Translator
English flagItalian flagKorean flagChinese (Simplified) flagChinese (Traditional) flagPortuguese flagGerman flagFrench flagSpanish flagJapanese flag
Arabic flagRussian flagGreek flagDutch flagBulgarian flagCzech flagCroatian flagDanish flagFinnish flagHindi flag
Polish flagRomanian flagSwedish flagNorwegian flagCatalan flagFilipino flagHebrew flagIndonesian flagLatvian flagLithuanian flag
Serbian flagSlovak flagSlovenian flagUkrainian flagVietnamese flagAlbanian flagEstonian flagGalician flagMaltese flagThai flag
Turkish flagHungarian flagBelarus flagIrish flagIcelandic flagMacedonian flagMalay flagPersian flag  
  • An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.
Search

Reporters and USDA-Wildlife Services

Logo for the United States Animal and Plant He...

Logo for the United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the Department of Agriculture. For more information, see the PDF usage guide. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A recent article by Tom Knudson entitled ”Davis cuts ties with Wildlife Services over coyote killings” in the The Sacramento Bee 7/19-2012  Page 1A exemplifies  a number of weaknesses in media reporting about the USDA-Wildlife Services. Some of these problems are understandable in that Wildlife Services didn’t respond to the reporters request for an interview. But one would have to ask “What good would it have done?” I think this way because of the lopsided and somewhat silly information contained in his article.

What the Reporter Did Right

Mr. Knudson did properly report the Davis City Council’s anger over Wildlife Services killing of some coyotes. He also, I assume, correctly and accurately reported comments from interested parties. I believe this should be acknowledged.

What the Reporter Did Wrong

Where Mr. Knudson failed was his neglect of presenting opposing views to counterbalance the litany of opinions against the actions of Wildlife Services (WS). Why he didn’t take the time to do a simple Google Search (one assumes reporters know how to do this) and find someone who doesn’t cry every time a coyote dies is simply perplexing and suggests that he has a bias (see below)

To be clear, I don’t believe objective reporting is really possible unless the news is just descriptive. But since reporting is also evaluative, reporters should endeavor to either explain their bias or find someone who can articulate the opposing view.

Problem #1. The Council’s “Ignorance”

I had to smile upon reading about the outrage of the Council members when they learned that Wildlife Services killed animals. Is that like the shock when one learns that a drunk driver just pulled away from a bar? Why the reporter didn’t ask “Why didn’t the Council know? is unknown.

Problem #2. Bald Bias

I quote Mr. Knudson ”Earlier this year, a series of articles in The Bee reported the agency’s predator control activities across the West are often excessive, indiscriminate, out of sync with science and carried out with little or no public input.”

Here is the “angle” of the reporter in a nut shell. He came to the opinion that WS is wrong and made sure he didn’t find any evidence to the contrary.  I find it strange that an allegation that WS is unscientific is conjoined with their ability to kill coyotes. It seems if WS wasn’t good at killing coyotes then their science wouldn’t be so disparaged. From my perspective, it seems that WS has the science to effectively kill coyotes. One may argue that the government shouldn’t be involved in this activity, but don’t claim that WS doesn’t have science. The death of coyotes proves they have it. It just happens to be a science some didn’t like.

Problem #3. Public Opinion

Reporters like to find the man on the street for comment. Mr. Knudson found one who was upset that he now had to figure out how to tell his children the coyotes were dead. Why didn’t the reporter ask “Don’t your children know that wildlife die?” or “Was there a problem with the coyotes dying or that they were killed by humans?” I wonder if we shield our children from the realities of nature and life too much. Death is simply one of those realities. But that’s me.

Problem #4. Counterfactuals

Counterfactuals are hypothetical alternative possibilities. The reporter never asked how the community would have reacted if the coyotes did attack someone. The public has a great ability to second-guess decisions. The public policy question should have been asked, namely “Are coyotes only to be killed after they attack? Or should they be killed when they demonstrate aggression as Dr. Timm’s research found?” Of course, Mr. Knudson didn’t ask that policy question and the public’s competency is the worse for it.

About the Author

Stephen M. Vantassel is a certified wildlife control operator who helps individuals, businesses, and agencies resolve wildlife damage issues through training, writing, expert witness, and research. His latest book is the Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook, 3rd edition. He can be contacted at stephenvantassel at Hotmail dot com.

Copyright

All postings are the property of Stephen M. Vantassel and Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC. Text may be reprinted in non-profit publications provided that the author and website URL is included.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a Reply