Wolf Biologist Video

chasewild

WKR
Joined
Mar 22, 2016
Messages
982
Location
CO -> AK
This 20 minute video was produced by the Mountain Journal about a wolf field biologist. If you are a die hard wolf hater, do not waste your time watching this video and then posting negative comments. If you are fascinated with wolves or would like to know more about work being done to better understand their behavior and impacts on the environment, please enjoy.

True Wild: The Real Story Of Wolves On Ted Turner's Montana Ranch (mountainjournal.org
Appreciate the post. Cool video. Interesting set of characters. But the anecdotal message from this source doesn't carry much weight in my opinion.
 

ID2NM

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
290
When it comes to wolves, evidence and facts do not matter. Its been presented on this forum a ton, from all kinds of peer reviewed sources, and emotion trumps facts every single time...

Bitterroot elk calf mortality study is not believed.

Idaho Statewide elk mortality study is not believed.

Studies on declining habitat in the Selway, not believed.

GY elk harvest statistics, not believed.

The list goes on and on and on...facts mean nothing in a wolf discussion, minds are already made up in spite of facts.
This. Demand data, but then don't believe it when it doesn't support their own preconceived bias and anecdotal evidence. Anything to avoid admitting that you aren't as good at elk hunting as you thought you were, I suppose. If Americans love one thing, its a scapegoat they can bitch about.
 

Pacific_Fork

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
1,118
Location
North Idaho
I love wolves because in general I have a love for all wildlife. In the lower 48 (Alaska really doesn’t count, plenty of habitat left and no people) we simply do not have enough habitat for the top 4 apex predators including humans if we want to have opportunities hunting big game every year for generations to come. Let them trickle into CO there’s zero need to plant them all over the board. They are in CA but I don’t think they will thrive as we have very little deer and no elk for them to eat. They are killing machines, and are taking kills from lions thus making lions kill more. Which would I rather have, all the wildlife to live with and no elk hunting opportunities or the opposite. Dogs taste like shit so I’ll take the moose/elk/deer over them...i will check this video out tho!
 
Joined
Nov 19, 2017
Messages
82
Location
Idaho
Wonder how long until we say, "I would love to see a moose or elk in the wild".
Go through present day Yellowstone Park and that is exactly what you say!

I like watching informative wolf shows - anything I can learn about my adversary which I can eventually use against them is a good thing. I don't see how you can like hunting and love wolves at the same time - oh unless you are from back East - in that case I guess they probably look pretty cool.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2015
Messages
970
The intro seems highly slanted but also oddly accurate.

Val Asher who, over the last two decades, has divined new and exciting insights into wolf behavior.



past tense: divined; past participle: divined
  1. discover (something) by guesswork or intuition.
 

BuzzH

WKR
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
2,228
Location
Wyoming
Go through present day Yellowstone Park and that is exactly what you say!

I like watching informative wolf shows - anything I can learn about my adversary which I can eventually use against them is a good thing. I don't see how you can like hunting and love wolves at the same time - oh unless you are from back East - in that case I guess they probably look pretty cool.
Pretty broad brush you paint with...on the one hand, pretty narrow one on the other.

I like hunting.

I like hunting wolves.

I like hunting mountain lions.

I like trapping marten, fisher, otter, lynx, bobcat, mink, coyotes, fox, muskrats, etc.

I like to hunt bears.

I also like hunting elk, deer, moose, pronghorn, sheep, muskox, etc. etc.

Your post implies there is no way to like it all...and that simply isn't true.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm not from "back east"...Montana, 4th generation.
 

Pacific_Fork

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
1,118
Location
North Idaho
Interesting graphs, I’ll let someone else comment on aspects that are missing to the common person. Distribution of the herds has to be taken into consideration ie private/public. I’d be interested in the moose graph if there is one out there. Harvest numbers cannot possibly be accurate for elk in those states, they are wild guesses. Would love a herd breakdown study like the Lolo elk, once a top destination for elk hunters and now it’s abysmal because of the wolves, so everyone says. I hunted it last year and couldn’t find elk in ten days while hunting deer and moose.
 
