Looking for:
Canada day vancouver islanders vsp vision appraisal firewall
Click here to ENTER
We work with you to increase revenue through leveraging our entire network with evidence-based, targeted marketing outreach. We share your marketing messaging and event information to a targeted group of professionals. By tapping into our exclusive network, you can galvanize the interest of a huge network of professionals. We help you better segment and target member. Your message will resonate with these members resulting in increased sales and revenue.
Ready to place yourself in world-class company? Most importantly, becoming a Network After Work member gives you the chance to bet on yourself and your ability to make the most of the professional opportunities that come your way. A: Our membership is designed for professionals at all levels. Our networking events routinely include high-level executives meeting equally distinguished peers, alongside budding young professionals making their own connections as they begin their journey of building something noteworthy of their own.
A: Our paid membership includes all of the free features, but with unlimited access to webinars and courses, more actionable opportunities to make connections and join communities with like-minded professionals, and most importantly, the paid membership gives you access to register for live in-person events.
The free account is great for getting a taste of what enhanced networking through Network After Work is all about – the paid membership allows you to transition into building real-world relationships that can create opportunities that would not be available otherwise. A: The answer to this question depends on your intention for networking: are you looking to make real-life connections you can leverage for real-world application, or simply to increase the number of connections on your online profile?
Membership Benefits. Unlock Personalized Advice And Mentorship Getting the right answer from the right person at the right moment can change the course of your career. Join Now. Message From Our Founders. Dear NAW Community, We created the Network After Work Membership to provide an avenue for talented, like-minded people to spark meaningful connections and unlock new opportunities in their careers.
Join us in our mission and start making connections that matter. The making of place I will return to the theory about place-making in Chapter 8. But for the moment I will spell out my own definition. Place-making is first about brokering reality and knowledge; second, it is about the concrete arrangement of landscape, sorting out what to keep from what must be discarded.
As Mary Douglas [] famously put it, dirt is matter out of place. As in sweeping, then, the motions of place-making bring about the kind of order it is supposed to have. Place, then, is landscape pregnant with moralities — many of which do not get to see the light of day for very long. Therefore, like landscape, place is a way of engaging, albeit one that recruits people first and foremost, as protagonists for ordering its relational and concrete constitution. On the register of landscape, my ethnography seeks to elucidate how people and scores of other entities partake in what is happening while participating in knowledge- making.
In the latter sense, it is also part historiography of knowledge-making. And on the register of place , document how people engage with each other about what is going on, and how they proceed, at various social scales, to broker knowledge and sort out realities among themselves, which, in my case studies, concern its many natures. The two registers are not separate but nested, and in terms of the involvement of the respective bodies politic they differ considerably. To illustrate the scope of these registers, I point out a contrast between expectations derived from place-making and what is actually happening in the landscapes in question.
The recurring theme in ranching and conservation is the problematic interface between human and nonhuman spheres, to sort out what entities belong specifically in one or the other, and designate those that can share the same space. Private ranches are of course part of the sphere marked out for human handiwork, with domesticated plants and animals, machines, and so forth.
Conversely, the vast adjacent landscapes are designated as either national park, forestry reserve, or other public lands, all part of the sphere where wildlife belong which is expected to remain relatively unscathed — although some of these landscapes are designated as cattle range too. Such is the intended spatial ordering and attribution of status for belonging in terms of the respective makeup of place.
In terms of what is happening on landscape, however, human presence on ranches has continued to be negligible and intermittent whereas in wild places it has augmented exponentially, sometimes overwhelming wildlife with human traffic, often motorized.
And beyond the spatial sphere that influences the attribution of status, there is the variability in the ways that entities are apprehended, including in science-making more on that shortly. Landscape and place are therefore wrapped in what Anne-Marie Mol calls ontological politics Mol The character of what happens is defined in terms of the circumstances where it is happening.
Thus what passes for reality is always mediated, which, in effect, multiplies it, hence the plural in which Mol poses multiple ontologies. The challenge inherent to the interface, then, is to somehow reconcile places that hold different realities into an integrated landscape of joint happenings recalling that landscape and place are both ways of engaging , all of which is bound to be very unsettling. It is the controversial part of political ontologies that rattles the focus on a single reality, what Mol refers to as the monopolistic view of truth.
