Thank you ic69hunter. Too often we hunters ignore or dismiss the attacks of the anti-hunting zealots as meaningless and ignorant and don't fight back. However, their words and actions may have consequences especially when they reach a largely uninformed public. Many of their well-intended actions to protect certain species can have unintended adverse consequences. Case in point is the issue of wolves. Wolves have no serious natural predators. Consequently, when afforded endangered species status they have re-populated quickly and now pose a threat to native species like big horn sheep and elk as well as livestock and humans in some western states.
One earlier poster refers to the International Wildlife Museum as the dead life museum. Using that logic to describe the museum, one could say the same about the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Unlike live animal zoos like Reid Park and the Desert Museum, facilities like the IWM allow people, especially families with children, to get a close-up view of the animals and even touch them where allowed to gain a hands on understanding of the animals' natural features. And unlike zoos, natural history museums like IWM don't hold live animals in captivity.
Kieran Suckling of the Center for Biological Diversity is one of the two most evil persons in AZ. He and his ilk feel that the ends justify the means even if it means lying and falsifying data. They need to be sued out of existence.
The other person that shares the most evil label along with him is Cathy Herrod of the Focus on the Family.
I am ashamed that both call Arizona home.
And Don_Coyote, that was a very excellent post.
In the interest of full disclosure let me first state that I am a hunter and a very proud member of Safari Club International. Now a quote from the greatest conservationist in American history:
"In a civilized and cultivated country wild animals only continue to exist at all when preserved by sportsmen. The excellent people who protest against all hunting, and consider sportsmen as enemies of wild life, are ignorant of the fact that in reality the genuine sportsman is by all odds the most important factor in keeping the larger and more valuable wild creatures from total extermination."
President Theodore Roosevelt, 1905
Tim Vanderpool's "editorial" on the International Wildlife Museum and Safari Club International is a complete embodiment of the ignorance President Roosevelt observed in his early 20th Century statement. Vanderpool states in a post above that he was unable to interview the director and deputy director of the museum to get their perspective but I doubt seriously anything they would have said could have changed his mind or altered his blatantly biased and inaccurate attack piece in any meaningful way. The poster adocus accurately addresses above the massive investment that hunters make for the benefit of wildlife and habitat conservation each year just in the U.S. But hunters also contribute significantly to the conservation of many species around the world, particularly Africa. Here's a link to the recent article featured in the New York Times written by Alexander N. Songorwa, Director of Wildlife for the Tanzanian Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism:
In terms of bias by omission, Vanderpool neglected to state that the WWF (yes, the World Wildlife Fund) and 42 countries including Canada where polar bear hunting is a matter of survival for native Inuit populations, joined Safari Club at the recent CITES conference in Bangkok in defeating a ban on international polar bear trade. Below is a link to a recent article in National Geographic which accurately portrays the real threats to polar bears:
There are many other inaccuracies, errors and omissions in the article but hopefully I've made the point that legal hunting is in fact a protector of wildlife just as President Roosevelt made that point over a century ago. The International Wildlife Museum is dedicated to science-based sustainable use conservation and, to that end, serves an important mission in the Tucson community.
I have an electrical engineer friend who says "ATT puts in a 4G cell tower" then get out and geat away from it. That is professional speaking!
I really appreciate "The Tucson Weekly" coming out to watch our show! Thank you, to our supporters, as well!!! Burlesque truly is a sparkly celebration of all types of sensuality, sizes, and beauty. All of our dancers embody confidence, sexiness, and theatrics with handmade costumes and unique choreography. I hope you can all make it out sometime to see us. We perform at The Mint each Saturday night and in various other venues around town; feel free to like us on Facebook for information on our shows. XOXO - Ida
I agree that the writing on this article is pretty bad. I have seen Don't Blink Burlesque many times now at The Mint and all of the dancers are so beautiful and entertaining (and natural). The audience is mostly women and couples, so to assume folks go to get a "big boner," is a little ridiculous...and anatomically impossible for all the ladies in the audience. The shows are so much fun and the costumes are elaborate. Each act is like a little theater production but for adult eyes only. They involve the audience in acts, too which was a blast to watch! I wish the reviewer had done more to research burlesque before coming to the show or writing the article. It is clear she doesn't know much about the art form, and these have been the best burlesque dancers I've seen in town. I am happy that she enjoyed herself and was entertained, but I wish she would have done a better job portraying the show!