Joined
Dec 22, 2018
Messages
615
Interesting graphs, I’ll let someone else comment on aspects that are missing to the common person. Distribution of the herds has to be taken into consideration ie private/public. I’d be interested in the moose graph if there is one out there. Harvest numbers cannot possibly be accurate for elk in those states, they are wild guesses. Would love a herd breakdown study like the Lolo elk, once a top destination for elk hunters and now it’s abysmal because of the wolves, so everyone says. I hunted it last year and couldn’t find elk in ten days while hunting deer and moose.
LOL those are harvest stats from the states' own fish and wildlife agencies. Moose are a much tougher nut to crack...they are notoriously difficult to count with accuracy, but other than pockets in Colorado and Washington, their numbers seem to be declining in the West. Post mortems are showing low body fat and high numbers of parasites on many of them.
 
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
8,376
View attachment 252034View attachment 252035


Correlation is not causation. I'd like to see how the harvest and population numbers have changed in wolf areas vs non-wolf areas, I bet that would be a little more telling.

I'd venture to guess MT zones 4, 5, 6, and 7 make up a whole lot of the improvement in MT. How do the #'s compare in zone 1, 2, and 3?
 
Last edited:

Pacific_Fork

Well Known Rokslider
Joined
May 26, 2019
Messages
1,118
Location
North Idaho
LOL those are harvest stats from the states' own fish and wildlife agencies. Moose are a much tougher nut to crack...they are notoriously difficult to count with accuracy, but other than pockets in Colorado and Washington, their numbers seem to be declining in the West. Post mortems are showing low body fat and high numbers of parasites on many of them.
Yea I understand that thank you. If you think hunters have been honest or report at 100% rate you haven’t been around much. I encourage everyone to be honest on reporting, they don’t require it and sure as hell don’t get honest answers from at least 50% of the crowd. All my friend lie in Montana unfortunately. Last elk I killed in MT 3 years ago I never got a call. Colorado reporting? Now there’s the biggest joke...
 

jmez

WKR
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
7,426
Location
Piedmont, SD
Three of us hunted MT 5 years in a row. None ever received a harvest call. One year we bought the combo deer tags. We all three got called about deer.

We all three asked if they wanted elk info. They said no, this is a deer call.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk
 

slick

WKR
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
1,798
Three of us hunted MT 5 years in a row. None ever received a harvest call. One year we bought the combo deer tags. We all three got called about deer.

We all three asked if they wanted elk info. They said no, this is a deer call.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

I used to do those calls.

They call 63% of pronghorn tag holders, 62% of elk tag holders, and 60% of deer tag holders and 100% of MSG.

It’s not that they don’t want that information, they literally are unable to do anything with it. The system only pulled you up for deer or only had elk, or in some cases it had an entire family of 5 and all six of their tags.

I’m not saying it’s a perfect system but the biometrician in charge of it it’s a solid dude.

Biologists don’t count every single deer in a given unit, they don’t need 100% accuracy in harvest statistics to gain a statistically valid range of harvested critters within a given area.

Your one buck or 5 bucks over 5 years etc etc that jmez killed are unlikely to have any population level affect on buck:doe ratios on an annual basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
690
Location
Reno, NV
I watched the video and it basically is a video about pro-wolf researchers making pro-wolf statements without any raw data to support their assumptions and "evidence".

While the video did not divulge any numbers and mostly waxed lyrical, the concern about the other wolf studies indicates likely the use of "p-hacking", as discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

I like biologists from the states fish and game to give us a balanced look at the numbers. But then, they data is only as good as the original data set, and with errors in the beginning, then those margins of error grow.

Don't get me wrong, I love wolves, I just don't like the forced introduction into someone else's neighborhood and then turning a blind eye to the problems wolves create.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2016
Messages
690
Location
Reno, NV
Correlation is not causation.

NONSENSE!!! How DARE you disagree with the numbers and their research study. Meanwhile, here is another study that shows a clear link between the number of letters in winning word of Scripps National Spelling Bee and number of people killed by venomous spiders:

2560px-Spurious_correlations_-_spelling_bee_spiders.svg.png


Don't you even dare dispute the findings of their own research study.
 
Top