The unsettling of this monopoly also exposes contradictions in the attached epistemologies. So, what norms and moral precepts get to rule? And according to whose authority? For Mol the question is about who is being put, or should be put, in the position to decide what is good.
In my Alberta case studies, the locus of authority is seldom explicit — whereas it was spelled out clearly for the Montana coalition of the unalike. Real wolves travel by helicopter In his wonderful little book, The Homeward Wolf, Kevin Van Tighem a , retired superintendent of Banff National Park, relates his experiences with wolves early in his biologist career in the area of Waterton Lakes National Park, my field of study. But he has more to say about the relations ranchers of the Alberta Foothills had with wolves and also amongst themselves and towards other people — like himself — who might possibly interfere with their business.
In a nutshell, after wolves recolonized the southwestern corner of Alberta in the early s without casualty on ranches, concerned biologists and environmentalists tried to pre-empt the next round of extermination by offering a compensation package to ranchers. Several public meetings were called to announce this, and the organizers were astonished soon afterwards to hear that their proposals had been completely misconstrued.
The word had gone around that environmentalists were bringing wolves back from Montana by helicopter. And after the first inevitable loss of livestock to wolves did occur, the rancher who had been offered a very generous compensation declined, under pressure from the detractors of the program.
Environmentalists, it was said, were buying the silence of their victims one by one. Van Tighem and his colleagues concluded that public consultations did not work but it seemed much more promising to cultivate individual relationships between some of the practitioners and the parties advocating a more tolerant regime of interspecies relations.
Granted, other wolves soon re-colonized the empty territories. What Van Tighem and his colleagues had witnessed was not the kind of persecution that is destined to happen because of the atavistic antagonism of paradigmatic ranchers, although it has long been the norm.
The Montana ranching community across the border decided otherwise to refrain from killing wolves indiscriminately and adopted other precautions instead. Rather, what Van Tighem had witnessed was the ongoing exercise of influence to secure the endorsement of a particular moral regime for specific interspecies relations.
Granted that wolves have been systematically persecuted on the western part of the continent until very recently, the map of relations with wolves has now become very complex. Wolves that in the early s had infiltrated south of the 49 th parallel from British Columbia, getting along with some human communities in Montana, but becoming problem wolves again upon returning north — without the help of helicopters.
Problem grizzly bears are also said to be returning from Montana to recolonize the southwestern corner of Alberta. Then, again, moral standings go both ways across the border, good and bad, and ontologically species can appear genuine or not.
Wolves in the U. These aliens with foreign pedigree are therefore conveniently expendable whereas a reinstated Canis lupus irremotus would be untouchable, all of which, of course, constitute crucial distinctions in the negotiations about a place for wolves in these international landscape affairs.
As for the locus of authority over classifying animals and people, it is not prearranged nor is any entity predestined to be a subordinate subject or subject-maker. In the context of my case studies, there is no ascription of the sort, nor is it predictable to which camp anyone belongs, for ranchers, scientists, bureaucrats, policy-makers, conservation officers, activists, politicians, and so forth, are just as likely — and certainly not bound by social position — to be instigators or at the receiving end of place-making disciplinary actions.
But reaching across both ontological and epistemological axes see below are pathways where moral alignments, joining people from all walks of life, mesh with scientific disciplinary clout. And to make sense of courses of events like the above, it is necessary to discern how ecological moralities, multiple too, align with disciplinary powers.
In other words, it is sometimes possible to trace the moral compass back towards the source of momentum of place- making. But discerning these alignments does not necessarily reveal who collectively is in the position to decide what is good. The politics of what As illustrated above, the relations of place-making are concerned with negotiating or imposing authority over what is happening on landscapes.
And since many definitions circulate about the nature of these happenings and of the entities partaking in them, science, in most milieus, is represented as the paramount arbitrator and curator of reality. Scientists in any case participate directly in the subset of ontological politics that defines what is what. In that respect, Mol :viii, , explores the way science enacts the objects of its concern.
I emulate this approach by presenting fact-finding records of scientific knowledge, first about the grazing relations of plants and cattle Chapters 1 , and about the nature of bears Chapter and wolves Chapter. Epistemology, on the other hand, is concerned with reference: it asks whether representations of reality are accurate Mol :viii.
