Hunters Killing Goats in Grand Teton Park at Alarming Rate!

[onpoint]

I once contacted a Bozeman publication's editor regarding some incorrect fisheries info about the Madison River, providing the actual data petaining to the subject matter. The next edition not only contained a printed correction, but also a printed thank you for providing accurate and qualified info.
I suppose I coulda' gone on social media and spewed discontent to the "yup that the fake news again" masses, but then the publication may never have received the chance to make a simple correction.
I'm quite sure the same folks that constantly decry the incompetence of the media - yes which is in fact can be, and often is, an issue - are the same folks who seldom show up at a big game season setting meeting.
Or write a letter to the editor.
Or show up in a biologist's office and have an actual conversation about an issue of concern.
Or attend a Public Lands rally at a capitol rotunda.
Much easier to bitch on the internet. And receive the instant gratification of having your tribe members beat your drum with you.

 

[Sytes]

Good read for those interested.

Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise

We empirically reveal how environmental experts interpret the objectivity norm while navigating the authority paradox. The paradox here is that while …

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I’m sure this was just an oversight and the person who wrote it didn’t know damn well what they were doing.

AP Correction
The Associated Press originally reported erroneously that mountain goat hunting took place in Grand Teton National Park. The hunting occurred near but not within the park. The story has been corrected to reflect this.

Located on page 177

 

[MTGomer]

Have any of you guys ever tried to contact the reporter to correct or help him/her understand a bit better? You might actually be surprised when you do it.

I wouldn’t say I do it frequently but I’ve written emails to journalists a couple of times and contacted news outlets through social media as well.
Mostly the more local Montana Lee enterprises media like the Gazette, Missoulian etc. never tried the AP, Reuter’s etc.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

I once contacted a Bozeman publication's editor regarding some incorrect fisheries info about the Madison River, providing the actual data petaining to the subject matter. The next edition not only contained a printed correction, but also a printed thank you for providing accurate and qualified info.
I suppose I coulda' gone on social media and spewed discontent to the "yup that the fake news again" masses, but then the publication may never have received the chance to make a simple correction.
I'm quite sure the same folks that constantly decry the incompetence of the media - yes which is in fact can be, and often is, an issue - are the same folks who seldom show up at a big game season setting meeting.
Or write a letter to the editor.
Or show up in a biologist's office and have an actual conversation about an issue of concern.
Or attend a Public Lands rally at a capitol rotunda.
Much easier to bitch on the internet. And receive the instant gratification of having your tribe members beat your drum with you.

Umm journalists should do the fact checking before they put out garbage.... not you or me. Last time I looked I wasn't receiving a paycheck from the AP to fact check someone else's work. I'll gladly take the job tho...just would suck come hunting season because there is no way your taking time off with the stellar news articles being printed these days.

 

[3855WIN]

I once contacted a Bozeman publication's editor regarding some incorrect fisheries info about the Madison River, providing the actual data petaining to the subject matter. The next edition not only contained a printed correction, but also a printed thank you for providing accurate and qualified info.
I suppose I coulda' gone on social media and spewed discontent to the "yup that the fake news again" masses, but then the publication may never have received the chance to make a simple correction.
I'm quite sure the same folks that constantly decry the incompetence of the media - yes which is in fact can be, and often is, an issue - are the same folks who seldom show up at a big game season setting meeting.
Or write a letter to the editor.
Or show up in a biologist's office and have an actual conversation about an issue of concern.
Or attend a Public Lands rally at a capitol rotunda.
Much easier to bitch on the internet. And receive the instant gratification of having your tribe members beat your drum with you.

How bout they just do their job? If I have to wait for the public to tell me how to do my job, we’ve got problems.

With twitter, bitching on the internet can be quick and effective.

 

[onpoint]

Good read for those interested.

Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise

We empirically reveal how environmental experts interpret the objectivity norm while navigating the authority paradox. The paradox here is that while …

www.sciencedirect.com

From this Abstract:

"The call for objective science is reinforced when the objectivity of experts is publicly called into question".

Exactly.

Which is in line with, my (and if anyone cares to go back and read any of my posts since 2011 regarding this stuff - I've badgered people on here to get and be involved, ad nauseum)

".............are the same folks who seldom show up at a big game season setting meeting.
Or write a letter to the editor.
Or show up in a biologist's office and have an actual conversation about an issue of concern.
Or attend a Public Lands rally at a capitol rotunda".

So the Sytes', the BHR's, the hilljackoutlaw's, the 3855win's, and anyone else in similar "camps - do you actively publicly call the "experts" objectivity into question. Other than on the anonymous www?

If so, great! If not, you have no credibility.

 

[Sytes]

Dashing article title! I'm sure it was merely an error. A soothing message to the journo, editor and chief editor advising them of their slight error...
B-ull, chit!

