text:
Celtics Go For The Title, Take Two.

Can they get it done tonight?

The Celtics will get their second crack at winning the NBA World Championship tonight, this time at the TD Banknorth Garden.

Steve Bulpett has some simple instructions for the Celtics to follow if they hope to win tonight. Bob Ryan has a number of observations about the series, but would like to see one good game between the clubs that is worthy of the rivalry. Mike Szostak also lists out the reasons why the Celtics will win tonight. Jennifer Toland has the Celtics coming back to the Garden looking to put the series away. Jeff Howe has the Celtics coming home, one win away from their goal.

Um, let just say you probably don’t want to read Dan Shaughnessy today. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. You clicked on it anyway, didn’t you? *sigh* Steve Buckley might not be a good idea either if you don’t like the media talking about and giving away championships before they’ve been earned. Bill Reynolds reminds us that winning an NBA championship is not supposed to be easy. Lenny Megliola says that victory tonight will not come without a fight.

Mark Murphy points out that without Kendrick Perkins, the Celtics failed a physical test in game five. Marc J. Spears has Kevin Garnett determined to bounce back from a poor performance in game five. Jim Fenton says that the Celtics need more from KG tonight. Bill Burt insists that Garnett deserves a pass for his game five performance, and that tonight will be his night.

Paul Doyle has Paul Pierce looking to earn his place in Celtics history among the greats with a win tonight. Ben Larsen has Pierce etching his name among the best with his performance in these finals. John Tomase looks at how the pick and roll has been a big part of the Celtics success. Howe points out that both teams will likely be fighting fatigue tonight. Bob Halloran says that the Celtics have been proving themselves all season long.

Jessica Heslam has ESPN.com Page2 columnist Jemele Hill apologizing for comparing the Celtics to Hitler and nuclear war.

Dennis and Callahan will be proud of the Globe this morning, as Christopher Baxter and Maddie Hanna have a piece on people (and children) who can’t stay up to watch the games because they’re on too late.

To the best of my recollection, all of these games have gotten over close to or before midnight, ET. I don’t hear the same type of uproar for Red Sox playoff games, which many times start at 8:00 or 8:30pm and last past midnight (especially games against the Yankees). Sure, some people complain about those times, but nowhere near the level of what has gone on with the NBA Finals. Many times the baseball games are back-to-back, while the NBA games are spread out a little more. I guess I’m just not seeing why the 9:00pm start times are a huge deal. You stay up and watch the Red Sox, or let your kids watch them…what’s the difference here?

Murphy’s notebook has the Celtics finally getting into Boston at 10:30 last night, and also reports that Ray Allen is expected to play tonight. The Globe notebook has more on Allen’s family situation, reporting that it is Allen’s youngest son who is ill, and was in a Los Angeles hospital. (Not his daughter in South Carolina as purported on WEEI and other outlets yesterday.) The Projo notebook has more on Allen. Fenton’s notebook has Doc Rivers expecting more from Rajon Rondo tonight.

Shira Springer has the Lakers focused on making history. Springer’s notebook has backup point guard Jordan Farmer benefiting from an aggressive approach in game five.

Check out the coverage from LA in the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Daily News and the Orange County Register.

Red Sox

The Red Sox were routed last night by the Phillies, 8-2. Bartolo Colon had to leave the game in the fourth inning, having already given up four runs, due to back stiffness.

Jeff Horrigan has both Colon and the Sox left hurting after last night’s loss. Gordon Edes has the Phillies flaunting the power of their lineup last night. Bill Ballou has the Phillies taking round one of the battle of the beasts of the East. Steven Krasner has Colon and the Sox hurt by the long ball last night. Jeff Goldberg has Colon having to leave after taking an “over-aggressive” swing at the plate.

Keith Groller and Tom Robinson report on Daisuke Matsuzaka’s rehab start for the PawSox last night.

Rob Bradford has more on Colon’s injury, and what happened the last time he felt something like this. Nick Cafardo looks at the Phillies triple MVP threats in Ryan Howard, Jimmy Rollins and Chase Utley. Bradford also talks to Pat Burrell, who had the same injury that David Ortiz currently has.

Horrigan’s notebook and Edes’ notebook each report on David Ortiz having the hard cast removed from his left wrist yesterday. Ballou’s notebook has Manny Ramirez returning to the outfield last night. Krasner’s notebook has more on Ortiz shedding his cast. Goldberg’s notebook has more on Ortiz and Dice-K.

Jim McCabe and Tony Massarotti report on Tiger Woods holding off Rocco Mediate in sudden death following 18 holes of dead heat playoff action to win the U.S. Open. Jim Donaldson kept a running diary of the afternoon. Massarotti has Woods savoring his latest major win.

Kevin Paul Dupont has the Bruins set to sign free agent winger Blake Wheeler from the University of Minnesota, who was originally drafted No. 5 overall by the Coyotes in 2004.

  1. Rafael says

    Celtics are a very motivated group of players. They havent been able to reach such high stakes in a long 22 years, I believe that there deprivetion from championship tittle is going to influence extra hunger and drive to suceed. Boston has been waiting for this day for a long time, today is when we find out if they are champs or shumps….LETS GO BOSTON….Swag*Star…R$

  2. Dan Riley says

    I was busy eating my spicy Thai soup, so I couldn’t click on the curl-headed boy’s piece, but I’ll bet my fortune cookie it had something to do with the Sox coming back from 3-1 against the Evil Empire…and that the expression “evil empire” was used…maybe even Reversal of Fortune showed up as the requisite pop reference that doubles as an homage to Odom’s Rhody roots.

  3. Tiff says

    Rick, I don’t buy that, besides, Lakers fans always miss the 1st quarter anyway. Putting the games at 8:00 isn’t going to hurt anyone, people would rather see the end of a basketball game then the beginning anyway.

  4. Chris says

    If the Celtics do win tonight, Shaughnessy’s column will look even more stupid and bitter than it does right now. Then again, the shelf-life of his column isn’t supposed to exceed 24 hours anyway. The fawning and gushing coming from Shaughnessy later tonight will be a hilarious foil to the column he penned for today. The guy is absolutely a few French fries short of a Happy Meal at this stage of his career.

  5. David Dzidzikashvili says

    Celtics will win, they missed a good last opportunity in LA to beat Lakers at home, not very interesting 5th game. Hope game 6 will be full of action.

  6. Rick says

    How about the other fact that there is life outside of the Eastern Time Zone? Are D&C so obtuse that they cannot realize that the 9:00 PM starts are a compromise so that all of the country can enjoy the games?

  7. Chief says

    Great point about the World Series games Bruce. I’ve been saying this for the entire playoffs. Not to mention that in the Glory days in the 80’s all the weekday games started 9 pm. The only difference was the late start on Sundays.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Truncated: length

WARC-Type: response

text:
And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Obama’s hand-picked pro-union National Relations Board knocked down in court again.

Posted on: June 16, 2013

Obama’s National Relations Board has again been knocked down in court for one of their rulings.    The fact is that the first court ruling made this particular board  inoperable and illegal and ALL of their rulings to date unlawful.  Of course the Obama administration is appealing this ruling and it is now working it’s way up the courts chain of command probably to the Supreme Court.  I certainly hope it goes that far because the National Relations Board was not meant to be partisan but to be an impartial arbiter between business and labor.  It has worked well up to Obama and his grab for power.  This latest ruling is another win for We the People.   Unions represent a minute number of American citizens and many of those are thru forced membership.  When people have been given the choice of whether or not to join a union many more opt out than in but states like Washington, Oregon and Illinois among a few others actually make union membership a necessary part of employment.

Unfortunately for We the People the largest segment of the population to become unionized are the public workers, or government workers.  these are the people who are supposed to be working for us and we tax payers pay their wages.   In most cases wages far in excess of the average wages earned by the tax payers themselves for similar work.  Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin fought the unions and won thus breaking their strangle hold on the public.  You all may remember the union members taking over the capital building and rioting and the Democrat legislators leaving the state so they couldn’t vote.  It was a big deal and even caused a recall of the governor and another election which he again won!  Now We the people are going to have to break the strangle hold our federal workers now have on us.  The IRS lady worker who has taken the fifth rather than answer questions to our Congressmen about the IRS targeting conservative groups and who  refused to resign but is now on administrative leave but still collecting her $170,000 plus bonuses salary is a prime example of federal workers being unionized.  It is almost impossible to fire a federal unionized worker!  This has to stop.

It is for reason like this that the National Labor Relations Board appointed by Obama must also be stopped because their aim and all their ruling to date have been to strengthen the unions.

Do be sure to go to all the referred articles so you can fully understand what is happening.  BB

National Labor Relations Board Smacked Down in Court Once Again

June 15, 2013 at 3:33 pm

This week, a federal appellate court struck down the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) “poster rule,” finding that the agency does not have the authority to issue such a rule.

The poster rule requires more than 6 million employers to post notices at work informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, undercutting employers’ free speech rights to engage in noncoercive speech about unionization. The NLRB threatened to make the failure to comply with the poster rule an unfair labor practice and evidence of an employer’s “antiunion animus” for claims before the NLRB.

In early May, the D.C. Circuit struck down the poster rule, finding that it violated the free speech rights of employers. This week, the Fourth Circuit agreed that the poster rule is invalid, finding that the NLRB exceeded its authority in issuing the rule. This is a much broader ruling, and the Fourth Circuit held that the NLRB’s role is limited to conducting representative elections and addressing unfair labor practice charges.

Unlike many other federal agencies, the court stated, the NLRB lacks the authority to promulgate notice requirements because Congress never intended to delegate to the NLRB “proactive rulemaking.” While the NLRB could require employers who had been adjudicated to have committed unfair labor violations to post such notices, “[n]o provision in the [National Labor Relations Act] requires employers who have not committed labor violations to be subject to a duty to post employee notices.”

Yesterday’s ruling by the Fourth Circuit highlights one reason why President Obama recently turned his attention to packing the D.C. Circuit with judges of his choosing (despite its low caseload compared to other overworked courts): It hears many suits involving federal agencies, and it has repeatedly smacked down the Obama Administration.

