David Suzuki

Printable View

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page

March 18th, 2015, 05:02 PM
yellow dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrym

One of the brothers is an OPP officer, not sure which one though. "Credentials" aren't usually discussed much in that marketing world. Although Tiffany Lakoski has very good ones.....ya know, credentials. :ashamed:

Three of my relatives are OPP officers I should ask if they know him.
March 18th, 2015, 05:10 PM
terrym

I think they are from Peterborough.
March 18th, 2015, 05:12 PM
yellow dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrym

I think they are from Peterborough.

My one relative is out of Kaladar and may know of him.
March 23rd, 2015, 01:11 AM
Roper

I don't see what credentials have to do with it. He is voicing the concern of many hunters very well.
What do you mean? His education?
March 23rd, 2015, 11:58 AM
yellow dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roper

I don't see what credentials have to do with it. He is voicing the concern of many hunters very well.
What do you mean? His education?

Roper credentials are everything in this day and age and we have enough self proclaimed experts on TV. Examples would be Jenny Garth, George Clooney, Bono and many more all are self proclaimed experts that people will unfortunately listen to as if it were gospel. Nothing wrong with speaking your mind on national TV if you can back it up with evidence based on your credentials. I am not a David Suzuki fan but if he went head to head in a debate with Keith based on science he would surely win. I was at a fund raiser last fall for the first annual Long Point Waterfowl's Lake St. Clair program and was fortunate enough to listen to guest speaker Dr. Scott Petrie Ph.D and his work. I have read some papers, articles and seen him on hunting & fishing shows and have always been impressed by his knowledge. This is a man that captivates the audience with knowledge based on experience and his education credentials to back it up. It would be a very interesting debate to see him go head to head with Suzuki .
March 23rd, 2015, 12:04 PM
Hunter John

Assuming Suzuki is open to debate , witch he is not.
March 23rd, 2015, 12:13 PM
yellow dog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hunter John

Assuming Suzuki is open to debate , witch he is not.

Your probably right.
March 23rd, 2015, 12:31 PM
Oddmott

I saw Suzuki at a lecture/panel debate function in TO back in 99.
He was a remarkable, engaging and knowledgeable presence. Definitely brought a ton of insight and information (based on current researching or established fact depending on the topic) and I was more impressed than I expected to be.

Fast forward 11 years to when i met him at/after an appearance he did at Carleton University. He was insulting, combative, dismissive, spouting opinion and vitriol.
During that appearance he argued with and insulted 2 Canadian Olympic athletes for their plans to attend the games in China. He argued with folks who questioned his position on global warming, the causes of and the subsequent threat of polar warm-up (when i say argue, i mean argue... he didn't debate, he didn't address the points made or questions asked, he just got really angry and loud).

And he refused to give autographs to a group of 30 Katimavik youth (some of which had traveled from quite far to see him) unless they purchased copies of his books which were for sale on-site.

It was nearly Jekyll & Hyde.

I think Suzuki's days of debate are well behind him. He's ancient and I for one don't expect him to stay abreast of every environmental or societal issue that affects us. At the same time, I also don't think he should be the face of CBC or The Nature of Things in regards to these issues either.

Let him retire and fish and do public speaking engagements in peace, hippies. lol
March 23rd, 2015, 01:06 PM
Dythbringer

Quote:

Originally Posted by yellow dog

Roper credentials are everything in this day and age and we have enough self proclaimed experts on TV. Examples would be Jenny Garth, George Clooney, Bono and many more all are self proclaimed experts that people will unfortunately listen to as if it were gospel. Nothing wrong with speaking your mind on national TV if you can back it up with evidence based on your credentials. I am not a David Suzuki fan but if he went head to head in a debate with Keith based on science he would surely win. I was at a fund raiser last fall for the first annual Long Point Waterfowl's Lake St. Clair program and was fortunate enough to listen to guest speaker Dr. Scott Petrie Ph.D and his work. I have read some papers, articles and seen him on hunting & fishing shows and have always been impressed by his knowledge. This is a man that captivates the audience with knowledge based on experience and his education credentials to back it up. It would be a very interesting debate to see him go head to head with Suzuki .

