Washington we have a problem ( wolf attack )

Flyborg

Active Member
LOL, with that logic then why read or discuss anything on this board?
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.
 

TomB

Active Member
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.


Not sure what your agenda is Tom, but hunters' input, historically has a large correlation to actual wildlife populations. Hunters bias is a factor, but there is a much more higher reliable source for abundance of wildlife... Winter counts of doe/fawn along with Cow/Calf ratios.

In Idaho....in Zone 10 the number of calves has declined from 2,298 in 1989 to 144 in 2010, or 94 percent. In Zone 12 the number of calves has declined from 856 in 1985 to 38 in 2010, or 96 percent.

Altering behavior? Come on.. Nice try. LOL
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
Otherwise, we look like a bunch of e-scholars flexing our index fingers simply for a lack of anything better to do.
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.
 

Flyborg

Active Member
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.
I resemble that remark as well. Especially on Fridays :(
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 

bennysbuddy

the sultan of swing
Everyone that fishes will be eaten by a Wolf
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