Ratber,

I do sincerely wish that "average Joes" like us would be "allowed" to reach conclusions based on straight forward observation; however, unfortunately:

(1) One could find elk and moose crossing the roads in the thousands and not a single wolf seen or heard, OR....

(2) One could tour the entire park with out seeing a single wild game animal and observe hundreds of wolves crossing the roads....

and the scientific standard says our observations would be essentially meaningless as to whether there are "great" or "poor" populations of game in Yellowstone in either a balance or unbalanced state.

You see, one doesn't know what one sees, one only knows what he sees when a scientifc study proves that what you saw or experienced was indeed fact. What a way to go thru life....

It is a miracle that Lewis and Clark ever made it to the Pacific.... trusting the unverified non-scientific "knowledge" they gleaned from all those "ignorant savages" along the way as they did. If the Corps of Discovery relied on the scientifc method only, then they only would just about now be getting back to St. Louis after 200 years. It was a scientific/exploring expedition, but it was common sense, courage, and hunchs that got them there and back in a timely enough fashion for their new found knowledge to count. [A good plan today beats a perfect plan tomorrow.]

[BTW, Are you sure you are qualified to declare what you see is "officially and really" an elk, a moose, a wolf, or a bear? I hope you are taking someone along from the University of Scientology to officially verify any observations you might make, I wouldn't want to see you challenged on peer review. This scientific approach is great you can dismiss anyone with all number of convenient tools, I can see why people that work with it love it so.]


EKM