Both are nonetheless wrapped together such that, as Latour and Woolgar demonstrated, laboratories secrete reality Mol :. And so does field ecology, with biologists interpreting the behavior of wildlife to fit a broad diversity of theoretical and methodological frameworks. Thus, at the same time that I underscore the variety of scientific reports along with parallel ones based on the practical knowledge of practitioners, also record other streams of becoming that its objects, be it grass, cattle, bears, or wolves, and their respective bundles of ecological relations, adopt as patterns of their own.
Scientific reality may well be enacted, but they, the others, do not just follow the discipline of disciplines. I did set out to find out how science informs its policies and found out there are many variations on that scientific theme to select from. And I keep a close watch for the NCC s theme of predilection, what will refer to as nativism , for its quest to restore the original array of native species. As it turned out, the organization eventually retreated and cherry-picked choice bits of knowledges according to which were most expedient.
For a preview: The roots of grazing Chapters 1 and 4 are about the uneasy relationships between native plants and domestic grazing animals, especially uneasy given the ways that scientists and practitioners enact them in their respective milieus. I spell out the insights of range science elaborated at the regional research station, and I observe on the range the effects of practices that run counter to received scientific wisdom. The expert committee of the NCC is divided over the possible courses of action.
Between experimental evidence and practical outcomes, its commitment to science is in the balance. The case studies of Arun Agrawal a in the communally-managed forests of northern India demonstrate the value of monitoring programs, but here the NCC is more preoccupied with honing its conservation discourse than tracking the ecological performance of its own ranches.
A noteworthy nexus of cooperation is the terrain of riparian areas , the analog of Agrawal s conceptual category environment. A small revolution on the range it has been, and a public relation stroke of genius it was to introduce fish as the main protagonist to cow.
Ranchers are learning how to care for the areas in question, with the help of subsidies, and also as a product of coercion, given the poor track record of ranching and the tightening of government rules over water quality.
The beef about bones Unlike fish whose presence was finally detected in a way that recognizes their importance, some other wildlife get a very different kind of reception upon physically returning to the range. Chapter 5 is about grizzly bears. One of the most influential scientific work on the subject of grizzly bears in Canada is a forensic account of bear attacks.
In the statistics of the Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, reports of bear sightings are categorized as occurrences that go under one of the headings for public threat.
Scientific studies of bear habitat in Alberta designate ranches as non-habitat and ecological traps for grizzly bears. It is now official policy to remove attractants and enforce segregation in every possible way. To deal with the high incidence of property damage committed by bears, grain storage bins are reinforced or else replaced with heavy-duty steel shipping containers.
All hands, ranchers, conservation officers, biologists, welders, truckers, backhoe operators, carcass composting technicians, converge to eliminate carcass bones from landscapes and to garrison ranches against intrusion. Unfortunately for this campaign, rangelands on private ranches also grow a variety of plants and insects that make up the bulk of the bears diet, and barbwire fences are not bear-proof.
The door of perception Yet, as mentioned earlier, bear problems have faded in some of the case studies south of the border where the deployment of technologies to fence off depredation hotspots like calving fields and composting bins follows the principle of ecological connectivity Chapter 7.
It is also longstanding practice on the Rappold ranch near Dupuyer in the heart of Montana grizzly habitat to ensure that the bears are well fed by bringing carcasses of dead livestock to the high country and in the country below opening the door for bears to access grain in its granary. It is much cheaper and less stressful on people, equipment and buildings that way, decided the father of the current rancher fifty years ago.
There has been nothing remarkable to report since then, other than that the resident cattle and bears are thriving at very little cost. On the other hand, many ranchers in the same area feel besieged by bears, and the reopening of the trophy grizzly bear hunt appears imminent. What transpires here is that the decisions to fortify a landscape or connect it with multispecies pathways, have nothing to do with pre-given biological realities. Rather, a landscape gets set up to enact particular kinds of nature.
And not only discursively: these are choreographed in concrete ways with the collaboration of knowledge-makers partaking in one moral alignment or another, usually in line with what happens to be de rigueur at the time.
Whether a kind of animal is bad or good first gets framed by place-makers who select particular pieces of knowledge to suit their purposes, with an array of chosen experts who, like practicing metaphysicians C. Thompson in Woolgar, et al. Chapter 7 reviews the history of conservation at the nearby national park, which began with the elimination of inconvenient wild animals to make more room for those valued by sportsmen.
