Re(4): Peer Reviewed Papers - Here is one

Helen, your group's cause is not furthered by dismissing evidence that goes against your theories as it comes up. Within weeks of that peer reviewed paper coming out, (which you were fast to jump on) Three females turned up where the conjecture said they would not be for decades. How many more are there that were not confirmed? You don't have one bit of evidence that any of the females hunted were the same cat. Yet you demand high level evidence from everyone else. What would you say if Sue Morse, a clearly experienced tracking expert, found tracks in New England tomorrow? Not good enough? Well we have several qualified wildlife managers and professors that have seen cougars in Southern New England. By your standards, that's not good enough? The very author of that peer reviewed paper was great to examine the new evidence and backtrack, as she should. But yet, your group comes on here and dismisses and belittles the evidence? Your group's credibility has hit an all time low with that. "Heart of a Lion's" author clearly has taken your group's position. Its not the position of everyone though. The "rewilding" goes down the tubes fast if the evidence is recognized doesn't it? That clearly shows your narrow vision on the subject. Thank you for your opinion. Your group goes as far as to claim various evidence isn't even cougar related, for example, tree caching of deer. That has now been documented by the way, but you dismissed it because it didn't fit your vision. Its time to be ready to change fast Helen, or you will be left in that past. Chris can join you though.


Post a reply:
bold italic underline left align right align center align url email image move quote horizontal rule

Link Name:
Link URL:
Image URL:
Check this box if you want to be notified via email when someone replies to your post.

Create Your Own Free Message Board or Free Forum!
Hosted By Boards2Go Copyright © 2020

<-- -->