• whotookkarl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Disclaimer: I have no horse in this race, I don’t hunt or care to start hunting and if recreational hunting is more detrimental to sustained ecosystems than other tactics then it should be replaced, I’m more concerned with using good, reliable information to form conclusions

    The first and third link doesn’t appear to link to any citations or data to support it’s claims, so I think it’s fair to treat it as an option piece but I think we should have better standards when making decisions that can affect our stewardship of the world around us

    The second is quite long but from what I can gather it is the best of the 4 in that it is based on a survey of peer reviewed research and makes a good thorough case against a subset of recreational hunting, specifically trophy hunting, as unethical.

    The last link says overabundance is not a scientific term used in the scientific literature, but I can clearly see it is in many widely cited research papers (two usages, one in linguistics and one in biology)

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=overabundant

    And in the additional resources section there’s a few broken links and the closest I can find to a peer review article is a letter to the editor of a journal, not identified as a peer reviewed article and without public access to the methodology if it contains one

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304380005003339

    https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Letter_to_the_Editor_considered_as_research_article_publication_Does_it_carry_any_value_in_terms_of_research_score