Wolves restore balance to eco-system...

[Grizalltheway]

I'm not sure what he's not getting..?
But it's becoming embarrassing - yet still funny

Yes...
a British person (a paid actor) narrated a Wildlife biodiversity piece
Call RUSH LIMBAUGH



WTF AZ?

You're cracking me up dude

Just that it's retarded misinformation like that piece that gets the envirowhackos up in arms...I'm embarrassed FOR him.

You've offered absolutely ZILCH to refute anything in the piece. Just your usual bloviating and ad hominem attacks on the source.

[AZGrizFan]

Just that it's retarded misinformation like that piece that gets the envirowhackos up in arms...I'm embarrassed FOR him.

You've offered absolutely ZILCH to refute anything in the piece. Just your usual bloviating and ad hominem attacks on the source.

I offer the fact that neither the filmmaker, the narrator, producer, director or editor...NONE of them knew the difference between an elk and a deer. They (as a group) have ZERO credibility. If this was a video lamenting the introduction of the wolf and that basic fact had been repeatedly fucked up by the narrator you and your ilk would dismiss it like the hack propaganda piece that this is. Google is their friend. Elk <> deer. It reallly isn't that difficult.

[Chizzang]

You've offered absolutely ZILCH to refute anything in the piece. Just your usual bloviating and ad hominem attacks on the source.

I offer the fact that neither the filmmaker, the narrator, producer, director or editor...NONE of them knew the difference between an elk and a deer. They (as a group) have ZERO credibility. If this was a video lamenting the introduction of the wolf and that basic fact had been repeatedly fucked up by the narrator you and your ilk would dismiss it like the hack propaganda piece that this is. Google is their friend. Elk <> deer. It reallly isn't that difficult.

I have the PDF from the research done by the University of Oregon team / Its from 2011
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0711004046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Full PDF is $35.00 but I have it if you'd like (it's full on awesome) I'm sure you'll enjoy it

This whole thing is not just some isolated data on the Wolf Program from 1995
There are presently a dozen studies on the alarming positive effects

Ducks and Sandhill Cranes / Beavers / Foliage biodiversity / berry producing shrubs / Yellowstone Aspen

The list of studies goes on and on
here are some of the other studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AZGrizFan]

I offer the fact that neither the filmmaker, the narrator, producer, director or editor...NONE of them knew the difference between an elk and a deer. They (as a group) have ZERO credibility. If this was a video lamenting the introduction of the wolf and that basic fact had been repeatedly fucked up by the narrator you and your ilk would dismiss it like the hack propaganda piece that this is. Google is their friend. Elk <> deer. It reallly isn't that difficult.

I have the PDF from the research done by the University of Oregon team / Its from 2011
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0711004046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Full PDF is $35.00 but I have it if you'd like (it's full on awesome) I'm sure you'll enjoy it

This whole thing is not just some isolated data on the Wolf Program from 1995
There are presently a dozen studies on the alarming positive effects

Ducks and Sandhill Cranes / Beavers / Foliage biodiversity / berry producing shrubs / Yellowstone Aspen

The list of studies goes on and on
here are some of the other studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good for you.

[Chizzang]

I have the PDF from the research done by the University of Oregon team / Its from 2011
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 0711004046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Full PDF is $35.00 but I have it if you'd like (it's full on awesome) I'm sure you'll enjoy it

This whole thing is not just some isolated data on the Wolf Program from 1995
There are presently a dozen studies on the alarming positive effects

Ducks and Sandhill Cranes / Beavers / Foliage biodiversity / berry producing shrubs / Yellowstone Aspen

The list of studies goes on and on
here are some of the other studies http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00063207" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good for you.

So does that mean you'd like a copy..?
It would be my pleasure to send you the paid full version attached to an email

Just let me know

[houndawg]

Sheeit, I'll take his word, wolf boy, any day over your uninformed Conk railing.....

Of course you will, because it fits your agenda. And that's why you're an idiot.

Now now..... lets try to keep a civil tone here...

[Chizzang]

I'm not kidding: I have the full report
It's fantastic and very detailed - with charts and graphs and all that science stuff tree huggers like me love



Anybody:
PM with your email address and I'll shoot it over to you (seriously) well worth it

[Cap'n Cat]

Ignorant Conks.

[Grizalltheway]

You've offered absolutely ZILCH to refute anything in the piece. Just your usual bloviating and ad hominem attacks on the source.

I offer the fact that neither the filmmaker, the narrator, producer, director or editor...NONE of them knew the difference between an elk and a deer. They (as a group) have ZERO credibility. If this was a video lamenting the introduction of the wolf and that basic fact had been repeatedly fucked up by the narrator you and your ilk would dismiss it like the hack propaganda piece that this is. Google is their friend. Elk <> deer. It reallly isn't that difficult.

And you didn't know the difference between an American and British accent.

[Gil Dobie]

Nothing wrong with wolves, Minnesota has over 2,200 and a wolf hunting season.