Most of the fiends eliminated have since been recognized as icons. Hence I write about my research as an ethnographic account in part only. I also have recourse to other genres of written accounts, like in historiography, to report on how landscape was devised and how places were made both for ranching and conservation.
Writing about the predicaments of ranching, anthropologists Brogden and Greenberg point out that ranchers are vulnerable to the discourse of environmentalists that reterritorializes their livelihood. They argue that pluralistic politics operate to reassign resource access rights , and consequently dictate how in this interface between state and civil society, some actors achieve voice and some do not :.
But case studies here and associated histories show that the assignment of legal rights to access may be only a small part of the explanation — especially here where conservationists own the landscape and yet remain mute in the policy-making sphere. To find out why this is happening requires unpacking abstractions like state , civil society , and science. What games are being played therein can perhaps be revealed, especially along the lines of an ecological morality play See Chapter 8.
A purgatory for dark angels Chapter 6 is about wolves: scientific accounts and place-making about wolves are even more tightly wound together and yet polarized. One prominent wolf biologist in the U. Some scientists emphasize the apex role of these large predators in the cascade of ecological effects, especially to prevent the irruption of wild herbivore populations.
But other effects are manifest in the ways that prey are cautious about remaining in certain areas of predilection. Hence the role of keystone predators, who by their mere presence are potentially vital to landscapes populated by large herbivores.
Conservation is thus understood in various ways, sometimes relationally, as a means to maintain the ecological functions of trophic cascades, food webs, ecosystems, etc. The friction is therefore at the landscape interface with other kinds of important functions and animal inventories.
A high profile research project conducted in the Alberta foothills concluded that an unexpectedly high proportion of the diet of wolves was beef see Chapter 6. The lead researcher, a world leader in conservation biology and now a spokesman for ranchers, warns that wolves are the real culprits and have been the biggest problem as it relates to beef producers.
This way, with the help of forensic evidence they apparently verified what wolves were really doing. At the same time, another study was conducted by wolf biologists from the U. Over several years, the study monitored the effects of a particular kind of human presence a mobile type of surveillance on the incidence of depredations, demonstrating that it was possible with a modest investment of labor to deter wolves from killing and harassing cattle see Chapter 6. The community project of surveillance, on the other hand, was discredited and shelved.
And when the municipal council hired a local cowboy to track and record the whereabouts of the wolf packs, the chief biologist at the regional Fish and Wildlife Division notified the councilmen that, short of getting a permit, the research horse riding with a notebook in this case could not proceed. Permits for hunting, trapping and snaring, however, were readily available from the same bureaucracy. And those with the permission of landowners did shoot wolves during that winter on the same paths where the rider armed with a notebook was officially prohibited from recording their whereabouts.
Given this kind of animal politics, the NCC is in something of a bind while serving as a local landowner. This is the case unless it fully utilizes the versatility of science-making when confronted with the imperatives of place.
The organization allows for or turns a blind-eye to the killing of wolves on its ranches. Like this chain of events illustrates, interventions in the affairs of place go hand-in- hand with science-making in ways that sometimes betray epistemic gate-keeping.
Yet if it can also be apprehended as an offshoot of the prevalent ontological politics, science- making need not be dismissed as its artifice.
It rather points out that science is a wellspring for new ways of doing reality Mol Wolf , for instance, has many incarnations, as do bear, cow, fish, grass and so on. With knowledge mediating reality that way, science also has multiple constituencies for each kind of place, with fellow scientists, ENGOs, policy-makers, bureaucrats, journalists, and the public at large, either assenting, lamenting, dismissing, or quarreling about its makings.
Looking for moral compass This introduction has been a lengthy briefing for the historical and ethnographic accounts to come. It serves also a warning that I disassociate my work from the assumptions discussed earlier about ranching, conservation, and their respective official histories. I seek instead to present several points and counterpoints to the discourses and practices concerning particular landscapes and places. For that I go rummaging for moral compasses and other clues, while trying to get a glimpse of what horizons lie ahead.
The reader must be aware that, with over two decades of ranching for a livelihood under my belt, I also happen to be very familiar with the immediate milieu of my fieldwork — which used to be home and, to an extent, still is. Rather, I like to think I keep my distance, having approached it anew after much time spent elsewhere, with ranchers, conservationists, and pastoralists of several continents.
