ORIGINAL: ShatoDavis
ORIGINAL: BrutalAttack
to actually talk about the negatives if the numbers we are getting were anything remotely alarming.
The last numbers I saw (which was last year) was so rediculously low that the thought almost completely left my mind.
There was several studies done on this exact issue in Minnesota. The researchers found that the livestock losses were completely negligible (<1% IIRC), and were generally not just the products ofpredation but here were actually other factors involved like improper carcass disposal by ranchers, among other things.
Not only that but Wildlife Servies has authority to destroy any wolves seen predating
I'm only trying to lendsome reason to what is almost a purely emotional debate.
Tell the rancher that losses livestock that his loss is negligible and you will see just how emotional this can become.
How does a study done in minnesota have anything to do with Idaho? I think you would agree that the ecosystems are quite different. Am I mistaken or did Minnesota recently stock elk, and mountains?I think that it would be commonly accepted that the method of raising livestock in minnesota differs greatlyfrom those in mountainous regions. So I don't see the corelation.
I trust the word of hunters more than "scientist". I'm sorry but in my experience the former are more honest. Before you call me an imbecile let me inform you that I have a bachelor's degree in Animal Science, before going to graduate school in business. I seen enough to know that in science much like Accounting you can make the numbers say whatever you want them to. You and I both know that is true.Fish and game scientists always want to discount the information that Hunters can provide.I suppose they have an agenda and if the data doesn't suit them it is considered false.
For years in my home state of missouri the department of conservation discounted reports of mountain lions. They even went as far as to call videos,of cats, fakes. Now they are doing the same with Bear. I can assure you that we have both Lions, and bears in missouribecause I've seen them first hand. Now, go ask a biologist and there is no telling what kind of answer you will get.
I'm not saying that the wolves should be wiped out, nor that the wolves should beprotected. Somewhere, sometime we have to find a common ground.
The Minnesota study was the closest example I couldthink of and there are many similarities as well asa fewdifferences. The general rule in research is you go with the best thing you have at the time.It's a hard and fast comparison but it works.That is the best studywe have so far thatdocuments some of the cause and effect of wolfpredation on livestock.
It's easy for you to disregard the findings of the study because it doesn't suit your purpose. That's pretty typical and understandable.
A bachelors in animal scienceunfortunately does notmake you a researcher. Your logic skills must be somewhat lacking if you truely believe that every researcher has an agenda and is out to screw the landowners/ranchers. Your comments lead me to believe that you have no experience in peer-reviewed research and really don't know what goes on during the process of publishing a scientificarticle. If this is true then I can see why you would feel that way. It's a shame really because it's somewhat the heart of the problem between scientists and the rest of the public. If your just going to stick your head in the sand and say "I believe what I believe and nothing (certainly not science) can change my mind" then your doomed to ignorance and anger at everything around you that you do not understand.
You can not believe science that is your choice. But it's in your best interests to at least read and keep up on the science behind issues like this, because the science is what shapes public policy and public policy is what effects the landowners/ranchers.