A new paper, published by a team of researchers including Raincoast scientists, dives into the tangle of cognitive bias, institutional agendas, human interests, and pays special attention to the role of undisclosed value judgments.
A new study suggests killing predators like wolves, grizzly bears, and cougars for trophy is a potential threat not only to these sensitive animals, but also to other hunters…
Wildlife conservation literature and public discourse, too often gloss over the important difference between hunting and the regulation of hunting. This is so common that there is a persistent, misinformed idea that extinctions have been avoided through the act of hunting. Historically, the regulation of hunting, not hunting itself, has averted extinction…
This research tests and rejects the long-held idea that data lost when known animals disappear were unbiased, under conditions common to most, if not all, studies using marked animals. Published government estimates are affected by the biases discovered. And so government estimates of systemically underestimating risks of poaching…
What is a political population? Did governments around the world try to exaggerate the size or resilience of carnivore populations? Have estimates of populations been skewed by systemic selection of data to suit political interests? Adam Stirling and Chris Darimont take on these questions and more…
A new study, “Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management”, published by Science Advances [icon icon=”external-link”], challenges a widespread assumption that wildlife management in North America is science-based. Scientists from Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Simon Fraser University, University of Victoria, and the University of Wisconsin – Madison examined management documents relating to most hunted species…