Upon returning, I have kept looking over my shoulder to sight again or listen to what I thought I had seen or heard before. In that respect, I follow the formulation of Tim Ingold a that the anthropological attitude lies in the sideways glance.
So what is in store for the flagship project of the Nature Conservancy of Canada? The effervescence of what is happening on ranching landscapes shows no sign of abating — in the U. The same goes for the fractious centrifugal forces threatening the social integrity of ranches: they are going apace towards the fragmentation of family units, perhaps to coalesce again later under a different corporate banner.
But about the political clout of place-making, there are now hints that the balance of power in Alberta is shifting from the rural to the urban sphere for deciding what is good for landscapes, especially those owned by the state. I invite the reader to momentarily suspend what Ingold refers to as the anthropological machine see Agamben churning out meta-theories and to go on a tour of a few landscapes and places.
After this long prologue, I will provide more room for describing and discussing what landscape dwellers, conservation champions, and science- makers are doing. Conceptually, I will approach ranching foremost as a livelihood. But as a matter of dialogue with existing theory, I will use analytical tools that categorize livelihoods as modes of subsistence and modes of production Ellen Also, whereas the analysis of a livelihood assesses the means of its economy to sustain and reproduce itself from the perspective of its unit of production, in this case the nuclear family, I project beyond that to encompass a larger entity, using community as a convenient concept, to convey the idea that the economy of rural communities in many parts of the world, and their respective collective identities, are built on livelihoods like farming, pastoralism, or ranching.
In the context of the present problematique, I contrast livelihood with conservation, which, as a form of relation with the environment, is the flipside of the extraction exerted by such livelihoods and the attendant environmental transformations they impose.
Granted that conservation, as of late, has also been a source of income for producers, it is foremost an endeavor and a social movement that aim to correct trends of environmental degradation. To be significant, a change of protocols has to apply on a large scale, landscape, bioregional and beyond. Given that rural livelihoods are embedded in longstanding social and ecological relations, however, attempted change can come at great personal and social cost, if put into effect by individuals in isolation.
And the relationship with one s immediate living environment — in this case a home ranch — is obviously a very personal affair that confronts everyone privately. I will attend to this tension between collective and private spheres by exposing a vast spectrum of personal responses and how these may converge, or get weeded out, and at any rate jostle one another into a collective — albeit not necessarily common — profile that undergirds the sense of place of a community.
I do not have as an objective to engage in a semantic debate about what constitutes ranching, pastoralism, and agriculture. In parts of the world, units of productions like stations in Australia, farms in southern Africa, or estancias in Latin America have the same paradigmatic ranch profile I define as ranching here.
Rather, I intend to make distinctions that I deem to be essential for understanding the problems at hand, and for the sake of helping the reader navigate throughout my accounts, for which clear labels charting my theoretical course are necessary.
I otherwise have found that discussions about ranching invariably begin with many presumptions about what it entails, and thenceforth the sources of confusion multiply. Ranching notoriety: the good, the bad, and the ugly There are two distinct kinds of literatures about ranching. One is rather dithyrambic, found in popular western history, of course, but also in the works of academic researchers, historians, geographers, ecologists and others, who study the kind of ranching done in the developed world see for example Knight, et al.
One must be very aware in reference to ranching that specifying where it is taking place makes a big difference in terms of reception. This begs the questions: does research in these matters apply different criteria according to geopolitical hemispheres? Other than involving livestock, in what respect are these forms of ranching similar? Conversely, how are they different?
Is it a matter of ecology and livelihood practices? Or is it a function of their respective historical trajectories as economies that spearheaded colonization in various continents? To that effect, ranching livelihoods have become more or less integrated socially with the economies of earlier inhabitants depending on region. In North America, while the economies of indigenous nations in the U. In much of Latin America, on the other hand, the confiscation of indigenous lands also occurred at the onset of the colonization of New Spain for example Sluyter , 59 but it has continued apace on the southern continent, especially in Brazil, and it is presently unfolding in the Paraguayan Chaco Hazelton ; Killeen ; Redwood ; Romero Variations on these patterns have unfolded also in Australia and Africa.
Several factors come into play in the way ranching livelihoods have diffused, I submit, but the confusion about the nature of ranching also derives in large part from using the same vocabulary to describe very distinct livestock economies.
