Statisticians counter WSU prof’s findings/ yet Depredations rose after slaughtering wolves

In Dr Rob Wielgus, Oppose Welfare Ranching, Protect The Wolves by TwowolvesLeave a Comment

wolves in washington, protect the wolves

Dr. Wielgus Research was reviewed by PLOS ONE Peers prior to publication!

So Called statisticians makes statement ” the year after the wolves were killed, livestock attacks went down”

We are Curious…. after wiping out wolves last year, depredations in WA rose this year…. What is it that these particular statisticians are smoking? We are Just saying….

It appears there is either Cattle Money or elected official influence behind this latest attack on Dr. Wielgus. right behind Kretzs indirect Death Threats against him,  Joel Kretz appears to have Violated Washington State LAW and By violating this RCW he appears to be guilty of criminal harassment under WA law. RCW 9A.46.020.
 
Clearly anyone who has half a brain knows that Cattle Depredation went way up this year in Washington. Actually proving Wielgus research as accurate…. Bit Then we have Martorello trying to hide his Special Interest policy that was put in place without involving the Public, or the BIA. Martorello has refused to contact the BIA for over a Year according to the BIA until just recently. Yet these influential Individuals are still trying to get Dr. Wielgus Research discredited. Protect The Wolves™ will not sit by and watch this happen without digging into this.

We are sick and tired of the crooked officials in Washington allowing Public Trust Violations that are happening  at the hands of Public employees like Martorello and Unsworth, then their lil “Special Interest” infected Wolf Advisory Group.


Requirements to get published in PLOS ONE

Peer review

The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any delays.

Will authors know who is reviewing their manuscript?
Reviewers are anonymous by default. Reviewers’ identities are not revealed to authors or to other reviewers unless reviewers specifically request to be identified by signing their names at the end of their comments.

Will authors know the identity of the editor reviewing their manuscript?
The Academic Editor is anonymous to authors and reviewers unless and until a manuscript is accepted for publication. The editor’s name is then indicated in the published article.

Will editors and reviewers know the names of authors during review?
The names of the authors are not anonymous to reviewers or editors during review so that they can assess potential conflicts of interest.

Can authors ask to exclude reviewers?
Authors may enter the names of potential peer reviewers they wish to exclude from consideration in the peer review of their manuscript.  The editorial team will respect these requests so long as this does not interfere with the objective and thorough assessment of the submission.

How many reviewers will a manuscript have?
The majority of PLOS ONE submissions are evaluated by 2 external reviewers, but it is up to the Academic Editor to determine the number of reviews required.

When reviews have been received, authors may see the status “Required Reviews Complete.” Please note that additional reviews may still be pending after this status is activated.

Editorial decisions

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Academic Editor. The time to receive a decision depends on how long it takes for the editor to assess the reviews.

While the Academic Editor is entering the decision, authors may see the status “Decision in Process.” When the decision is final, authors will receive the notification by email and see the decision term in the submission system.

What are the possible decision outcomes?

After evaluation, the Academic Editor chooses between the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Article from Spokesman Review…. clearly didnt think it prudent to look up PLOS ONE Requirements See article snippett Below:

ENDANGERED SPECIES — A Washington State University professor erred in controversial research released in 2014 suggesting that killing wolves that attack cattle is counterproductive because it stimulates more attacks, according to a statistical analysis released today.

Working with a Ph.D. statistician, the Washington Policy Center analyzed the data provided by Dr. Robert Wielgus and found several problems with conclusions that are widely used by critics of Washington’s wolf management, especially in cases where wolves are killed.

“Rather than support his hypothesis, his own data point in the opposite direction, supporting the state’s policy of removing wolves when there is a conflict and undermining Wielgus’ own hypothesis,” says Todd Myers of Seattle-based WPC, a conservative think tank that promotes public policy based on free-market solutions.

Since 2011, Washington has periodically resorted lethally remove wolves — from one or two to an entire pack in one case — when to stop continued attacks on livestock.

Source: Statisticians counter WSU prof’s findings that killing wolves does more harm than good | The Spokesman-Review

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.