Share Pics of People Hauling or Towing Something Wrong

[Eagle1]

Some of our Western states, while having impressive amounts of open space and wilderness (eg. Wyoming), are putting in an express lane to that problem, by having imported non-native species of wolves.

They travel as well, we had 105 pound coyote (per conservation) shot near here. Later DNA test confirmed mostly Gray Wolf.

 

[ning]

They travel as well, we had 105 pound coyote (per conservation) shot near here. Later DNA test confirmed mostly Gray Wolf.

Gray wolves ranged more than 90% of the US area before being wiped out down here. They may be getting populated from elsewhere but pretty much all of us except people in coastal California are right where they naturally ranged.

 

[Eagle1]

Gray wolves ranged more than 90% of the US area before being wiped out down here. They may be getting populated from elsewhere but pretty much all of us except people in coastal California are right where they naturally ranged.

We also did not have black bears 15 years ago (or mountain lions) now we get be bear aware notes from conservation and have a bear season. The bears were here all along as DNA testing confirmed, distinct population in MO. Cougars are seen several times a year, game cams are games changer for them, more elusive than bobcats around here.

 

[California]

Bobcat(s?) here have gone from secretive, to approaching the deck while they can see us looking out the closed window. I'll try to find my photos of that.

Here he is on critter cam when we were away.

 

[Captain Dirty]

I guess when the same people are casting the deciding votes on everything from household appliance energy consumption to wildlife control measures, all under the influence of various financial supporters, it's going to be hard to find true experts who can make informed and independent decisions.

Studies show 87% of researchers' findings agree with the notions of the institutions that funded their research.

 

[WinterDeere]

Studies show 87% of researchers' findings agree with the notions of the institutions that funded their research.

I've heard this before, but never seen a good source posted to prove its authenticity.

If true, I'd be willing to bet a large part of that is because said funding institutions are specifically seeking out and hiring researchers with a publishing history that already favors their goal, or at least doesn't contradict it. Put otherwise it's likely only a very small part of that 87% is actually changing their tune based on the source of the funding.

 

[Renze]

Put otherwise it's likely only a very small part of that 87% is actually changing their tune based on the source of the funding.

When the outcome is dubious... what will they choose to explain ?

I mean, ive written building permit calculations, subsidy requests, warranty rejections, always with a scientifically supported conclusion for the outcome i could get away with.

Why would "scientists" be holier than me ?

 

[WinterDeere]

When the outcome is dubious... what will they choose to explain ?

I mean, ive written building permit calculations, subsidy requests, warranty rejections, always with a scientifically supported conclusion for the outcome i could get away with.

Why would "scientists" be holier than me ?

In cases where their funding is tied to a given result, perhaps they are not! But if we're talking science, let's see some valid source material for that claim, before we dig into the "why" question.

 

[BigBlue1]

I think another factor is that these days many, many people see themselves as 'activists' and that they are doing some great public service to sway the world to whatever they view as the 'greater good'. Based on the public interaction I've observed with people on one side of the political spectrum and (in far greater visibility) on social media observations: values, character and integrity has been superseded by activism. One can no longer make a reliable assumption that a "scientist" is objective nor follows scientific methods rigorously.

 

[Renze]

In cases where their funding is tied to a given result, perhaps they are not! But if we're talking science, let's see some valid source material for that claim, before we dig into the "why" question.

The scientific method is to have the source data peer reviewed, i know. But when selecting which data to use, some data is more convenient than other... The more abstract and complex a matter gets, the easier it is to steer the outcome.