From EPA regulations to non-recess appointments and the NLRB poster rule, the Obama Administration has not fared well before the D.C. Circuit, which has laid the foundation for other courts to follow suit. But the confirmation of three nominees to that court could change the balance.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 96 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers

%d bloggers like this:

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-153-172-175.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2016-36
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2016
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Wildlife Conservation Science & Policy

Dedicated to the social and political aspects–the so-called "human dimensions"–of wildlife management

Update: New Reports Added

Disagreement over the Public Trust Doctrine’s application to Wolves

This past September my colleagues (S.A. Enzler & A. Treves) and I published an article arguing that the public trust doctrine could provide a legal means to force protection of wolves were state policies found lacking (Bruskotter et al., 30 Sept. 2011, p. 1828).  This article prompted two recent replies published by Science last month from L. David Mech and David Johns (17 Feb. 2012, p. 794).  Contrary to our assertion, Mech contended that “state governments have not shown ‘hostility toward wolves'”.  He defended this statement noting that “teams of highly qualified scientists set wolf recovery criteria” and state management plans pledged to maintain wolf populations at or above 150% of recovery goals.  Further, Mech argued that monitoring by the FWS ensured that “the wolf can be relisted anytime if necessary”.

Our response. We took exception with Mech’s claim that state governments have not shown hostility toward wolves, noting, for example, that Idaho’s state legislature has consistently taken legislative actions with the intent of removing wolves from the state, and pointing to similar legislation in Wyoming and Utah.  We further pointed out that Mech’s confidence in states was predicated on wolf management plans that were developed by state agencies, who merely perform ministerial, management duties under the direction of the legislative and executive branches.  We also disagreed with Mech’s claim that wolves could be relisted at any time by the FWS, given Congress’s willingness to remove wolves via legislative rider and the fact the the ESA’s monitoring period was limited to 5 years.  Finally, we felt that Mech misinterpreted our argument, which empowers wildlife managers to act on behalf of wildlife by reminding states that they have a common law obligation to conserve wildlife for the benefit of current and future generations.

In contrast to Mech, Johns found our analysis of the delisting decision to be inadequate, and took exception with the idea (implied in our title) that “moving the issue from federal to state courts will remove politics from decisions about wolves.”  Johns argued that while litigation was an important tool, “extensive grassroots organizing in support of the cause being litigated” is essential to ensuring court decisions are not “undermined or nullified.”  He lamented NGOs abandonment of grassroots organizing and activism in favor of litigation.

Our response. We felt that the delisting decision was adequately covered by other scholars and, more importantly, an analysis of the 2009 Final Rule was made moot when Congress used a legislative rider to delist wolves.  We agreed with Johns’ point about state courts susceptibility to political influences, but noted that because judges are constrained by precedent, court proceedings provided a “less political avenue” for ensuring the long-term conservation of wolves.  We also agreed with Johns’ claim that grassroots mobilization is an important element in species protection, but noted that “research also suggests that the power of litigation to affect policy is enhanced when it is used as a political resource by social movement organizations in conjunction with ‘grassroots mobilization'”.

You can read the original article and replies here.

Wolves as a Public Trust Resource

On 30 September my colleagues and I published an article in the journal Science that argues that the wildlife trust doctrine (a branch of the broader public trust doctrine) may provide a legal means for interested citizens to compel states to conserve wolves (or, for that matter, other controversial, imperiled species). What follows is a brief discussion of some of the major points presented in the paper (Bruskotter, J. T., S. A. Enzler, and A. Treves. 2011. Rescuing Wolves from Politics: Wildlife as a Public Trust Resource. Science 333:1828-1829).  We begin with a brief primer on the wildlife trust doctrine.

A Primer on the Wildlife Trust

The wildlife trust doctrine–a branch of the broader public trust doctrine that deals specifically with wildlife–was established in a series of court cases that provide the foundation for state-based conservation of wildlife that some refer to as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation/Management. Two Supreme Court cases (i.e., Martin v. Waddell 41 U.S. 367 (1842) and Geer v. Connecticut 161 U.S. 519 (1896)), provide the basic foundation of this legal doctrine.  In Martin v. Waddell, the court applied English common law to reject a landowner’s claim to an oyster fishery that was located under the public waters of the state of New Jersey.  The court concluded that with the formation of the United States, the lands that had once belonged to England passed to the state of New Jersey; applying English common law, the court held that the “land under navigable waters…were to be held…in the same manner and for the same purposes that the navigable waters of England and the soils under them are held by the Crown.”  English policy, since the time of the Magna Carta, was to preserve such resources “for the benefit of the public”.   Thus, the landowner could not lay claim to the oyster fishery because his actions deprived the citizens of New Jersey any access to this resource, which was held collectively by the citizens of that state.

Although the dispute in Martin v. Waddell focused on the lands under the navigable waters and the oyster beds attached thereto, the Court in Geer v. Connecticut, using a similar rational, extended the trust obligation to terrestrial wildlife (woodcock, ruffled grouse and quail).  In this case, again relying on English common law, the court held that wildlife (ferae naturae ) were public property – “the ownership of the sovereign authority . . .  [to be held in] trust for all the people of the state” and that it was the” duty of the legislature to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust and secure its beneficial use in the future to the people of the state.”  These cases set the stage for modern wildlife management by state agencies, in which states act as trustees, managing and conserving wildlife resources on behalf of their citizens.  This doctrine underpins our system of wildlife conservation in the United States, and is recognized by the Wildlife Society as one of the seven “pillars” of the North American Model.

An Obligation to Conserve?

While the notion of sovereign ownership of wildlife is well established, there has been little discussion regarding states’ obligations under the wildlife trust doctrine.  The Court in Geer made it clear that the trustee-beneficiary relationship establishes an obligation on the part of the state to “to enact such laws as will best preserve the subject of the trust” (emphasis added). The court added that:

“..the power or control lodged in the state, resulting from this common ownership, is to be exercised, like all other powers of government as a trust for the benefit of the people, and not as a prerogative for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people, or for the benefit of private individuals as distinguished from the public good” (emphasis added).

Yet, the nature of states’ obligations is ill-defined for, as Freyfogle and Goble (2009:33) noted, “there is no trust document that sets forth the precise terms of the trust.”  Moreover, there has been little opportunity–or need–to establish the case law necessary to “flesh out” these obligations because the statutory protections provided by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the associated federal control have largely precluded the need for protecting species outside the ESA framework; that is, because the ESA provides federal protections for species that are imperiled, there has been no need for interested citizens to force states to protect species through litigation, thus establishing the case law necessary to formalize states’ obligations.

Wolves and the Wildlife Trust

Enter the wolf.  Since wolves were reintroduced in the northern Rocky Mountains in the mid-1990s, western politicians have been crying “foul”.  Their actions have ranged from hyperbolas saber-rattling, to the passage of laws that seriously undermine (or at least attempt to undermine) wolves’ conservation at the state level.  Here are but a few of the more egregious examples:

  • House Joint Memorial 5 (Idaho): Made it the official policy of Idaho that wolves be removed from the state by any means necessary.
  • House Bill no. 274 (Idaho): Among other things, this bill prohibited state and local government employees from “investigating, arresting or prosecuting, or assisting any federal authorities or agencies in any way that could lead to the arrest of any person who removes a gray wolf from Idaho or causes the injury or death of a gray wolf in Idaho” so long as the species was listed as threatened or endangered.
  • House Bill no. 343 (Idaho): Declared the wolf introduction to be a “disaster”, arguing that the “state’s citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho.”
  • Idaho Rhetoric: Governor Otter declares that he would support a plan to kill all but 100 wolves.
  • Senate Bill no. 36 (Utah): Made it the official policy of Utah to prevent “the establishment of a viable pack of wolves within the areas of the state where the wolf is not listed as endangered or threatened.”
  • Utah Rhetoric (2011): The Director of the Dept. of Natural Resources called wolves “a biological weapon” that were being used by anti-hunters to end sport hunting, and compared the recovery of wolves in the West to a resurrection of the T. Rex.

These actions have seriously undermined states’ credibility when it comes to wildlife conservation, and call into question states’ intentions concerning the long-term conservation of wolves.  These actions also raise a few important questions, such as: What are states obligations with respect to wolves under the wildlife trust doctrine?  Do interested citizens have any legal recourse if states act in such a way that threatens the persistence of wolves within their borders?

Musiker and colleagues (1995) argued that the public trust doctrine imposes an obligation for states to “(1) consider the potential adverse impact [on the wildlife resource] of any proposed activity over which it has administrative authority, (2) allow only activities that do not substantially impair the state’s wildlife resource and (3) continually monitor the impacts…to ensure preservation of the corpus of the trust.” We concur with their view–the trustee-beneficiary relationship implied by the wildlife trust doctrine imposes upon states an obligation to “prevent substantial impairment” to wolves’ (or any other trust asset) absent a compelling government purpose. Moreover, the public/wildlife trust doctrine does not allow states to privilege certain interests when making decisions.  Indeed, in Geer the court held that the state must exercise its power over wildlife “for the benefit of the people, and not …for the advantage of the government as distinct from the people or for the benefit of private individuals” (emphasis added). Thus, actions taken on the part of states that potentially impair a population to the benefit of certain private groups should be viewed with skepticism.

How Does the Wildlife Trust Doctrine Affect Wolf Management

In essence, the recognition of an enforceable obligation under the wildlife trust doctrine would fill the gap in statutory law that arises when ESA protections are lifted and states’ resume management of a species.  Such an obligation would provide a means by which citizens could use the courts to ensure that populations are not impaired without due cause.  For wolves, the wildlife trust doctrine seemingly demands that, at minimum, states maintain (or at least attempt to maintain) a viable population of the species, as any less would bring into question states’ ability to conserve the species for future generations. Were this obligation to be officially recognized by states it could help tone down the rhetoric about wolves, and assuage the fears of wolf advocates that state-led management will lead to a second round of eradications.  It could also help bring the debate about wolves in the West back into the scientific arena, as states set about determining what constitutes a viable population of wolves.

