In one sense, Bill Sherwonit is correct: I, and many others, do not have what he callls an "open mind" regarding his insensitive, ad hominem attack on deceased Alaska wolf biologist Gordon Haber. When a journalist writes a disparaging, posthumous expose of a well-known Alaska scientist who is no longer around to defend himself, he should expect criticism. He got it. For years, those who didn't want to accept Haber's findings about wolf social dynamics - e.g. the Alaska Board of Game, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, National Park Service, trappers and hunters, - sought to discredit Haber's work via character assassination. They couldn't argue Haber's scientifically solid message, so they attacked the messenger himself. Unfortunately, Sherwonit's "remembrance" of Haber does the same, and in fact, amplifies these irrelevant personality issues. And that is truly disappointing from a fellow conservationist. A more fitting remembrance would be to simply say: "Dr. Haber, thanks for your decades of intensive field research on the social dynamics of Alaska's wolves, and your tireless advocacy for wildlife conservation. Rest in Peace."

— Rick Steiner, Professor


Load comments