New York Times Article about Rob Wielgus

[DOUBLELUNG]

Pretty good article.  I could edit it to improve accuracy from my perspective, based on hearing Weilgus's statements first hand on KPQ radio and having read some of the reanalysis of Weilgus's data.  However, for an outside journalist trying to get the story right, he did well.  I give it a solid B+.

[Special T]

Pretty good article.  I could edit it to improve accuracy from my perspective, based on hearing Weilgus's statements first hand on KPQ radio and having read some of the reanalysis of Weilgus's data.  However, for an outside journalist trying to get the story right, he did well.  I give it a solid B+.

Since you have a unique perspective I would love to hear about the the mistakes the article it made. Are they that different than what most sportsmen can see obviously?

[DOUBLELUNG]

Pretty good article.  I could edit it to improve accuracy from my perspective, based on hearing Weilgus's statements first hand on KPQ radio and having read some of the reanalysis of Weilgus's data.  However, for an outside journalist trying to get the story right, he did well.  I give it a solid B+.

Since you have a unique perspective I would love to hear about the the mistakes the article it made. Are they that different than what most sportsmen can see obviously?

Not that different, but my complaint about Weilgus is stronger than what is acknowledged in the article.  He flat out lied in media interviews in order to vilify ranchers he didn't like, crossing a hard line between science and activism that an ethical scientific researcher does not do.  Unfortunately, in the last 20 years in particular, there has been an increasing trend of a split between scientific credibility of real scientists who adhere to the scientific method and strictly separate what is scientifically and statistically demonstrated and speculation about what is unknown; and those activists who may have the same credentials but believe that an issue is so socially important that they skew information to indicate that the data scientifically supporting  their side of a cause is so robust that the science of the issue is settled.  This is scientific and academic misconduct and should not be protected by tenured status. 

Weilgus and his supporters have done a hatchet job on WSU administration when his termination/settlement is absolutely justified based solely on his misconduct.  That's my opinion.   

[bearpaw]

These are quotes from Wielgus in the story, these sound like rants from an anti-hunting activist rather than quotes from a professional scientist! I think his own rants explain Wielgus situation pretty well! Why would any university wanting to employ professional scientists want anyone who would make these types of unprofessional and biased comments which clearly indicate a bias and an unbecoming attitude? 

“I just don’t want to go where the pups were gunned down,” he said.

‘I’m not gonna mince my words and pretend to be a nice diplomatic guy, ’cause I’m not. I’m a pissed-off scientist.’

[Special T]

Interesting. I concur especially since I've listened to a bunch of Eric& Brett Weinstein, and Sam Harrisions discussions... whom are left of center and point the same thing out.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[packmule]

Classic example of a “researcher” who is unable to separate science from ego and personal belief.

[bearpaw]

I know the Profanity area extremely well, I hunted it as a kid in the 70's and have chased cougar on just about every mountain in the whole area, in fact we caught a P&Y world record cougar very close to there in 1987, I used to set a big camp and guided many deer hunters in all that country. Cattle were being grazed there during all those years and were grazed long before I ever started hunting there in the 70's. It used to be great deer hunting, the cattle had little effect on the deer. What made the big difference is when the state outlawed hound hunting of cougar and then Wielgus' bogus cougar studies prompted WDFW to reduce boot hunting of cougar. Big cat numbers went through the roof, and now wolves are further decimating the deer population. In effect, Wielgus himself is probably more responsible for fewer deer in the entire state than any other single person! I don't even waste my time deer hunting in that country anymore, there are other less impacted places to hunt until predators are somehow brought under reasonable control in that area.

[CGDucksandDeer]

As a few others said above, not a bad article, but the reader needs to get to the very end (below) for the details on what really happened with the Profanity fiasco. And how it set progress for wolf management and relative agreement between ranchers, hunters, conservationists and agencies three steps backward by inflaming the public and riling up under-informed audiences.

I hope those who still worship Wielgus, including local groups like The Lands Council and Kettle Range Conservation Group, and out-of-state hardliners like CBD, finally accept his irresponsible actions and stop treating him like a martyr. 

…
The Profanity saga is a complicated one, more nuanced than in Wielgus’s telling, with accounts that turn on details that I have been unable to reconcile. But it does seem that Wielgus, in his anger, exaggerated some statements he made to the newspaper. The rancher didn’t know of the den’s location when he first loosed his cattle a few miles away, said Donny Martorello, the wolf-policy lead for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and he cooperated with wildlife officials. The situation that summer was “dynamic,” Martorello said, with the wolves moving around the area quite a bit. Wolves and cattle-grazing areas overlap almost everywhere in the state, he concluded: “To think we’re going to stop all conflict is not realistic.”
…
I thought of what I had heard a few times from people who knew Wielgus, both fans and critics: He was a man bearing a valuable message: that with more deterrence, you can reduce livestock deaths. Handled more deftly, the incident could have been a chance to talk more constructively about how to manage wolves better going forward, said Paula Swedeen, policy director of Conservation Northwest, whose group is trying to bring back wolves while bridging the divide with ranchers.

What doubly frustrated some people about the Profanity incident is that, after years of mistrust and false starts, the warring sides finally had reached a tentative détente and were starting to move forward, albeit carefully, they said. But by attacking the rancher and getting some things wrong, Wielgus “ruined the credibility of his own work and the students’ work,” Swedeen said.
…
The state’s wolf population, meanwhile, was growing by about 30 percent annually. This spring the federal government announced that it was reviewing the status of Canis lupus in the Lower 48 and, by year’s end, could issue a proposal to revise the wolf’s status, possibly to reduce protection for the animal. But for now, and despite occasional poaching, sanctioned shooting and rough-and-tumble human politics, the wolves were doing pretty well.

[bearpaw]

Here's the problem I have with the article. It tries to come off as being informative of both sides, some credit there, but if you consider all the little comments and quotes made by the author it is clearly biased and makes it appear as Wielgus and wolves have been treated unfairly. For those reasons I have to give the story a C-, and that probably should be a D do to the number of iterations by the author.

[KFhunter]

When will WDFW throw out the current Cougar plan?  They know it's based on flawed science, it should be vacated immediately and the old plan reinstated temporarily until a new plan can be implemented properly.

[Special T]

Wielgus was thrown under the bus because the issue is politically expediiant. Many things at the WDFW are dictated from the governors office.

You can only negotiate when both parties operate in good faith and it's been proven that at least one side isn't willing to do so.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Shawn Ryan]

The self proclaimed title of "Wolf Pimp" just might make a fella think that Wielgus is biased. But I'm probably jumping to a conclusion.

[pianoman9701]

The self proclaimed title of "Wolf Pimp" just might make a fella think that Wielgus is biased. But I'm probably jumping to a conclusion.

It's obvious you're a wolf hater.

[Curly]

I thought the article made it evident that Wielgus is/was biased.  But maybe that was because I already knew about Wielgus' bias and flawed work...........

[bearpaw]

I thought the article made it evident that Wielgus is/was biased.  But maybe that was because I already knew about Wielgus' bias and flawed work...........

My reading goggles might be shaded a bit too because I've watched the mule deer population in the northeast be devastated by overpopulated cougars!