Interestingly, the recognition of a formal obligation to conserve could also be useful for removing species from the federal list of endangered species.  For example, a federal court in Montana recently ruled that grizzly bears could not be removed from the endangered species list because the regulatory mechanisms present were inadequate for ensuring grizzly bears’ continued conservation.  Specifically, the Court held that Memorandum’s of Understanding between the states and the federal government were an inadequate regulatory mechanisms because the government “cannot compel any of the agencies to live up to their commitments” under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (see, Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 672 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1116 (D. Mont., 2009).).   A formal recognition of an obligation to conserve under the wildlife trust doctrine could have provided the reassurance (i.e., regulatory mechanism) that the Court sought and allowed the delisting of grizzly bears to proceed.

Yet, despite widespread recognition among legal scholars, the case law necessary for establishing an obligation to conserve wildlife under the wildlife trust doctrine is lacking.  Indeed, as we noted in the piece–states application of this doctrine has thus far been extremely limited.  Building the case law necessary for judicial recognition of an obligation under the wildlife trust doctrine will require interested groups to use the courts when states act in such a way as to potentially impair species.  Such application is crucial to ensuring the long-term conservation of controversial species.

See also, my post on The Wildlife News: Conserving Carnivores Under State Management: Wolves as a Public Trust Resource

Press Release about the Article: Researchers: Apply Public Trust Doctrine to ‘Rescue’ Wildlife from Politics

Press Release from the University of Minnesota: Public Trust Doctrine Applies to State Conservation of Wolves

References (from the original article)

J. W. Feldman, Human-Wildlife Conflicts 1, 12 (2007).

L. D. Mech, L. Boitani, Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2003).

B. J. Bergstrom, S. Vignieri, S. R. Shefield, W. Sechrest, A. A. Carlson, BioScience 59, 991 (2009).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al., “Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 2010 Interagency Annual Report” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Ecological Services, 2011).

C. Carroll, M. K. Phillips, C. A. Lopez-Gonzalez, N. H. Schumaker, BioScience 56, 25 (2006).

J. T. Bruskotter, E. Toman, S. A. Enzler, R. H. Schmidt, BioScience 60, 941 (2010).

R. Gehrke, “Natural Resources director compares wolf to ‘T. rex’,” The Salt Lake Tribune, 08 February 2011 2011.

A. Treves, K. A. Martin, Society and Natural resources 24, 984 (2011).

M. J. Houston, J. T. Bruskotter, D. P. Fan, Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15, 389 (2010).

M. C. Wood, Environmental Law 34, 605 (2004).

D. G. Musiker, T. France, L. A. Hallenbeck, Public Land & Resources Law Review 16, 87 (1995).

P. Redmond, Natural Resources Journal 49, 249 (2009).

Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 (1892).

S. A. Enzler, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 35, 413 (2011).

16.  Geer v. Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, 534 (1896).

B. Hudson, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 34. 99 (2009).

J. L. Sax, Michigan Law Review 68, 471 (1970).

National Audubon v. Superior Court of Alpine County, 658 P. 2d 709, 719 (Cal. 1983) 724.

H. M. Babcock, South Carolina Law Review 61.  393 (2009).

M. C. Blumm, L. Ritchie Environmental Law 35, 673 (2005).

Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 672 F. Supp. 2d 1105, 1116 (D. Mont., 2009).

C. A. Jacobson, J. F. Organ, D. J. Decker, G. R. Batcheller, L. Carpenter, Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 203 (2010).

Center for Biological Diversity v. FLP Group, 166 Cal. App. 4th 1349, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 588 (2008).

Social Conflict over Wolves: The Predator Pendulum Revisited

In April of 2011, in an unprecedented event, the U.S. Congress summarily removed a species (gray wolves; Canis lupus) from Endangered Species Act Protections.  The method with which Congress chose to act–by attaching a legislative Rider to a “must pass” federal budget–has drawn considerable criticism from conservation advocates, including the Executive Director of the Wildlife Society, Michael Hutchins (Cohn 2011).  This act also initiated a fierce debate about the role of hunting and other forms of lethal management in wolf conservation under state-directed management.  Importantly, some of the same people who opposed legislative delisting ultimately support the hunting of wolves.  Thus, Hutchins, for example, vehemently defended hunters and the hunting of wolves, while at the same time expressing frustration about Congress’ actions on the Wildlife Society’s blog:

“I hate the fact that Congress intervened in the ESA with regard to wolf management.  Management and conservation should be in the hands of scientists and professional managers and not in the hands of politicians. But why did this happen? Precisely because extreme animal rights proponents (and some extreme environmentalists)–unwilling to acknowledge that wolves have indeed recovered, pushed things too far, arguing for no control what-so-ever.”

Hutchins’ comments reminded me of a paper, published a decade earlier, that characterized public policy concerning predators as swinging on a pendulum between overharvest and overprotection (Messmer et al. 2001).  With the delisting of wolves, perhaps the pendulum was swinging again? In what follows I discuss three sources of confusion and conflict regarding wolves: (1) the role of science in wildlife management, (2) ambiguity regarding states’ intentions as a result of ambiguous terminology and conflicting communications, and (3) the structure and objectives of wolf hunting and trapping seasons.  These three factors underlie much of the debate about wolves and wolf management in the West and are likely to be continued sources of conflict in the future.  They also represent opportunities to arrest the swinging pendulum of predator policy and bring about a state of equilibrium where wolf policy and management is concerned.

Confusion at the crux: Science, policy and wildlife management

The interplay between science and policy and how it affects the objectives of wolf management lies near the heart of the wolf issue.  Scientifically-collected and analyzed data has traditionally played an essential role in wildlife management in the United States.  Time-tested methods are used to assist wildlife managers in understanding population trends and the factors (e.g. immigration, mortality, birth rates) that can potentially impact wildlife populations.  This tradition has been symbolically codified as one of seven “components” or principles of the so-called North American Model of Wildlife Management (see also Organ & Mahoney 2007).  It has also led to the wide-spread perception that wildlife management objectives should be determined by science rather than politics.  Thus Malloney (2011:179) recently expressed frustration that “wolf management…tends to be guided by opinion and politics rather than science.” This perception misunderstands the role of science in wildlife policy; in fact, it misunderstands what types of questions science is capable of answering.  Science can answering factual or “is” questions–bounded, of course, by some error.   Science, cannot answer questions regarding what should be.  Such questions are fundamentally subjective in nature.  Consequently, while science is well equipped to address questions such as, how many wolves will remain if a certain percentage of that population is removed, it cannot answer questions such as, how many wolves are acceptable; likewise, science cannot determine what constitutes recovery under the ESA–these questions are fundamentally subjective or “normative”  in nature (see Vucetich et al. 2006).

The fallacy–that science should determine wildlife policy–is further exacerbated by language contained in the ESA, which calls for listing decisions to be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”  This phrase has led to the oft-repeated idea that “listing decisions should be based upon the best available science”.  But basing listing decisions solely on science simply is not possible.  Thus, while my colleagues and I recently found fault with the FWS’s analysis of the threats posed to wolves in the Northern Rockies, we ultimately concluded:

“Our finding of fault with the FWS’s analysis of threats should not be interpreted as a condemnation of the agency’s conclusions…determining the status of endangered species requires agencies to answer two fundamental questions: (1) What is the risk of extinction to a species? and (2) is this risk acceptable? We recognize that such determinations will always contain a high degree of subjectivity that reflects not only agencies’ confidence in evaluating risks, but more importantly, the normative nature of judgments regarding the acceptability of these risks…” (Bruskotter et al. 2010).

According to the Wildlife Society, the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation demands that  “science is the proper tool for the discharge of wildlife policy” (Batcheller et al. 2010, TWS position statement).  Here the use of the word “discharge”, which Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines as “to throw off or deliver a load, charge, or burden” further contributes to the confusion regarding the role of science.  Science simply is not capable of “discharging” (or “delivering”) wildlife policy (or any other policy, for that matter); to set such high expectations for science is to set it, and scientists, up for failure.  Rather, science merely informs policy decisions, which, as the term “policy” implies, are ultimately discharged via political processes.  Some may think this distinction trivial, but it is a fundamental source of conflict where wolves are concerned. Until stakeholders–including wildlife professionals–recognize the limitations of science and the types of information it provides, the role of science will be a continued source of friction and conflict.

Ambiguity in terminology: Gray areas abound, even where gray wolves are scarce

Unfortunately, the role of science in wildlife management is not the only source of confusion where gray wolves are concerned.  In communications about wolves, terms like “sustainable”, “recovered”, “biological recovered”, and “viable” are bandied about by people who seem certain that wolf populations either fit, or do not fit, these descriptions.  Yet such terms are extremely ambiguous, and their definitions are not always agreed upon by scientists.  For example, the terms “recovered” and “biologically recovered” have gained recent use to describe wolf populations.  Yet the Endangered Species Act does not define the term “recovery/recovered”; rather, the ESA specifies that agencies (i.e., NMFS or FWS) provide minimum criteria that, when surpassed, prompt review to see if a change in a species listing status is warranted (See Carroll et al. 2006, Enzler & Bruskotter 2009).

Sustainability. Similarly, the term “sustainable” (or the phrase “not sustainable”) has been consistently used by both advocates and opponents of delisting to describe wolf populations, state management goals, and state management plans.  Yet the term, “sustainability” is at least the equal of “recovered” in terms of its ambiguity.  A recent paper in the journal Sustainability, noted that the term was coined in the field of forestry, “where [sustainable] means never harvesting more than what the forest yields in new growth” (Kuhlman & Farrington, 2010).  Under this definition of sustainability, Creel and Rotella (2010) correctly concluded that their meta-analysis indicated that sustainable harvest levels for wolves were “lower than the current Northern Rocky Mountain management plans suggest”–a statement that caused significant friction between Dr. Creel and Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.  The conflict resulted because Creel’s conclusions conflicted with the message being sent by politicians and management agencies in the West, who argued that their wolf management was sustainable (example).

