See your missing a fundamental element here. If you were educated as you claim to be, you would realize this. The anit-wolf side has no data thus they have no scientifically viable conclusion that supports their view.

Data is defined as follows: 1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer. 3. Values derived from scientific experiments. ).

Opinions are not data, and they do not mathematically or statistically aid in decision making where wildilfe managers are concerned. Now that being said and understood, you can look at the data compiled by me in the various threads on this forum to conclude for yourself (with a reasonable confidence interval) that, in a mathematical sense (not an emotional sense) 1) wolves are having very little negative effect on the ranching industry, and 2) in the long term elk herds in most areas will be better off (all other variables like habitat being equal and adequate of course). Now this sounds like alot to swallow for someone who hasn't studied population dynamics and participated in real life research. This is what happens among the anti-wolf people.

So since it's not my job to teach everyone here scientific method, data analysis, and logic problem solving, I will say this: Opinions are not science, they are emotion which is influenced largly by personal experience. Are they worthless? Not at all. Are they objective? No. Should they be used in decision making? Absolutely not.

If someone you didn't know came up to you and said "Hi, the sky is green." Would you believe them? Even if he said he saw it with his own eyes? No, you would go look for yourself and make your own conclusions. It may just LOOK green to him.

The anti-wolf people have nothing going for them in terms of this statement which all natural resource managers live by:

We make decisions based on the best science available at the time.


The argument of the anti-wolf supporters is based on fear and anger. As much as you'd like to think different, math can't lie. 0=0 always.

Statistics can be presented in a misleading context but if you read scientific papers that show their data (ie. not magazines, not websites, not TV etc) then you can look at it yourself to see if their conclusions are sound.

Now that being said and understood, I will say this: If you read the research (in scientific journals not Range magazine) you will conclude that the best science (or data if you will) supports the fact that wolves are not causing significant harm to the ranching industry as a whole and contribute to long term herd health of prey species.

Now I know what the fearmongers will say. They will say: "Wait you can't believe the evil scientists in ivory towers."

I don't understand statements like that. No one is asking you to take their word for it. Go look at their data! Use a little brainpower to see if they did it right! If you don't believe thier data than look at their methods to see how they got the data and decide if that seems ok with you.

But don't take my word for it go read up yourself.

Resistance to a change of the status quo is natural and expected.
I can't believe I'm having to explain this to someone who is educated.