What you say about Suzuki is true; however, this isn't a science debate about "trophy" bear hunting. This is a scientist's personal opinion about how "trophy" bear hunting is the only thing which should be changed in order to have better bear management. Instead of debating the government's position about the bear hunt being sustainable, he dismisses it outright based on the fact "We've heard it before from government managers for other species driven to near-extinction due to overharvesting, overfishing and overuse - including northern cod off the Newfoundland coast and rapidly disappearing old-growth cedar forests on Vancouver Island" while accusing the BC government of dismissing the Simon Fraser University report. There are so many things involved with a management of a species that hunting is a microscopic element to that. Furthermore, grizzly bear hunters are mandated by law to provide information about the animal taken (including some hide, skull, testes if male and mammory glands/teat if female) as well as hunting this species under specific restrictions (no bait hunting or hunting over a dead animal). All of this can be found in the BC hunting regs: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife...egions_1-3.pdf

Furthermore, the BC government estimates the number of grizzly bears in Bc to be 15 000 (the BC government's last estimate was 16, 000 bears but this estimate reflects counting practices rather than bear populations (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife...Final_2012.pdf) and Suzuki's foundation stated there was "more than 3,500 (including over 1,200 females) were killed over the last decade, in most cases by trophy hunters". So over the past 10 years 350 bears (on average) were killed each year or 2.3% of the estimated yearly population, not all of them females or any evidence to support they were fertile females.

We know male bears will kill bear cubs if they find them, is Suzuki calling for some kind of strategy to combat infanticide tendencies of male Grizzly Bears? Nope, because it is a ridiculous suggestion as his suggestion to cancel the "trophy" bear hunt.

Beasley isn't even debating the accuracy of the report, he is defending the legal hunting of a species which isn't even considered threatened despite the efforts of Suzuki to make it appear as such.

Dyth
March 23rd, 2015, 02:28 PM
jaycee

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dythbringer

What you say about Suzuki is true; however, this isn't a science debate about "trophy" bear hunting. This is a scientist's personal opinion about how "trophy" bear hunting is the only thing which should be changed in order to have better bear management. Instead of debating the government's position about the bear hunt being sustainable, he dismisses it outright based on the fact "We've heard it before from government managers for other species driven to near-extinction due to overharvesting, overfishing and overuse - including northern cod off the Newfoundland coast and rapidly disappearing old-growth cedar forests on Vancouver Island" while accusing the BC government of dismissing the Simon Fraser University report. There are so many things involved with a management of a species that hunting is a microscopic element to that. Furthermore, grizzly bear hunters are mandated by law to provide information about the animal taken (including some hide, skull, testes if male and mammory glands/teat if female) as well as hunting this species under specific restrictions (no bait hunting or hunting over a dead animal). All of this can be found in the BC hunting regs: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife...egions_1-3.pdf

Furthermore, the BC government estimates the number of grizzly bears in Bc to be 15 000 (the BC government's last estimate was 16, 000 bears but this estimate reflects counting practices rather than bear populations (http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlife...Final_2012.pdf) and Suzuki's foundation stated there was "more than 3,500 (including over 1,200 females) were killed over the last decade, in most cases by trophy hunters". So over the past 10 years 350 bears (on average) were killed each year or 2.3% of the estimated yearly population, not all of them females or any evidence to support they were fertile females.

We know male bears will kill bear cubs if they find them, is Suzuki calling for some kind of strategy to combat infanticide tendencies of male Grizzly Bears? Nope, because it is a ridiculous suggestion as his suggestion to cancel the "trophy" bear hunt.

Beasley isn't even debating the accuracy of the report, he is defending the legal hunting of a species which isn't even considered threatened despite the efforts of Suzuki to make it appear as such.

Dyth

Absolutely well thought out and stated ! :goodstuff: :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Show 200 post(s) from this thread on one page