The term “sustainability”, however, has changed over time.  Today, it is often seen as comprised of social, economic and ecological/environmental dimensions (Kulman & Farrington, 2010).  Unfortunately, this newer version of the term only serves to increase ambiguity–it suggests that, to determine if something is sustainable, one must establish and satisfy some set of social, economic and ecological criteria.  To my knowledge no such criteria exist where wolves are concerned.  Thus, advocates of delisting and wolf advocates continue to use the term to support or condemn state management without having ever agreed on what “sustainable” actually means.  Of course, the dictionary definition of sustainable differs markedly from the way scientists use the term (i.e., capable of being supported or upheld), which, to be fair to state agencies, is likely how they were using the term.

Biological Recovery. When the FWS attempted to delist wolves in 2009, another phrase emerged to describe the Northern Rocky Mountain wolf population–biologically recovered.  Thus, in the 2009 Final Rule (p. 15,138), the FWS confidently asserted that, “By all measures the NRM wolf population is extremely demographically and genetically diverse, will remain so, and is completely biologically recovered” (emphasis added).  This language was quickly picked up in subsequent press releases and FAQ sheets.  Thus, in a recent FAQ sheet entitled, Gray Wolf Recovery and Delisting Questions and Answers, the FWS again emphasized its view that, “The best science strongly supports the Service‟s conclusion that the NRM population is biologically recovered” (emphasis added).

This new phrase--biologically recovered--seems to have been coined specifically for wolves.  Although a search of the phrase in Google returned 2,450 results, a cursory look revealed the first 95 results referred explicitly to wolves in the Great Lakes or Northern Rockies (the only non-related article referred to people who had recovered from anorexia). The term “biologically recovered” is curious, as it implies that recovery of an endangered species may entail more than simply meeting minimum biological standards and accordingly, that non-biological criteria may be considered when establishing recovery objectives for an Endangered Species–an intriguing notion, and one that seems to conform with the purpose of the ESA (the ESA recognized one purpose in protecting species was that the “are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people”).  However, it is more likely that the FWS merely meant to assert that all of the criteria established for wolf recovery–which were all biological in nature–had been met.  (Note: Some argued that genetic connectivity was an issue at the time; however, shortly thereafter (in 2010) with the publication of vonHoldt and colleague’s finding that there was an exchange of genetic material between sub-populations in the Northern Rockies, it became clear that the final criteria for recovery (i.e., genetic exchange between sub-populations) had been met; see vonHoldt et al. 2010).

 Yet, while many now are comfortable with the notion that wolf populations in the Northern Rockies have met the criteria set up for wolf recovery, there remains considerable ambiguity as to whether wolf populations in the Northern Rockies will remain “recovered” once state management plans are implemented.  Both Idaho and Montana have made it clear that they will attempt to use regulated public hunting and other forms of lethal management to significantly reduce wolf populations; moreover, Wyoming (now set to delist as well) has stubbornly clung to the nuisance/pest classification for wolves in >80% of the state–meaning wolves can be killed by any legal means at any time in these areas.  In Idaho, the actions of politicians continue to cast doubt on the state’s intentions.  For example, in 2009 the governor of Idaho announced that he favored a plan that would kill all but 100 of Idaho’s wolves; in April of 2011, Idaho’s legislature passed and governor signed into law, HO 343, which declared a state of emergency as a result of wolves and holds that Idaho’s citizens  “are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves”; Idaho has also repeatedly passed legislation such as House Joint Memorial 5, which called on the FWS to immediately remove all wolves from Idaho by any means necessary.  Perhaps more concerning are the statements made by Idaho commissioner Tony McDermott, that raise questions about his commitment to maintaining wolves.  When pressed by Idaho Senator Siddoway over wolf management,  McDermott noted that the commission had resisted more aggressive management for fear of a pending federal court decision:

“The reason that Idaho Fish and Game has been cautious in wolf depredation and hunting limits, McDermott said, was to ensure that the state maintains control over wolf management. A federal judge will issue a ruling in a few months that could potential put wolves back on the federal endangered species list…” (Idaho Reporter).

Now that state-led wolf management is all but assured, wolf advocates wonder whether McDermott will fulfill his promise to open “the [wolf management] toolbox a little wider” (again see Idaho Reporter). In the same article, McDermott also reportedly said that Idaho’s population (in 2010) was 2-3 times as large as it should be (according the the FWS, the estimated minimum fall population in Idaho in 2010 was 705; see FWS 2010 Report), suggesting that, at minimum, Idaho will attempt to cut its wolf population in half.  Idaho Fish and Game has chosen not to set harvest quotas on wolves in the majority of the state, which, unfortunately, serves to further fuel suspicion concerning Idaho’s intentions in the eyes of wolf advocates.

Taken together, the actions of state politicians and Fish and Game agencies in the West cast considerable doubt on western states’ intentions regarding wolves, and raise a number of questions regarding the future of wolf populations (e.g., If states implement aggressive wolf reduction programs, will wolf populations remain “recovered” (as defined by the wolf Recovery Plan)? Will genetic exchange continue if states are successful in reducing wolf populations? Can management seemingly designed to reduce wolf populations to the legal minimum be defined as “sustainable” or “responsible” as managers contend? Will Idaho and Montana follow Wyoming in classifying wolves as nuisance/pest species once the ESA’s mandatory 5-year monitoring period is done?)  The ambiguity surrounding states’ intentions is yet another important source of conflict with wolves are concerned, and it has fueled at least some of the scientific skepticism over whether wolves will remain recovered under state management (see, for example, Bergstrom et al. 2009, Bruskotter et al. 2010, Creel & Rotella 2010).

Hunting, trapping and other forms of lethal wolf management

The means by and conditions under which wolves will be lethally managed is the issue with the greatest potential to cause social conflict around wolves.  Long before wolves were removed from ESA protections Nie (2002:68) warned that “the hunting and trapping of wolves is “perhaps the most divisive and potentially explosive issue in the entire wolf debate.” Indeed the experience of wolf and grizzly management in Alaska highlights the potential for conflict surrounding lethal management.  Various efforts at lethal management of wolves in Alaska have spawned ballot initiatives, lawsuits, tourism boycotts, and legislative actions.  (Note: Defenders of Wildlife has a history of Alaska’s management of wolves, here). The previous actions and rhetoric of state politicians and wildlife policy-making bodies (noted above), invite similar actions in western states–especially in Idaho and Wyoming.

In a short opinion piece published in the Journal of Wildlife Management, Mech (2010) recently provided recommendations to agencies for making wolf hunts more palatable to non-hunters.  These recommendations included, delaying the start of hunting seasons until after pups are nearly adult-sized (i.e., November), closing seasons before gravid females become obvious (i.e., by March), and more generally, regulations “to maximize taking wolves where they conflict most with human interest and where and when public concern about wolf taking is least” (Mech 2010:1423).  Mech (2010:1423) also goes on to recommend that states “consider establishing restricted zones” around areas sensitive to the public (e.g., Yellowstone National Park).  (Similarly, some wolf advocates have pushed for “wolf-viewing” areas where wolves are protected from regulated public hunting and trapping.) Mech’s recommendations regarding season length have been implemented (in part) in Montana (see Montana’s Wolf Hunting Guide); however, Idaho’s season runs from 30 August to 31 March (see Idaho’s Wolf Hunting Season).  Wyoming, it appears, has ignored these recommendations entirely, as wolves would be classified as a nuisance/pest species in more than 80% of the state–meaning that they could be killed by essentially any means at any time (Note: A caveat–Wyoming will protect wolves in a small portion of the state during the time of year when most wolves disperse.  This provision is designed to ensure that some genetic exchange with other populations continues; see a draft of Wyoming’s Plan).

Social science research on the management of large carnivores generally indicates that the acceptability of lethal management increases with the severity of perceived impacts (see Arthur 1981, Zinn et al. 2000, Whittaker et al. 2006, Decker et al. 2006, Don Carlos et al. 2009). For example, Decker and colleagues (2006) found that support for the lethal control of wolves among Alaskans ranged from 30−64% based upon the extent of the severity of impact of wolves on caribou and moose populations.  However, studies also indicate that most people generally find non-lethal management actions more acceptable and human than lethal forms of control (Arthur 1981, Bruskotter et al. 2009, Reiter et al. 1999).  I do NOT mean to suggest that lethal wolf management, especially regulated public hunting, will not be acceptable to residents of western states; rather, that state agencies can potentially reduce the controversy associated with lethal management by being more selective regarding when and where it is implemented (again see Mech 2010).  Research suggests that in general most people support lethal management; however, they want it to be undertaken to address what they perceive of as legitimate impacts (Treves and Bruskotter 2011), and they will be more accepting when the actions being implemented are “scaled” relative to these impacts see (Decker et al. 2006, Riley et al. 2003). In general, these studies suggest using hunting selectively–that is, where problems with livestock depredations have been chronic, where impacts to wild ungulates are able to be quantified, or where there may be a concern regarding public safety (i.e., in the case of a wolf that has become food-conditioned).  I hasten to add that the use of non-lethal means (especially encouraging improvement in animal husbandry among livestock producers) has the potential to both reduce conflicts (Musiani et al. 2005) and–potentially–make lethal control more palatable to the public.  That is, if management agencies can show that they have attempted to promote “coexistence” with non-lethal means, the public is likely to prove more willing to accept lethal management (see Treves 2009).  Perhaps more importantly, making a concerted effort at coexistence will show the non-hunting public that state fish and game agencies are not just concerned with the desires of hunters, and could help to reduce or even prevent some of the types of social conflict that arose in response to aggressive management in Alaska.

