[Tweeters] Re: Wolves changing rivers post

Devorah the Ornithologist birdologist at gmail.com
Wed Feb 22 15:25:29 PST 2017


hello barb and everyone,

coming in to this conversation a bit late, so my apologies if i'm
duplicating someone else's comments.

the video, "how wolves change rivers",

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

makes a lot of sense, on the surface, but it presents an extremely
simplified -- almost to the point of absurdity -- representation of a
messier reality. here's a piece published by the New York Times which calls
into question that video report:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/is-the-wolf-a-real-american-hero.html?_r=1

and a bit of a criticism regarding george monbiot, the guardian journalist
and generally arrogant git who narrated the linked video report (and who
was a former colleague of mine at the guardian for many years). it really
angered me to see that he didn't even TRY to target his piece towards the
most likely audience for the story: americans, and to a lesser extend,
canadians. so it's impossible to know for sure if the described effects the
result of DEER, generally, or only ELK/WAPITI, specifically.

if monbiot had actually cared, and had actually done his job correctly in
the first place, the target audience would not have ended up scratching
their heads over what he was talking about because he would have referred
to the animals in the report by their correct common names as they are
known to the (likely) target audience and as they were referred to by
National Geographic, who peddled this fantasy originally

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/03/wolf-wars/wolf-illustration

and to the scientists who conducted a study that found the OPPOSITE of the
NatGeo fantasy

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1756/20122977

why did monbiot not do this one basic, simple thing? what was his motive
for delivering a seemingly clear report that was so confounding to the
point of non-recognizability to the average member of his target audience,
and to scientists?

don't get me wrong. i am not saying we should not work towards
re-introducing wolves into their habitats. i AM arguing about the
irresponsible and grossly misleading way in which this story and its facts
were reported to the public by a seasoned journalist who DEFINITELY knows
better. indefensible, really.

just a few ideas to consider.



On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:56 PM, Barbara Deihl <barbdeihl at comcast.net>
wrote:


> Thanks to Hal and Sue for setting me straight on the deer/elk issue. The

> confusion came from names used by Europeans vs. N. Americans. So,

> apparently, our elk are called Red deer in Europe. Our moose are known by

> the name elk across the pond.

> Several of you told me this video came out a couple years back. It is

> used by the Woodland Park Zoo for education. It may have been made by

> National Geographic. In any case, this is a valuable, factual and

> well-done short explanation of reason to continue to work on bringing

> wolves back into a few of our wilder lands, to make them healthier and more

> complete.

>

> Barb Deihl

> Matthews Beach Neighborhood - NE Seattle

> barbdeihl at comcast.net

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>




--
GrrlScientist | @GrrlScientist <https://twitter.com/GrrlScientist>
Blogs: Forbes <http://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/> | Evolution
Institute <https://evolution-institute.org/profile/grrlscientist/?source=> |
Medium <https://medium.com/@GrrlScientist>
Keep up with my writing: TinyLetter <https://tinyletter.com/grrlscientist>
Tiny bio: about.me <https://about.me/grrlscientist>
sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt. [Virgil, Aeneid]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20170222/1359c971/attachment-0002.htm


More information about the Tweeters mailing list