Support the Timberjay by making a donation.
I'm not sure what this article about as it points to absolutely no bias. The DNR has shown no bias against Rogers. In reality they have bent over backwards to accommodate a man that has shown no desire to even meet them halfway.
Now coming from a paper that allows Rogers to make statements like - "Rogers and his research associate Sue Mansfield are hesitant to talk at length about the situation due to the current legal case against the DNR, but say they have evidence that their bears were specifically targeted by a small group of hunters, and that at least some DNR officials may have been involved in assisting them. “The DNR definitely knew about the targeting of June,” said Mansfield." - without a follow up question I guess this is to be expected.
However, I'd like to see a little more in the way of investigative reporting with questioning of the "evidence" as well.
Rogers deserved to lose his permit. It's not an unorthodoxy of science that caused it - it's a lack of reasons to provide a permit. And that is solely Rogers' fault.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