Looking at the big picture

Arguments over the role of science and the sustainability of wolf management are likely to continue (especially if wildlife professionals cannot clearly articulate what they mean when they use these terms).  But these are mere skirmishes that define how the wolf issue is framed.  Pursuit of aggressive, lethal management which does not consider the extent of wolf impacts, methods of wolf harvest, or more generally, the desires of non-hunters risks alienating non-hunting conservationists and [gasp!] environmentalists, who should be seen as partners in wildlife conservation, not as foes; such actions also risk alienating many of the very people wildlife agencies are trying desperately to recruit in the face of lagging participation in hunting and fishing–that is, people who already care about wildlife and the environment.  Messmer and colleagues (2001) warned that predator control polices, fueled by value-laden debates that transcended the issues in question, tended to swing on a pendulum whereby predators were over-harvested and then over-protected.  Similarly, in his presentation last year at the Midwest Fish and Wildlife Conference, Dave Mech warned of a scenario that unfolded in Poland, whereby wolf populations apparently went through three separate cycles of over-protection, followed by near eradication.  Could the same thing happen here?  I don’t think so…and yet, the political and legal processes in our country set up win-lose scenarios; and the politics of wolves ostensibly demand that winners are rewarded and losers are punished.  Advocates for wolves have been winners for a long time. Now that the tide has turned and wolves have been delisted, it seems these advocates (now on the losing side) will be punished.   The fundamental problem–one that few seem to grasp–is that sans federal protections, state wildlife agencies are now supposed to be the “grown up” in the room; they are responsible for wolf management, and they will be blamed if things go awry.  By adopting aggressive management plans that call for halving wolf populations, treating wolves as nuisance/pest species, and ignoring calls for coexistence these agencies could lose the trust of a generation of conservation-minded, environmentally-active citizens.  What can we expect?  According to Idaho Fish and Game Director Virgil Moore, “The pendulum has swung. We are taking a harder look at predators” (Idaho Statesman).

Wildlife professionals in the West, as the arbiters of wildlife policy–the “grown up” in the room, have an opportunity to slow the predator policy pendulum, helping policy reach a state of equilibrium and decreasing the conflict surrounding wolves’ management; or they can swing the pendulum as it passes by, and invite boycotts, ballot initiatives, and more legislative interventions. Many of the things that wolf advocates desire in a management plan could be put into place without much of an impact on overall wolf harvest or other wildlife management objectives (e.g., dedicated viewing areas, protection of high-profile packs around national parks, 24 hour trap checks, protections puppies and obviously gravid females, etc.).  But too many of my colleagues view such compromises as capitulation to the enemy–anti-hunters.  They fail to realize that by taking the “hard line” with wolves, by choosing to keep the pendulum in motion, agencies invite its return (and play into the hands of the very people they fear).  Perhaps more importantly, they may turn a lot of people off from hunting in the process–sowing distrust of wildlife management and resentment against the hunting community.  Right now in the US there is widespread support for regulated public hunting (see Duda) despite the fact that only a small percentage of the US population engages in this activity; yet, there is also widespread public support for wolves–and their continued listing under the ESA (see a recent Harris Interactive Poll).  Hunting–even the hunting of wolves–need not be pitted against wolf conservation, <b>these are not mutually exclusive endeavors.</b> There is ample middle ground to implement wolf hunting in such a way as to show non-hunting conservationists and those concerned with animal welfare (NOT animal rights) that their views are valued, and by so doing, potentially silence the criticisms that have plagued agencies (particularly in the West).  Of course, I’m not holding my breath.

On who is to blame for the delisting of wolves: The notion that the congressional delisting of wolves resulted from over-litigation by “extreme” proponents of wolves ignores a substantial and growing body of literature that has expressed considerable unease at state-led management of wolves and plans to use regulated public hunts as a means of managing wolf populations.  Specifically, scientists have: (a) questioned whether the limited successes reached in the Great Lakes and Northern Rockies constitute “recovery” as defined by the ESA (Carroll et al 2006; see also Vucetich et al. 2006); (b) questioned whether wolves in the Northern Rockies are actually “biologically recovered” as the USFWS maintains (Bergstrom et al 2009); (c) questioned the validity of the data that form the basis of management decisions (in Montana, see Mallonee 2011), (d) argued that current management is not “based on” science (Bergstrom 2009, Mallonee 2011); (e) argued that the final rule that removed wolves in the Northern Rockies from ESA protections was predicated on a flawed analysis of the social and political threats to wolves (in the West) under state management  (Bruskotter et al. 2010); (f) shown that hunters in Wisconsin and the Northern Rockies are not likely to steward (i.e. support) wolf conservation (Treves & Martin 2011); and finally (g) shown that, in contrast to conventional thinking (which suggests wolf harvest is likely to be primarily compensatory), harvest of wolves can be “super additive” and argued that wolf harvest levels set by the state of Montana are unlikely to be sustainable (Creel & Rotella 2010). Clearly, there is some trepidation in the scientific community regarding state-led management of wolves.

Warning. By tradition, outside of national parks, state Fish and Game Agencies set harvest objectives and regulations for wildlife on federal public lands (where most wolves in the West reside). Agencies would do well to remember the last time that aggressive lethal management of “wildlife” on federal lands spilled over state borders and became a national issue.  I speak, of course, of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which resulted from well-meaning advocates of wild horses ,who objected to their federal public lands being managed to satisfy the interests of local ranchers and hunters, at the expense of their interest in preserving what they saw as a symbol of the West. States that pursue aggressive lethal management of wolves not only risk boycotts and ballot initiatives, they invite federal intervention in the form of legislative action from outside these states designed to protect wolves on federal lands.  I do not think any wildlife professionals want to revisit the ride with wild-horse Annie.

Literature Cited

Arthur, L. M. 1981. Coyote Control: The Public Response. Journal of Range Management 34:14-15.

Bergstrom, B. J., S. Vignieri, S. R. Shefield, W. Sechrest, and A. A. Carlson. 2009. The Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolf is Not Yet Recovered. BioScience 59:991-999.

Bruskotter, J. T., J. J. Vaske, and R. H. Schmidt. 2009. Social and Cognitive Correlates of Utah Residents’ Acceptance of the Lethal Control of Wolves. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:119-132.

Bruskotter, J. T., E. Toman, S. A. Enzler, and R. H. Schmidt. 2010. Are Gray Wolves Endangered in the Northern Rocky Mountains? A Role for Social Science in Endangered Species Listing Determinations. BioScience 60:941-948.

Carroll, C., M. K. Phillips, C. A. Lopez-Gonzalez, and N. H. Schumaker. 2006. Defining Recovery Goals and Strategies for Endangered Species: The Wolf as a Case Study. BioScience 56:25-37.

Cohn, J. P. Wildlife Groups Opposing Congressional Delisting of Gray Wolf. BioScience 61:648.

Creel, S., and J. J. Rotella. 2010. Meta-analysis of relationships between human offtake, total mortality and population dynamics of gray wolves (Canis lupus). PLos ONE 5(9):1-7 (e12918).

Decker, D. J., C. A. Jacobson, and T. L. Brown. 2006. Situation-Specific “Impact Dependency” as a Determinant of Management Acceptability: Insights From Wolf and Grizzly Bear Management in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:426-432.

Don Carlos, A., A. D. Bright, T. L. Teel, and J. J. Vaske. 2009. Human–Black Bear Conflict in Urban Areas: An Integrated Approach to Management Response Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14:174-184.

Enzler, S. A., and J. T. Bruskotter. 2009. Contested Definitions of Endangered Species: The Controversy Regarding How to Interpret the Phrase “A Significant Portion a Species’ Range”. Virginia Environmental Law Journal 27:1-65.

Kuhlman T., and J. Farrington. 2010. What is Sustainability?. Sustainability 2(11):3436-3448.

Mallonee, J. S. 2011. Hunting Wolves in Montana–Where is the Data? Nature and Science 9:175-182.

Mech, L. D. 2010. Considerations for Developing Wolf Harvesting Regulations in the Contiguous United States Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1421-1424.

Messmer, T. A., D. Reiter, and B. C. West. 2001. Enhancing wildlife sciences’ linkage to public policy: lessons from the predator-control pendulum. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:1253-1259.

Musiani, M., T. Muhly, C. C. Gates, C. Callaghan, M. E. Smith, and E. Tosoni. 2005. Seasonality and Reoccurrence of Depredation and Wolf Control in Western North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:876-887.

Nie, M. A. 2002. Wolf recovery and management as value-based political conflict. Ethics, Place & Environment 5:65-71.

Organ, J. and S. Mahoney. 2007. The Future of Public Trust: The legal status of the Public Trust Doctrine. John Organ and Shane Mahoney. The Wildlife Professional 1(2):18-22. Summer 2007.

Reiter, D., M. Brunson, and R. H. Schmidt. 1999. Public attitudes toward wildlife damage management and policy. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:746-758.

Riley, S. J., W. F. Siemer, D. J. Decker, L. H. Carpenter, J. F. Organ, and L. T. Berchielli. 2003. Adaptive Impact Management: An Integrative Approach to Wildlife Management Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:81-95.

Treves, A. 2009. Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1350-1356.

Treves, A., and J. T. Bruskotter. 2011. Gray Wolf Conservation at a Crossroads. BioScience 61:584-585.

Treves, A., and K. A. Martin. 2011. Hunters as stewards of wolves in Wisconsin and the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Society and Natural Resources, in press.

Vucetich, J. A., M. P. Nelson, and M. K. Phillips. 2006. The normative dimension and legal meaning of endangered and recovery in the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 20:1383-1390.

Whittaker, D., J. J. Vaske, and M. J. Manfredo. 2006. Specificity and the Cognitive Hierarchy: Value Orientations and the Acceptability of Urban Wildlife Management Actions. Society & Natural Resources 19:515-530.

Wolf population growth stagnates…will the rhetoric?

The image (above) shows (a) wolf populations, (b) confirmed domestic animal depredations (including livestock), and (c) the number of wolves legally killed (i.e., either via legal hunting or control) in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming from 1987 to 2010.  These data were aggregated from the USFWS’s 2010 report, which you can find here.

Despite predictions of continued growth, these data show a leveling off in wolf populations in these three states in the most recent 4 years.  A closer examination reveals that while initially population growth was substantial, it has steadily decreased in recent years.  In the first 5 years post reintroduction (1996-2000), the average annual wolf population growth was 34%, in the next five years (2001-2005) it was 27%; in the most recent five years (2006-2010), it was just 11%; and in the last three years it was 3%.  This isn’t surprising given the fact that reintroduced wolves found unoccupied habitat full of elk that were unaccustomed to the predator.  However, as the habitat has filled in, population growth has slowed, despite the dire predictions of some.  Could wolves be reaching their carrying capacity in the Northern Rocky Mountains?  Who knows.  The more interesting question is: will the rhetoric of western politicians be toned down now with wolves delisted and populations stabilizing?

