ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[peter]

APEX

Three informative and well-written posts about interactions between Amur tigers, Himalayan black bears and Ussuri brown bears. I don't doubt they were appreciated by those interested in the way Amur tigers and bears coexisting in the Russian Far East interact.  

Before discussing your posts, a few words about the post in which I adressed the administrator of 'Domain of the bears' and some of his members. In the past weeks, I talked to a number of professionals, including developers of (web)sites, owners, moderators of (large) public platforms and a few lawyers. All of them told me a lack of training and knowledge, and, as a result, a lack of understanding, selective reading, preference, dismissals of those involved in peer-reviewed documents, misinformation, hate and insult are more or less common ingredients in many contributions and discussions. It's typical for the way many people interact these days. There are, however, (legal) ways to address (some of) these problem. I'll discuss them in a future post. 

I recently visited the site mentioned above. All quiet on the western front, one could say, meaning nothing changed. I did, however, find a thread created by a new member in the section 'General Discussions'. In 'Beyond the Bear and Tiger: a well deserved tribute', 'fantasticstruggle788' posted about (the life and work of) a number of Russian zoologists, biologists, naturalists and hunters. All of them,as you know, published about interactions between Amur tigers and bears in the Russian Far East. 

I'm referring to K.G. Abramov (zoologist, 1883-1961), his son, V.K. Abramov (biologist, 1936-2004), L.G. Kaplanov (zoologist, 1910-1943), E.F. Bromley (zoologist, 1906-1982), S.P. Kucherenko (hunter-biologist, 1927-2009), N.N. Rukovsky (hunter and candidate of biological sciences, 1919), V.P. Sysoev (game-manager and writer, 1911-2011), N.A. Baikov (army officer, naturalist and writer, 1875-1958), S.I. Ognev (zoologist and biologist, 1886-1951), E.N. Matyushkin (zoologist and biologist, 1941-2003), V.G. Heptner (zoologist, 1901-1975) and V.G. Sokolov (zoologist, 1928-1998). The thread also has a post about Jim Corbett (1875-1955). Every post has a list of publications. My advice is to visit the thread. 

Two more remarks.  

One is you can't contact the administrator of another forum to tell him what you think about his creation or (some of) the members of his forum. The reason is it could be perceived as an, indirect, attempt to speak on behalf of the administrators of Wildfact. You're a member, not one of the administrators. Two is it is, in my opinion, all but pointless to contact those who have different ideas about issues you're interested in. You know most members of forums have outspoken ideas. You're not a missionary, but a member of a forum created to inform those interested about the natural world. Our aim is good information, not something else.    

BROBEAR

I noticed your, somewhat indirect, invitation to join your community in order to discuss issues we're interested in. I, politely, decline. One reason is my aim is good information, not something else (referring to discussions). Two is I want to invest my time in the forum I created with Sanjay.   

As to your post in which you discuss (the effects of) your background (education). Although raised in what most would consider to be (relative) poverty, I, educationwise, went all the way. This to say I know a bit about both worlds. And they really are two very different worlds. When you visit a university, you read a lot. You also learn how to conduct research, how to report and in what way the results of research have to be (can be) interpreted. It depends, to keep it short, on a lot of factors, meaning there are few absolutes.  

It's important to remember to ask (yourself) questions before getting to a decision. They have to be answered. And then there's research. Every researcher has a specific goal and uses an accepted method to answer a specific question (hypothesis), but methods can be applied in different ways and not every researcher takes rules of conduct as serious as those who defined them (also referring to those who created new dimensions in the rule department and decided to keep silent about their decision). When you got to an answer, try to debunk it. Not once, but more than once. In the end, you'll end up with a quite reliable result. 

Does this way of training have a result after years of investing? The answer, to a degree, is affirmative, but there are many exceptions. Also remember there's a difference between training and other factors to consider (background, personality, circumstances and money too). Meaning it depends. If you read a document or book written by someone with a good training and the intention to accurately describe a situation or a specific, say, animal, it's still up to you. In the end, it always depends on the eye of the beholder. Why is it so many consider Corbett a reliable reporter? And why is it a book written by a man with a proper training and as much experience isn't if the picture he paints is a bit different from expectation? The Russian zoologists, biologists, naturalists and hunters featuring in the thread created by your new member (see above) are as experienced as Corbett, if not more so. All of them were sincere men who invested decades trying to get to a bit of knowledge the hard way. They took a lot of time to report about the results of their quest, only to be dismissed out of hand by those guided by preconceived ideas many years later. Think about it.  

In the end, it doesn't depend on training and status, but, in that order, on intentions and decisions. Sound decisions, not affected by factors like preference, outlook or an agenda. In society, all of those contributing, training or no training, are important. All of them have to decide all day, every day. They try to live up to expectation. In spite of that, all know about mistakes. Mistakes that, at times, can have terrible consequences. Who has the most responsible job? The one driving a city bus all day every day or a medical doctor visited by those affected by a disease? And who, apart from the victim, will suffer when a mistake is made? The bus driver still haunted by the child he didn't see or the medical doctor who ignored the obvious signs of a disease? 

Meaning it isn't about training in the end. It's about good intentions and trying to get to sound interpretations and decisions all the time everywhere. Mistakes will always be there, but there a difference between a mistake made in complicated circumstances and a mistake based on an unsound interpretation of a situation. The second one is a result of a deliberate choice, whereas the first is a result of factors one can never ever control. 

What I'm saying is it's up to you each time. Training is a factor to consider, but in the end there's individual responsability. You know there's a difference between an average newspaper report and a book or a (peer-reviewed) document. Newspaper reports today not seldom are a result of some kind of selection (referring to the influence of politics on the media), whereas a book written by someone who invested many years trying to get to a bit of knowledge and insight about a specific topic isn't. It always depends on the individual. Reply