Unfortunately there's a warranted general skepticism for any US federal agency, due to the people at the top. The current cabinet secretary was a former oil lobbyist, and seems to have put significant restrictions the scope of environmental impact research via order (https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060059865).

It's hard to get a sense of perspective, because everything is so politicized. But it is what it is, and I think questioning and skepticism is healthy, given the environment.

Either the skepticism leads to new knowledge and better policy alternatives; or it just sounds reactionary or partisan.

> According to the article the Fish and Wildlife Service has researched this extensively. Reports have found it's 'consistent with the state’s marine protection and water quality policies.' Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action.

And how many years ago would they have recommended dumping Roundup in places to fix a weed problem?

How many years ago did doctors actually recommend smoking cigarettes to help with breathing problems?

How many years ago did we intentionally spray ourselves with DDT?

All of those things were done on the advice of 'Experts who make this their livelihood'. But now we've learned better, and that advice is now seen to be utterly terrible.

The very name of the thing, 'rat poison' should give us a fairly good understanding of what we will learn in the coming decades about how short-sighted of a suggestion this is, just like all the others I have listed.

Armchair expert case in point. If you think you know a better way, then do the work and propose a rational solution to the problem at hand.

Saying, 'experts have been wrong therefore my opinion is just as valid' is a poor contribution to a rational discussion.

As with all the examples I listed, doing nothing would be better than pouring on massive amounts of toxic chemicals.

I'm not saying "experts have been wrong, therefore listen to me", I'm saying "Using toxic chemicals to fix a problem is often a very, very bad idea".

I wonder if you were in a room with Fish and Wildlife employees, how long it would take you to realize that you are way out of your depth.

One philosophical question. This action is one that's going to be controversial. You are planning on dropping 1.5 tons of rat poison on a group of islands that has extensive native wildlife and is not especially far from human inhabited lands. Before the public has their say, should the default decision be 'we do this' or 'we don't do this'? In other words, if the response from the public is mixed - what ought be the default decision?

I don't think there's a right answer here, but differences in opinion on this topic might explain why people see this very differently. One group might see the failure of people to create compelling technical arguments that the experts did not consider to be sufficient reason to carry forward. Another group might see the government's failure to convince the public of the plan's validity to be sufficient reason to scrap it.

I also wouldn't extrapolate this to things that are inappropriate. For instance when major loss of life or other such issues are in play, there's little time or relevance to see what the public has to say. So I'm speaking only of cases such as this where the consequences for inaction are relatively low.

Yeah, because those guys never get it wrong. /s

It is always okay for citizens of this country to criticize the actions of our government. It is healthy to be skeptical of programs.

Are you suggesting that because experts are imperfect, we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously? That makes no sense. Please clarify.

> It is healthy to be skeptical

does not imply

> we should take ignorant reactionaries seriously

Well, if you only quote the part of his post that is so vague that it is completely meaningless, sure. It doesn’t imply that (or anything really).

Do you have a plausible interpretation of his comments that is not consistent with my characterization?

Quoting myself from elsewhere in this thread:

> It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism.

Quoting someone who already explained why this interpretation is untenable:

> The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark. I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.

I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."

If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended consequences...

> I find it just as plausible a read of the thread that the root's take-away was "trust the government," as you seem to find "skepticism is good" to be "a defense of ignorant reactionaries."

Would you care to explain why?

> If there's anything in the world that warrants some extra skepticism, it's the well-meaning-ness of government and its penchant for unintended consequences...

I agree in general, but the root comment made a specific argument about why certain skeptics are not compelling. I don’t see how these hand wavy proclamations about how skepticism is good is in any way relevant to that.

> Would you care to explain why?

For one thing, the ur-comment never even allows for the possibility of non-"armchair expert" criticism of this approach. "Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action." So? Experts have never been wrong, or made egregiously compromised choices, based on the facts and resources they had available?

More to the point, other "experts" were dissatisfied enough with the implications of this course of action that they asked the US Fish and Wildlife Service not to do the thing. [0]

There appears to have been on the order of zero planning for how to prevent the birds from ingesting the rat poison, or what to do if any birds who do eat the stuff then fly to the mainland, to name just a couple of the staggeringly obvious problems with this plan that, as far as I can tell, weren't even considered.

[0] https://www.latimes.com/style/pets/la-me-farallon-islands-ra...

> For one thing, the ur-comment never even allows for the possibility of non-"armchair expert" criticism of this approach. "Experts who make this their livelihood recommend this course of action." So? Experts have never been wrong, or made egregiously compromised choices, based on the facts and resources they had available?