We need your help in a nationwide study!

Researchers at Ohio State University are conducting a study in order to understand people’s preferences regarding the conservation and management of large carnivores in the United States. In particular, we are interested in the preferences of people who are knowledgeable and/or care deeply about these issues.

The survey consists of questions designed to assess your attitudes and preferences concerning large carnivore conservation, endangered species restoration, and wolf  management. The questionnaire should take you about 10 to 15 minutes to complete.

This research is not affiliated with nor sponsored by any interest group or agency. Should you have any questions or comments about the study, please do not hesitate to contact us at the number listed below.  Note: Your participation is completely voluntary–you may choose to quit the survey at any time. We also want to assure you that your answers are confidential; we will not be able to link individual people to their responses.

Click here to participate in the study.
Thank you for your participation!

Jeremy Bruskotter, PhD

(614) 247-2118

For questions about your rights as a participant in this study or to discuss other study-related concerns or complaints with someone who is not part of the research team, you may contact Ms. Sandra Meadows in the Office of Responsible Research Practices at (800)678-6251.

Dave Mech on Wolves at the Midwest F&W Conference

Dr. L. David Mech was one of the plenary session speakers at the Midwest Fish & Wildlife Conference, held on 11 – 15 December in Minneapolis, MN.  Dr. Mech gave a thought-proving presentation on the science related to wolves, with a special focus on wolf effects on ungulates, scavengers, and the so-called “trophic cascade” in Yellowstone that has been attributed to the presence of wolves.

Mech reviewed the research on these subjects and essentially concluded that the science is far from settled.  He emphasized the tentative nature of these findings and noted that there was often conflicting evidence from competing labs.

One area where he felt the science was very robust concerned wolves’ tendency to kill weak and vulnerable animals with greater frequency then would be expected by chance.  He played a very interesting video from wildlife photographer Bob Landis that appeared to show wolves specifically targeting an elk with a visible limp (later confirmed to be arthetritis) after “testing” other animals in the herd.  He suggested this was the first really solid evidence that wolves’ disproportionate take of vulnerable animals was not just due to these animals’ vulnerability, but also a function of wolves’ behavior–that is, that wolves specifically target more vulnerable animals.  Folks that want to learn more can visit http://www.davemech.org.

Q & A

I was particularly interested in a couple of questions Mech fielded at the end of his presentation.  When asked how managers should respond to recent comments from northern Minnesotans that wolves “were decimating deer populations”, Mech quipped that they had been saying the same thing since he started studying wolves (back in the late 1950s).

Mech was also asked to predict the geographic extent of wolf recovery (i.e., where will wolves be 20 years from now).  He opined that wolves would continue to occupy some new territory in southern Wisconsin and Michigan and probably the Dakotas as well, but would probably never be able to survive in states like Illinois and Indiana.  He felt the Rocky Mountain population would do better, expressing confidence that wolves would make it into Utah and Colorado and even northern California.

Another questioner asked how hunting wolves was going to build tolerance for the species if, as Mech had maintained, hunting would have little effect on wolf populations.  Rather than address this directly, Mech pointed to Poland where he asserted that wolves had gone through three cycles of “overprotection” followed by wolf eradication, implying that the same could happen here in the U.S.  While I would concede Mech’s point, I would argue that, given the differences in our culture and system of government here in the U.S., one cannot assume that the same events will transpire–in fact, the science on the matter is certainly less clear than it is on any of the issues Mech had argued were far from settled. Personally, I happen to agree with Mech’s assessment that this is a legitimate risk; in fact, that was essentially the argument we made in a recent paper.  However, I think it is important to note that our collective understanding of the social and political systems that will decide whether similar events transpire here in the U.S. is no better than our understanding of trophic cascades–the science is far from settled.

Are wolves endangered in the northern Rockies?

Update Jan 2010 – Clarifying comments on Utah Public Radio (MP3 Audio)

In the December issue of BioScience, my colleagues and I use the US Fish & Wildlife Services 2009 decision to remove wolves in the northern Rockies from endangered species protections to illustrate how the social sciences can contribute meaningfully to listing determinations.  Essentially, this paper asserts that, when threats to a species are primarily anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) the Endangered Species Act’s mandate that listing decisions be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” applies not just to biophysical sciences, but also relevant social science data.

In the 2009 Final Rule removing protections for wolves, the FWS asserted that attitudes toward wolves are a potential threat to the species.  We summarized their analysis of this threat as follows:

“(1) human attitudes are a potential threat to wolves because human-caused wolf mortality, driven by human attitudes, extirpated wolves from this region in the first place;

(2) the threat posed by human attitudes has lessened substantially because public attitudes have improved in recent decades;

(3) state management of wolves will foster local support of wolves and wolf recovery; and

(4) existing state regulatory mechanisms will “balance negative attitudes” and ensure recovery…” (p. 943).

We assert that numerous studies exist that can help with the evaluations of these assumptions, but these studies do not appear in the 2009 Final Rule.  In particular, existing social science evidence conflicts with arguments #2 and #3–we discuss this in detail in the BioScience article. However, it is important to point out that it was not our intent to affect the listing status of wolves.  In fact, the decision to relist wolves was made long ago.  Rather, our intent was to use the case of wolves in the northern Rockies to illustrate how social science information can contribute meaningfully to listing status determinations and provide a “roadmap” of some important considerations for future listing status determinations regarding wolves.

As to the question of whether wolves are endangered, we note that, ultimately, listing determinations require agencies to answer two important questions: what is the risk posed to a species, and is this risk acceptable?  While our analysis clearly suggests the risks posed by society are greater than FWS estimated, they cannot speak to the second question.  Thus, we leave it to readers to formulate their own views on the matter.

Bruskotter, J.T., Toman, E., Enzler, S.A., & Schmidt, R.H. 2010. Are gray wolves endangered in the northern Rocky Mountains? A role for social science in listing determinations. BioScience 60(11):941-947.

How does experience with wolves affect media coverage?

We used the dataset on news media coverage about wolves to explore the question of how a society’s experience with wolves affects news media coverage.  After classifying nearly 30,000  statements about wolves as either positive or negative, we grouped all of the statements we coded into one of three categories: (1) states and provinces with permanent wolf populations, (2) states with “new” wolf populations (i.e., populations established since the passage of the ESA either via reintroduction or recolonization), and (3) states and provinces without wolves.

The first figure (below) shows the trend in news coverage (specifically, negative expressions per article) over time in these three groups.  Results show no significant trend in negative expressions per article among states and provinces with permanent population nor among states and provinces without wolves.  States with new wolf populations, on the other hand, demonstrated a significant increase in negative expressions per article.  Moreover, states with new populations exhibited more negative expressions per article (second figure).  These results suggest the increase in negative news media coverage over time is being driven primarily by states with new wolf populations.

In our original analysis, we hypothesized that states with new wolf populations would have more negative news media coverage due to the novelty associated with the return of this species and a heightened perception of risk on the part of the population.  However, an alternate explanation exists for these data.  All of the states and provinces with permanent wolf populations also have reduced protections for wolves (the only state with a permanent population that is protected under the ESA is Minnesota, and wolves there are listed as threatened).  Another explanation for our findings is that the negative press is related to the degree of control that states/citizens have over wolf populations; specifically, as control decreases under the ESA, perception of risk increases leading to more negative attitudes and media coverage.  A final explanation deals with differing cultures; anti-government sentiment in the Rocky Mountain West make wolves a perfect surrogate issue for those seeking to promote anti-federalism and states’ rights issues.  Unfortunately, they data we’ve collected thus far don’t allow us to explicitly address these issues.

Are attitudes toward wolves in the US changing?

My colleagues and I tackled this question in a recent article published in the journal, Human Dimensions of Wildlife. Unfortunately, data do not exist that allow us to answer this question in a conventional manner (i.e., via survey).  Consequently, we chose to conduct a content analysis of the US and Canadian print news media.  I have made a pre-publication draft of the article available here:

Attitudes Toward Wolves in the United States and Canada: A Content Analysis of the Print News Media, 1999-2008

What follows is a brief summary of this study’s findings…

Previous studies

Several prior studies attempted to address the same central research questions with mixed findings.  For example, Kellert (1999) found evidence for a slight increase in “affection” for wolves in Minnesota over a 15-year time frame while, in contrast, Enck and Brown (2002) found a substantial decline in support for wolf reintroduction in the Adirondacks.  Still other research found no measurable change in attitudes toward wolves over time (Bruskotter et al. 2007; Williams et al. 2002).

Our approach

We used computer-aided content analysis to assess to code nearly 30,000 paragraphs that appeared in more than 6,000 stories about wolves published in the US and Canada from 1999 to 2008.  We only included news media sources that published continuously throughout the time period of interest in order to rule out the possibility that our results would be biased by new media sources.

Coding. We developed a conceptual framework that classified paragraphs into one of five types of evaluative statements.  Each evaluation was also classified as either positive or negative with respect to wolves; thus, there were 10 concepts coded in total.  The goal of our approach was to “capture” any evaluative statements about wolves or wolf management.

Study findings

Roughly 72% of all expressions we coded over the 10 year time frame were negative.  The most prevalent type of expression was the belief that “wolves negatively impact human activities” which accounted for roughly 31% of all of the paragraphs we coded. The second most prevalent expression was the judgment that “wolves should be killed or controlled” which accounted for roughly 28% of all of the paragraphs we coded.  The most prevalent positive expression was that “wolves should be protected”, which accounted for 15% of all paragraphs coded.

