Leaderboard

I'm a little confused hiflier. You started with a board of ethics for the entire community, independent of any forum or group, and now it seems like you are proposing a BFF board to vet every report posted on the BFF and elsewhere? I don't think that's a direction the membership would want to go.

Congratulations. I suppose you cross-referenced BFRO's data then? All 12,000 reports....obviously by writing down every detail of every report because you know you only get to see one report at a time- so you HAVE to write everything down. Now why do you think that is? Odd way to assure pattern recognition. YA THINK! And your apathy is well, apathetic. Since you're still here after 9,500 posts I guess you're used to being empty handed. Yelling at the scientists the way you do? You're doing your job. That being redirecting the pressure off the ones who could make a difference but don't. Pretending the problem is outside the camp. TSK, TSK.

Hmmm ... point was lost. Let me try asking a different way. In what way have the attempts to behave unethically harmed any bigfoots? How many have been killed by pro-kill groups' deliberate efforts? How many are in cages? How many are subject to devious biological experiments? Total of ... none ... right? Beyond those, there are no other issues of ethics, only issues of reputation whether personal or of the community. Prioritizing saving face is the antithesis of ethical behavior. Do right ... and let the chips fall where they may. It's really very simple .. until you start rationalizing doing wrong things for self-serving reasons. From a practical standpoint, what is a board of ethics going to do, come take my audio recorder because I won't publish my recording? Confiscate my trail cam because I don't share the pictures? Take Norseman's ammo? Go to Georgia and confiscate freezers? Be realistic ... what teeth does a board have? And a person who actually does get proof? What influence is that board going to have if they take it to news media and have their story aired? From here it seems a misguided feel-good effort with no value. A dog with no teeth, just yap. Nobody. Cares. Remember Blazing Saddles? "We don't need no steeenking badges." That's the real world situation. There's no point in pretending otherwise. Go do what you're going to do. Go not do what you're not going to do. Let your personal conscience be your guide. I'm not trying to pick a fight, just trying to be realistic. MIB

The notion of a "board" includes some authority to regulate. Nobody has that. At best you get a toothless yap dog. .. and there isn't much point. Who has been successful so far in being unethical? MIB

I'm not anti-science, just anti-inadequate science. I went to grad school and worked in several research labs, and almost became a researcher. I was always more interested in the methods themselves than the subject matter, in my field at least. However, when major journals and editors of major journals (e.g., The Lancet) start reporting on the vast systemic problems in science, it should give one pause. We also need to rethink the whole utility of science in many research areas, where the signal to noise ratio is so great that many spurious statistical results will routinely be found. Science is a set of tools and a set of approaches which do have limitations.