WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

[jmden]

I'd love to see evidence which supports this statement. Every biologist I've asked about it just rolls their eyes.

And who is paying them? Do you truly believe every scientist to be without bias? None of them are... We all are human and humans have bias. Don't put too much blind faith in scientists.

 

[Jason Snyder]

The original article is fraught with inaccuracies and ridiculous assertions. Sorry, but anything that incorporates Agenda 21 assertions, and thinks viable elk management is to sit at the YNP boundary and shoot every predator is not worthy of anything beyond lining a bird cage.

Real world wildlife management is a little different than the picture painted here.

 

[tipsntails7]

Don't put too much blind faith in scientists.

That's the great thing about science it's not blind....

 

[Jason Snyder]

I can't keep track of how many articles I have read over the last 10 to 15 years stating that there is a difference between the traits of different sub-species of wolves.
http://www.lobowatch.org/adminclient/WolfFacts4/go

This one took me all of 2 minutes to find. Oh, incidentally, are these biologists that you are polling cashing government pay checks? If they are- and what biologist doesn't work for the government- then just maybe they value their job and aren't going to acknowledge that their scientific justification is completely flawed.

In response to DaveC...

If you consider Lobowatch a viable source of unbiased information then there is no need to debate things any further. No offense, just telling it like it is.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Did you read the article in the OP?

Yep, all of it. This line stood out:

The adjoining Bitterroot Valley of Montana, another national hunting destination was completely destroyed by over predation.

Yeah, over predation by mountain lions. See my posted link.

 

[jmden]

That's the great thing about science it's not blind....

Science itself may be blind and worthy to a large degree, but scientist are not blind and we all know of many, many instances where data was manipulated or falsified for various reasons, political or economic.

 

[tipsntails7]

WOLVES..."Do You Realize Now What You Have Done?..."

If it's not the Yellowstone herd it's the Lolo herd, the toking herds used in any article about the detriment of wolves... Never mind the piss poor management involved. Wolves should be managed, but they are just one of many factors in elk decline.

 

[JCT]

Shrek, you and I must've read the same books.
JT

 

[Where's Bruce?]

Sss

 

[Darren Best]

A scientist that gets paid to come up with the results that his employer is paying him to come up with is no longer a scientist, but a prostitute.

 

[Jason Snyder]

A scientist that gets paid to come up with the results that his employer is paying him to come up with is no longer a scientist, but a prostitute.

That's why scientific articles are peer reviewed.

 

[JCT]

5 bank robbers get caught, they all agree that robber #1 didn't rob the bank. That's peer reviewed.
Sorry JS just an analogy I heard once before.
JT

 

[bpotter]

You have too much faith in peer review. It is not free of politics. Papers can pass peer review whether or not the hypothesis makes any sense.
Uncontrolled wolves are probably no worse than overgrazing by domestic or wild herbivores.

 

[jmden]

That's why scientific articles are peer reviewed.

You obviously have a real bone to pick here. Spill the beans. What's your take on this wolf situation?

Do you work for the Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife by chance?

 

[Jason Snyder]

You obviously have a real bone to pick here. Spill the beans. What's your take on this wolf situation?

Do you work for the Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife by chance?

I have no bone to pick with anything. I dislike extremist positions that are based on emotion rather than facts. I could care less if wolves are/were around, but neither is the world going to end because they are.

 

[Jason Snyder]

You have too much faith in peer review. It is not free of politics. Papers can pass peer review whether or not the hypothesis makes any sense.
Uncontrolled wolves are probably no worse than overgrazing by domestic or wild herbivores.

Both of your points certainly have merit. I don't have complete faith in peer review, but neither do I think you can completely overlook it. Personally, I'm much more concerned with access to private land issues and public land transfers as issues that will affect me most as a hunter, but I'll make my own post on that so as not to hijack this one.

 

[jmden]

Yep, all of it. This line stood out:



Yeah, over predation by mountain lions. See my posted link.

I wouldn't put too much stock in that report. Seems awfully politically correct and expediant...

 

[jmden]

I have no bone to pick with anything. I dislike extremist positions that are based on emotion rather than facts. I could care less if wolves are/were around, but neither is the world going to end because they are.

"but neither is the world going to end because they are". Isn't that a bit extremist?

 

[airlocksniffer]

I wouldn't put too much stock in that report. Seems awfully politically correct and expediant...

Source that provides information/opinion that agrees with your own: "See, wolves are the problem. They will wipe out the elk!!"
Source that disputes your source with science: "That source is biased. Obvious shills for the pro-wolf enviro lobby."

Okay.

 

[jmden]

Source that provides information/opinion that agrees with your own: "See, wolves are the problem. They will wipe out the elk!!"
Source that disputes your source with science: "That source is biased. Obvious shills for the pro-wolf enviro lobby."

Okay.

Obviously, airlock. I'm not going to sit here and claim I don't have a bias. That's as dishonest as you can get. I've arrived at my position after a number of years of exposure to and much research regarding this topic. You?