RAINCOAST wants BLACK BEAR HUNTING BAN

[Piperdown]

Must be slow hunting on tinder these days

[jassmine]

Jassmine, I am sure I am not the only one that cant help but notice you have a very skewed agenda with your time and efforts on HBC.

So what is my agenda??

[Ride Red]

You can tell universities are feminized by how they win arguments by simply being able to argue longer than anyone can keep refuting them. Nagging their way to victory!

Now that's funny!!!

[Wild one]

Jasmine

since this thread is about wanting black bear closed in the great bear rainforest I will ask only a few things

1) Is there a black bear population concern in this area?

2) Is there a black bear population concern in BC?

3) Is there a science based reason to close the hunting of black bear in this area?

4) Would you personally support the proposal of closing black bear in the great bear rainforest? If so why?

[Ourea]

So what is my agenda??

You tell us.

Sorry, but your presence here has TROLL written all over it.
You are on a hunting site yet you don't participate in the actual sport.
Again, ZERO credibility.

[Rob Chipman]

Jassmine:

If your complaint is that someone is not giving this particular journal the requisite respect it deserves based on rankings created by, ummm, somebody, let me suggest that you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

"defend your opinion that Biology Letters is a bad journal despite it ranking higher than journals where important research is being used and promoted (ex. Journal of Wildlife Management)".


"in a paper that was an opinion piece published in Biology Letters"

"there was no methodology or analysis section as it was a perspective piece indicated by the journal to be an opinion paper."

Science isn't about opinion or morals. While scientific journals are free to publish opinion pieces, let's remember that everyone has opinions, and most opinions aren't that valuable. The opinion ins the paper referenced is a really poorly thought out one and it's clearly trying to push an agenda that can't stand up to serious critique.

Why waste time describing a publication that publishes foolish opinions as a serious and highly ranked publication? You're just shining more light on a contemporary problem.

Do you think the opinion piece makes any valid points? If so, what are they?

[jassmine]

Jasmine

since this thread is about wanting black bear closed in the great bear rainforest I will ask only a few things

1) Is there a black bear population concern in this area?

2) Is there a black bear population concern in BC?

3) Is there a science based reason to close the hunting of black bear in this area?

4) Would you personally support the proposal of closing black bear in the great bear rainforest? If so why?

Nope not that I know of.

[jassmine]

You tell us.

Meaning, you accuse me of having an agenda, but have no ability to articulate what that might potentially be...
Right?

[jassmine]

Jassmine:

If your complaint is that someone is not giving this particular journal the requisite respect it deserves based on rankings created by, ummm, somebody, let me suggest that you aren't seeing the forest for the trees.

The citations cut off was introduced by TreeStandMan, who indicated that it was a low quality journal. Much of the data that gets published regarding the sustainability of the grizzly hunt or management of different game species are published in journals with rankings and scores much lower than Biology Letters. All I was pointing out was the fact that just because he disagreed with the paper, he also attempted to portrayed the journal as low quality, which if you ask any biologist, it isn't.

[jassmine]

Science isn't about opinion or morals. While scientific journals are free to publish opinion pieces, let's remember that everyone has opinions, and most opinions aren't that valuable. The opinion ins the paper referenced is a really poorly thought out one and it's clearly trying to push an agenda that can't stand up to serious critique.

Well it has stood up to critique because no one has yet to publish an argument to counter their proposition of costly signalling being a evolutionary cause for the desire to trophy hunt. If you really believe it is so poorly thought out, why don't you submit a response to the journal (they would certainly welcome it, as would I and many others here).

But calling the journal low quality simply because you don't agree with a opinion/perspective piece is non-sense. Every major scientific journal has opinion and perspective sections where they invite and review opinions (often controversial ones) of researchers in particular fields.

Why I waste my time describing the publication as serious and highly ranked is... because it is quite highly ranked and respected as a biology journal.

Some pretty major papers have came out of this journal ex:

White, C. R., Phillips, N. F., & Seymour, R. S. (2006). The scaling and temperature dependence of vertebrate metabolism. Biology Letters, 2(1), 125-127.

Keith, D. A., Akçakaya, H. R., Thuiller, W., Midgley, G. F., Pearson, R. G., Phillips, S. J., ... & Rebelo, T. G. (200. Predicting extinction risks under climate change: coupling stochastic population models with dynamic bioclimatic habitat models. Biology letters, 4(5), 560-563.

Cavalier-Smith, T. (2009). Kingdoms Protozoa and Chromista and the eozoan root of the eukaryotic tree. Biology letters, rsbl20090948.

Isler, K., & Van Schaik, C. P. (2006). Metabolic costs of brain size evolution. Biology Letters, 2(4), 557-560.

Alaux, C., Ducloz, F., Crauser, D., & Le Conte, Y. (2010). Diet effects on honeybee immunocompetence. Biology letters, rsbl20090986.