Some forms of ranching are highly transformative, resorting to agriculture, and some were very destructive, having destroyed forests, while others tend to be minimally disruptive; then again these types have perhaps existed at different times on the same continents, or co-exist still. The habitus nexus To convey the implications of this variability adequately, I will clarify when necessary terminology that otherwise passes as self-evident.
In that vein, there is hardly a profile of cowboy tout court, for example, that fits a universal profile for ranch work. Beginning with distinctions in praxis, or work habitus as Bourdieu put it , it is apparent that the term herding , for instance, denotes very different activities whether it is undertaken by cowboys or pastoralists, inasmuch as very few cowboys have ever herded.
Day herding was done occasionally in the 19 th century by cowpunchers of lower status during intermissions in the long cattle drives Abbott and Huntington Smith Nowadays, very few tolerate the drudgery of day herding , namely the everyday daylong supervision of grazing in situ or on a slow trek. However, most professional cowboys are adept at rodeos of one kind or another. By contrast, for Hispanic vaqueros a rodeo is a ranch work-related event organized for gathering cattle — rodeo stems from rodear, to surround in Spanish.
Also, ranch cowboys seldom those who compete professionally round up cattle on ranches as stockmen and drovers muster on Australian stations. Even in those instances, it is safe to say that as a rule, when a cowboy or a rancher wakes up in the morning the ranch cattle are grazing while scattered at large, while, conversely, when the pastoralist strolls into the corral, the kraal or the boma, in the morning, his livestock are ready and waiting to go grazing as a cohesive herd.
Cow knows best is an old adage have heard many ranchers utter, whereas the pastoralists I spent time with considered that their animals would be utterly helpless without a herder seeking the best sites to graze.
Therein is a fundamental distinction between ranching and pastoralism and their respective interspecies ecological relations. As will become clear, the ecological habitus of each type of livestock economy has implications for their compatibility with conservation, especially in regard to distinctive notions about the proper place and status of all actors involved as well as the behavior expected from them. Nevertheless, cultural geographer Terry Jordan, in his authoritative North American Cattle-Ranching Frontiers , refers to the many historic permutations of ranching as herding systems.
For the above reasons, emphasize again that herding is hardly an appropriate term for describing these early livestock-raising systems where cattle were gathered usually once or twice yearly and remained unattended in the interim. For that matter, semi-feral cattle in the early days of ranching were hardly raised at all but grew instead with no intervention akin to animal husbandry. I will make a contrary case, however, arguing that in most instances worldwide ranching grew out of agriculture although agriculture and pastoralism have characteristics in common that subsided with the advent of ranching.
And whereas ngold s assessment may fit well the reindeer pastoralists situation in the cases he studied directly, his theoretical extrapolations do not universally apply, certainly not his proposition that ecological prospects improve from pastoralism to ranching simply on account of a change in social and ecological relations of production.
Of course, agricultural practices share specific aspects with pastoralist ones — namely physical closeness with domestic animals and the practice of herding. But historically, those who became ranchers were mostly of agriculturalist origins, and it is back towards agriculture that ranching practices have since gravitated in order to compensate for its failings.
Furthermore, I argue that the recovery was not seamless, nor was it an ecological panacea. On the one hand, this rupture was social, instilling deep-seated fear and loathing towards animals that were dangerous. This, however, was nothing new to hunters and gatherers. Nor were these claims limited to property relations amongst humans about the world of nonhuman entities. They rather redefined the latter altogether and recalibrated interspecies relations directly.
Large predators for their part became an additional nuisance, as they were liable to become thieves, wantonly stealing and slaughtering animals that were under human care, often born under the same roof as their caretakers and quite literally the upshot of midwifery. Besides, livestock eventually became a paramount measure of wealth, with the word cattle stemming etymologically from the 13 th century Anglo-French word catel , a term for property , and before that from old French chatel which carried the same meaning as chattel for assets of movable property.
To some extent, agriculturalists circumvented this by introducing animals in a closed loop of production that extracted crops from highly modified land, working and fertilizing it with animal output, adding to the loop or subtracting as needed McWhiney and McDonald Granted, agriculturalists also herded animals outside these perimeters, as did pastoralists routinely, but ranching eventually released these animals completely from the closed loops of agriculture s ecological relations.
