The point of this article is that any scientific survey done in the era of political correctness is suspect.
Have you got some scientific paper from pre-1982 that you could cite to back up your possibly correct claim?
Have you got some scientific paper from pre-1982 that you could cite to back up your possibly correct claim?
What's with "pre-1982"? Did science suddenly get corrupted that year? Do you propose that we dump the last 20 years of wildlife biology research in cases where results cause conflict with human needs? Scientific research is published, complete with materials and methods, to allow people to critically examine and replicate the findings. If you think such surveys are suspect, then go and find out for yourself. I'm sure the scientists and rangers in question would be only too happy to show you. The fact remains that many species have very narrow, specialized habitat requirements, and no amount of political fighting is going to change that. The society in question has to decide if the potential employment is more important than the survival of the species or ecosystem. I'm sure politicians in these areas run on these issues.
I'm not saying that scientific fraud doesn't exist. I'm sure the temptation is there when funding is hard to come by. However, it doesn't do other scientists any favours when the purse strings are tightened and all their honest work is called into question, so I don't subscribe to these vast conspiracies which many here seem to think all scientists are a part of. Besides, once you're exposed as fraudulent, I don't think that you personally are going to have much credibility in future, and science is a very competitive field.
I don't personally have any papers from prior to 1982 (although I could get them in a couple of weeks). The articles I listed will have such references in their bibliographies. An internet search might also help. Many scientists list their publications on their web pages. Such a hot political issue is bound to have important work listed somewhere.