The title of this article is certain to be controversial. But, I think that consideration of controversial issues helps us to become more informed and makes us engaged and active citizens. After all, it is the mission of the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance to educate conservationists so that they can be a catalyst for advancing environmental health through policy and legislation.
Perhaps, this controversial topic may have the result of moving us towards this end.
The philosophers tell us to have compassion for negative people, although I admit it is often a test of my own temperament. But, as I find it unpleasant to be around negative people I am struck by the fact that it must be far more unpleasant for the negative person, since they are forever bound to their own torment.
Negative people are troubled souls. They view themselves as victims of all types of imagined enemies, and those displaying the most bluster and belligerence usually represent the most fear-filled. After all, isn’t anger a manifestation of fear and therefore evidence of one’s vulnerabilities?
I include animal rights activists as negative people because they are not content to live their lives at peace with their world view, but instead work as despots to control those with differing ideas and values. Special targets of their tyranny are people that fish and hunt. It is a negativity that has provoked animal rights activists to behave in unscrupulous ways and without a sense of personal boundaries.
For example, I recently read a letter from an animal rights activist attempting to fool an unsuspecting public with a harebrained theory that scientific game management techniques (harvesting/hunting game) actually increase game populations. Her theory, simply stated, is that if 50 deer are harvested from a population of 100, the deer will notice 50 deer are departed and will produce a biological phenomenon that will result in multiples of the number of fawns than would have been born (e.g. 4 fawn births, instead of the 2 fawn births considered normal).
In an attempt to give gravity to her silly premise she invented an authoritative sounding title to place under her name: “Wildlife Policy Specialist.” Now, the woman has no college education in the fields of animal biology or wildlife management, nor has she ever noted any official wildlife training. She even omitted from her letter that she is a representative of an animal rights organization.
Similarly, there is another person representing an animal rights organization that promotes himself as an “Investigator.”
Is there an official and legitimate profession which certifies animal rights investigators? Does this profession have any official oversight? What does an animal rights Investigator investigate?
What is the depth of vulnerability that people feel that leads them to deceive others with imaginary importance and make believe titles, such as Wildlife Policy Specialist and Investigators?
In another attempt to fool the public, the same organization that the woman and man belong to went to great lengths to have a Ph.D promote a similarly outlandish game management theory. They advanced the Ph.D’s theory and referred to him as an expert, but omitted that his field of expertise is chemistry and not biology or game management. His research was never made legitimate by peer review (peer review is when a community of experts in a narrowly defined and relevant field perform an impartial review). It is similar to a podiatrist using his credentials to represent an expertise related to the workings of the heart.
Who would rely on a foot doctor for diseases related to the heart? How low is one’s self image that they would substitute their agenda for the truth?