The Scientific LiteratureAs it relates to serious scholarly study, the scientific literature trumps everything. Plain and simple, scientific literature and opinion equals qualified information. If the data presented is not found in the scientific literature then depending on the source it’s of secondary, tertiary, and or of less to zero value in any scholarly discussion. It’s not to say non-scientific literature information is immaterial but as much as scholarly possible I would like to maintain the highest standard of data usage: the scientific literature which in so far as bear studies goes includes peer reviewed publication, published and unpublished technical field data along with personal communication and opinion by accredited scientists and professional wildlife authorities.
Relative so to speak and the Scientific LiteratureWhat do I mean by relative so to speak and the scientific literature in a scholarly context? Here, I am acknowledging the continuing development qualitatively and quantitatively in scientific research, methodology, and understanding. When we consider the advances in technology (software, hardware, etc.) we reap the benefits of improved methodology, analysis, and understanding. Hence, our scientific understanding of ursids both extant and IMO to a greater extent extinct bears is evolving. What was conventional thinking at one point in time is no longer the case now. Even with the advances in technology science is imperfect (there is a lot of room for debate within the scientific community) but for sure it’s our best means of understanding.
Morphometric Data and the Hunting LiteratureWith respect to scholarly morphometric study of extant bears we are fortunate in the available data. Why? Because, in many global regions inhabited by bears from the icy Arctic to the Americas and Eurasia there is strong governmental bear management policy in the areas of conservation where field technical (morphometric) data is collected along with the harvest management of bears where there is strong governmental regulation in the hunting of bears. In both areas of bear management scientists have been at the forefront of governmental policy which in some cases date back several decades. Dealing with the latter, the harvest management of bears, the morphometric data collected is qualitatively superior to the old hunting records and old hunting literature claims which are often filled with exaggerated or inaccurate information not accepted by the modern scientific literature whereas current reputable hunting sources for example the Boone & Crocket Club data are viewed as credible and are used by scientist for harvest analysis and included in the scientific literature.
Non scientific literatureHow do we assess information not found in the scientific literature? Depending on the source the answer is not easily. To complicate matters sometimes information outside of the conventional scientific literature come from sources trained in the sciences and conservation management. Take for example park rangers who have relating science and wildlife training. Trained park staffs bring valuable input to any discussion. Moreover, eye witness accounts and observation by them have been included in the scientific literature.
Information produced by naturalists can also prove valuable especially by those who have been educated in the relating sciences and conservation. Generations earlier, naturalists were at the vanguard of wildlife conservation – it was not uncommon to find their work in the earlier scientific literature.
At the opposite end of the conservation spectrum they’re the animal trainers to consider. Many animal trainers are in the business of entertainment for examples the circus (in earlier times mixed animal menagerie acts) or film trainers. There are current examples of animal trainers championing conservation and animal rehabilitation work (e.g., Doug Zeus) but in all likelihood IMHO they represent a small numbers of trainers. It is unclear how many animal trainers have formal science and wildlife training BUT keep in mind in contrast to their park staff and naturalist counterparts - their animals are captive not wild kept in (especially historically speaking) in poor conditions. For better captive animal analysis, I (personally speaking) prefer qualified zoo staff including zoo veterinary information and opinion than the ones offered by animal trainers.
Hunters are another group to consider. Some mention of them was made in the earlier “Morphometric Data and Hunting Literature” section that dealt with old hunting literature and records. To expand more and to be consistent visa vi the modern world, while some of the experienced hunters are very knowledgeable people; to be taken seriously as real data, I defer to secondary professional confirmation to any information provided by hunters to wit because of strong governmental harvest compliance regulation, such hunter testimony are (have also been) incorporated into the scientific literature. If interested, the reader can find more forum information on hunting related topics in the “Trophy Hunting & Skulls” section.
If the area of research is museum data for extinct or extant bears - information provided by museum curators can be another good source of complimentary data. Why? Curators are another group trained in the sciences and from time to time their data are also found in the scientific literature.
In conclusion as it relates to qualifying data not found in the professional literature, I am sure there are other examples not mentioned (e.g., technicians) earlier. My intent was to highlight some of the popular sources for data outside the conventional scientific literature and to make commentary. I am a professed enthusiast not an expert but as I navigate the hazy area outside of the scientific literature in my attempts to better understand bears - I still make every effort to compass in the direction of science and expert wildlife management.
Specimen and Measurement Details I would describe this final section as a personal addendum to how we evaluate the qualifying scientific literature earlier addressed. The two areas of HIGH interest to me are specimen details and qualified measurement methodology. To address the first area of interest, plain and simple: in the study of bears, regardless of the reviewed material, I am stickler for specimen details: age and gender. Be it extant or extant bears analysis; was the animal a sub adult, young adult, prime adult or old bear. The same holds true for cross species analysis: specimen details are important. Why the specimen age interest? Because there are distinct differences in bears of different ages - morphologically and behaviorally. There are differences in a young adult, prime adult, and old adult bears. Yes, they are all adults but there are differences. I am not trying to agitate the reader here but on this particular issue I am persistent: whatever area of bear analysis - specimen age and gender matters.
The second area of strong interest deals with qualified measurement methodology. Some mention of this was made earlier in the “Morphometric Data and the Hunting Literature” section. Why the big interest in measurement methodology (e.g., skulls) well I would answer because of the growing unqualified online opinion thrown out as scientific fact. Anyone serious about scholarly and professional study as it relates to wildlife measurement should DO THEIR HOMEWORK on this topic especially if such person(s) wants to make any cross species analysis (e.g., bears and big cats). For the reasons mentioned earlier here and explained in other forum sections, modern ursid measurement methodology satisfies the highest scientific standards. Modern bear hunting records are included in the scientific literature. If ever the point in time arises and a member wants to do some kind of cross species analyses with bears then all I ask is to PLEASE do not waste the forum readership time with unqualified measurement data.
