4 Canadian wolves air-dropped in US national park to deal with moose

[BrentD]

No, I won't. I live in the mountains. I'm in it in one form or another. Either hunting, fly fishing the creeks, or just hiking with my dog. If i'm approached by a predator whether a bear, cat, or wolf and it's aggressive. I have a right to protect myself. Everybody does in Colorado.

So, what luck do you think i'll need. Do I need to die to protect your precious wolf to satisfy you?

You should start with deleting your posts on this thread, btw.

and like I said, good luck.

PS. Keep your lawyer happy - you might bump his retainer a might, just to be sure.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

You're funny Brent. Just like a fart is funny.

 

[El Jason]

You're funny Brent. Just like a fart is funny.

Farts are always funny.

 

[El Jason]

This conversation has quickly devolved to the completely moronic level.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

This conversation has quickly devolved to the completely moronic level.

True. Yet we all keep on reading. What does that say about us?

 

[onpoint]

True. Yet we all keep on reading. What does that say about us?

We have a winner.
Admitted moron right here.
Just imagine if nobody would respond to this red meat, dog whistle, thinly-veiled agenda bullshit.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me 21 times - I'm an idiot. Lotsa' idiots. A few may even be able to admit it..........
I for one am done.

 

[El Jason]

True. Yet we all keep on reading. What does that say about us?

It says I’m going to make coffee, take a crap, and then Finn and I are going hunting. I doubt I’ll be reopening this one.

If moose was substituted for wolf in the stupid hypothetical, and elk for coyote, no one would find it funny. Especially from the dude who just proclaimed his RuLeZ about shooting cows and calves.

 

[Sytes]

On topic - Related to one of Rolf's main studies for Isle Royale. Agree / Disagree, it's a very interesting read.

Error - Cookies Turned Off

besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com

The link works... My computer has various safety firewalls and with such, it restricts some internet sites from presenting information if they demand cookies enabled. If your curious of the exact web address, right click and check the properties.

Here is a brief share of the journal / study.

Summary

• 1
  The importance of two features of the predator functional response (satiation and predator dependence) is investigated in the wolf–moose interaction on Isle Royale National Park (Michigan, USA). This is done by fitting and comparing nine different functional response models to the observed kill rates.
• 2
  Three different observational scales (the whole island, the wolf packs, or a ‘mixed’ scale) are used to assess the sensitivity of the detected properties with respect to these spatial scales.
• 3
  Independently of the observational scale and of statistical assumptions on data structure, strong predator dependence and satiation of the wolf functional response are found. The ‘mixed’ scale gives the most consistent results, suggesting that predation should be measured for each pack, but that packs share all moose on the island. On this scale, the functional response is clearly ratio‐dependent.

During this period, wolf and moose abundances, moose kills and the wolf's social organization in packs have been estimated annually (during January and February) by aerial survey (see Vucetich et al. (2002) for details).

These data permit us to analyse the system on three levels/scales that emphasize different aspects of the spatial and social organization of moose and wolves:

• 1
  Per pack scale. Kills per wolf per day (calculated in each pack) studied in relation to pack size and moose abundance per pack territory (85 values of the kill rate, wolf abundance and moose abundance).
• 2
  Whole island scale. Kills per wolf per day (computed over the whole island) as a function of total wolf and moose populations (28 values of the kill rate, wolf abundance and moose abundance).
• 3
  Mixed scale. Kills per wolf per day in each pack, but studied as a function of total wolf and moose populations (85 values of the kill rate, 28 values of wolf abundance and moose abundance).

The ‘per pack’ scale considers each pack with its territory and the moose therein as an independent unit, but it ignores interactions among packs and the overlapping of territories. The ‘whole island’ scale represents the aggregated population level that avoids any spatial or social details. The ‘mixed’ scale finally tries to combine both views to account for both the wolf's social structure and the free movement of moose on the island.

 

[mtmiller]

Sweet, Sytes got to work.

 

[buckbull]

I was interested to see how much the wolf recovery costs based on some of the comments here. All the figures mentioned below from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (www.fws.gov). Just search their site for "Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Annual Report".


From the 2015 Annual report
$503,990.00 in compensation for wolf-damage in 2015
Federal, State and Tribal agencies spent approximately $6,432,325.00 for wolf management, outreach, monitoring, and research for 2015.

From the 2003 Annual report:
Wolf recovery in the northern Rocky Mountains from 1973 through 2003 cost about $16,785,000 (with no adjustments for inflation). If recovery continues at the current rate and management costs remain within predictions, wolf delisting should be completed in 2005 at an additional cost to taxpayers of $1,500,000 annually for 2004 and 2005.

 

[Gerald Martin]

No one can accurately figure the costs of wolf reintroduction and management without factoring in lost productivity from everyone arguing on the internet over whether it was a good idea or not.

Also, incorporate the ratio of barroom boost to the economy from the alcohol imbibed by the SSS crowd as they extol their contribution to wolf management/ loss of license revenue from those discouraged by the effects of wolves on their favorite areas.

At the end of the day, there’s about as much chance for objectivity on this subject as there is in trying to figure out whether brunettes, blondes, or red heads are more attractive.
My definitive and objective conclusion is brunettes, specifically, my wife.

 

[Sytes]

My definitive and objective conclusion is brunettes, specifically, my wife.

Smartest comment from this thread.

 

[Muley_Stalker]

I'll take all the blondes you throw out.