Blubbering Academics

In association to deersman's "Another Mule Deer Discussion" thread and many others like it, I propose there is a problem bigger than habitat and predators combined. The problem is our so called scientists. I propose they don't really deserve the authoritative position they so often assume and to often are granted.
The only thing more pathetic than blubbering rednecks which spout off about things they know very little about are blubbering academics who spout off their statistics under the veil of being more enlightened because their "studies show."
Yes, the general hunting public may not be academically qualified to run statistically significant studies, but at least they can see the nose on the front of their face. Unfortunately, academia usually gets a free pass, because they are "highly educated"- which of course automatically means whatever their conclusions are, are much more accurate than any average joe could every hope of being.
The real dirty secret is that the vast majority of research does not meet strict standard scientific standards. The whole basis of unbiased statistically significant scientific research is maintaining true randomness in data gathering. Unfortunately, truly random data is very difficult, sometimes impossible, to obtain. So what is the academic world's solution. Fudge it. Make exceptions to true scientific research standards in the name of convenience.
Of course this makes the research process much easier and makes impossible things possible and the only thing we have to give up is the integrity of our results. Of course this is a minor thing as long as we can continue to lay claim to the coveted authoritative position of being strictly science based.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-29-10 AT 10:21PM (MST)[p]Orrrrr, they could go down to the local coffeeshop and learn the truth. Truth about politics, religion and especially wildlife management. Yep boys, thats where it all happens. Them are the smartest MFers in the world, just ask 'em. And it doesn't matter where you live they are there. And if you can't get to the coffeeshop just log on to an internet hunting site.


In the words of Rodney Carrington: ""I ain't gonna come to where you work and throw rocks at ya when you're f$%#&n' mowin' so shutup"

O so true.

Society has given them a lot of position power. One of the most important things I learned in college was at the begining of my freshman year. Someone spouted off about a study that intrigued me. I went to the library, pulled the journal, and read the original research. Discovered the sample size was very small. The sample was a specific demographic that realistically couldn't be generalized to the population as a whole, and the interpretation of results was a stretch. I learned that you have to go to the original research and judge for yourself. There's some good research out there, but my observation is that the vast majority does not make the grade in methodology and the interpretations are too subjective.

People believe what they want to believe and disregard the rest.

Well said mmwb. I think the other posts speak for themselves. When they are confronted with the truth, they resort to the same personal attacks that the "coffee shop" people they so deeply despise do, because they don't have any real response to why millions of dollars in research over the last thirty years has done nothing but lead to ever declining mule deer numbers. Citing an opinion referring to "studies show" as a justification really carries about as much weight in real scientific objectivity as the "boys down at the coffee shop" saying "when I was out on the mountain last week"- sometimes maybe less. At least the boys out on the mountain can accept what their eyes are seeing. Too many academics can't see the nose on the front of their face, because their corrupted statistics say it is not there.
The vast majority of "scientific" research out there could not stand up to a thorough scrutiny of strict scientific research standards, but we treat it as the great "Allah."

The irony is when it comes to the investigating anything cougar the DWR consults houndsmen for there input.

Houndsman as a whole don't strike me as academics. What gives.

This is an interesting article about Aspens, which are a valuable commodity for wildlife.

http://westinstenv.org/ffsci/2009/07/27/aspen-a-vanishing-resource/

A classic example related to mule deer is a study I read a couple of years ago about the effects of development on mule deer migration in the Jonas Field in western Wyoming. The study concluded that development was aversive to migration. The methodology was excellent, really a well done study. However, the sample size was 20 deer. Not a big enough sample size to draw conclusions from. The study presented good grounds for further funding for an expanded study, but not enough in of itself that it should sway policy, regulations, and law.

Unfortunately policy is often made on bogus information or premature conclusions. Several years back we were told eggs were bad for us. There was a big campaign to education the public to eat less eggs. A few years later, "oops!" our mistake, eggs actually are good for you. Didn't help any of the small egg farmers who went out of business during the interim.

That's a good read V slope.

At risk of highjacking this thread and going off on a 20 post rant. I will just say my family has always owned land in the Fishlake NF. I do as well. And many of the observations sighted in the article mirror my observations. Mostly in concern to elk effect on aspen on and around our property.

Another side note that this article skirts. The reintroduction of wolf in Yellowstone was spearheaded by folks with romantic intentions of having a majestic animal in our National Parks. Where we think the ecosystem should reflect a pre settlement landscape.

It was justified and garnered support thought the plight of aspens willow and beaver.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-30-10 AT 10:42AM (MST)[p]>
>Another side note that this article
>skirts. The reintroduction of wolf
>in Yellowstone was spearheaded by
>folks with romantic intentions of
>having a majestic animal in
>our National Parks. Where we
>think the ecosystem should reflect
>a pre settlement landscape.

Deersman, those are the same people who will hate you and your desire to control lion numbers. Who won the wolf fight?


So let me get this straight... when you are studying lions asking the houndsmen who spend weeks if not months each year out in the mountains studying their adversary is bad science. But when it comes to deer asking the deer hunters who, on average, spend just a few days a year out there is good science. Hmmm... I don't savy that thinking.

Guys, you are fighting with the wrong people here. I am just a farmer and part time IT guy. I'm not a paid wildlife professional. I don't think Bearman is a paid wildlife professional.He's just doing all he can to help us all out by DONATING his time to being on a county advisory board and getting involved.

So I'll tell you what... you don't look at the bales of hay in my field and think I must be a millionarie and I won't look at whatever it is you do for a living and assume I can do it better than you.

LAST EDITED ON Sep-30-10 AT 02:15PM (MST)[p]It's the deer hunters that have spent the most time in the field that are the most passionate about the issue.

I would have thought the Don Peay's of the world would fight this fight. But I have to believe that there is different agenda. And mainstream general hunting isn't included in it.

NVBH,

"Guys, you are fighting with the wrong people here. I am just a farmer and part time IT guy. I'm not a paid wildlife professional. I don't think Bearman is a paid wildlife professional.He's just doing all he can to help us all out by DONATING his time to being on a county advisory board and getting involved."

That is a classy statement. You are right. There is very little reason we should be fighting among ourselves. The only problem I have is that, in my opinion, part of the reason hunters are arguing among themselves is because honest people get concerned, go to "the experts" for help honestly hoping to find answers and the experts preach their studies like they are gospel when, in reality, the "research" is far from strictly scientific research.
This is a problem in most areas of research- not just wildlife. It really is academia's dirty secret. They love being the authority, but they have allowed their research principles to be watered down to the point where they can conclude almost anything they want.
This allows politics to drive the research process, and political groups make every effort to have influence on the conclusions. This process has allowed the extreme environmental movement to influence some of the very basic wildlife "science." Wildlife 101 really is part of the problem because our wildlife people get indoctrinated with this extreme environmentalist influenced "wildlife science" the second they enter their training. If they have any reservations, they get beat down for questioning the authority of the "science," so by the time they graduate, they've been indoctrinated with this crap for four years.