The concept of carrying capacity was adopted in range science to help administer vast expanses of grazing lands where domestic animals had been released. It is nonetheless noteworthy that this form of regulation was implemented on North American rangelands during the s Evans a; Evans b; Sayre , not only several centuries after the diffusion of ranching practices in North America, but also after the excesses of the open range era had been curbed.
Exclusive access to pasture did not immunize ranching against overstocking either, although it made it possible to control it. Chronic overuse has continued regardless on many private ranges Worster , just as regulatory problems have been a constant worry amongst communally-minded pastoralists Turner Predators posed a problem that required a more immediate solution. Getting stranger and stranger Overall, at this social and ecological nexus, the conditions for the emergence of ranching were fulfilled with the completion of a breakdown in two movements, which I adduce as evidence of interspecies estrangement.
The breakdown was therefore cumulative, going back a very long time. The initial interspecies rupture and reconfiguration were concomitant to both the rise of agriculture and pastoralism.
As mentioned above, the first order of estrangement pertained to the alienation between humans and large predators that fostered a longstanding antipathy ever since Neolithic innovators sought to tame and protect former game animals. Pastoralists, for their part, have dealt with large predators by protecting their herds personally, dealing with predators in ad hoc fashion rather than contemplating how to exterminate them systematically. That was not to be an option for ranchers, and this was a function of an additional rupture that turned out to be foundational.
Ostensibly, interspecies antagonism was induced by the introduction of technologies and related practices to subdue animals: The snowmobile, an innovation of the s, did for the reindeerman what the horse had done for the cattleman: it enabled him to direct the movement of the animals from behind, by restricting their path of escape p.
But by the same token the machine has been instrumental in the 11 Unlike most cases of ranching transition, reindeer ranching was a adopted in Scandinavia by indigenous people who already had a long history of pastoralism, which b recruited animals endogenous to the subarctic region.
Reindeer ranching is also referred to as an extensive system of reindeer herding, and reindeer pastoralism as intensive herding system.
The ruthlessness with which snowmobiles ‘attack’ the herds is a constant source of regret to ex-pastoralists of the older generation. Deer are terrified by the speed and roar of the machines, and run in panic at their approach.
In the roundups, too, deer are subjected to particularly brutal treatment, being crushed into a corral, or ‘churn’, so small that they can be grabbed by hand Ingold , In a ranching regime, as Ingold conceives it, interspecies relations that were steeped in familiarity degenerate and occasional encounters turn into general battue, whilst animals are chased towards a site of capture. This kind of protocol seems to preclude practices whereby animals may be pointed towards an habitual destination and leisurely driven there in ways not so coercive.
Moreover, in this view, systematic violence replaced gentleness towards animals and is inherent to ranching practice. As Jordan mentions about the forebears of the first North American cattlemen, the method of cattle raising in the salt marshes of Andalusia involved no supervision as the livestock were left to revert to a near feral state; they grazed undisturbed other than for two rodeos yearly when they were shifted from marshes where they ranged during the dry season to the nearby hills during the flooding season.
Scarcity of herding notwithstanding, the salt marshes cattle transhumance has been described as a form of herding ecology Sluyter , although by every account it was rather a semi- feral livestock ecology. Yet again, the non- specific use of the term herding adds potential for confusion, and I emphasize instead that clear distinctions are necessary, especially since the diffusion of the cattle complex to the Americas followed a bi-modal pattern, with the absenteeism of herdsmen of one type contrasting with the broken down husbandry of another.
Cattle complex has nothing to do with bovine infatuation here or the acquisition of prestige see Herskovits ; it rather implies a combination of livestock animals, related practices of intense husbandry or lack thereof , technologies and social ecological relations that were altogether exotic to the Americas. I surmise that the domestication of wild cattle had been completed in the Old World before regressing in some areas. Note to the reader: there will be numerous references to various kinds of bi- modality.
These follow several related axes of variation: historically, between tame and feral in terms of the domesticated status of livestock; between familiarity and estrangement in terms of interspecies relations; between agriculture and ranching in terms of modes of subsistence and their respective levels of ecological modification; between collective and privatized in terms of property relations of modes production; and so forth.
In some instances, these characterize distinct regional bodies of practices but in others characterize bi-modality within a body of practices and relations. As will become clear, this kind of differentiation is not mere casuistry.
