Washington we have a problem ( wolf attack )

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by Tom O'Riley, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. Not at all. But real scientists know that correlation does not imply causation. The numbers don't tell why. The assumption that it is wolves has zero foundation in logic or science...but you know. Of course he's a scientist it MUST be true.

    I'm not saying I disagree with the conclusion. To use an article with completely obvious fallacies, however, as evidence of proof, is dishonest to your cause.
  2. I don't think there is a group or non profit that is completly non biased regarding this subject. This subject is very very very polarizing. I don't think there is a group that will publicly come out and say the elk herds are doing just fine, and the wolves have had no significant impact.
  3. Precisely. Which is why arguing about it on the internet, while extolling the opinions of conservative or liberal non-scientists as evidence of truth or fact, really makes zero sense :) Until the people actually involved in this can sit down, talk about real evidence without citing non-science, propaganda, or outrought bullshit, the issue's not going to go anywhere. Filling the thread with more non-science and bullshit certainly isn't going to convince anyone, it simply escalates the polarity of the situation.

    This thread really needs to be discussing sea lions. At least then we'd all have a minor reason to be talking about it. Otherwise, we look like a bunch of e-scholars flexing our index fingers simply for a lack of anything better to do.
  4. Thats all that the USFWS said about it. They didn't go into specifics. It's under their funding section for the wolf re-introduction. I'm assuming it is left purposely vague.
  5. LOL, with that logic then why read or discuss anything on this board?
  6. That's not actually logic, it's my opinion. That's the root of the problem--most e-scholars can't discriminate between the two.

    Regardless, most of the threads here are interesting and about stuff that actually relates to us. Wolves do not. Still, it is interesting to me--I was hoping to see some actual informed opinions, not just the repetetive meme-ing of fallacious crap you see most places. And at the end of day, like most people I enjoy the tard olympics, and even partake when I can.
  7. Once thing has stuck with me on this thread - the size of these beasts (wolves that is). They are HUGE.

  8. For sure. Makes me want a skin, I could make a badass ninja suit out of one.
  9. Thanks
  10. Whether hunter's reports historically were correlated with abundance or not has no bearing on the fact that a behavioral change (a condition not present historically) could affect the correlation between their reports and abundance...you are introducing a new variable that was not present historically. Also, what are you talking about "nice try"? I am not trying anything, nor do I have an agenda here...I was merely pointing out that changes in prey behavior could affect the previous reliability of hunter reports as a metric of elk and deer abundance. Note that I did not, anywhere, say that this reporting bias meant that elk and deer populations were not declining. I made no statement on that matter. If you mean to question the idea that wolf presence alters elk and deer behavior, there are several published papers on the matter that would dispute your claim.

    edit: I guess I should state as a disclaimer that I am relatively neutral on the subject of wolf management, but as a biologist, feel that whatever social/political decisions are made regarding wolf management, they should explicitly recognize the science relating to the decisions. I get sick and tired on non-scientific BS on both sides of most resource management issues, which is what usually triggers me to pipe up.

  11. I resemble that remark. This crap distracts me from work. When ever I hit a wall a work I tune into this shit and throw up a useless e-opinion with my e-finger(s). By the time I get my useless e-opinion formed and typed my mind is clear and back to work I go. I hit a lot of walls at work.
  12. I resemble that remark as well. Especially on Fridays :(
  13. Splitting hairs. :) I don't know if an opinion can be formed without some logic behind it, or maybe there is no such thing as a logical opinion.
  14. It appeared you were trying to make a case as to why wildlife abundance/numbers were down, not because of the wolves, but because the patterns of wildlife had changed. If that wasn't your motive/ agenda my bad.
  15. How does this relate to flyfishing ?
  16. Everyone that fishes will be eaten by a Wolf
  17. I knew that there was a reason that a blog on wolfs has more hits on this forum than most fly blogs , maybe I should share my research on the corelation of water tempertures and wingbobber colors for use in plunking on the skagit river I have at least 6,000 hours of data compiled on this subject alone
  18. Be aware Benny, mountain beavers have been known to attack plunkers on the Skagit.
  19. As dead as the skagit has become an attack by anything is often welcome

Share This Page