S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
10 members (dogon, Canvasback13, Hammergun, Bret Adams, Jimmy W, earlyriser, 1 invisible),
349
guests, and
6
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,500
Posts545,471
Members14,414
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314 |
The original study has 29 contributors The lead author has also published in the Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
The CV of the second author James T. (Jim) Anderson, Ph.D. is the Davis-Michael Professor of Forestry and Natural Resources, a professor of wildlife ecology and management, and the director of the Environmental Research Center at West Virginia University (WVU). He earned a B.S. in wildlife from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, an M.S. in range and wildlife management through the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, and a Ph.D. in wildlife science from Texas Tech University. He has been at WVU since 1999 and has been a Certified Wildlife Biologist since 2003. In academics, anything published is immediately peer reviewed, and the peers establish their reputation by proving you are wrong. Studies later shown to be in error, after additional work, can be forgiven. Poor investigative techniques, or even worse, faking it, destroys the author's academic career. The careers of 29 smart folks were on the line, and if someone was making stuff up, someone would have fessed up.
We may certainly, and should, evaluate the numbers derived from the investigation, knowing that the interpretation thereof is always influenced by preconceived opinions/agendas. And we certainly need to express our opinions as to decisions made by regulatory bodies based on the numbers. Number we don't like however aren't necessarily "junk science".
|
1 member likes this:
BrentD, Prof |
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 764 Likes: 23
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 764 Likes: 23 |
BrentD:
Savage Model 99 or Remington Model 8/81 in these calibers, I guess. These few come to mind: .250 Savage, .300 Savage, .30 Remington, .303 Savage, .32 Remington, .35 Remington, .358 Winchester. I know I missed a couple, these just come to mind.
I'm not aware of any commercially available lead-free ammunition in those calibers. And I doubt that the major manufacturers would load it. It's hard enough finding ANY ammunition in some of those calibers. I know that there are boutique companies out there that may load some, but they are pricey.
I have seen lead-free .30-30 and .308 Winchester. I may have seen .250 Savage? And I know that they work. But you are not going to find them as easily.
Not everyone reloads, and not everyone has an interest in doing so.
I know that it is easy to just say hang it over the mantle and buy a new rifle. Not everyone can do that or want to.
As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to lead-free ammunition. I am opposed to a blanket ban without these considerations or giving sportsman time to make a transition. I also don't buy into the whole "Save our Eagles" campaign that the anti's are using to push a ban. It is another tactic to curtail, discourage, and in the end ban hunting.
And I simply feel that if they win that battle, it will be on to the next type of ban. Just like they are constantly trying to ban Bear hunting with Hounds. Or Trapping, or whatever else they don't like or are offended by.
|
1 member likes this:
BrentD, Prof |
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114 |
I stopped believing in these "over-educated P.H. D''s (Piled high and deep- as in Kimshe) after Aldo Leopold died-he was an actual hunter, and knew of which he spoke and wrote- Today, these schmucks study and publish to keep their over paid salaries coming in by grants--No, not the Grant that destroyed Dixie, but a "freebie" chunk of dinero from the taxpayers. RWTF
"The field is the touchstone of the man"..
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 388 Likes: 4
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 388 Likes: 4 |
It's a good thing that the bald eagle population is at an all time high, and is increasing every year. If you didn't know that, you might actually think this was a problem. The higher a species population, the higher the likelihood of human interaction of any kind.
i.e. more eagles=higher probability for one to find a gut pile, fly into a turbine/powerlines/building/plane, have an Acme safe fall on one, etc.