I don't see how you could read the comment to suggest that. It is quite clearly criticizing the nature of the reaction using language such as "silly quips" and "very little rational discussion" instead of criticizing the fact that the reaction is happening at all. Anyone critical of the plan had ample opportunity to post a substantive complaint instead of a handwavy dismissal of the idea of root comment.

> Anyone critical of the plan had ample opportunity to post a substantive complaint instead of a handwavy dismissal of the idea of root comment.

And, per my linked article, other experts did.

When an idea that obviously terrible gets promulgated (and, I'm sorry, but being unable to answer the question: "How will you prevent the birds you're trying to protect from also eating the poison?" ipso facto makes a plan "terrible"), it deserves little more than derision in the form of "silly quips."

I have deadlines, which need my attention more than continuing to talk past one another here. Have a nice day.

> And, per my linked article, other experts did.

Yes, and other experts responded to those issues and there was an interesting technically interesting back and forth. Meanwhile on hackernews, armchair critics posted condescending and meaningless dismissals. For some reason you are defending them instead of advocating your position reasonably.

> I'm sorry, but being unable to answer the question: "How will you prevent the birds you're trying to protect from also eating the poison?" ipso facto makes a plan "terrible"

It isn't in any way relevant, but you can not possibly justify the claim that they are unable to answer that question.

> For some reason you are defending them instead of advocating your position reasonably.

You know when I said we were talking past one another? This right here is why.

You're attributing a motive to me, which "you can not possibly justify". You aren't in my head. You're reading the position you want to find in my words, which is absolutely not the position I'm taking.

To be clear, then, my entire position is premised on "healthy" skepticism, which I found to be the operative word in the post that spawned this trawl through pedantry. I think suggestions like "throw cats at the problem" are patently ludicrous, and if you browsed that particular thread, you'd see my comments to that effect.

I'm done here. 'dang or 'sctb, please feel free to mark this entire sub-thread as off-topic. I'm sorry for having been party to raising the noise floor.

EDIT: Phrasing.

Oh, I see the point of confusion now. To be clear I am not attributing any motive to you at all. I take issue with what you actually posted, not your intent.

It's implied by the context of the thread. The subject is "ignorant reactionaries". No one has challenged that characterization, so we're left assuming that the commenter is arguing that "ignorant reactionaries" are equivalent to "healthy skeptics".

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. [0]

It is less plausible to me that a caution towards "healthy" skepticism is advocating some kind of utter credulity, than that it is doing exactly what it calls for: cautioning towards skepticism.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The OP specifically was condemning ignorant reactionaries. Responding with "but skepticism is good" is a defense of ignorant reactionaries. Otherwise, it's the responder's responsibility to enlist further clarification instead of what can only be interpreted as dismissal + "/s" snark.

I mean, we all can agree with "healthy skepticism is good." So was their post just an in-passing reminder unrelated to this thread? I charitably interpreted their post to be a response to the comment they replied to rather than an independent platitude.

I take the implication to be that, in this particular case, the skepticism is more than ordinarily uninformed.

What about times they get something right? It’s a thankless job I hope to never have.

I have an uncle who's a retired Game, Fish, and Parks warden from Alaska. From his stories, at least, it's far less thankless a job than your comment would make it out.

To be sure, he caught no end of flak and abuse from people who were over their quota, or fishing in the wrong place, or poaching, or whatever, but — at least according to his telling — the majority of citizens he interacted with exhibited many-to-most of the "good" traits we associate with "outdoorsman" and such.

Good, next time I’m fishing and get approached by the DNR I’ll be sure to thank them.

Fishing is weird in some ways. My trout stamp directly funds the stocking and protection of trout waters in Georgia. The parking passes I use for fishing and kayaking locally directly fund those parks and rivers. The same in Florida, my saltwater license is funding the restocking of Redfish and other species that were wiped out by Red Tide and hurricanes last year.

For hunting and fishing you have a vested interest in the wildlife. I’ve seen hunters on TV call the DNR on themselves because they are that dedicated to the outdoors.

I'm in favor of protecting animal species from human beings, but i'm not entirely sure we should be in the business of choosing winners and losers in nature. Invasive animals are still animals and those mice didn't do anything wrong by going there. Let them do what they do.

I find it highly amusing that in response to your "well clearly the government experts who aren't emotionally involved in the local situation think this is the best thing to do" response everyone starts questioning the judgement of the government. Were this nearly any other topic most people on HN would be singing its praises and extolling about how government is all that is good in the world.

Cognitive dissonance much.

I don't care which side you pick, both have some merit, just pick one and stick to it.