Way back in June you might remember that I wrote about a study released in the Journal of Human Wildlife Interaction called Toward an understanding of beaver management as human and beaver densities increase. I had a lot to say at the time about what I thought was a slanted study that worked hard to present the very hopeless argument that would add pressure to overturn the voters decision in Massachusetts.
This study revisits the Massachusetts beaver issue and the least-liked voter decision apparently in the history of the world. A 1996 referendum that indicated folks wanted it to be harder to kill beavers cruelly. This is vociferously blamed for ruining every sense of balance the state had previously developed. Even beaver defenders thought the the referendum had ‘tricked’ the voters (although how straight forward are most ballot issues, I ask you?) Once it was passed, alarming reports filled the air like spring pollen. Authorities said the population subsequently exploded because even though you could still use lethal techniques and even though you could use the old methods as long as one of 9 tiny conditions were met, it still took five minutes more time to kill them than it used to and that created anarchy. (Folks in the bay state are very busy and obviously no one has 5 more minutes to spare killing beavers.)
Hence the article, which is based on public attitudes towards beavers and a questionnairre that got mailed to folks who complained about beavers (and for appearances sake, some folks who didn’t) in 2002. Surprisingly, the folks who DIDN”T COMPLAIN didn’t return the survey as much as the people who were mad. (Gosh!) And the two groups said admittedly different things in general, but the researchers knew just how to handle this conundrum to get the results they wanted.
Well, at the time I had so much to say about the article that I wrote the editor who invited me to write a response. Which I faithfully did and which I was just mailed the proof of yesterday. Meaning response will appear in the Fall issue of Human Wildlife Interactions! My article will be followed by a rebuttal in much the same way as a pinata might be dangled to be whacked by a group of small children, but regardless of my inevitable thwacking, the will be an article about flow devices and how they worked in Martinez published for all the world to see. Flow devices will appear in a Peer Reviewed Journal which I believe will be a first.
I’m very, very happy about this. Oh and since I’m turning 4 feet old today, I thought we all deserve some of this. It’s the best beaver birthday cake EVER!
