The researcher you reference is only one of many bear researchers; his data might or might not correspond with the data gathered by researchers in other parts of North America. As I recall from my science classes, it is important not to argue from the particular to the general, but from the general to the particular. In other words, good research must cover all possible data, from multiple sources, before making any kind of generalization across the board on any topic.
Bob, I'd take some issue with your approach to evaluating research.
Mainly, I'd say that if one disputes research, one disputes it with research that contradicts it, not with a statement that the research does not encompass all research done by everybody, everywhere, at all times, on every related subject, and there MIGHT be something that contradicts the disputed research.
For example, in Steve's example, he give the example of a bear that has taken a camper's food, who happens to be a cub.
How many times have we all read, that once a bear has captured food, it is THEIRS, and an attempt to get it back is foolhardy. Perhaps that was the operative issue, not the cub issue.
Hey, but it's great to stick to the party line. filter that water!
