METHODS OF CONTROLLING COYOTES, BOBCATS, AND FOXES

In reviewing methods of predator control, it would first seem appropriate to define what is meant "by "methods" and what is meant by "control." Taking the last term first, control, as applied to the predatory coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, may be defined as regulating the numbers of these animals to the point where the economic losses for which they are responsible will be reduced to a practicable minimum. In some situations, area control, i.e., limiting the numbers of the offending predator over wide areas, may be necessary for satisfactory reduction of economic losses; in other situations, spot control or localized reduction of numbers of a certain predator may be called for; in still other situations, elimination of an individual animal may be all the control that is needed. In no sense is control, as applied to coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, intended to mean extermi¬nation of a species. The term "methods" is interpreted as meaning the procedures employed against coyotes, bobcats, and foxes, and not the broader systems of predator control such as the paid hunter system, the extension system, or the much-discredited bounty system. For an excellent review of the systems of predator control, see Latham (l).

METHODS OF CONTROLLING STARLINGS AND BLACKBIRDS

Most people have accepted the fact that all living things can be beneficial to mankind in some way or other. This is especially true of our wild birds, since they provide enjoyment and wholesome recreation for most of us, regardless of whether we live on farms or in the city. But despite the fact that wild birds are for the most part beneficial, at times individuals or populations of certain species can seriously affect man's interests. When such situations occur, some measures of relief are desirable and usually eagerly sought. This report is not intended to answer all the questions that may arise concerning problems with blackbirds and starlings; instead, it is merely a summary of measures used to protect agricultural crops from these birds.

Literacy Research: Issues of Authority, Ownership, and Representation

With the “social turn” of language in the past decade within English studies, ethnographic and teacher research methods increasingly have acquired legitimacy as a means of studying student literacy. And with this legitimacy, graduate students specializing in literacy and composition studies increasingly are being encouraged to use ethnographic and teacher research methods to study student literacy within classrooms. Yet few of the narratives produced from these studies discuss the problems that frequently arise when participant observers enter the classroom. Recently, some researchers have begun to interrogate the extent to which ethnographic and teacher research methods are able to construct and disseminate knowledge in empowering ways (Anderson & Irvine, 1993; Bishop, 1993; Fine, 1994; Fleischer. 1994; McLaren, 1992). While ethnographic and teacher research methods have oftentimes been touted as being more democratic and nonhierarchical than quantitative methods—-which oftentimes erase individuals lived experiences with numbers and statistical formulas—-researchers are just beginning to probe the ways that ethnographic and teacher research models can also be silencing, unreflective, and oppressive. Those who have begun to question the ethics of conducting, writing about, and disseminating knowledge in education have coined the term “critical” research, a rather vague and loose term that proposes a position of reflexivity and self-critique for all research methods, not just ethnography or teacher research. Drawing upon theories of feminist consciousness-raising, liberatory praxis, and community-action research, theories of critical research aim to involve researchers and participants in a highly participatory framework for constructing knowledge, an inquiry that seeks to question, disrupt, or intervene in the conditions under study for some socially transformative end. While critical research methods are always contingent upon the context being studied, in general they are undergirded by principles of non-hierarchical relations, participatory collaboration, problem-posing, dialogic inquiry, and multiple and multi-voiced interpretations. In distinguishing between critical and traditional ethnographic processes, for instance, Peter McLaren says that critical ethnography asks questions such as “[u]nder what conditions and to what ends do we. as educational researchers, enter into relations of cooperation. mutuality, and reciprocity with those who we research?” (p. 78) and “what social effects do you want your evaluations and understandings to have?” (p. 83). In»the same vein, Michelle Fine suggests that critical researchers must move beyond notions of the etic/emic dichotomy of researcher positionality in order to “probe how we are in relation with the contexts we study and with our informants, understanding that we are all multiple in those relations” (p. 72). Researchers in composition and literacy stud¬ies who endorse critical research methods, then, aim to enact some sort of positive transformative change in keeping with the needs and interests of the participants with whom they work.