Rather, it is key to understanding the complex and hybrid nature of the situations I wish to elucidate. Huynh, Dac H. Nguyen, Binh T. Nguyen, Khiem H. Le, Binh T. Shoumy, Li-Minn Ang, D. Asadut Zaman et al. Robotics Front Matter Pages Beloglazov, Maria A. Vasileva, Victor V. Soloviev, Vladimir A. Pereverzev, Viacheslav H. Pshihopov Pages Back to top. Advances and Trends in Artificial Intelligence. These areas include the following: Part I, Artificial Intelligence Practices: Knowledge discovery and pattern mining; artificial intelligence and machine learning; sematic, topology, and ontology models; medical and health-related applications; graphic and social network analysis; signal and bioinformatics processing; evolutionary computation; attack security; natural language and text processing; fuzzy inference and theory; and sensor and communication networks Part II, From Theory to Practice: Prediction and recommendation; data management, clustering and classification; robotics; knowledge based and decision support systems; multimedia applications; innovative applications of intelligent systems; CPS and industrial applications; defect, anomaly and intrusion detection; financial and supply chain applications; Bayesian networks; BigData and time series processing; and information retrieval and relation extraction.
Keywords artificial intelligence classification cluster analysis computer vision data mining databases image processing information retrieval internet machine learning network protocols neural networks robotics semantics signal processing telecommunication systems.
Canada day vancouver islanders vsp vision appraisal firewall –
Whether helping people access quality care, creating the next ophthalmic innovation or supporting providers as they manage their practice, we help people see every possibility with the most comprehensive portfolio of eye health services, eyewear solutions, and practice solutions.
Every day, our workforce delivers on our purpose of empowering human potential through sight while connecting millions of individuals to quality eye care and eyewear. We’re committed to recruiting, hiring, retaining, developing, and supporting veterans and the military-connected community. We’re proud to foster a culture that empowers diversity and unlocks the potential of our employees.
Select Site. Our Business Whether helping people access quality care, creating the next ophthalmic innovation or supporting providers as they manage their practice, we help people see every possibility with the most comprehensive portfolio of eye health services, eyewear solutions, and practice solutions. Learn More. Meet Our Leaders. We Are One Team Every day, our workforce delivers on our purpose of empowering human potential through sight while connecting millions of individuals to quality eye care and eyewear.
Join Our Team. Latest Media. Loading results View More Media.
Canada day vancouver islanders vsp vision appraisal firewall
Appraisal Firewall is residential and commercial appraisal technology for lenders to canada day vancouver islanders vsp vision appraisal firewall their own appraisal узнать больше. We enable lenders to work with their trusted appraisers and any AMCs they want to work with to increase efficiency at the loan production level.
This helps lenders comply with all appraisal regulations. Appraisal Firewall is not an AMC. Appraisal Firewall is not an AMC, and does not get between you and your lender clients. Your clients set up panels of appraisers like you, so you work directly with your clients.
Appraisers love us because they canada day vancouver islanders vsp vision appraisal firewall keep their full fees and communicate directly with their lenders. You can too! Appraisal Firewall Goodbye middle man. Isoanders simple. For Lenders Appraisal Firewall is residential and commercial appraisal technology for lenders to manage their own нажмите для продолжения process.
Usa government jobs jobs4tn real estate appraisal technology with a modern, intuitive user isllanders. Let’s Islajders Things Moving! Just a Few of Our Favorite Things. Making Compliance Easy. Appraisal Firewall offers solutions to make lenders’ compliance worries a thing of the past. Protect your mortgage lending business further with double-blind communications that are tracked in every order and presented in an easy-to-understand format that you can download and print.
Create a personalized network of your users faster and build more complete panels of appraisers you rely on to provide you with fast, quality appraisals. Have your appraisal process fit your workflow by managing how users place orders. Automate appraiser selection, service areas, qualifications, and payment, or route orders to your trusted local appraisers based on your specifications.
Expanded access to the complete system through tablets and smart phones enables you to place orders and monitor your orders from anywhere by accessing your account online at any time. Our appraisal technology has helped lenders and appraisers thrive in an increasingly regulated environment. Appraisal Firewall delivers better control over your appraisal process than any other platform available today.