Regression analyses. Next, we used linear regression in order to determine if there were significant trends within each of the concept-categories.  Trends were determined by calculating the percentage of paragraphs per year accounted for by each concept, and fitting a line through the 10-year trend.  Results show that three of 10 concepts: (a) there was a significant decrease in the percentage of paragraphs expressing the idea that “wolves positively impact human activities” (B = -.18, p = .01), (b) a significant decrease in the percentage of paragraphs expressing the idea that “wolves should be protected (B = -.45, p = .04), and a significant increase in the percentage of paragraphs expressing the idea that “wolves negatively impact ecosystems” (B = .17, p = .05).  We then created a summary index where each concept was coded as either positive or negative.  Regressing a line through each year of data suggested in increase in the percent of negative news coverage about wolves in the US and Canada (B = .72, p = .04).

Are attitudes toward wolves changing

This is a complicated question which our data only begin to address.  Our data clearly exhibit a negative trend in news coverage concerning wolves; however, news media coverage is merely a rough proxy for measuring actual attitudes.  In this respect, our data are suggestive of a change.  However, whether one views the news media as a cause or consequence of public opinion (or more realistically, both), this trend does not bode well for wolves.

A second problem with these analyses is that the overall trend may obscure regional variation; that is, it is possible that, in some places attitudes are becoming more negative while in others they are becoming more positive.  We examined this issue more closely in subsequent analyses…[stay tuned for an update!]

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.


text:
Comment 2 for bug 905712

Colin Charles (ccharles) wrote :

What has happened here is that in the last change, we changed the Packager from ourDelta to Monty Program (which is in fact, accurate).

We can fix this similarly to

The fix is actually here:
The workaround is to:
%define mysql_old_vendor OurDelta -
%define mysql_vendor Monty Program -

The 649-689 lines in is the logic behind making a "safe" upgrade

Do you want me to fix this and patch it in bakery, or will you do it?


text:
Horn Tooting

2 05 2009

I need to thank a couple of folks for spreading the word.  Kevin Levin notes in this post that he is including Bull Runnings in a top ten Civil War blogs list he was asked to compile for Blogs.com: The Best in Blogs.  And on the May 1 episode of Gerry Prokopowicz’s Civil War Talk Radio, guest Dana Shoaf, editor of Civil War Times and America’s Civil War magazines, mentioned the blog as one he reads regularly (thanks to Brett Schulte for bringing this to my attention in this post).

Thanks, Kevin and Dana.

UPDATE: Brett at TOCWOC has put up his own top ten CW blogs list, and was nice enough to include Bull Runnings on it.  Thanks Brett.  I think before my head gets too big to fit through my door I should point out that I realize that any top ten/hundred/thousand/million list is going to be the product of the person compiling it, and a reflection of personal preference.  Still, without going all Sally Field on you, it’s nice to know at least three people appreciate what I’m doing here.

3 responses

2 05 2009
Brett Schulte - TOCWOC

I wasn’t too impressed with Levin’s Top 10 list, so I decided to do my own over at TOCWOC. You made that list too… :-)

2 05 2009
Harry Smeltzer

Where might I find this list?

2 05 2009
Brett Schulte - TOCWOC

I was going to reply with the URL but it looks like you’ve already got it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,554 other followers

%d bloggers like this:


text:
Will Instagram teach users that, in digital media, there’s no such thing as a free launch?

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom has backpedaled on the company’s privacy policy changes. Though that might be enough to comfort a gaggle of amateur photographers, surely everyone else now knows that Instagram will live to monetize its data another day.

Of course, Facebook has led us through the dark bowers of digital exploitation before. It will be interesting to see whether, with such highly publicized privacy policy blunders from Facebook and now Instagram, users have finally wised up to how this all works. Even now, it’s sort of baffling why exactly these “breaches” give people the willies—does anyone really think there’s value in invading their privacy as an individual user? Or is it more that, despite realizing the fault that lies in not reading the terms and conditions in the first place, users still feel the nagging sense of a bait and switch at play?

If the latter, they certainly should—because it is. Even if it takes a few more privacy policy outrage episodes to sink in, this latest controversy is nudging us closer to a digital media divergence into two clear models: either users pay for the commodity/service or they are the commodity/service.

What the Instagram controversy crystallizes more clearly than the Facebook episode is the why the “switch” part of the equation is so disquieting, even if individual privacy per se isn’t actually in peril. Because Instagram is mainly about photographs, and it has attracted users on the basis of the quality of those photographs, it is now apparent that harvesting user data isn’t the only monetizing method. The fruits of users’ labor is also a precious resource—their photographs in Instagram’s case, and all manner of miscellaneous content that Facebook users produce. It’s what Nick Carr inimitably terms the “digital sharecropping” model:

As Techcrunch noted, Facebook reported that it earned an average of $1.21 in revenue from each of its members during the first quarter of this year. What Facebook calls ARPU – average revenue per user – is one of its crucial financial measures…. Because Facebook’s content is created by its members, ARPU also tells us the monetary value of each member’s labor. If the average Facebook sharecropper were to be paid a revenue share for his or her work on the site, that member would make a buck and change every three months – about enough for one crappy cup of coffee.

Needless to say, the amount is so small that Facebook members never think about it. The amounts only become economically interesting when, as I wrote earlier, you aggregate them on a massive scale.

Part of the problem here derives from the scale-conquest phase of this digital sharecropping model. Startups that charge for their services in a straightforward way can’t compete with the “free (for now)” alternatives. And, tellingly, start-ups that clarified right off the bat how they planned to monetize their user base are similarly unlikely to attract willing users.

This is important because of the unique landscape of digital media and how users experience it. As Clay Shirky pointed out in the mid-Cretaceous period of the digital world, the only models that can get away with doing things that “users hate” are monopolies or cartels. Unfortunately for duped-feeling users, that is exactly what superior social media startups that aggressively share-grab morph into: monopolies. After they reach critical mass, individual resistance—e.g. flight to MySpace?—is pretty much futile.

What remains unclear, though, is the degree to which slightly-less-than-superior platforms can get away with doing things that “users hate.” In the current evolutionary stage of the digital media business, users appear only to grasp how to vote with their usage habits—and, in the absence of a viable substitute, only the most indignant of photographers are likely to stick to their boycott guns. This bodes well for Instagram. So too does the fact that users haven’t yet accepted to notion of voting with their dollars. And until users accept that they have to pony up for the services that they want, the competitive field for digital sharecroppers will remain comfortably sparse.


text:
What's buzzing:

The Dagger: College Basketball Blog

Bracket Flames: Divine intervention, Billikens’ emotional ride won’t stop anytime soon

The Dagger

Are you prepared for Tournageddon? Play against your buds along with celebrities Chris Paul, Alex Morgan and Rob Dyrdek. Sign up for Yahoo!'s Tourney Pick 'Em NOW. It's your FREE shot at $10,000, and endless bragging rights.

Early last December a dark cloud descended over the Gateway City. Iconic head coach Rick Majerus, who just weeks before resigned as head basketball coach of St. Louis University, suffered catastrophic heart failure, ending a brilliant life entirely too early. Time stopped. Tears streamed. Minds reflected. Sadness enveloped the program.

Buried in his hometown, Milwaukee, with players acting as pallbearers, Majerus’ stamp on the small Jesuit school extended well beyond basketball. During that touching moment, his loving attachment to kids was clearly on display, a lasting tribute to an entertaining figure with a visionary basketball mind – he emerged victorious in more than 70 percent of games he coached – and endless stash of hilarious anecdotes.

[Related: Breaking down the Midwest Region]

View photo

Despite numerous criticisms about his lewd conduct off the court and often intense, militaristic practices, understudies who played on his watch were far more than just an "X" on a white board. To the jovial coach, they were friends, sons and confidants who gave their heart and soul to him for four years. His refreshing honesty and humor made it almost impossible not to like the guy. When news of his passing spread, it was no surprise why many from Utah to the East Coast were so grief-stricken, particularly those closest to him during his final days. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Some of them [Saint Louis players] lost a father figure," interim coach Jim Crews said this week. "They all lost a coach. Some of them for the first time lost someone close to them. It was a very emotional time."

Since Majerus was laid to rest on Dec. 8, the Billikens have carried on his legacy the only way they know how – win games. Over that span, they’ve amassed a 23-3 record, clinched the regular season title in the highly underrated Atlantic 10 and earned a favorable No. 4 seed in the NCAA tournament. They open against No. 13 New Mexico State on Thursday.

Continue to execute at a high level, and the sleeping giant just may ride an emotional wave to Atlanta.

Jim Crews has done a marvelous job building on what Majerus started. Still, the former coach’s influences remain everywhere. Staunch half-court man defense, a hallmark of Majerus-coached teams, is what the Billikens are best known for. On the season, they’ve surrendered a mere 0.87 points per possession, the eighth-lowest mark in the country. They’ve also defended the glass terrifically and forced turnovers on 23.5 percent of opponent possessions, well above the 20.1 national average. Most impressively, they thrice limited Butler, one of the more efficient offensive teams in the country, under 1.00 points per possession and suffocated high-powered VCU to one of its lowest scoring outputs of the season (62).

[Related: Interactive bracket and complete tournament coverage]

Saint Louis doesn’t pack quite as much punch OH-ffensively, but it's no pushover. The well-drilled Billikens greatly value the basketball. Disciplined, calculated and slow-paced, they are rarely victimized by takeaways, cash in often at the free-throw line and splash routinely from three. Alone, junior guard Mike McCall has swished nearly 44 percent from downtown. Balanced across the board – five Billikens average at least 9.8 points per game – and mentally tough, they are in great position to far exceed the Round 2 appearance made a year ago. Butler head coach Brad Stevens completely agrees. From College Basketball Talk:

“I think Saint Louis is one of the best teams in the country,” said Butler coach Brad Stevens prior to Saturday's A-10 tourney semi-final game.. “I don’t care where they’re ranked or where they’ll be seeded. Somebody who hasn’t played against them next week, they’re going to say uh‑oh.”

Stevens offered even more praise for the top-seed following his team’s tough loss.

“I’ve said all year to the people who have listened, and some that don’t, how good they are. They are a legitimate contender to win the whole thing.”