[AZGrizFan]

Of course you will, because it fits your agenda. And that's why you're an idiot.

Now now..... lets try to keep a civil tone here...

[AZGrizFan]

I offer the fact that neither the filmmaker, the narrator, producer, director or editor...NONE of them knew the difference between an elk and a deer. They (as a group) have ZERO credibility. If this was a video lamenting the introduction of the wolf and that basic fact had been repeatedly fucked up by the narrator you and your ilk would dismiss it like the hack propaganda piece that this is. Google is their friend. Elk <> deer. It reallly isn't that difficult.

And you didn't know the difference between an American and British accent.

I'm not trying to pass of pseudoscience as fact in a documentary either.

[JohnStOnge]

As far as I can tell the video is based on papers that were published in 2001 and 2003. A paper published in 2011 appears to reflect disagreement:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/REM-D-10-00018.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aspen recruitment has increased in some 2–10 km2 areas, but not consistently. Our study found that a trophic cascade of wolves, elk, and aspen, resulting in a landscape-level recovery of aspen, is not occurring at this time.

Not saying either is known to be correct. But the nature of the situation is such that there is inherent uncertainty. Same old same old. To show a cause and effect relationship like that, a controlled experiment would be required. You'd have to find a group of similar ecosystems, randomly select some for the "introduce wolves" treatment and others as "controls," and go from there. That would be awfully tough to do.

I mean, there are cases where you say "OK it's obvious we don't need an experiment." But this is not one of those cases.

[biobengal]

You've offered absolutely ZILCH to refute anything in the piece. Just your usual bloviating and ad hominem attacks on the source.

I offer the fact that neither the filmmaker, the narrator, producer, director or editor...NONE of them knew the difference between an elk and a deer. They (as a group) have ZERO credibility. If this was a video lamenting the introduction of the wolf and that basic fact had been repeatedly **** up by the narrator you and your ilk would dismiss it like the hack propaganda piece that this is. Google is their friend. Elk <> deer. It reallly isn't that difficult.

Technically, elk are deer. In fact, until recently, elk were considered the same species as the red deer.

[biobengal]

As far as I can tell the video is based on papers that were published in 2001 and 2003. A paper published in 2011 appears to reflect disagreement:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/REM-D-10-00018.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Aspen recruitment has increased in some 2–10 km2 areas, but not consistently. Our study found that a trophic cascade of wolves, elk, and aspen, resulting in a landscape-level recovery of aspen, is not occurring at this time.

Not saying either is known to be correct. But the nature of the situation is such that there is inherent uncertainty. Same old same old. To show a cause and effect relationship like that, a controlled experiment would be required. You'd have to find a group of similar ecosystems, randomly select some for the "introduce wolves" treatment and others as "controls," and go from there. That would be awfully tough to do.

I mean, there are cases where you say "OK it's obvious we don't need an experiment." But this is not one of those cases.

I like this quote better:

Winter ungulate browsing (P = 0.0001), conifer establishment (P = 0.0001), and cattle (Bos spp.) grazing (P= 0.016) contributed to the decline in overstory stem densities when analyzed using a mixed effects model of log transformed medians.

Outside YNP cattle grazing and browsing by elk (those endangered critters) has lowered stem densities. IMO, one of the most intriguing results in all of this research is the "fear" aspect, where predation fear appears to drive deer out of the valleys. You would have to wonder whether skittish behavior in deer (or elk, cervidae, the deer family) would persist outside the park as they browse alongside cows.

Yet, JSO is partly right, there is a battle raging between findings that that support behaviorally mediated trophic cascade (preferred because it seems to indicate deer numbers don't need to fall that much) and the simple reduction in elk numbers. I am more of a "both" guy.... it is likely that fear of predation contributes to local recovery under certain contexts, but overall reduction of the deer population has the most dramatic impact.

[AZGrizFan]

I offer the fact that neither the filmmaker, the narrator, producer, director or editor...NONE of them knew the difference between an elk and a deer. They (as a group) have ZERO credibility. If this was a video lamenting the introduction of the wolf and that basic fact had been repeatedly **** up by the narrator you and your ilk would dismiss it like the hack propaganda piece that this is. Google is their friend. Elk <> deer. It reallly isn't that difficult.

Technically, elk are deer. In fact, until recently, elk were considered the same species as the red deer.

Yeah. I'm sure that's why he was calling them deer.

[Cap'n Cat]

Technically, elk are deer. In fact, until recently, elk were considered the same species as the red deer.

Yeah. I'm sure that's why he was calling them deer.

You've showed your ass way too much in this thread already, Lem. Move on.

[AZGrizFan]

Yeah. I'm sure that's why he was calling them deer.

You've showed your ass way too much in this thread already, Lem. Move on.

Sure. You probably thought they were deer too, didn't you.

[Chizzang]

You've showed your ass way too much in this thread already, Lem. Move on.

Sure. You probably thought they were deer too, didn't you.

Have you been taking crazy pills or something..?

[Chizzang]

As far as I can tell the video is based on papers that were published in 2001 and 2003. A paper published in 2011 appears to reflect disagreement:

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/REM-D-10-00018.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Not saying either is known to be correct. But the nature of the situation is such that there is inherent uncertainty. Same old same old. To show a cause and effect relationship like that, a controlled experiment would be required. You'd have to find a group of similar ecosystems, randomly select some for the "introduce wolves" treatment and others as "controls," and go from there. That would be awfully tough to do.

I mean, there are cases where you say "OK it's obvious we don't need an experiment." But this is not one of those cases.

I like this quote better:

Winter ungulate browsing (P = 0.0001), conifer establishment (P = 0.0001), and cattle (Bos spp.) grazing (P= 0.016) contributed to the decline in overstory stem densities when analyzed using a mixed effects model of log transformed medians.

Outside YNP cattle grazing and browsing by elk (those endangered critters) has lowered stem densities. IMO, one of the most intriguing results in all of this research is the "fear" aspect, where predation fear appears to drive deer out of the valleys. You would have to wonder whether skittish behavior in deer (or elk, cervidae, the deer family) would persist outside the park as they browse alongside cows.

Yet, JSO is partly right, there is a battle raging between findings that that support behaviorally mediated trophic cascade (preferred because it seems to indicate deer numbers don't need to fall that much) and the simple reduction in elk numbers. I am more of a "both" guy.... it is likely that fear of predation contributes to local recovery under certain contexts, but overall reduction of the deer population has the most dramatic impact.

What should not be overlooked is WOLVES are a natural part of that ecosystem
and once returned - for whatever reason (six of this 1/2 dozen of that) the ecosystem improved

Nobody is disputing the vast improvement in 1995 Yellowstone vs. 2014 Yellowstone

Look at the photo record from the reports from 1995 and 2010
it's like NIGHT and DAY

[AZGrizFan]

Sure. You probably thought they were deer too, didn't you.

Have you been taking crazy pills or something..?

I'm trying to get this thread to 17 pages. Sometimes you gotta go off the reservation to make that happen.

[JohnStOnge]

Sure. You probably thought they were deer too, didn't you.

Not to be TOO much of a smart ass but elk are deer. It's kind of like saying a jaguar is a cat.

[houndawg]

Sure. You probably thought they were deer too, didn't you.

Not to be TOO much of a smart ass but elk are deer. It's kind of like saying a jaguar is a cat.

Z - fragged by his own troops..

[JohnStOnge]

I like this quote better:

Winter ungulate browsing (P = 0.0001), conifer establishment (P = 0.0001), and cattle (Bos spp.) grazing (P= 0.016) contributed to the decline in overstory stem densities when analyzed using a mixed effects model of log transformed medians.

I read the abstract as indicating that the authors considered that information on the way to reaching the conclusion that "...a trophic cascade of wolves, elk, and aspen, resulting in a landscape-level recovery of aspen, is not occurring at this time."

I don't like the way they worded that. I think the proper way to word it is "There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that changes consistent with the hypothesized trophic cascade of wolves, elk, and aspen resulting in a landscape-level recovery of aspen is occurring at this time." But people making statements indicating that they have positively affirmed the negative happens all the time.

And the reason I'd use wording like "...changes consistent with the hypothesized trophic cascade..." is because there was no controlled experiment with randomization. Had they gotten "sufficient evidence" it would've been sufficient evidence to say that what was observed is consistent with the idea of a trophic cascade of a particular form caused by the introduction of wolves. They could not have correctly said they got sufficient evidence to conclude there IS a wolf-caused trophic cascade of a particular form occuring because they were not dealing with data generated through a controlled experiment with elements (ecosystems) randomly assigned to treatment and control groups.

I don't see a problem with the concept and I don't DISBELIEVE it. I think it's plausible. But I think the video creates the impression that it has been "scientifically established" that wolves caused changes in rivers in Yellowstone Park and I think that's overstating things.

Like I said I think there is a point at which, as a practical matter, you don't need an experiment. If there's an island with flightless birds with no predators and somebody introduces foxes to it, you see foxes killing and eating flightless birds all the time, and a couple of years later you can't find any flightless birds it's safe to say that introducing the foxes had an effect on the flightless birds. But I think this wolves changing rivers thing is a little different than that.

[Gil Dobie]

Like I said I think there is a point at which, as a practical matter, you don't need an experiment. If there's an island with flightless birds with no predators and somebody introduces foxes to it, you see foxes killing and eating flightless birds all the time, and a couple of years later you can't find any flightless birds it's safe to say that introducing the foxes had an effect on the flightless birds. But I think this wolves changing rivers thing is a little different than that.

This scenario sounds more like the fox was not a native species to the area the flightless birds had evolved in, hence a similar result for the dodo birds.