 

[BigHornRam]

From this Abstract:

"The call for objective science is reinforced when the objectivity of experts is publicly called into question".

Exactly.

Which is in line with, my (and if anyone cares to go back and read any of my posts since 2011 regarding this stuff - I've badgered people on here to get and be involved, ad nauseum)

".............are the same folks who seldom show up at a big game season setting meeting.
Or write a letter to the editor.
Or show up in a biologist's office and have an actual conversation about an issue of concern.
Or attend a Public Lands rally at a capitol rotunda".

So the Sytes', the BHR's, the hilljackoutlaw's, the 3855win's, and anyone else in similar "camps - do you actively publicly call the "experts" objectivity into question. Other than on the anonymous www?

If so, great! If not, you have no credibility.

I was called an "activist" by some BNF personel a few years back for bringing some completely unacceptable work by them to their attention, and then not allowing them to sweep it under the rug. Since then the the now former completely incompetent supervisor has been demoted, and with the leadership of the new supervisor, the Bullock, and the Trump administration, a new direction is taking place on the BNF.

Bitterroot Forest takes first step in launching large west-side project

A proposed Bitterroot National Forest project would examine whether 150,000 acres from Darby to Stevensville could be treated to reduce wildfire risk.

ravallirepublic.com

Does this qualify as being engaged to you, onpoint?

BTW Byron who is brought up in the above article, heck of a guy and deserves a ton of credit for the good forestry work taking place in the Bitterroot.

 

[onpoint]

"If so, great"!

See above. Do you practice the same admirable level of engagement regarding hunting and wildlife (specifically) as you do regarding the fire management of forests near your property?

 

[BigHornRam]

Have any of you guys ever tried to contact the reporter to correct or help him/her understand a bit better? You might actually be surprised when you do it.

Yes I have. Learned a lot about how newspapers operate. They only print the news they want to print.

 

[BigHornRam]

"If so, great"!

See above. Do you practice the same admirable level of engagement regarding hunting and wildlife (specifically) as you do regarding the fire management of forests near your property?

Yes. Right now I chair a committee that works with FWP, DNRC, and the USFS to review and rank these projects.

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks :: Montana's Forest Legacy Program

Montana's Forest Legacy Program

fwp.mt.gov

Montana hunters and wildlife have benefited significantly from this program, and I find it very rewarding to participate (volunteer) in it.

Have you heard of this program onpoint?

 

[Rancho Loco]

Yes I have. Learned a lot about how newspapers operate. They only print the news they want to print.

Look how broad that brush is..

 

[BigHornRam]

Look how broad that brush is..

Very broad, but how it works in the real world. Depending on there alliances and ideology they will put out garbage if suits them, or sit on news if it suits them. Been that way since day one.

To sit back and make excuses for it is your choice.

 

[Jape]

Great point...I get several calls a year by various reporters on issues. Once they realize you’re a reliable source that has the facts straight, they call more often. I have also called and explained story inaccuracies with favorable results.

To some, a mistake or lack of understanding always turns into a conspiracy.

As to the article, it should come as no surprise that hunts designed to eliminate a species, are going to find negative press. It’s tough to reconcile the argument of the hunter/conservationist on one hand, then using those same hunter/conservationist to wipe out goats on the other.

Anyone with 2 firing brain cells could see this coming from a couple miles away.

Great point. I definitely, although not always, get much better results when I am engaged with local personnel and groups rather than just venting.

Although I think we all saw this coming, it's nevertheless still disappointing. In many instances individuals are just not educated on the issues and maybe they don't have a hunter in their professional/personal circle, so a phone call, visit, or email can go a long way. In some instances, the motivations involved are not as "pure" and I think those individuals need to be called out for it.

 

[Rancho Loco]

Very broad, but how it works in the real world. Depending on there alliances and ideology they will put out garbage if suits them, or sit on news if it suits them. Been that way since day one.

To sit back and make excuses for it is your choice.

I'm pretty sure your pre-conceived biases will always be greater than mine.

 

[BigHornRam]

I'm pretty sure your pre-conceived biases will always be greater than mine.

I'm pretty sure you are right.....

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

If you defenders of this think the lie they printed in the original article is just an accident your idiots to. I dont say that to be mean but it's the truth...the bullshit lie they told in this article was fully intentional and agenda driven.

How hard is it to get a simple fact like that correct before going to print. Real freaking simple.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

This is such an ignorant debate.
When I wrote for my high school paper I couldn't of got away with such an inaccuracy.

 

[mtmiller]

This is such an ignorant debate.
When I wrote for my high school paper I couldn't of got away with such an inaccuracy.

Grammar likely held you back as well.