“I left long before daylight, alone but not lonely.”~Gordon Macquarrie
|
1 member likes this:
Ted Schefelbein |
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314 |
Thank you for your insight Francis. I assume you are personally acquainted with a PhD Wildlife Biologist? Could you please share their name, or at least place of employment or academic affiliation? Did you spend time with them afield? Are they hunters or participate in the shooting sports? Seem like decent sorts? Did you discuss their research interest? Do you know anything about the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M? I can't recall meeting a PhD Wildlife Biologist, but met several Wildlife Biologists that were employees of Kansas Game & Fish. All happened to be Kansas born and raised, active hunters, committed to the preservation of wildlife and hunting and fishing opportunities. Good guys. Maybe it was a Kansas thing?
|
1 member likes this:
BrentD, Prof |
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 103 Likes: 51
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 103 Likes: 51 |
The original study has 29 contributors The lead author has also published in the Journal of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry
The CV of the second author James T. (Jim) Anderson, Ph.D. is the Davis-Michael Professor of Forestry and Natural Resources, a professor of wildlife ecology and management, and the director of the Environmental Research Center at West Virginia University (WVU). He earned a B.S. in wildlife from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, an M.S. in range and wildlife management through the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, and a Ph.D. in wildlife science from Texas Tech University. He has been at WVU since 1999 and has been a Certified Wildlife Biologist since 2003. In academics, anything published is immediately peer reviewed, and the peers establish their reputation by proving you are wrong. Studies later shown to be in error, after additional work, can be forgiven. Poor investigative techniques, or even worse, faking it, destroys the author's academic career. The careers of 29 smart folks were on the line, and if someone was making stuff up, someone would have fessed up.
We may certainly, and should, evaluate the numbers derived from the investigation, knowing that the interpretation thereof is always influenced by preconceived opinions/agendas. And we certainly need to express our opinions as to decisions made by regulatory bodies based on the numbers. Number we don't like however aren't necessarily "junk science". 29 Contributors?! The question of padding the curriculum vitae becomes problematic once you get past three or four authors on a study. Some academic journals have been clamping down, but everybody who was at the department Christmas party got listed on this one, no doubt boosting their hopes for tenure and/or future grants. I seriously doubt numbers 28 or 29 could tell you much about the study other than they loaded the stats program or fetched donuts for the crew. Having done my share of academic peer review, I can tell you that the number of authors does not correlate with increased validity and reliability of the study's findings.
|
1 member likes this:
LeFusil |
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314 |
I can tell you Bluestem that at the UM-KC SOM starting in the 90s the rule was if you did not substantial contribute to the paper, your name didn't appear on it. Are you saying that the authors of a study that is proved to be junk suffer no professional repercussions?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 122 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 122 Likes: 9 |
You guys have obviously never seen a high energy physics paper. Sometimes the author list takes up half of the title page. Any researcher that does experimental work or field work requiring a large support staff that writes a paper as a sole author will likely get no help from their peers in the future. Data isn't free. I review papers from some journals that require the authors to list their contributions.
Last edited by Bruce Bernacki; 02/24/22 07:22 PM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,426 Likes: 314 |
If anyone is interested, click on Authors Info & Affiliations for the locations of the authors on the link below https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj3068 I might have missed a couple, but the repetitions were 2 contributors from Missoula, 2 from Chyenne, and 2 from the Microbiology and Environmental Toxicology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz ie. they are (almost) all at different institutions and no doubt the lead researcher from that institution. Only ONE was from Washington D.C., and BTW one from the American Eagle Research Institute in Apache Junction, AZ Francis - do you know John Buchweitz in the Department of Pathobiology and Diagnostic Investigation, Michigan State University? You might look him up and share your thoughts regarding PhDs. It would require a long walk fetching donuts for everyone if that's the author's contribution This is a pre-publication abstract released today from the NEJM; there are 12 authors listed (and et al ) from 12 different institutions https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2115998
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,986 Likes: 299
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,986 Likes: 299 |
I am reminded of when my daughter co-authored a paper that went on to be published in Nature. (High impact Science rag for the unfamiliar) She was savaged world wide because US spreadsheet software places comma’s differently that EU spreadsheet software.
Watching 15 years of 12 hr days go up in electronic smoke over commas and decimal software defaults really opened my eyes on how competitive the professional science world is.
Out there doing it best I can.
|
|
|
|
|