Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
We are grateful for the opportunity to revisit and clarify findings in our recently published manuscript on the topic of scientific decision-aid tools for carnivore management. Beausoleil et al. (2021) reported estimates of independent-aged cougar (Puma concolor) densities from 5 study sites spread across Washington, USA, and gathered from 229 global positioning system (GPS)-collared individuals over 16 years combined. We proposed that research can better assist wildlife managers that set harvest guidelines by first clarifying definitions of cougar age classes and standardizing observations of density from different sources, and second, by describing the variance of research results and remaining uncertainty around the estimated parameter as the statistical risk of failing to achieve a management objective.Thorburn's (2022) letter to the editor provides many inaccurate and misleading statements while attempting to criticize the statistical and biological concepts underlying Beausoleil et al. (2021). Thorburn is a standing member of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (WFWC), which is the body of 9 policy decision-makers who are tasked with setting rules in the Washington Administrative Code associated with fish and wildlife resources in the state. The WFWC approves harvest and season regulations based upon recommendations provided by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff. Often these policy-level decisions weigh scientific findings with sociopolitical factors. Unfortunately, from our perspective, Thorburn (2022) provides limited insight into perceptions of risk and the decisionmaking process and instead attempts to directly challenge the validity of research findings. Defense and clarification of one's methodology and inference are common practice in science, but after many careful readings of Thorburn's letter, we could not identify any substantive criticism of our approach other than a general dissatisfaction with the work. We found it difficult to formulate a response because Thorburn's comments represented a poor understanding of the biological concepts and statistical methods used resulting in misrepresentations of our work. In addition, as employees of the agency that Thorburn helps oversee, we are put in an uncomfortable position by responding through this forum. Nonetheless, we feel obligated as scientists and WDFW employees to respond.We will not provide a rebuttal of each of Thorburn's perceived shortcomings with our work. Instead, we highlight particularly evident mistakes in her interpretation of Beausoleil et al. (2021). Specifically, we illustrate how Thorburn mistakes the concept of an estimated parameter of an unknown value for the observed sample mean; misconstrued our statistical risk analysis as evaluating the hunting season structure and making harvest recommendations; and criticizes the statistical and biological concepts underlying Beausoleil et al. (2021), in a way that is inaccurate and misleading.Thorburn's most consistently incorrect understanding of our work st...
We are grateful for the opportunity to revisit and clarify findings in our recently published manuscript on the topic of scientific decision-aid tools for carnivore management. Beausoleil et al. (2021) reported estimates of independent-aged cougar (Puma concolor) densities from 5 study sites spread across Washington, USA, and gathered from 229 global positioning system (GPS)-collared individuals over 16 years combined. We proposed that research can better assist wildlife managers that set harvest guidelines by first clarifying definitions of cougar age classes and standardizing observations of density from different sources, and second, by describing the variance of research results and remaining uncertainty around the estimated parameter as the statistical risk of failing to achieve a management objective.Thorburn's (2022) letter to the editor provides many inaccurate and misleading statements while attempting to criticize the statistical and biological concepts underlying Beausoleil et al. (2021). Thorburn is a standing member of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission (WFWC), which is the body of 9 policy decision-makers who are tasked with setting rules in the Washington Administrative Code associated with fish and wildlife resources in the state. The WFWC approves harvest and season regulations based upon recommendations provided by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) staff. Often these policy-level decisions weigh scientific findings with sociopolitical factors. Unfortunately, from our perspective, Thorburn (2022) provides limited insight into perceptions of risk and the decisionmaking process and instead attempts to directly challenge the validity of research findings. Defense and clarification of one's methodology and inference are common practice in science, but after many careful readings of Thorburn's letter, we could not identify any substantive criticism of our approach other than a general dissatisfaction with the work. We found it difficult to formulate a response because Thorburn's comments represented a poor understanding of the biological concepts and statistical methods used resulting in misrepresentations of our work. In addition, as employees of the agency that Thorburn helps oversee, we are put in an uncomfortable position by responding through this forum. Nonetheless, we feel obligated as scientists and WDFW employees to respond.We will not provide a rebuttal of each of Thorburn's perceived shortcomings with our work. Instead, we highlight particularly evident mistakes in her interpretation of Beausoleil et al. (2021). Specifically, we illustrate how Thorburn mistakes the concept of an estimated parameter of an unknown value for the observed sample mean; misconstrued our statistical risk analysis as evaluating the hunting season structure and making harvest recommendations; and criticizes the statistical and biological concepts underlying Beausoleil et al. (2021), in a way that is inaccurate and misleading.Thorburn's most consistently incorrect understanding of our work st...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.