JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Since we are discussing the infallibility 'science', remember what happened to Pluto!
how is that a demonstration of any kind of failure of science? when we were discovering things in the solar system, we didnt know what all was up there. we started labeling objects into categories as we found them. pluto got labeled "planet," as that was the only classification we had for it at the time. once we got to the point that we could actually get out into space and see things clearly, we discovered there are lots and lots of objects orbiting the sun, and needed new classifications for them all. the really big ones remained "planets," the smaller ones were called "planetoids" or "dwarf planets," because they were too big to be asteroids but too small to be planets.

thats not a failure, its just part of scientific discovery. no different than columbus thinking the island he'd landed on in the caribbean was likely part of the indies. was that a failure of his, or just a pretty normal part of exploration? which is science, also.
 
Why so touchy, B?

I am pointing out EXACTLY that.

"Native Species" is a construct based on time and perspective, and subject to interpretation by the viewer.

I am trying to be more diplomatic than to point out that they make bubblegum up as they go!
 
Minimizing the untidy habits of Wolves is in that person's best interest
Exactly. Like the way they cut the kill part of the video and move right to the feasting on the carcass? Why don't they show the reality of it, where the wolves are eating on the poor thing and ripping its guts out while it's still watching them, terrified out of its mind?

Remember the videos they showed when they got the hound hunting for cougars banned? Some guys roll up in a pickup and dump a caged cougar on the ground and let the party begin. It was atrocious (and not the least bit typical of actual hound hunting), but they managed to show everything. Why not equal treatment for the wolves. Watching the kill scenes from start to finish might cause some of the city dwellers to think twice about their support of wolves. Start a campaign: "Why do you hate deer and elk so much?" "Wolves are the devil." Untrue, I know. But hey, fight fire with fire I say.
 
Why so touchy, B?

I am pointing out EXACTLY that.

"Native Species" is a construct based on time and perspective, and subject to interpretation by the viewer.

I am trying to be more diplomatic than to point out that they make bubblegum up as they go!
Holy Cow, he's an expert on the solar system too!!
 
The ten percent figure is frequently assigned to numerous predators. It is rather subjective, in what constitutes "every time they hunt prey". Since they are nearly always hunting, what is the criteria for an episode to measure?

It is true that most predators are largely unsuccessful in their attempts. Far more often than successful (and this would include humans).

In this instance, we must also consider the source: an employee of an "Eco Tour", with motivations toward preserving the business (and a job). Minimizing the untidy habits of Wolves is in that person's best interest, especially when minimizing is as easy as "quoting" the ten percent statistic read somewhere.

Watching this clip, did it seem early on as if the Wolves only had a ten percent chance of a score? Were their actions haphazard and random or more calculated and coordinated? Were they operating each to himself or within a plan with duty assignments that had previously paid off repeatedly? We must remind ourselves that we see only the CONCLUSION of the hunt. We are deprived of the strategy of positioning and the stalk prior to the chase.

If THIS sort of specific activity qualifies as "every time they hunt prey", I feel rather certain that this specific level of activity has a success rate measurably higher than ten percent.

Also, did that elk look like it was immature, sick or weak? Or did it become the "choice" simply as a result of its position (and a stumble) on the fringe of the herd where it could be isolated?

Regarding my experience with the Caribou, I believed the Wolves probably wouldn't be successful on the first animal. After having watched their methods, the second Caribou's fate was a foregone conclusion. Anecdotally measuring the Wolves' rate of success there puts them at 200 percent.
When I read that 10 percent statistic my initial reaction was to call BS. If any species was only 10pct sucessful at getting food theyd die off to extinction.

Im only 10pct sucessful hunter because im limited to artificial restraints lime tag limits and short seasons. I would have easily filled my elk tag this year if it wasnt a spike only, all I saw was a branched bull. Anyways...
 
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife announced non-profit groups and members of the public have pledged a total of $47,736 as of Dec. 15 as a reward for information leading to the person or persons responsible for the poisonings of Oregon's Catherine wolf pack — which consisted of five wolves — and three other wolves in Eastern Oregon earlier this year.
I find it interesting they are 'assuming' 'person or persons are responsible' when they admit:
However, the type of poison used is unclear and officials did not indicate whether the animals ingested the same kind of poison.

AND they have no witnesses, evidence of intentional poisoning or anything - that they are revealing at this time anyway but I'll bet a bottle of anyone's favorite they have NOTHING!
 
weak.jpg
 
Since we are discussing the infallibility 'science', remember what happened to Pluto!
Science: The world is flat.
Reality: Nope
Science: Everything revolves around the earth.
Reality: Nope.
Science: Disease is caused by malignant humours.
Reality: Nope.

Well, you get the idea...
 
"The Center for Biological Diversity said an adult male wolf from the same pack was already killed on Nov. 18 for preying on livestock.

"Why did state officials allow the killing of this wolf without waiting to see the effect of previously shooting another animal from this family?" said Amaroq Weiss, senior wolf advocate with the Center for Biological Diversity."

This is the crux of the matter. There are those who are in love with diversity as a concept. It's part of earth worship. Practicality be damned.

LOL…. "Senior wolf advocate". As opposed to a junior or trainee "wolf advocate"?

:rolleyes:
She's a LITERAL wolf hugger! Good thing she doesn't love unicorns, or hunters wouldn't be able to hunt them with dogs either!

FDEDB452-E30F-4D46-AE58-1D5A39B02D2D.png
 
This one is a LITERAL Wolf Lover!!
Is this going to be one of those stories like that bear lover guy? Or was it a tiger/lion lover guy. Ended up getting half eaten by one of his beloved wild animals?
Be a shame. She's a real good looking lady. Nutty as a fruit-cake, but good looking.
 
Is this going to be one of those stories like that bear lover guy?
The bear lover, Tim Treadwell, was a real whack job. He was TOLD by wildlife bios he WAS eventually going to die and they would not be able to save him.

THis gal (while still crazy) seems to have a handle on the wolves and appears to be an accepted part of the pack.

I wonder if she gargles with peroxide ? or Iso Alcohol?
 
Last Edited:
Science: The world is flat.
Reality: Nope
Science: Everything revolves around the earth.
Reality: Nope.
Science: Disease is caused by malignant humours.
Reality: Nope.

Well, you get the idea...
Now you are being unfair. None of the above represent conclusions which were reached using the scientific method.
The world is flat - superstition
Everything revolves around the earth - religion
Disease is caused by malignant humours - just the prevailing opinion at the time.

"Science" is knowledge gained through application of the scientific method (see diagram below). Science dispelled the above beliefs, it did not propose them. Nonetheless, science can be hampered by all the human failings (incompetence, dishonesty, etc. etc.). There are enough reasons to criticize what is presented as science without resorting to misrepresentation as you have done above.

The scientific method works. On the other hand, scientists cannot always be believed, because they are human and fallible. This is the part those who worship science as the new religion overlook.

The_Scientific_Method.svg.png
ETA: The foundation of science is skepticism and continuous testing, not unquestioning acceptance.
 
Last Edited:
MY point is/was, in the 1970s, Pluto was considered a planet. This was clearly taught in the textbooks of the day.

It was not considered a religious position to call Pluto a planet.

If you would forget about the Planet/Planetoid argument and pay attention to the fact that the object is the same now as it was during the Carter administration, you might get my point.

Or not, but it is there if you are genuinely curious.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top