driven by purely by emotion!......the individuals (and organisations) in the second category are not really conservationists, they are more accurately described as "protectionists"..........to me it's obvious who's voice should be louder in real conservation matters.........unfortunately this presently is not the case! Not an earth shattering conclusion and just my opinion, but it is interesting how in the general publics psyche, human emotions can overrule scientific fact! I quite agree, until you take into the matter of climate change, and in particular man made climate change, where you have conservationists consisting of scientists who are protectionists and often more than a little emotional about it; the worst kind are those carrying out research for organisations with an agenda in mind. From a shooting perspective a perfect example is those scientists who are employed by the WWT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted September 28, 2018 Report Share Posted September 28, 2018 ,,,,,,,,,or Natural England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted September 28, 2018 Report Share Posted September 28, 2018 Its maybe a bit more than protectionist, there is something in there about being furry with big eyes. 52 minutes ago, mudpatten said: ,,,,,,,,,or Natural England. What's up with them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harkom Posted September 29, 2018 Report Share Posted September 29, 2018 ....and SNH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted September 29, 2018 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2018 Again as a generalisation NE and NRW field staff appear to be awash with protectionists, I don't know if the higher echelons of the organisations are protectionist, but even when their field staff show obvious partiality, they seem to support everything their underlings determine! 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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.