RAINCOAST wants BLACK BEAR HUNTING BAN

[jassmine]

Darimont cites himself three times, an excellent way to hack impact factor, by the way, and a practice that a good editorial board would weed out.

Are you never allowed to cite yourself in a journal article? I didn't realize that was a new rule. How many times are you allowed to cite yourself before it is too much?

Can you tell us more about the lack of quality of the Editorial Board for a Opinion Letter? Do most articles get reviewed by the entire editorial board? Aren't reviewers, the section editor and review editor the only people likely to see the journal prior to it being approved? I doubt the entire Editorial Board reviews any article.

[S.W.A.T.]

Dude, they want even sport fishing banned, wake up i said this 10 years ago

Over my dead body will I stop fishing. I don't mind not going to areas that are closed due to low returns, that I respect. But closing something all together because of something greenies don't understand I will never due. Mark my words as it stands there will be a lot of grizzlies just left dead in the bush over the next year because of what has taken place

[TreeStandMan]

Jassmine: Raincoast themselves call this "scientific literature." Obviously it's an opinion piece. The discrepancy is the problem.

And throwing references you didn't read at me proves nothing. Typing a few words into a database doesn't make a lit review. Just because different articles use the same phrase or theory doesn't make it them equally valid. You say I don't understand, but you haven't given us your opinion of the article in question. If I'm wrong and this paper is worthwhile, why is it worthwhile? You seem to be unwilling to give us your assessment of this paper. Why is that?

[jassmine]

I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes.

I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes.

I also suppose that this article is of low quality and only got published because of low editorial standards because the Journal of Wildlife Management has a lower impact factor (1.7) than Biology Letters and even less citations over two years (~1.9)

Mclellan, B. N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, T., & Hatter, I. (2017). Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(2), 218-229.
Although more population density, trend, and vital rate measurements would be beneficial, the hypothesis that the grizzly bear hunt has been unsustainable was not supported by our investigation of available information.

That's a shame that this research is of too low quality to be accepted...

I never once defended Raincoast's position or article, I disagreed with your assertion that Biology Letters was not a worthwhile high quality journal, which I believe it is.

[jassmine]

Obviously it's an opinion piece.

Well if you knew it was an opinion/journal letter I'm confused as to why you were looking for Methodology and Analysis:

Not true, I've mentioned several weaknesses of this paper, however methodology and analysis are indeed a problem here.

Or why you were anticipating some sort of model testing:

Third, and most important, his hypothesis that "costly signalling model to explain[s] any big-game hunting" isn't ever tested, is barely observational, and entirely unempirical.

But I'm sure you will have an answer!

[TreeStandMan]

Jassmine: I'm not looking for Methodology and Analysis sections, but I'd like to see the authors of the paper go through the intellectual exercise of have a valid methodology and good analysis. As I've said a number of times now, on their website Raincoast calls this opinion "scientific literature," so what I'm asking of them is not unfair.

(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)

I'm pretty sure that by now my feelings about Raincoast are clear, but if not let me lay it out: Raincoast is morally opposed to hunting and publish questionable material to support this predefined premise to advance their position culturally. They have stated that they disagree with the North American Model of Conservation, a model that I happen to think works extremely well when implemented properly. Do you disagree with any of this?

[IronNoggin]

... If I'm wrong and this paper is worthwhile, why is it worthwhile? You seem to be unwilling to give us your assessment of this paper. Why is that?

GET ON WITH IT GAL!

It is a simple request. Please, for once, quit your characteristic misdirection, and directly answer the question at hand.

Thanks,
Nog

[Beachcomber]

Dude, they want even sport fishing banned, wake up i said this 10 years ago

Is that really the case? I ask because they appear to count among their donors/supporters at least two sport fishing lodges (Nimmo Bay, King Pacific) and Patagonia who make fishing gear. No doubt there are a number among their membership that do oppose sport fishing but not convinced this is an institutional perspective given the presence of these names(https://www.raincoast.org/sponsors/). Turkeys don't normally vote for Christmas.

[Stone Sheep Steve]

Its not even the tags in the GVRD as Region 2 has a general open season; people just need to start hunting bears again. A few of my friends won't touch them. Too scare of Trichinosis. I haven't shot one yet but always buy a tag just in case. Best sausage I have tasted has been bear sausage. Can't wait to try some out when we get one this fall or next spring!

Do your friends eat pork or fresh salmon??

[jassmine]

Jassmine: I'm not looking for Methodology and Analysis sections, but I'd like to see the authors of the paper go through the intellectual exercise of have a valid methodology and good analysis. As I've said a number of times now, on their website Raincoast calls this opinion "scientific literature," so what I'm asking of them is not unfair.

Well it certainly seemed that you are looking for it despite saying you are not (but then saying that is what you are asking for and it's not unfair).
So which is it?

In case you didn't see my other post, the article was an opinion piece looking at signalling as an evolutionary reason for the drive of hunting or fishing. In case you have not read any scientific journals lately (or biological science journals), almost all of them accept various types of submissions (brief communications, correspondence, insight/review/perspectives, etc.). Depending on whether they are peer-reviewed or not, dictates how you would classify them on a academic C.V. Of the categories that Raincoast has on their websites, it would indeed fall into the category of Published Scientific Literature, because it was a piece of scientific work (postulating evolutionary reasons for trophy hunting or fishing) published in a scientific journal.

(And there is no specific rule about not citing yourself, but it is also an easy way to inflate your H index, and can be used cynically to give the appearance of increased impact. This is one reason bibliometrics are being superseded by altmetrics.)

In case you forgot, you were the one who initially brought up the point that Biology Letters is definitely not a high quality journal because of the low numbers of citations, and I disagreed.

I'm not in the biology field, and I haven't looked into how Thomson Reuters constructs their list, but I won't concede that an average of three citations per document over 2 years a good journal makes.

Because if this in fact were the case then this article surely must be even less valid due to lower citation per document over 2 years in this particular journal.
Mclellan, B. N., Mowat, G., Hamilton, T., & Hatter, I. (2017). Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 81(2), 218-229.

Thereby making their conclusion not as significant or valid??

Although more population density, trend, and vital rate measurements would be beneficial, the hypothesis that the grizzly bear hunt has been unsustainable was not supported by our investigation of available information.