Saint Louis' road to Atlanta is filled with potholes. Far and away, the Midwest region is the deepest and toughest, baffling when considering Louisville is the No. 1 of No. 1s. Despite the difficult path, the Billikens are a legitimate threat to dethrone the top seed, assuming they reach the Round of 16. Because St. Louis takes care of the basketball, it's well constructed to handle the Cardinals relentless pressure defense. It can also throw a wicked counter-punch when guarding the ball. Frustrate Russ Smith and Peyton Siva, and it could trash Pick 'Em brackets from coast-to-coast.

It’s been a somber season for Saint Louis, but a blazed trail to Atlanta would be the ultimate remembrance for its fallen mentor.

Here are five additional Cinderellas hoping to don a glass slipper:

Bucknell Bison (REC: 28-5, RPI: 51, RPI top-50 Ws REC: 1-1, Seed: 11, Region: East)
Fear the Bison, high-majors. Among automatic qualifiers seeded No. 11 and below, Bucknell might be the most dangerous. Patriot Player of the Year, Mike Muscala, is a solid NBA prospect who's averaged a double-double per game on the season. His soft touch inside and strong rebounding ability has greatly aided Bryson Johnson and Cameron Ayers along the perimeter. Combined, the long-bombers have converted 40.3 percent from three. On the opposite end, Bucknell is incredibly stiff defensively. The Bison have held opponents to the fifth-lowest effective field-goal percentage in the country. The Buck doesn't play comfortably against fleet-footed teams, but against half-court oriented squads it should hold its own. Recall it nearly knocked off Missouri, in Columbia, in early January. It's opening-round matchup against Butler plays perfectly in its hands. The Bulldogs are very turnover prone, especially Rotnei Clarke. It's hard to bet against Brad Stevens, but in what should be a tortoise-paced, grind-it-out contest, the Bison defense should rise to the occasion. Its odds against Marquette, a possible Round of 32 opponent, are also stronger than you think.

[Related: Play Yahoo! Sports Tourney Pick'em]

Creighton Blue Jays (REC: 27-7, RPI: 25, RPI top-50 Ws: 4-3, Seed: 7, Region: Midwest)
The Blue Jays are the most efficient half-court team in the nation, ranking No. 2 in both 3-point and 2-point field-goal percentage. Wooden Award candidate Doug McDermott is the heart and soul of this team, but Creighton boasts much more than just one star. Ethan Wragge and Jahenns Manigat can really fill it up from the outside, Gregory Echenique is a muscle man down low, and Will Artino and Avery Dingman have provided valuable minutes off the bench. Defensively, the Jays are often gentlemanly, leaving the door wide open for its opponents. They lack a true shot-blocker and force few turnovers. Overall, they rank 76th in defensive efficiency. However, Creighton did show massive improvement in that area down the homestretch conceding a respectable 0.96 points per possession. If it can sustain that defensive intensity moving forward, it's more than capable of stringing together multiple wins. The "Jays" opening-round matchup against Cincinnati is a classic contrast of styles. Mick Cronin's half-court oriented club relies on smash-mouth defense to thwart opponents. But because of Creighton's deadliness on offense it should dictate tempo. Beat the Bearcats and a 3-point showdown against sketchy Duke looms. A No. 2 seed has been ousted in the Round of 32 in 14 of the past 16 tournaments. Count on the 'Jays to keep the streak alive.

VCU Rams (REC: 26-8, RPI: 23, RPI top-50 Ws REC: 3-7, Seed: 5, Region: South)
Relentless, exhausting and fearless, the Rams are again poised to wreck "havoc" on the competition. Speed and pressure are hallmarks of Shaka Smart-coached teams. This year's VCU brand is no different. It ranks No. 1 in defensive turnover percentage, forcing side changes on a mind-blowing 28.6 percent of opponent possessions. Thieves Darius Theus and Briante Weber have combined for more than 5.0 steals per game. Teams that are careless with the basketball will pay the ultimate price. On offense, the Rams are above average from downtown, netting 35.5 percent. Senior Troy Daniels has nailed at least three money balls in a game 18 times. When searing, he can sway outcomes almost single-handedly. Interestingly, for a feisty team with an attacking nature, VCU rarely gets to the line. Only 17.1 percent of its points are accumulated at the charity stripe. Also undersized, it has struggled against squads with sizable beef in the post, though it does generate ample second-chance opportunities. It's unlikely the Rams will again blaze a trail to the Final Four, but a Sweet 16 appearance, or more, is well within reach. A possible regional semifinal matchup with Kansas would be highly entertaining.

Illinois Fighting Illini (REC: 22-12, RPI: 38, RPI top-50 Ws REC: 6-8, Seed: 7, Region: East)
It's been a seesaw year for the Illini. They roared out of the gate reeling off 12 straight wins, including arguably the best non-conference road win this season (at Gonzaga), only to stumble to a 2-7 start in Big Ten play. But a late-season turnaround, spurred by key wins over Indiana and Minnesota (twice), has Illinois on a roll. The enigmatic club will go as far as its guards will take it. Brandon Paul's and D.J. Richardson’s shooting from behind the arc is instrumental for Illinois. When the pair blaze the nets from distance and commit to defense, the Illini are capable of eliminating anyone. However, bouts of inconsistency leave them vulnerable to 20-point blowouts, particularly against zone-oriented teams with considerable front-court depth. Nnanna Egwu, their primary interior presence, must stay out of foul trouble. X-Factors Tyler Griffey and Joseph Betrand must also attack the rim to weaken defenses, particularly if the Illini draw Miami in Round 2. The Hurricanes' massive size down low is a matchup nightmare, but Illinois has overcome similar disadvantages (See Gonzaga). Still, this is a dangerous midrange seed that could reach the second weekend if it finds its long-distance stroke.

North Carolina Tar Heels (REC: 24-10, RPI: 16, RPI top-50 REC: 2-8, Seed: 8, Region: South)
To borrow a line made famous by Vince Vaughn in "Swingers," the young Heels are "all growns up." It's been a roller-coaster season in Chapel Hill. Not long ago, bracket pundits were unsure Carolina would even make the field. But on the right side of the ledger in eight of their past 11 games, Roy Williams' bunch is peaking at the perfect time. Defensively, the Heels have executed at an admirable level all year, surrendering a mere 0.91 points per possession. On the opposite end, however, is where they've made the greatest improvement. P.J. Hairston and Marcus Paige have elevated their games considerably, splashing rain-makers from three with regularity while making opponents pay at the line. Also cautious with the basketball – it's turn the ball over on just 17.1 percent of its possessions – fruitful on the boards and immensely talented, UNC owns the necessary characteristics to transform from perennial contender to mid-seed spoiler. If it escapes what should be a hotly-contested first-round game against Villanova, Kansas will come calling, a top seed that is far from invincible. Just ask TCU fans.

Fun facts/trends about the Big Dance:

• At least one No. 12 seed has advanced beyond the opening round 11 of the past 12 years. In the second round No. 12s are 19-19 (50.0%) all-time.

• A No. 16 has never defeated a No. 1, though Alonzo Mourning still wakes up in cold sweats about Princeton.

• Since 2000, No. 13 seeds have survived the opening round in just 23.1 percent of its attempts; No. 14s 5.8 percent.

• No. 15 seeds are 3-49 in opening-round games since 2000; 6-106 all-time. Last year, Norfolk State and Lehigh stunned the world.

• Notable mid-majors' tourney win percentage since 2000: Atlantic 10 (46.3%), West Coast (46.2%), Colonial (43.3%), Missouri Valley (35.9%), WAC (32.3%), Mountain West (30.6%)

Follow Bracket Brad on Twitter @YahooNoise

Related NCAA tourney coverage from Yahoo! Sports

Other popular content on Yahoo! Sports:
Michigan leads list of teams to avoid in your bracket
Puerto Rico reaches WBC final, hopes for rematch with Dominican Republic
Tim Tebow has a home in the Arena Football League if he wants it
Tiger Woods, Lindsey Vonn make it Facebook official with announcement, photos

View Comments (21)
  • Mancini leads Endwell, New York, to Little League title game

    Mancini leads Endwell, New York, to Little League title game

    ''A lot of ping pong,'' infielder Jack Hopko said. Hopko broke a scoreless tie with an RBI single in the bottom of the fourth and Michael Mancini led struck out 11 in a 4-2 victory over Goodlettsville, Tennessee, in the U.S. final Saturday. ''I … More »

    AP - Sports - 7 minutes ago
  • Duminy misses century, South Africa eye big total

    Duminy misses century, South Africa eye big total

    By Mark Gleeson PRETORIA (Reuters) - JP Duminy missed out on what could have been his fifth test century but South Africa remained on course for a big first innings total, reaching 358 for five wickets at lunch on the second day of the second test … More »

    Reuters - 9 minutes ago
  • Mladenovic, Garcia and Paire suspended by French tennis fed

    PARIS (AP) -- The French tennis federation has provisionally suspended Kristina Mladenovic, Caroline Garcia and Benoit Paire for ''damaging'' its image at the Rio de Janeiro Olympics. … More »

    AP - Sports - 10 minutes ago
  • College football Down Under attracts 61,000 fans at Sydney

    College football Down Under attracts 61,000 fans at Sydney

    The beer ran out in some sections of the Olympic stadium, but most of the 61,247 spectators at Saturday's U.S. college football opener in Sydney between California and Hawaii appeared to be enjoying their American ''gridiron'' experience. The … More »

    AP - Sports - 24 minutes ago
  • West Ham sign Zaza on loan from Juventus

    West Ham sign Zaza on loan from Juventus

    (Reuters) - West Ham United have signed Italian striker Simone Zaza from Juventus on a season-long loan for an initial fee of five million pounds ($6.57 million), the Premier League club said on Sunday. Zaza scored five Serie A goals in 19 games … More »

    Reuters - 33 minutes ago


text:
Vanderdoes talks Cal, UW

Eddie vanderdoes 200 8 15

SOCIAL: Follow on Twitter | Like on Facebook

Premium Content

Subscribe today to read the full article and get everything Rivals has to offer.

  • Member-only message boards
  • Exclusive highlights and recruiting interviews
  • Exclusive coverage of Rivals Camp Series
  • Breaking recruiting news