Quote:


First off, PBS Nova/Nature NEVER said they were against managing the wolf's or any other species by either "culling" by naturalists or allowing a limited or MAYBE a open hunting season.
What their against are people that out of ignorance and unfounded fear, wanted to kill wolves in a eco-system like Yellowstone when there was clearly plenty of natural food for the limited amount of wolves in the area. When/IF the wolf numbers get greater than their food source, they'll use whatever sound wildlife management techniques they deem necessary and that may or may not include hunting?

Canada has a far greater land mass and highest ratio of wilderness to people that the US does.
Wolves in Canada are not considered "endangered" in the areas that allow hunting. I'm sure IF that changes, the Canadian BIOLOGIST will address it and act accordingly.

All those people on those PBS shows are field biologists with advanced degrees. Most are also hunters and fishermen themselves They spend summers/winters, doing the hard science. They track animal movements with radio collars, check kills and examine bite marks to see what predator did the kill. They take scat samples and analysis what the animals are eating. Tranquilize animals and take Blood samples to see how their doing and get DNA samples to check the gene pools, necessary for a healthy herd.

They do this to let the FACTS dictate the policy, not undocumented "stories" that are more fear/bias based than factual PROVEABLE accounts.

Yes, I stand behind their expert opinions because of all I've alluded too and the fact all the state and federal wildlife agencies do as well.

You want to believe this guy:  (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

I didn't attack him on a personal level, I said that he had NO degreed educational background that would lead me to believe he was more qualified than the real professionals with actual scientific degrees?

Other than the fact his Bio reads like a Mini-MT, I don't see anything that qualifies him giving ANYTHING but his own opinion, a heavily biased one at that.

I pointed that salient fact out so my fellow QJers IF so inclined can look at my frame of expert reference and the one you linked too.
Let everyone decide for themselves who they feel is MORE qualified to recommend conservation policy.

Ice fishing??

A few more thoughts........amazing what a good nights sleep can accomplish (I was in bed at 9:30!). You want to believe the "experts"....the people with pieces of paper which indicate how smart (and obviously noble) they are. I used to be swayed by such claims until I wised up.

I credit Jim Tour of Rice University, one of the top 10 chemists in the world for enlightening me as to why I should not place complete trust in the scientific community.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)
It is his belief that many scientists are polled about politically correct beliefs such as evolution and global warming and answer in the affirmative not because they believe its true but rather because they have a vested interest. Mr Tour asserts that a relatively small group of people will decide who gets published in scientific journals and who gets grants. Ah! I get it.......add in that they are often polled about questions outside their fields and it is very easy to check the box that says sure, especially since it might cost you if you don't. Are you getting the picture? We are living in an age where there is intolerance of politically incorrect views. Step out of line and expect to get punished.

Take Global Warming as an example.......we have climate gate where the noble scientists decided to falsify data because it didn't follow computer models. The Emails show how casual they were about having to lie. And then we have the famed "Hockey stick graph" which was used so effectively in Al Gores movie.......unfortunately the graph is false and it took a freedom of information act lawsuit to evaluate the quoted scientist work in question......turns out he purposely left out 2 very significant climactic changes. Graph might have looked whole lots different. I wonder how much he was paid to arrive at that "scientific proof" that made its way into Mr Gores movie?

The experts? ST you state unequivocally that biologists are also hunters and fishermen. Um, how did you arrive at that conclusion as to state it as fact? Probably more true 50 years ago but my hunch that todays wildlife biologist is just as likely to be a strident anti hunter and coming up with lots of data to prove hunting is destroying our natural resource (hunters are the cause of caribou decline not wolves > sound familiar?). And what about it........the wildlife biologist comes in and does a 6 month or maybe a year study (who provided the grant? Just wondering is all) comes to some conclusions and extrapolates the results to all of Wolfdom (Hey, I like the sound of that, "Wolfdom"). We are going to take that as gospel over the people who have spent their entire lives with wolves and have observed them playfully going through a herd like a sickle through wheat? And its funny how the media seldom shows wolves tearing their meals apart while still alive with blood all over their faces and chest, their prey bleating while the pack snaps and snarls. Just sayin......doesn't bother me, I understand the whole circle of life thing.

   

Wolves kill Eskimo children?
Jon