OSU "research"

[pianoman9701]

I've wrestled with this idea for a while and I have to agree that hunting alone is not adequate management for ungulates in our altered systems.  Hunting, coupled with hazing and more consistant pressure would maybe do it.  Hunting seasons in the fall don't manipulate wildlife movements and create the necessay instability that wolves do.  People laugh about the wolves helping the riparian zones, but I can see that being quite possible.  It would require more frequent hazing and movement year 'round for people to replicate that.

But this so-called study is what we're concerned with here. The study makes the assumption that man can't manage populations levels enough to bring wildlife down to healthy levels. That's pure BS and it comes from an agenda. Given enough tags, we would kill enough animals.

Whether or not wolves are necessary is another discussion altogether. This specific article is the discussion and because of its slant, has marginal if any value of scientific nature.

[JimmyHoffa]

The only places I know of that have had studies done regarding the riparian habitat comeback have been off limits to human hunting for many years.  In particular Yellowstone, where most of the studies seem to come from, the riparian areas have changed but the 'researchers' are now finding that the elk are staying in heavier cover eating ground cover in the aspen groves--causing the ground to be less stable in the groves.  Basically the woofs just moved the problem from the streamsides into the groves while reducing the herd by 80%.
I still think that people could control the ungulates however needed if they are willing to--either overall numbers or constant pressure, the 'system' is designed to NOT allow it.  If WDFW really wanted constant pressure on the animals, they could stagger permits for an area that allowed for year round hunting... Or allow helicopter hunting (like for hogs in other states), I'd be willing to bet there would be plenty of hunters flying around pushing the elk into the deep timber.  Or if they wanted numbers to drop, they could sell more permits/extend the season--like they are doing in Winston with all the new anterless permits.
I don't deny that woofs can reduce numbers and haze, but have to agree with others that people can manage the ungulates and land without woofs if the WANT to.

[humanure]

I've wrestled with this idea for a while and I have to agree that hunting alone is not adequate management for ungulates in our altered systems.  Hunting, coupled with hazing and more consistant pressure would maybe do it.  Hunting seasons in the fall don't manipulate wildlife movements and create the necessay instability that wolves do.  People laugh about the wolves helping the riparian zones, but I can see that being quite possible.  It would require more frequent hazing and movement year 'round for people to replicate that.

But this so-called study is what we're concerned with here. The study makes the assumption that man can't manage populations levels enough to bring wildlife down to healthy levels. That's pure BS and it comes from an agenda. Given enough tags, we would kill enough animals.

Whether or not wolves are necessary is another discussion altogether. This specific article is the discussion and because of its slant, has marginal if any value of scientific nature.

Agenda or not, the study is there. You guys don't have an agenda with your studies? That's news to me.

It's not just killing enough animals, there is NOTHING simple about balance and the health of the eco-system. There are variables that go into how the wild works, and we will NEVER be able to fully understand it, nor will we ever come close to replicating it.

[dreamunelk]

Well here we go again.  Some one who thinks they no what science means with no skills to research on their own quotes a news paper article.  Perhaps the self imposed experts who believe what they read in the news paper could take a few minutes to read the Journal paper and then perhaps they can explain why it is in a European journal and not a North American journal?   Also maybe you can explain where the quotes can be found in the paper?

http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/Ripple_Beschta_large_predators.pdf

Once you have read this paper if you know anything at all you should check the literature cited to verify how good that information is or if it is a little twisted around or even misused..  I am familiar with some of the papers and all I can say is "HORSE POOP".   
Check the paper by Shriener et al. 1996.  I have great difficulty excepting that trees falling and creating an enclosure is evidence of ungulate over grazing and should be used as evidence that wolves are needed.  should this have been used as data?
http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/refugia.pdf
Or maybe they can find the flaws in this paper by the same authors as this questionable paper?
http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/2008%20Beschta%20&%20Ripple,%20Olympic%20trophic%20cascades.pdf

Often a paper will pass peer review and get published because the methods are sound.  They trust that the data was collected correctly.  In many cases a paper will get published that was not subject to a local review.  Thus they can get away with an apples to oranges comparison.

Also most papers are just a start of research into a big picture and are narrowly focused.  In papers such as these they are written by people with a very narrow focus.  For example these authors also blame elk for channel migration in rivers.  If you actually new anything about fish and wildlife ecology.  The big picture!  You would know this is horse poop and that channel migration is a good thing since areas where channel migration occurs is also the areas of the highest density of salmon and steelhead reds.  Channel migration is caused by many other factors and even the lowly unappreciated beaver can cause it, not to mention a tree falling, floods events, and soil type and or all the above.  Also ungulates are disturbance capitalists and benefit from disturbances.  Finally many ungulates are often considered a key stone species.  Thus they can affect there environment to benefit them selves.  And often many others.  And guess what, they east plants so yes it will look different if they are not there!

Humanure your quote, "It's not just killing enough animals, there is NOTHING simple about balance and the health of the eco-system. There are variables that go into how the wild works, and we will NEVER be able to fully understand it, nor will we ever come close to replicating it."  Just proves your ignorance.  Balance is a term not used in any modern Wildlife ecology book except to explain why it should not be use.  The answer is simple.  People like you do not know what it means.   Please explain "Health of the eco-system?  Do you know what it means?  Is the ecosystem unhealthy?  Do you know what an ecosystem is?  How do you determine that is unhealthy?  What measures would you use?

I recommend everyone read the following links.  Perhaps it will sink in who the real enemy of the environment is..
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/another-round-conservation-on-a-human-shaped-planet/
http://breakthroughjournal.org/content/authors/peter-kareiva-robert-lalasz-an-1/conservation-in-the-anthropoce.shtml

Not that I do not have some issues with the above recommended reading but, I do think they are very thought provoking especially considering the individual.

[humanure]

The Sanitation Effect.

And I don't know what book's you've read, but I more than once read books by biologists referring wolves, bears and cougars as 'keystone predators' because of the balance they create.

[humanure]

Frankly, i don't read a whole lot of reports from either side, as they just say the same things over and over on stuff we already know. Every time I read a new report, it feels redundant and and I usually say to myself, "Fukkin duh!".

And I don't pretend to know everything. My words are just opinions and theories, just like all of yours.