Source - now comprehensively discredited, this is the paper that spawned the whole expensive fiasco.
The Burgess paper is finally out - read it!
Good to observe how the man is morphing from token couch farting Sharxpert to real researcher!
Good to observe how the man is morphing from token couch farting Sharxpert to real researcher!
And I cite.
"The listing of a species as 'endangered' places substantial demands on governments," Burgess said. "Listing species that are not under the threat of biological extinction diverts resources away from species genuinely at risk.
We want to use our resources for the neediest species."
Exactly.
And thus endeth the ignominious conservation sham that has been the listing of the NE Pacific GWS poulation under ESA and CESA.
Kudos again to Michael Domeier.
He was the first to raise his voice in alarm (scroll down) years ago, for which he was severely criticized by the usual dipshits with an opinion and a keyboard.
4 comments:
"Good to observe how the man is morphing from token couch farting Sharxpert to real researcher!"
It's why I love this blog. Enough said.
Estimating a population size without even leaving the office?
This paper merely examines assumptions of a previous paper, and then applies a bit of statistics to different assumptions.
The primary author did zero primary data collection himself, but relies on other papers,some of which may well be badly flawed as well.
They are arguing over 438 vs "more than 2,000." Amazing.
Their prey has been protected for forty years and the sharks have been fully protected for decades. Amazing that full protections can bring a species back from the brink. Shark sanctuaries for everybody!
Hear hear Angelo - could not agree more!
But protecting the prey = advocating sustainable fisheries in general may well turn out to be an essential component of the strategy!
Post a Comment