Extinction - again :-)

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

Rest assured I have no interest in erecting barriers. They already exist by
virtue of the challenges of communication among people with differing
backgrounds, differing meanings/usages for words, use of acronmyms unknown
outside various occupations, etc.  Saying that a species is locally extinct
can easily cause confusion in people who do think that the word is an all or
nothing word.  It matters not whether we agree or not with the technical
accuracy of their understanding and usage of the word. The only willfulness
in that, is having a different understanding of the word.  To me, this topic
has never been one of science nor technical accuracy nor correctness. It has
been and continues to be a matter of different people in different walks of
life using words in different ways for legitimately different purposes.
Hence my reaction of horror at the notion of one correct definition
(regardless of the criteria used to define correctness). Correctness is
ultimately tied to one's point of view and there are billions of those on
this planet. To me 'tis a communication issue, mon amis and amigos.  And I
strongly support academia and scientific research; that does not mean I will
allways agree with the material or opinions that emanate from those
important corners of society.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Foley [mailto:patfoley at csus.edu]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 3:48 PM
To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
Cc: 'lepsl'
Subject: Re: Extinction - again :-)
 
 
Norbert and others,
 
I have no problem with the use of the word 'extirpation'. In fact I
introduced
it into this discussion in my first post on the subject. I simply maintain
that
'local extinction', 'regional extinction', 'metapopulation extinction' and
'species extinction' are technically correct, flexible, etymologically
satisfying and in general usage.
 
I do reject the notion that the use of the word 'extinction' must mean
'species
extinction'. Not only does "academia" reject this limited use of the word,
but
so does Webster's and the Oxford Dictionary. Some people seem to be troubled
by
this usage because it sounds like crying wolf. I don't see how claiming that
a
species is locally extinct confuses anyone but the willfully confused.
 
I hope none of us are trying to erect barriers against academia or
scientific
research. As one who teaches in a regional commuter school with no
ivy-league
pretensions, I have no exalted view of my status as a cultural arbiter. I
respect knowledge wherever I can get it including nature, the library and
this
list. The basis of my arguments is a reading of the scientific literature on
extinction, which would seem relevant to the discussion.
 
Patrick Foley
patfoley at csus.edu
 
"Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:
 
> Neil Jones wrote: "Clearly the usage in the literature is correct as
Patrick
> Foley pointed out." Sorry Neil and Pat; I cannot buy your opinions on this
> point.  As I have previously stated I have no problem with other people
> defining words as it suits them. I make no claim to my definition being
> right - it is simply useful for my purposes. I do however find it
> interesting that some people seem to think their definition is
categorically
> "correct" and that by implication, other definitions are "incorrect". The
> differentiation between extinction and extirpation that is made by many
> conservation biologists and resource management practioners is no more
> incorrect nor correct than the lack of distinction described by other list
> participants in the field of population ecology. The context and use is
> simply different. Viva la difference. I am also intrigued by the reference
> to "the literature". I interpret this to imply that there is only one
> literature and whatever "it" says is somehow "correct". In my view there
are
> many kinds of literature and I do not view any of them as being
> categorically better than any other. Again, they are simply different and
> serve different purposes in society. I hope nobody would suggest that word
> definitions in various walks of life should be congruent with those used
in
> "refereed journals" but please feel welcome to do so if that is the way
you
> see the world.  The many people who do not work in academia have
> communication needs that they will continue to fill. From time to time
this
> will result in word useage that is different from academic useage.  -- I
> swear on a stack of Bibles and other Holy books that I tried to refrain
from
> commenting again but the bait was just too ripe :-)) viva la free speech
and
> different opinions
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Norbert Kondla  P.Biol., RPBio.
> Forest Ecosystem Specialist, Ministry of Environment
> 845 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, British Columbia V1N 1H3
> Phone 250-365-8610
> Mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
> http://www.env.gov.bc.ca
>
>
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
>
>    http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl
>
 
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------
 
   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
 
   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl