Authorization Of Fish Collection For Scientific, Educational Or: Fill & Download for Free

Here’s what the Ontario government says about the subject:The lawBy law, you generally cannot keep wild animals captive — or release them into the wild — in Ontario.Some exceptions exist — but are regulated under provincial laws. These include:* studying wild animals as part of scientific research (e.g., capturing moose to put on a radio collar to track their movements)* undertaking approved educational programs (e.g., at zoos)* supporting immediate, authorized hunting opportunities (e.g., game bird hunting preserve)View the rules under the Fish Wildlife and Conservation Act.If you keep wild animals in Ontario, you must follow the standards of care set out in the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.Keeping wild animals as petsOntario’s laws generally prevent people from keeping the province’s native wildlife as pets.Activities that require permissionYou must get approval to:* collect any species of wildlife from natural habitats* release any species of wildlife into the wildYou generally need approval to:keep wildlife in captivity (even if you’re caring for them because they’re sick, injured or separated from their mothers)breed wildlifeimport or export wildlifebuy or sell wildlifeWho can keep wildlife in captivitythose authorized to keep wildlife for scientific or educational purposesfarmers keeping wildlife classified as “farmed animals” in the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Actlicensed game bird hunting preservesgame bird licence holders that propagate and sell game birdslicensed zooslicensed falconersauthorized wildlife custodians providing care or rehabilitation to sick, injured or orphaned wildlife with the goal of releasing the animal back to the wildlicensed dog training and trial areas operating since before the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act came into effectHow to apply to keep in wildlife in captivityPlease contact your local MNRF district office.

It could go either way. Depends on their qualifications, background, and whether they know what they’re talking about. Of course, it also includes the policies they and their sponsors espouse, but I’m taking the question as given and assuming that, say, the scientist isn’t a rabid eugenicists, or the economist in favour of killing all people over retirement age.In terms of immediate credibility, the economist is behind the eight-ball from the beginning. This isn’t the fault of the discipline of economics (well, not entirely, but more on that later) but rather the fault of marketing. Many people who claim or are claimed to be “experts” in economics are really just finance people or business managers. Many people are also inclined to conflate a degree in economics with a degree in commerce, which is a major insult to both disciplines.Good economists approach issues with open-mindedness and a reliance on solid evidence, much like a scientist. Thomas Piketty, French economist and author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, noted with despair that a lot of economics is based more on assumptions and prejudice than on evidence, with the result that a great deal of economic policy is fundamentally flawed. However, he also noted that there is now a great deal of data available that simply didn’t exist when most major economic theories were being developed.An example of policies often made without evidence is tax cuts. A “common sense” approach suggests that if we cut taxes, people will have more money to spend on things, and that will stimulate economic activity. And this is sometimes true, in the very short term. However, even in those times when a tax cut does stimulate activity, cost of living expenses expand to take up that extra cash, and before too long we’re back to where we started.What’s more, taxes are much more than simply money taken away by the government. Taxes are a country’s collective purchasing power, and are the source of funding for all government services and infrastructure. Any cut to taxes requires a cut to government services, and this is usually economically damaging. Reduce funding for education, for instance, and you’re diminishing the capacity of future generations to create or take advantage of new opportunities, or to adapt to disruptions. Replace a public health system with a private one, and people are now losing much more on health insurance than they ever did on taxes, and the risk of penury due to injury or sickness means that people are much more risk averse, which can lead to wasted opportunities - not to mention that private health systems cost the public much, much more than public health systems and still achieve worse health outcomes.Good economists understand this kind of thing, and take actions based not on ideology or prejudice but on evidence. Unfortunately, most “economy-focused” politicians are not economists, nor do they show any sign of knowing anything about economics, and so their policies are generally pretty destructive. Sadly, they also tend to be the best salespeople, so they’re more likely to get voted in.If your “economics guy” had an education in economics, demonstrated awareness and understanding of economic principles, and had policies that were based in evidence, they would probably receive my support. Sadly, such people are vanishingly rare in politics, so I would expect any describing themselves as an “economics guy” to be a shoddy businessman looking for a well-paid job in the one firm that won’t go bankrupt.The “science guy” is a different kettle of fish. All scientists, even mediocre scientists, are expected to be all about evidence, and it’s very difficult for any of the recognised scientific disciplines to get conflated with non-scientific disciplines. So from the outset, our scientific candidate has more credibility than the economics candidate, simply because it’s easier for the scientist to demonstrate their credibility.However, I’d want to know what kind of science they were into. “Science” is a bloody big field as it covers literally everything that involves rigorous evidence-based inquiry. What’s more, scientists tend to be narrowly focused on their field, often to the exclusion of other scientific disciplines.For instance, physicists and scientists in related disciplines are often dismissive of psychologists, claiming that psychology is a pseudoscience at best because so much of the data is based on subjective reporting rather than objective observation. This tends to ignore the fact that modern psychology is based on a vast amount of data that is highly amenable to statistical analysis, not to mention the great public health value of clinical psychology.So scientists can be very narrow-minded, which is not a good trait in making decisions for public policy. If I had to choose a scientific discipline best suited for politics, I would look to someone trained in systems-level thinking, such as epidemiology, anthropology or my own field of environmental science.Scientists who look at systems tend to be more appreciative of other disciplines due to usually studying issues that require bringing in a wide range of disciplines. For instance, epidemiology requires a solid grounding in the biology of viruses, but also behavioural psychology, medicine, zoology, climatology and even economics, not to mention being heavily based in statistics.That said, our “science guy” may not be a scientist, but simply a politician who supports the sciences. In which case I’d want to see how well they understand what they’re talking about, and their willingness to defer to experts, as well as their ability to manage experts. The best supporters of science are those humble enough to accept the evidence and analysis of experts, but also capable enough to make a call in the face of imperfect information.One final point before my summary: the term “evidence-based” is sometimes used by extremely shonky outfits to make themselves sound more credible. For example, the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia claims to provide “evidence-based” public policy analysis, but beyond the occasional small-scale telephone poll, I have never seen them use anything beyond prejudice, assumption and their version of “common sense.” As with people claiming to be an economist or scientist, or any claim to do with politics and power, it’s always worth looking beyond the initial claim to see if things really are as they claim.l guess then, my final answer is this: I’d willingly vote for either one, provided their claims of expertise stacked up and their policies were based on evidence rather than rhetoric. If they were equally credible, I’d vote for the one with the policies I think make the most sense.

Since I was a2a, it is difficult for all but a limited number, and that includes multiple backgrounds. Education and quality of experience are deciding factors. If one is an exceptional patrol officer in a major department, with multiple commendations, and a degree in a relevant academic field with a high GPA, it is quite likely they will get hired.The information below must bear the caveat that it was as I recall it from the end of 2004 when I retired, and some personal opinion based on unempirical observation. My comments on military investigative agencies are even more dated, since I left NIS in 1986.As I assume you know, a Bachelor's degree is required for federal special agent positions (very few exceptions). Any major is acceptable, but Criminal Justice, Sociology, or Psychology may stand you in better stead, but I know of at least one person with an interior design degree hired when NCIS was NIS (but she was a female and that probably had an effect at that time). Those meeting the minimum requirements may not compare well to the best qualified applicants, and there are always more applicants than positions. The FBI likes lawyers and accountants, but they hire from various backgrounds (http://www.fbijobs.gov/). Other federal agency job announcements should be available at https://my.usajobs.gov/login.aspx.I majored in criminal justice (CJ), got a masters in management (agency sponsored on government time, so keep your eyes and ears open since this type of opportunity is fleeting), and a PhD in Human Services, specializing in CJ. If I was just starting out, I would probably major in psych and minor in CJ. I sat on special agent hiring panels for two agencies (NIS [now NCIS] & Customs), and it is my impression that testing results (if used by the agency), college GPA, physical fitness, work experience, possibly a polygraph, graduate degrees, and especially the ability to communicate orally and in writing, are usually what determine who gets hired. And, I repeat, there are always more applicants than there are positions.I attended Secret Service protective detail training and participated in a protection detail for the Commissioner of Customs for several months. Protection details require meticulous planning and execution for events that almost never happen, and they are boring (but you get into some interesting places). USSS protection details require frequent travel, making for poor family life. The investigative jurisdiction of the USSS is not all that intriguing (counterfeiting, computer crimes, financial crimes).The FBI has the broadest authority of any agency in the US. They investigate everything from white-collar crime to organized crime and terrorism. They have specialized training, like counter-intelligence, tactical teams, evidence collection, and criminal investigative analysis. The FBI has federal kidnapping and bank robbery jurisdiction, but other crimes against persons are only investigated at the request of the local agency.The FBI offers the possibility of specializing in an area of interest, or working in an Embassy as a Legal Attaché. I was an acting Customs Attaché in Panama for about a month, and it is interesting if you like that sort of thing (zero authority, with successes derived from liaison with agencies of the country). And, one of the primary functions of State Department special agents is as the Embassy security officer, and in the US they are responsible for passport