Thanks, Tim. Safari Club is no defender of wildlife. In the 25 years that the "museum" has been open, Tucson grew and enough newcomers are here who have no idea that it's a giant tax write off for zillionaires who like to shoot endangered animals.
I couldn't agree more, Jake. This writing is atrocious, particularly the elementary adjectives. I cringed at "She's the biggest out of all of the dancers [...]" Are you kidding me? You couldn't think of something better than "biggest"? You made Crystal Kiss sound like blob of some sort, when in reality, she's an incredibly shapely and appealing woman to admire. Then there's the "shitty" mint green paint they got rid of. Further, you highlight Ida's "natural boobies"...yet ALL the Don't Blink performers have 100% God-given parts. I'm just going to say it - WAS THIS SERIOUSLY WRITTEN BY A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT?
It's also clear this writer has no idea what burlesque even is. Burlesque by definition is parody, so it is not an anomaly for burlesque to have a fusion of comedy with sexiness. It's what makes burlesque...burlesque...and separates it from what you would see at TD's or Tens - NOT from what you see with other burlesquers in town. They do it, too. And some incredibly well - take Stormy Leigh of Black Cherry Burlesque, for example.
PS - No one goes to a burlesque show to get a "big boner", for heaven's sake.
My photograph was taken during a tour of the museum on Saturday, March 23, 2013. Roughly 11 a.m. or so, as I recall. Perhaps the exhibit has changed since then. Can't be sure.
As mentioned in the article, I attempted to interview both the director and deputy director, who unfortunately chose not to return my calls.
It's apparent that the list of applicants of writers and reviewers is as short as the sight of those who were (woefully) qualified for the positions.
If you don't understand something that is foreign to you, why not conduct an interview. Hell, a few questions to the performers isn't too far out of a journalists reach. Or so you'd think. The writing is atrocious and the journalistic integrity of this piece do nothing and definitely do not sell me at all. I mean, it did seem like that was the point of the piece in the end. Am I off base?
Unfortunately, I doubt very much if this "investigative reporter" did much investigating. I seriously doubt if he visited the International Wildlife Museum, either for this article of during its 25th Birthday event in February. Certainly the picture he uses over his name is not a recent picture. Wouldn't it have made sense, if he wanted to get the facts, that he'd have visited the museum, and asked to interview them, or get a tour? I'm sure they would have accommodated him. He also neglects to mention that most of the money for conservation activities comes from hunters - the Pittman-Robertson Act here in the US, and from hunting license fees in other countries. The P-R money in the US ranges between 177 and 324 million dollars per year for conservation activities. He seems also to be unaware of the recent article in the New York Times which detailed how the hunting of lions in Africa was actually contributing to their preservation as a species. All in all, a very lop-sided, biased article, and rather poor journalism, even if well written.
One glaring omission: The Mint is, if I am not mistaken, the oldest bar in Tucson. The Buffet is the oldest continuously operating bar in Tucson, but I've been told many times over the years that the Mint holds the title of the oldest bar in town. The fact that the grandmother of Tucson bars has made this monumental shift stuns me a little, in a good way, as if this little bar aims to live on. Both the Buffet and the Mint have changed hands in recent years. And Peggy retired. We are on the cusp of losing, once and for all, a good amount of our Tucson bar heritage. Thank you for listening.
I like to refer to the "International Wildlife Museum" as the "International Dead Life Museum". It's nothing but a vanity piece from the Safari Club's egotistical members.
