This really makes me wonder whether you can rely on anything you read these days. Everything seems to be agenda-driven.
"Partial walrus estimate alarms conservation group. A partial federal assessment of Pacific walruses estimates their minimum population at just 15,164 but says the count likely missed a number of animals.
The estimate released Thursday only represents animals counted in about half of walrus habitats in the Bering and Chukchi seas and does not account for animals that were in water rather than on ice.
"You don't need to know if there are 500 passenger or 1,000 passengers on the Titanic," he said. "When it hits an iceberg, they're all endangered."
We realized we were missing a lot of walrus groups," he said.
The biologists cautioned against relying too heavily on the partial count of 15,164 walruses.http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9aV0ROdcdWzWf19M8bAS0uftv_AD98TD10O0So, just count a few, stick out a press release, make a few soundbites and take the dosh. I'm just going to stick my head out of the window and do a population estimate. I might miss a few people, but there you go.

Oh, and while we#re on the subject of walruses, wildlife experts had this to say in 2007:
"While scientists lack a firm population estimate for the species, researchers have encountered herds as large as 100,000 in recent years.."http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071226-walrus-stampede_2.htmlWhere is the scientific truth out there?

I need a lie down...
...but first I need to go to Vx to get oil filters to do oil changes on my Miggy and SWMBO's Corsa. Anybody want anything while I'm down there?
