Cavechat.org

I think we are all on the same side in this argument about cave closures but to address BrianC's comments earlier, the USFWS and other agencies get sued over management strategies all the time for various reasons. Sometime it involves land use and sometimes it involves lack of restriction on land usage. I have never seen a case where a group was compensated but these tactics are commonly used to address issues with government agencies.

David Grimes wrote:I think we are all on the same side in this argument about cave closures but to address BrianC's comments earlier, the USFWS and other agencies get sued over management strategies all the time for various reasons. Sometime it involves land use and sometimes it involves lack of restriction on land usage. I have never seen a case where a group was compensated but these tactics are commonly used to address issues with government agencies.

It seems like the do get compensated from the endless lawsuits.:

According to the WildEarth Guardians 2010 annual report, it received $153,545 in legal fees. The Center for Biological Diversity received $685,981 in legal returns, according to its 2010 annual report.

Tutchton defended the practice of suing the federal government for missing petition deadlines, saying such litigation is necessary to keep the government accountable

As Brian is advocating suing as a strategy, may I simply suggest that Cave Chat is totally inappropriate as the forum for such a discussion. If he is serious, then I suggest he take that request to an Executive Session of the Board of Governors.

yep,

Truly amazing how you can get people to fund your organization who hate what you stand for just by becoming a tax dollar grantee.

*bam* All this time we have been worried about paying for a broken down shriners drinking club....all we gotta do is become taxpayer leeches like CBD......

wyandottecaver wrote:*bam* All this time we have been worried about paying for a broken down shriners drinking club....all we gotta do is become taxpayer leeches like CBD......

There are always mixed feelings when legal issues arise. Good, bad, or indifferent, the threat alone stirs controversy. That in itself creates thought to what is right, and what is wrong. That is all!

(Coleman) "The methods we used for this exercise preclude the generation of confidence estimates,..." What? What the heck does that mean? What scientific peers will review this?

When I asked this the other day, I did get one private humorous response:

"This means they were drinking in the error bars."

I wish the USFWS would just man-up and say they have abandoned the use of science. That they have abandoned the use of logic has been apparent for a long time.

I've asked two people with experience with statistics(one with an actuarial background, the other with a biomedical background) to interpret Jeremy's statement. The answers:

A) It's BS.
B) They lack the data to state a minimum or maximum number.

Sigh.

John Lovaas wrote:I've asked two people with experience with statistics(one with an actuarial background, the other with a biomedical background) to interpret Jeremy's statement. The answers:

A) It's BS.
B) They lack the data to state a minimum or maximum number.

Sigh.

The real answer is C) both. They are using the new number for impact only.. My response is to use the same conduct to create a big impact. Many of the cavechat users don't like to do this though.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has sent a reply. We have posted it on the NSS WNS web site: http://www.caves.org/WNS

Scroll down to the top Breaking News item and click on the link. The letter is date stamped Feb. 13, but the NSS only received it late Friday afternoon, Feb. 24, so we've gotten it up as quickly as possible.

In the letter, USFWS refers to a post by USFWS WNS National Coordinator Jeremy Coleman purporting to provide more information on the methodology. That's the blog post we already referred to on page two of this thread.

I think this quote is very applicable in this situation:

Sam C. wrote: ''Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it.''
-Mark Twain

I would say the USFWS response says nothing really, and dodges all the points made in the NSS letter (which was excellent yet again Peter!). They might as well said, "Because we are the parent, you are the children, and it is because we said so."

So much for science.

From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife letter:

"A sub-group of these scientists is working on a manuscript for publication that will provide a further level
of detail regarding the mortality estimate. We do not yet have a publication date."

The NSS looks forward to seeing the peer-reviewed scientific information USFWS publishes.

PYoungbaer wrote:From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife letter:

"A sub-group of these scientists is working on a manuscript for publication that will provide a further level
of detail regarding the mortality estimate. We do not yet have a publication date."

The NSS looks forward to seeing the peer-reviewed scientific information USFWS publishes.

Wake me when its over. It would be very interesting to see #1 twisting of facts. #2 apologies for incorrect information (of course it will be because of someone's eager and unqualified work) but not their fault!