fraud and related investigations. The FBI has the largest number of agents (about 12,000) and I believe ICE is second (about 4,000), and there is now.The FBI in particular needs people capable of investigating major frauds and conspiracies involving numerous business and technical occupations and professions (engineers, scientific specializations, etc.); whereas, local police are more oriented to street crime. Federal agents must be capable of understanding and communicating at a level above that usually expected from patrol officers. Federal agencies are looking for people who fit in at all social strata, and the expectations are greater with regard to preparation of reports and affidavits. In my experience, state and local officers have their affidavits written by prosecutors; whereas, federal agents write their own.Being a military officer will normally be advantageous, and military service usually provides veteran preference in the hiring process. However, enlisted service will not necessarily enhance one’s prospects, unless in a specialized position or exemplary service is documented. Military police assignments will not necessarily provide an advantage over infantry assignments, and the branch of service is not necessarily important. Being a practicing attorney or accountant would also place one in a good position. Forensic computer expertise and language capabilities are valued in all agencies.The FBI is the most desirable and well-known agency, so they probably have the largest field from which to select the best. I worked within the FBI structure for about 6 years, as the Customs coordinator for a Joint Drug Intelligence Group at the Houston FBI office, and had the opportunity to see them in action. They tended to be HQ oriented, with the case agent being more subservient to written regulations and HQ directions. Whereas, Customs was more oriented to case agent initiative (but ICE seemed to be going to the HQ directed route when I left). Yet, the FBI was the most backward in ability to share information, within and outside the agency. I have read recently that they have called their attempt to automate their report writing system a failure (something Customs had been doing well since the early 1980s). The FBI was also very concerned with compartmentalization, releasing information only on a need to know basis. The FBI has been well known as the prima donna of agencies, claiming credit for any success of any agency. As well as being famous for collecting information from every agency they contact, while being very reluctant to reciprocate. However, while assigned there, I had unlimited access, as did all those assigned there from other agencies.There are numerous special agent positions (e.g., DEA, ICE, NCIS), in what was, and I assume still is the 1811 job series. DEA seemed to be expanding into the money laundering area, and they have a considerable number of agents assigned to drug source countries. The Dept of Labor has some special agents, in my experience they were only armed when justified by the case they worked on; similar to the Social Security Administration agents who investigate fraud.The 1810 series consists of unarmed investigators without arrest authority, such as some investigators in DEA (controlled pharmaceuticals). I believe special agents in the Securities Exchange Commission, and FDA are 1810s. There are also law enforcement related positions (non-1811) in the Dept of Homeland Security and other agencies, such as inspector positions or Border Patrol agents, that could be open to those with 2 years of college or less. And, there are federal police officers within federal agencies (e.g., Dept of Veteran’s Affairs, Treasury, Federal Protective Service).Air Marshals work for the Dept of Homeland Sec, and have a very boring job (one who did the work likened it to the movie Groundhog Day, repeating the same day over and over). Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms is in the Dept of Justice and they work arson, bombings, and firearms violations. Much of the work apparently consists of gang related and convicted felon weapon violations (not for the timid).The U.S. Marshal’s Service has two divisions, one is responsible for fugitive investigations, and has the same grade structure as other major federal agencies. Most federal agencies have Inspector General (IG) special agents with varying authorities. The Dept of Justice IG investigates FBI malfeasance. I was acquainted with a DOJ special agent who specialized in polygraph and profiling (retired Army CID agent). The State Dept also has special agents, as does IRS (they do tax evasion and money laundering, which is not as boring as it sounds). As far as I know, the IRS still has special agents working internal affairs type investigations as a separate unit. State Dept agents have frequent foreign assignments as Embassy security officers; in the US, they investigate passport and visa violations and conduct protection details for foreign dignitaries other than heads of state.There are even Fish & Wildlife special agents who work primarily in federal wildlife parks and forests, and are involved in some importation of endangered species investigations (also a Customs violation). Due to the limited number of authorized agents, this job is difficult to get.The Defense Criminal Investigative Service primarily works contract fraud. The Navy also employs non-NCIS fraud investigators (1810). The Defense Investigative Service does background investigations for the DOD (1810 series). The General Services Administration also has background investigators.My general advice is to apply at as many places as possible, and accept the first offer. Then, if that’s not where you want to be, keep applying. It is not unusual to find former agents from some federal agency working at another agency, and it is easier to get a job if you have a job. I am aware of FBI agents formerly employed by IRS, Border Patrol, military officers and enlisted personnel, and police agencies; and at least one NIS agent I knew was a beer truck driver (perhaps his education was exemplary).