When I first heard of The Mint, it was described to me as a "a sketch looking place but the drinks are cheap." That's fine for a recreational drinker, but it's not what I had in mind for the locale of a classy burlesque show. These women and men put A LOT into their craft and the venue should match that - outside and in. Outside ESPECIALLY. If the owner wants to help burlesque grow in Tucson, it's time to invest in the exterior and bring it up to the standard of quality that the dancers of Don't Blink Burlesque themselves embody.
I hope that the owner of The Mint invests in the exterior of the club sooner than later. The level of sketchy portrayed by the outside doesn't match the class, sass, and awesome that Don't Blink Burlesque supplies inside every Saturday.
I also wish Miss Taracena had found a better way to word, "She's the biggest out of all of the dancers..." I know she goes on to compliment her curves, but really...being a writer, couldn't she think of a kinder way to say that?
I have a tin-foil hat for you...
Take a gander at this. I think it is well said. this applies to all RF Radiation.
I have to wonder how many of the people who oppose cell phone towers because of the perceived health risks from radiation sleep for eight hours or so every night within two feet of a clock radio (an electromagnetic radiation source right beside your brain). On those cold winter nights do you turn on a heating pad (an electromagnetic radiation source touching your limbs). Do you use an electric shaver, perhaps?
Yeah, cell phones are safe along with the cell phone towers. I'm also convinced that the radio, television, radio towers and television towers are safe. Of course, let's not forget the electricity running through our house are safe. Whenever there's electricity there's always electro-magnetic radiation spewing around wiring....physics behind electric motors such as the electric fan, car's alternator and starter, computer fans and air conditioning among other things.
I'd like to see more cell phone towers in Tucson. Tucson could use more of those for faster and undisruptive internet wifi connections.
The research IS mixed and there are many unanswered questions. However, there is enough evidence to bring many experts to call for more precaution, especially in siting wireless digital infrastructure near homes, which creates involuntary long term exposures. In 2011, the International Agency on Research on Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization convened an independent expert committee to review the available scientific and medical evidence on radiofrequency radiation. This group recommended to the WHO that it classify radiofrequency radiation from all sources, incuding cell antennas, as possibly carcinogenic, which the WHO did. The strongest scientific evidence was based on epidemiological studies that link cell phone use to two types of cancers - glioma and acoustic neuroma. Ten years earlier, the WHO classified electrical power (50-60 hertz) from all sources, not just power lines, as possibly carcinogenic due to the strong epidemiological link between exposure and leukemia. Cancer rates are increasing according to recently reported studies and the Italian Supreme Court recently decided in favor of the plaintiff, who filed a lawsuit claiming that his use of a cell phone caused a brain tumor. See: http://microwavenews.com./news-center/ital….
Cell phone use is voluntary and periodic (the FDA/FCC exposure guidelines are based on avoiding heating of tissue and ignore the studies that demonstrate low intensity effects, without heat, for all radiofrequency radiation emitting devices and antennas) The studies showing biological markers that are precoursers to disease due to RF exposure and increased rates of head and neck cancers among those who use cell phones. There are now studies being reported on communities where antennas have been in operation for a few years, such as the Brazilian study reported in the article which reported a higher than normal number of cancer deaths associated to the cellular antennas. Radiating antennas create an uncontrolled environmental exposure condition for communities, placing people's health at risk. Some people are neurologically more susceptible to harm than other and can become hypersensitive. These people may have to shield their homes or search for a safer place to live if that cell tower is installed at St. Francis Cabrini Church. If the National Institutes of Health acts to include electromagnetic fields on their list of preventive health issues, it will send a signal that NIH is finally acknowledging the risks already recognized by many other nations of the world, including Israel, Switzerland, Italy, Russia, UK, Belgium, India and Taiwan. Smart meters are part of the smart grid infrastructure being deployed rapidly across Arizona, the US and the world. These wireless digital meters pose similar health risks. There are safer ways to design and manufactur communications technologies than using wireless digital signals. Let's keep listening and educating...a demonstration of citizen's political will would be a highly motivating force behind those elected officials who understand the risks and want to take a stand.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation