# Fisherman, Bear, Wolves, Climate=Loss of Elk



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I grew up on the North Fork of the Shoshone River outside of Cody. I know a lot of people in that area, including biologists that back this up 100%. Arther Middleton knows his stuff. It is a very dynamic situation. Same goes for our deer herds.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/may/16-elk-vanishing-act


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

I know Idaho has a similar problem with Blackies eating elk calves. 

It's crazy how it all comes full circle.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Wow, lots of perspective gained from reading that.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Biologist and wildlife people in Montana have been asking (almost begging) for a reinstated grizz hunt. I read one article where a prominent elk outfitter up there won't even shoot elk much beyond lunch time because of the danger of being with or around the carcass after dark. They called gun shots the "dinner bell" for grizzlies. 

It is pretty amazing to see how small disturbances in an ecosystem can have MAJOR impacts. Something like an idiotic introduction of lake trout to Yellowstone Lake impacting elk herds a couple decades later. Who would have ever thought that?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

It's an interesting article, thanks for posting it. The fact that bears take more elk in the Park than wolves is old news. Other, older, studies proved that to be true. 

A significant number of elk migrate out of Yellowstone NP and are killed by hunters. These numbers are not represented in Middleton's study.

.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

While I have no doubt the food source/supply is playing a part in the elk decline I don't see any evidence provided in the story where they studied the food source/supply quality and quantity. Maybe I missed it.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> While I have no doubt the food source/supply is playing a part in the elk decline I don't see any evidence provided in the story where they studied the food source/supply quality and quantity. Maybe I missed it.


"But predation, even with bears included, didn't explain elk's low pregnancy rates. A changing climate, on the other hand, did. Severe droughts since 2000, possibly correlated with climate change, reduced grass production in the areas of the park where elk migrate in the summer. Elk were forced to consume immense quantities of nutrient-poor fodder to try and meet their caloric needs, but most females were still undernourished and therefore unable to conceive."


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

gdog said:


> "But predation, even with bears included, didn't explain elk's low pregnancy rates. A changing climate, on the other hand, did. Severe droughts since 2000, possibly correlated with climate change, reduced grass production in the areas of the park where elk migrate in the summer. Elk were forced to consume immense quantities of nutrient-poor fodder to try and meet their caloric needs, but most females were still undernourished and therefore unable to conceive."


Yes I read that quite well. However I don't see any quantitative evidence of the reduction in quantity and quality of forage. Sure anyone can look at a meadow and say "wow we have less good grass than last year" but that's simply anecdotal evidence and not anything that can be quantified. What was the amount of reduction, what was the type of quality reduction. Nothing that I read gives any of this info that you really need to do a quality analysis of the problem.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

TS30 said:


> It is pretty amazing to see how small disturbances in an ecosystem can have MAJOR impacts. Something like an idiotic introduction of lake trout to Yellowstone Lake impacting elk herds a couple decades later. Who would have ever thought that?


Great point. It astounds me to read on fishing message boards these dimwits that write about how "bucket biology is not that bad" or even tacitly support illegal fish introductions of their "favorite species". Great example about why it is bad and why it is important to try and restore the Yellowstone cutts to close to their prior abundance.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Catherder said:


> Great point. It astounds me to read on fishing message boards these dimwits that write about how "bucket biology is not that bad" or even tacitly support illegal fish introductions of their "favorite species". Great example about why it is bad and why it is important to try and restore the Yellowstone cutts to close to their prior abundance.


To be fair the DNR/DWR's are just as bad "bucket biologists" and I'll use the Colorado River Pike, Catfish, Walleye, and Bass as my evidence.

Or rainbow trout in the South Fork of the Snake in Idaho.

Back in the day Carp at UL.

Not condoning bucket biology, just merely stating that there can be very little difference between the two when it works out adversely.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

We've visited this thing many times here. One thing to remember: There was a dramatic increase in open areas and subsequent ungulate forage base, after the big fires of '88. Much of those areas are now a sea of lodgepole pines or spruce. On a positive note, some places have new, and beneficial, stands of young aspen and willow.

top of the page

.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

LostLouisianian said:


> Yes I read that quite well. However I don't see any quantitative evidence of the reduction in quantity and quality of forage. Sure anyone can look at a meadow and say "wow we have less good grass than last year" but that's simply anecdotal evidence and not anything that can be quantified. What was the amount of reduction, what was the type of quality reduction. Nothing that I read gives any of this info that you really need to do a quality analysis of the problem.


I like where your head is at, it is one thing to say it and another thing to prove it.

This is a news article, I'm sure there is actual measurements and actual studies somewhere -

"Newspapers never told a lie" Abraham Washington


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish beat me to it. This is a news article that summarizes SOME of the findings. Much more out there I'm sure.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> I like where your head is at, it is one thing to say it and another thing to prove it.
> 
> This is a news article, I'm sure there is actual measurements and actual studies somewhere -
> 
> "Newspapers never told a lie" Abraham Washington


There's tons of evidence, just Google it.....or get Lonetree riled up and he'll post the links if you're too lazy to look for them yourselves. Or do like I do; hike in the Park for 30 years and see it first hand.

.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Interesting thing to me - I wonder how quickly this will become the "new gospel of the wolf and Yellowstone Ecosystem." Will this be the next great study that everyone says "YES" and starts quoting this as absolute? 

What was the last one? Oh yea. Wolves made the willows come back along the streams in the park because the elk were too scared to eat there anymore. Seems like every biologist, ecologist, elkologist, streamologist, and muppet master jumped on board that one. Now, 15 years later, other scientists are saying "Oh. Silly wolfie-riparian trophic cascade theory. That isn't what really is happening." 

And like Professor Evingstun pointed out, the '88 fire made pretty big changes in the habitat of the The Park that seem to be ignored in the wolfie discussions.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Interesting thing to me - I wonder how quickly this will become the "new gospel of the wolf and Yellowstone Ecosystem." Will this be the next great study that everyone says "YES" and starts quoting this as absolute?
> 
> What was the last one? Oh yea. Wolves made the willows come back along the streams in the park because the elk were too scared to eat there anymore. Seems like every biologist, ecologist, elkologist, streamologist, and muppet master jumped on board that one. Now, 15 years later, other scientists are saying "Oh. Silly wolfie-riparian trophic cascade theory. That isn't what really is happening."
> 
> And like Professor Evingtun pointed out, the '88 fire made pretty big changes in the habitat of the The Park that seem to be ignored in the wolfie discussions.


"muppet master"? Shouldn't that be hyphenated?

.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

wyogoob said:


> "muppet master"? Shouldn't that be hyphenated?
> 
> .


I've seen it both ways.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

wyogoob said:


> There's tons of evidence, just Google it.....or get Lonetree riled up and he'll post the links if you're too lazy to look for them yourselves. Or do like I do; hike in the Park for 30 years and see it first hand.
> 
> .


wyogoob,

why do you always have to be the source of logic and reason?

Haha I'll check it out.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> Yes I read that quite well. However I don't see any quantitative evidence of the reduction in quantity and quality of forage. Sure anyone can look at a meadow and say "wow we have less good grass than last year" but that's simply anecdotal evidence and not anything that can be quantified. Not exactly. If you spend enough time, consumptive and non-consumptive, in elk country you can tell what forage in the meadow is favored by elk.  Don't need a college degree or write a paper to know that. What was the amount of reduction, what was the type of quality reduction. Nothing that I read gives any of this info that you really need to do a quality analysis of the problem. Some, including myself, don't see it as a problem.


see comments in red


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> wyogoob,
> 
> why do you always have to be the source of logic and reason?
> 
> Haha I'll check it out.


No. I'm old and grumpy. I come from the old school that says, "OK, this is what I know because I've been there or I read about it numerous times." Well if you don't believe me you prove me wrong. I'm not going to look it up and post a link. It's`a waste of time anyway. There's so much crap on the web about this just pick a story to justify your agenda.

I sound like Prooutdoors. 

Uh...I thought this would get me to the top of the page. Maybe if I throw in a picture.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/

http://wyocast.uwyo.edu/WyoCast/Play/c063214dfcec4b3bba2bd6cdac991a8f1d

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/is-the-wolf-a-real-american-hero.html

http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/kauffman-group/search/absaroka-elk-ecology-project/


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/
> 
> http://wyocast.uwyo.edu/WyoCast/Play/c063214dfcec4b3bba2bd6cdac991a8f1d
> 
> ...


Studies conducted inside YNP, coupled with observations of higher bear and wolf numbers on the summer range of migratory Clarks Fork elk, indicate that the rate of calf predation is higher for migratory calves than for resident calves. In particular, YNP studies show that grizzly bears are the primary predator of elk calves. Meanwhile, the underlying pregnancy rate of migratory elk - especially of young and lactating females - has recently been low. The low pregnancy rate of migrants appears to be caused by warmer and drier growing seasons and faster green-up disproportionately affecting their high-elevation summer range (which we can see via satellite imagery for the period 1989-2009). In contrast, we have detected no changes in green-up, or associated pregnancy reductions, in the habitats of resident elk. Therefore, it appears that fewer elk calves are born and more are killed by predators on the summer range of migratory elk, leading to their lower productivity over the past decade.

So my observation is this....it appears bears and wolves have a particular acquired taste to migratory elk and do not care to eat resident elk. Very interesting....I wonder if any of you elk hunters have noticed a difference in taste between migratory and resident elk?


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

wyogoob said:


> There's tons of evidence, just Google it.....or get Lonetree riled up and he'll post the links if you're too lazy to look for them yourselves. Or do like I do; hike in the Park for 30 years and see it first hand.
> 
> .


I've actually looked at the studies on many of his posts and links. I showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the primary study he referenced in New Mexico was so flawed that it was laughable. While there may be some merit to his theory of trace mineral absence causing deer decline/health issues and his theory of herbicides/pesticides causing deer decline/health issues, I have repeatedly asked for the studies that show those trace elements were NOT PRESENT 50-100-150 years ago when deer numbers were higher and he cannot provide them. You cannot look at a particular trace element and say it's not present today so that is the problem when you have no idea if it was present when the deer herds were at higher numbers. He also claimed and I quote "elk cannot reproduce without sagebrush". Last time I checked the elk herds of Rocky Mountain Elk transplanted in KY area are booming and there is not a single piece of sagebrush anywhere in KY. He has also not been able to explain the high deer numbers in other states where much more pesticide and herbicide is used than in Utah or Wyoming. While I am not an idiot and know that trace elements and chemicals can have adverse affects on deer and elk there is not a single piece of conclusive evidence that they are having a significant affect on deer or elk in Utah. Putting out a block with a specific trace element is not proof because that same block has many other elements within it and there is no way to quantify which element of the many within that lick block is having the effect.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

My observation is that you somehow read the studies and the links within them........ AND watched a cast that is over an hour and half long, came to your conclusion and posted it in 10 minutes flat.

Impressive to say the least.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

have a great weekend people.........take the time to read something if you find the time. It is a lost art.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> My observation is that you somehow read the studies and the links within them........ AND watched a cast that is over an hour and half long, came to your conclusion and posted it in 10 minutes flat.
> 
> Impressive to say the least.


I copied and pasted right out of the report....maybe you didn't see that part. Anyway, have a great weekend! :grin:


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> To be fair the DNR/DWR's are just as bad "bucket biologists" and I'll use the Colorado River Pike, Catfish, Walleye, and Bass as my evidence.
> 
> Or rainbow trout in the South Fork of the Snake in Idaho.
> 
> ...


That may be the case, but I will submit that modern fisheries biology and management is a great deal more advanced than it was in the period between the 1880's -1950's. Yes, mistakes still are made, but nothing like it was in the distant past. The same *cannot *be said about the general public and their buckets. The Lake trout plant to Yellowstone Lake happened in our lifetime. 

Just a couple of years ago I had a heated debate with some fellow who thought it was a waste of money to try and control the Yellowstone lake trout, as is currently being done. I wonder if that dude was an elk hunter?


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

This thread is very interesting and somewhat confusing with all the info and an angle that lake trout impacted elk populations. Im on my phone so i cant paste a link im not talented enough on my phone yet but search slc tribune and then elk and you can find an article that reports that wildlife officials see a 24% increase in the elk herd that migrates from Yellowstone to Montana.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> http://www.wyocoopunit.org/index.php/test/arthur-middleton/
> 
> http://wyocast.uwyo.edu/WyoCast/Play/c063214dfcec4b3bba2bd6cdac991a8f1d
> 
> ...


Thanks for the links. I read 3 of them. One required an installation of the bloated app Silverlight and I passed.

I liked the NY Times editorial the best.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

LostLouisianian said:


> I've actually looked at the studies on many of his posts and links. I showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the primary study he referenced in New Mexico was so flawed that it was laughable. While there may be some merit to his theory of trace mineral absence causing deer decline/health issues and his theory of herbicides/pesticides causing deer decline/health issues, I have repeatedly asked for the studies that show those trace elements were NOT PRESENT 50-100-150 years ago when deer numbers were higher and he cannot provide them. You cannot look at a particular trace element and say it's not present today so that is the problem when you have no idea if it was present when the deer herds were at higher numbers. He also claimed and I quote "elk cannot reproduce without sagebrush". Last time I checked the elk herds of Rocky Mountain Elk transplanted in KY area are booming and there is not a single piece of sagebrush anywhere in KY. He has also not been able to explain the high deer numbers in other states where much more pesticide and herbicide is used than in Utah or Wyoming. While I am not an idiot and know that trace elements and chemicals can have adverse affects on deer and elk there is not a single piece of conclusive evidence that they are having a significant affect on deer or elk in Utah. Putting out a block with a specific trace element is not proof because that same block has many other elements within it and there is no way to quantify which element of the many within that lick block is having the effect.


What a success story the Rocky Mountain Elk in the Midwest is!! I contribute it to a combination of plentiful acorns and the over-use of Roundup (Glyphospate), although I have no scientific data to prove my assertion.

Uh...is it time to introduce wolves in KY?



.

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

3arabians said:


> .......................................Im on my phone so i cant paste a link im not talented enough on my phone yet but search slc tribune and then elk and you can find an article that reports that wildlife officials see a 24% increase in the elk herd that migrates from Yellowstone to Montana.


Makes sense, all of the Yellowstone NP wolves got shot or moved to Utah.



Finally, the top of the page.

.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

If they do they will definately get shot down here. Looks like a coyote to me


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

I'll.second that...


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> To be fair the DNR/DWR's are just as bad "bucket biologists" and I'll use the *Colorado River Pike*, Catfish, Walleye, and Bass as my evidence.
> 
> Or rainbow trout in the South Fork of the Snake in Idaho.
> 
> ...


Do you mean Colorado River Pikeminnow?


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

Catherder said:


> That may be the case, but I will submit that modern fisheries biology and management is a great deal more advanced than it was in the period between the 1880's -1950's. Yes, mistakes still are made, but nothing like it was in the distant past. The same *cannot *be said about the general public and their buckets. The Lake trout plant to Yellowstone Lake happened in our lifetime.
> 
> Just a couple of years ago I had a heated debate with some fellow who thought it was a waste of money to try and control the Yellowstone lake trout, as is currently being done. I wonder if that dude was an elk hunter?


Yeah, we have become more advanced in that we now stock sterile trout to prevent overpopulation.

Not to say that guy is right, but lake trout are awfully tough to try and control. When food is not readily available, they can basically hibernate(Predator Inertia). Nothing will prey on them over than bigger fish and humans.

I can see where someone could make that argument from a dollar's standpoint, but is it the right thing to do. That's another argument.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

The Naturalist said:


> Do you mean Colorado River Pikeminnow?


No,

Colorado has a trophy pike fishery Williams Fork Reservoir that feeds into the Colorado. Colorado also has Wolford Mountain and Rifle Gap which pike can enter the Colorado River System.

Colorado has Stagecoach, Catamount, and Elkhead Reservoir which contribute to pike in the Green River.

There are also Bass, Catfish, and Walleye that can escape in the river system from these Colorado lakes.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

wyogoob said:


> What a success story the Rocky Mountain Elk in the Midwest is!! I contribute it to a combination of plentiful acorns and the over-use of Roundup (Glyphospate), although I have no scientific data to prove my assertion.
> 
> Uh...is it time to introduce wolves in KY?
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure any species of ungulate would survive in the Midwest/MiddleEast US. So, why not stock them all?

I would travel to Mississippi (A state that otherwise, I would not have an intent of visiting) to Hunt Red Stag.

Travel to Arkansas to hunt Wild Cape Buffalo.

Travel to Alabama to Hunt Hippos

Travel to Iowa to hunt every species of deer known to man that can survive off corn.

Sounds too good to be true.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

LostLouisianian said:


> I've actually looked at the studies on many of his posts and links. I showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the primary study he referenced in New Mexico was so flawed that it was laughable. While there may be some merit to his theory of trace mineral absence causing deer decline/health issues and his theory of herbicides/pesticides causing deer decline/health issues, I have repeatedly asked for the studies that show those trace elements were NOT PRESENT 50-100-150 years ago when deer numbers were higher and he cannot provide them. You cannot look at a particular trace element and say it's not present today so that is the problem when you have no idea if it was present when the deer herds were at higher numbers. He also claimed and I quote "elk cannot reproduce without sagebrush". Last time I checked the elk herds of Rocky Mountain Elk transplanted in KY area are booming and there is not a single piece of sagebrush anywhere in KY. He has also not been able to explain the high deer numbers in other states where much more pesticide and herbicide is used than in Utah or Wyoming. While I am not an idiot and know that trace elements and chemicals can have adverse affects on deer and elk there is not a single piece of conclusive evidence that they are having a significant affect on deer or elk in Utah. Putting out a block with a specific trace element is not proof because that same block has many other elements within it and there is no way to quantify which element of the many within that lick block is having the effect.


Sometimes, on very, very rare occasions, you post up something worth reading and generally kind of interesting. This post is definitely not one of them... But I suppose we all have our own ideologies to propagate to accomplish some form of self worth...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> have a great weekend people.........take the time to read something if you find the time. It is a lost art.


Thanks for posting up the story and additional links skinner. I'm well aware of all of them and others that are related. The Absoroka Elk project is fascinating to say the least. Have a great weekend yourself...


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I say start a bear hunt in YNP.


----------



## trackerputnam (Dec 21, 2014)

Just for the record, this last Tuesday I saw my first wolf here in Washington and they look nothing like a coyote! That said I would have liked to shoot it and wish it was legal. This thing was only mildly concerned about me. Guess he could see I had the bolt out of the rifle while I was looking at him through the scope!

Everything ebbs and flows, and we are a part of nature. We make mistakes. Introducing wolves to YNP was wrong. There was a reason they were gone. With sceince such that it is, how long before they try reintroducing a T-Rex. Makes the barret 50 sound more resonable!

Follow the money! A sceintist makes his or her money where they can best scare the public and can mold the data to fit their needs. Not all are doing this but you have to eat!


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

trackerputnam said:


> Just for the record, this last Tuesday I saw my first wolf here in Washington and they look nothing like a coyote! That said I would have liked to shoot it and wish it was legal. This thing was only mildly concerned about me. Guess he could see I had the bolt out of the rifle while I was looking at him through the scope!
> 
> Everything ebbs and flows, and we are a part of nature. We make mistakes. Introducing wolves to YNP was wrong. There was a reason they were gone. With sceince such that it is, how long before they try reintroducing a T-Rex. Makes the barret 50 sound more resonable!
> 
> Follow the money!* A sceintist makes his or her money where they can best scare the public and can mold the data to fit their needs.* Not all are doing this but you have to eat!


 I think you need to change that line to read "A politician...."
There are some unethical scientists just like in any field, however politicians like scaring the public and it appears you might be one of the scared?


----------



## trackerputnam (Dec 21, 2014)

Not really scared. I dont let stuff like this bother me. I know that all these studies are often generated by money or trying to get money! Look at the idiot sceintists here in Washington that tried to get vast swaths of public land shut down because of the endangered lynx hair they found. In the end it was found that they had planted the hair from the same lynx. They were in line to get a study grant and so they needed to prove their therory.


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

trackerputnam said:


> Not really scared. I dont let stuff like this bother me. I know that all these studies are often generated by money or trying to get money! Look at the idiot sceintists here in Washington that tried to get vast swaths of public land shut down because of the endangered lynx hair they found. In the end it was found that they had planted the hair from the same lynx. They were in line to get a study grant and so they needed to prove their therory.


A couple of articles addressing your post:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/dec/17/20011217-034048-6557r/

Another one with a bit of a different take:

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-washington-times8217-hair-raising-tall-tale/

Sometimes it becomes rather difficult to sift through the muck to find the truth, and sometimes it is downright impossible.


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

An interesting take on predator control. A thought provoking read, not too long, from Erik Rominger of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish:

"Long ago, I heard someone note that hardly ever has there been a group
of placard-waving, animal-rights protestors present when a lake or reservoir is treated with piscicide, also known as fish toxicant, to remove carp (Cyprinus carpio) and other "trash" fish. Compare this to the national, and even international, outcry that results from a state wildlife-management agency's decision to conduct lethal removal of top carnivores, such as wolves (Canis lupus) or mountain lions (Puma concolor), despite a body of scientific literature to support such management efforts (Gassaway et al. 1983, Ballard et al. 1987, Sinclair et al. 1998, Ernest et al. 2002, Hayes et al. 2003). To paraphrase George Orwell, indeed, "some lives are more sacred than others," (Orwell 1945) Reiter et al. (1999) noted that the sociopolitical ramifications of culling top carnivores are substantially greater than those affecting trash fish or even mesocarnivores.* How does society and science reconcile this management dilemma?*"

https://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/2-Culling Mountain Lions....pdf


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

That last link is not working on my phone. I'll try it in the office Monday. 

I think anti's are well aware of the competition between large predators and hunters. As hunters we serve similar functions. And that hunters lose in that competition.


----------



## trackerputnam (Dec 21, 2014)

Yes, distrust! As alluded to, the Spotted Owl fiasco destroyed families and bussinesses throughout the Northwest. Only to find out that logging helped the Spotted Owl and in fact it was another owl predating on the spotted owl. Seems a healthy distrust of government officials and the conclusions they come up with is only a natural reaction.


----------



## SLCHunter (Dec 19, 2013)

Lobowatcher said:


> An interesting take on predator control. A thought provoking read, not too long, from Erik Rominger of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish:
> 
> "Long ago, I heard someone note that hardly ever has there been a group
> of placard-waving, animal-rights protestors present when a lake or reservoir is treated with piscicide, also known as fish toxicant, to remove carp (Cyprinus carpio) and other "trash" fish. Compare this to the national, and even international, outcry that results from a state wildlife-management agency's decision to conduct lethal removal of top carnivores, such as wolves (Canis lupus) or mountain lions (Puma concolor), despite a body of scientific literature to support such management efforts (Gassaway et al. 1983, Ballard et al. 1987, Sinclair et al. 1998, Ernest et al. 2002, Hayes et al. 2003). To paraphrase George Orwell, indeed, "some lives are more sacred than others," (Orwell 1945) Reiter et al. (1999) noted that the sociopolitical ramifications of culling top carnivores are substantially greater than those affecting trash fish or even mesocarnivores.* How does society and science reconcile this management dilemma?*"
> ...


That's an interesting read, thanks for posting.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

trackerputnam said:


> Just for the record, this last Tuesday I saw my first wolf here in Washington and they look nothing like a coyote! That said I would have liked to shoot it and wish it was legal. This thing was only mildly concerned about me. Guess he could see I had the bolt out of the rifle while I was looking at him through the scope!
> 
> Everything ebbs and flows, and we are a part of nature. We make mistakes. Introducing wolves to YNP was wrong. There was a reason they were gone. With sceince such that it is, how long before they try reintroducing a T-Rex. Makes the barret 50 sound more resonable!
> 
> Follow the money! * A sceintist makes his or her money where they can best scare the public and can mold the data to fit their needs.* Not all are doing this but you have to eat!


This isn't true. The difference here is the general public's lack in knowing a good statistical study from a bad one.

A Good Study; Randomness, Confidence Interval~ 95%, Small Standard Deviations, & No Bias.

A Bad Study: Targeting a specific group and using that group to extrapolate the data for the population (Example using all females in Ogden, Ut to make an estimate for the nation), Confidence Interval (If there isn't a confidence interval the study is likely made up or just doesn't have the required analysis to make it a good study. A large standard deviation means there is more variability and the study can't really prove anything with confidence. Bias is the hardest thing to account for in statistics (Which, is what I believe you are referring to with the money comment.), the way you get around bias is having a RANDOM study.

Joel Best has a few books on statistics that I would suggest that you read before you make assumptions based upon data.

http://www.amazon.com/Damned-Lies-Statistics-Untangling-Politicians/dp/0520274709

http://www.amazon.com/More-Damned-Lies-Statistics-Numbers/dp/0520238303/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> This isn't true. The difference here is the general public's lack in knowing a good statistical study from a bad one.
> 
> A Good Study; Randomness, Confidence Interval~ 95%, Small Standard Deviations, & No Bias.
> 
> ...


The difficulty in studies is knowing who really is footing the bill for the study and what their agenda is. One of my statistics professors in college made a statement that was rather telling. He said that anyone could give him a subject to do a statistical study on and that he could make that study come out with the results that the person paying for the study wanted using the same group of subjects to study. In effect, whoever is paying and whatever results they want they will get. If it is truly an objective scientific study you can usually determine it by careful reading of the study area/subjects and the stated objective of the study. The problem in studying wildlife is that there are a very large number of variables involved that can affect the subjects and it is literally impossible to eliminate all the variables so that you can get it down to a single reason. You will always come up with a multitude of reasons and you have to start affecting the reasons one by one in order to really pin down the primary reason. And some of the reasons no one can control, like weather/climate. Things such as predators and habitat can be affected but you can't change the weather and that is a variable that is known to affect all types of wildlife greatly.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Lostlouisiana is dead on with the statistical sampling thing. I regularly do survey work for clients that involves sampling. The first question I usually ask is "Do you really want a survey and will take the results, wherever they fall? Or is there a certain position you are trying to support with these statistics? I can do a public opinion survey with a 97-98 confidence interval, yet I can tell you within 1-2 percentage points what the results are before I conduct the survey. 

The really true surveys without predetermined outcomes are absolutely the most fun. It is a great challenge to write survey questions or scientific study protocols that really are free from bias. But more often than not, that is not what is asked for.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

LostLouisianian said:


> The difficulty in studies is knowing who really is footing the bill for the study and what their agenda is. One of my statistics professors in college made a statement that was rather telling. He said that anyone could give him a subject to do a statistical study on and that he could make that study come out with the results that the person paying for the study wanted using the same group of subjects to study. Random and BiasIn effect, whoever is paying and whatever results they want they will get. If it is truly an objective scientific study you can usually determine it by careful reading of the study area/subjects and the stated objective of the study. The problem in studying wildlife is that there are a very large number of variables involved that can affect the subjects and it is literally impossible to eliminate all the variables so that you can get it down to a single reason.Random and Eliminate Bias You will always come up with a multitude of reasons and you have to start affecting the reasons one by one in order to really pin down the primary reason. And some of the reasons no one can control, like weather/climate. Things such as predators and habitat can be affected but you can't change the weather and that is a variable that is known to affect all types of wildlife greatly.


This goes back to what I mentioned as randominity and bias. If a study isn't random with the test subjects, then it is skewed. Bias would be the selecting of subjects to meet the study or the financial backer and like I said it is the toughest thing to account for in statistics.

- Random Random Random -


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

GaryFish said:


> Lostlouisiana is dead on with the statistical sampling thing. I regularly do survey work for clients that involves sampling. The first question I usually ask is "Do you really want a survey and will take the results, wherever they fall? Or is there a certain position you are trying to support with these statistics? I can do a public opinion survey with a 97-98 confidence interval, yet I can tell you within 1-2 percentage points what the results are before I conduct the survey.
> 
> The really true surveys without predetermined outcomes are absolutely the most fun. It is a great challenge to write survey questions or scientific study protocols that really are free from bias. But more often than not, that is not what is asked for.


I can see, your side of things on this subject.

I also work with statistics. It has more to do with chemical and physical hazards to humans, but I find joy in writing protocols that are from Bias.

I use excel to generate random numbers for my random purposes.

The most difficult thing I am faced with is outliers (Hate them).

This being said if your sample size is big enough, your standard deviation is small enough, your sample was random, and you have good confidence intervals. The study can be used to project the population of the study.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> This goes back to what I mentioned as randominity and bias. If a study isn't random with the test subjects, then it is skewed. Bias would be the selecting of subjects to meet the study or the financial backer and like I said it is the toughest thing to account for in statistics.
> 
> - Random Random Random -


You're exactly correct. Look no one wishes that we could increase the quality and quantity of Utah deer with selenium or reducing the use of certain herbicides more than I do but when you look at the studies and the data out there in an objective manner it doesn't support those claims yet. The New Mexico selenium study was so flawed it was laughable. They sampled specific units, not all of them. Some of the units were more than 25 sq miles. They took 5, FIVE samples per unit. That translates to less than one soil sample per 5 SQUARE MILES! Any agronomist would die laughing at that sample rate. In the very beginning of the study it clearly says their goal is to prove that selenium deficiency is the cause of deer decline. When I questioned the soil selenium samples "a" person then changed the claim to amount of selenium in the food supply even though he had been touting soil selenium rates for weeks on here. When I questioned the soil selenium in the food supply he then claimed, oh wait, well it's like this, certain foods may have a lot of selenium in them but it's not usable to the deer. Every time I questioned his assertions he changed the rules and the reason. You can't conduct a true scientific analysis when you keep changing the rules because you don't like the results. He also claimed that a specific herbicide was also ruining the deer. When I asked him for a study of that specific herbicide use to deer quantity he produced none. So I went at it myself and spent days looking up that herbicide use per state and correlating it to deer number and the amount of herbicide use per area of land. Guess what, no correlation WHATSOEVER! There were states that used significantly more of that herbicide in significantly smaller states that had deer numbers quite significantly higher than Utah per area. Now am I naive enough to say that herbicides and pesticides don't have an impact on deer quality and quantity, of course not. Am I naive enough to say that selenium may not be a contributor to problems with deer quality and quantity, of course not. I am simply saying that the data at THIS time strongly refutes both assertions. I wish it was as simple as dropping a few thousand salt licks spiked with selenium and magically we would have super healthy deer reproducing in record numbers but it's not that simple and it never will be. I have repeatedly asked for selenium levels etc of when there was a time when the deer herds were considered "healthy and large numbers" but to this very day, no info has been produced. To say a trace element is now low and it's the cause is laughable if you can't say that the same trace element was plentiful or similarly low when the deer were in better condition and numbers. As I have said earlier, declines or increases in quality and quantity of specific animals are and always will be related to a number of complex issues and reasons. Just look around and tell me how many dinosaurs you've seen lately. Last time I checked, no human involvement caused extinction of them or over 90% of the animal species that have ever existed on this little rock of ours floating around in space.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

LostLouisianian said:


> You're exactly correct. Look no one wishes that we could increase the quality and quantity of Utah deer with selenium or reducing the use of certain herbicides more than I do but when you look at the studies and the data out there in an objective manner it doesn't support those claims yet. The New Mexico selenium study was so flawed it was laughable. *They sampled specific units, not all of them. Some of the units were more than 25 sq miles. They took 5, FIVE samples per unit. That translates to less than one soil sample per 5 SQUARE MILES! Any agronomist would die laughing at that sample rate.* It Depends on if the samples were a random adequate representation of the soil in the area. I use 6 samples a lot to determine exposures, because it is an ideal number to provide statistical analysis of the population. You can make a good estimate with 5 samples, but as with all statistics the more samples you can gather the smaller the standard deviations will be. If all 5 samples were are all the same range with a small standard deviation, It would be safe to assume the area would have within the same zone. If the samples were not in the same range and had a big standard deviation, then more samples would have to be taken to prove the actual study. I*n the very beginning of the study it clearly says their goal is to prove that selenium deficiency is the cause of deer decline. When I questioned the soil selenium samples "a" person then changed the claim to amount of selenium in the food supply even though he had been touting soil selenium rates for weeks on here. * I'm not sure if this is the title or the abstract, The abstract will typically tell you all you need to know about the study without reading the blood and guts.When I questioned the soil selenium in the food supply he then claimed, oh wait, well it's like this, certain foods may have a lot of selenium in them but it's not usable to the deer. Every time I questioned his assertions he changed the rules and the reason. *You can't conduct a true scientific analysis when you keep changing the rules because you don't like the results. He also claimed that a specific herbicide was also ruining the deer. * This is very very very very very true When, I asked him for a study of that specific herbicide use to deer quantity he produced none. So I went at it myself and spent days looking up that herbicide use per state and correlating it to deer number and the amount of herbicide use per area of land. Guess what, no correlation WHATSOEVER! There were states that used significantly more of that herbicide in significantly smaller states that had deer numbers quite significantly higher than Utah per area. Now am I naive enough to say that herbicides and pesticides don't have an impact on deer quality and quantity, of course not. Am I naive enough to say that selenium may not be a contributor to problems with deer quality and quantity, of course not. I am simply saying that the data at THIS time strongly refutes both assertions. I wish it was as simple as dropping a few thousand salt licks spiked with selenium and magically we would have super healthy deer reproducing in record numbers but it's not that simple and it never will be. I have repeatedly asked for selenium levels etc of when there was a time when the deer herds were considered "healthy and large numbers" but to this very day, no info has been produced. *To say a trace element is now low and it's the cause is laughable if you can't say that the same trace element was plentiful or similarly low when the deer were in better condition and numbers.* I'm not a nutrition expert, but a lot of trace elements are elements we have to get through our diet. I would assume it is the same for deer. As I have said earlier, declines or increases in quality and quantity of specific animals are and always will be related to a number of complex issues and reasons. Just look around and tell me how many dinosaurs you've seen lately. Last time I checked, no human involvement caused extinction of them or over 90% of the animal species that have ever existed on this little rock of ours floating around in space.


To be fair, (since I don't know about the study)


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Interesting article! Thanks for sharing mule skinner.

I like how the writer separates "hunters" and "conservationists". as if you are one or the other!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I am just glad it got some people thinking and hopefully got a few thinking along different lines than they normally do. There are many many articles on it. I have read more on the subject of the wolf and predation in general than I care to admit in the past two years. I do my best to stay away from the political sides of things as I always walk away feeling dirty in the process. I am far more interested in the pure science of it all and the ebb and flow of nature. I have always believed that the wolf rightfully deserves a place in nature as much as anything else. Even being the fan of elk that I am and having grown up spending most of my weekends in and around Yellowstone, I still believe that biggest crime was the wolf being wiped out to begin with. Others may justify it in that "man is the rightful ruler of the world" or whatever but I am not fully on board with that line either.

It is complicated and depending upon who you are speaking to or about, hunting and conservation can be one and the same or entirely independent of one another.


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> *I am just glad it got some people thinking and hopefully got a few thinking along different lines than they normally do.* There are many many articles on it. I have read more on the subject of the wolf and predation in general than I care to admit in the past two years. I do my best to stay away from the political sides of things as I always walk away feeling dirty in the process. I am far more interested in the pure science of it all and the ebb and flow of nature. I have always believed that the wolf rightfully deserves a place in nature as much as anything else. Even being the fan of elk that I am and having grown up spending most of my weekends in and around Yellowstone, I still believe that biggest crime was the wolf being wiped out to begin with. Others may justify it in that "man is the rightful ruler of the world" or whatever but I am not fully on board with that line either.
> 
> It is complicated and depending upon who you are speaking to or about, hunting and conservation can be one and the same or entirely independent of one another.


Agree wholeheartedly. Also agree the 'manipulated' studies thing has some merit as well, but it's not that difficult to discern whether or not particular studies have merit, especially when it speaks to a 'body of study' completed over many years. When there are a dozen different studies completed over time with very similar or the same questions being asked, along with another dozen or so 'smaller' studies pointing to the same findings, it demands our attention. Science is changing all the time, improving and being added to. We can't dismiss it simply because of rogue research with hidden agendas. Read, then read some more and learn how things tend to work. It will pay off in great dividends for not only one's knowledge base, but the well being of our wildlife as well.


----------

