Interesting thing about Wolves

[ZoNiE]

http://distractify.com/jason.mustian/how-wolves-change-rivers/

 

[Screwtape]

That is really fascinating and uplifting.

 

[FALCON]

Awesome!

 

[cyndi]

Sorry, debunked

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/is-the-wolf-a-real-american-hero.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

and

http://www.nature.com/news/rethinking-predators-legend-of-the-wolf-1.14841

 

[FALCON]

Sorry, debunked

aww man, you're killing my vibe.

 

[sl1966]

aww man, you're killing my vibe.

Don't feel too bad. There's a lot of new studies which are proving old studies very wrong regarding wolves. We live and learn and things only get better. Right?!

 

[karl]

Where's Farley Mowat when you need him to settle an arguement?

 

[towhee]

I am not an expert in this field but I am trained as a scientist.  I read the nature article. It does not contradict the OPs observation that the original results of bill ripple's study and others are interesting and valid. In the Nature article it was noted that other researchers have found that other predators  (bears and humans) are important in addition to wolves. One researcher speculated that concluded that dropping groundwater levels due to loss of beavers may have changed the dominance of willows. She speculated that the change may be irreversible. One other person thought that bill ripple used the wrong measure for assessing the re growth of the poplar trees. I would have to see more scientists agreeing that he used the wrong measure before I would be willing to discard his results. 

I have this gripe often with journalists reporting on science that they present results as if they were the last word and they imply that some topic is settled. Science works by consensus. Consensus leaning the preponderance of people working in a certain field. When I see that most open-minded scientists working in a certain field have come to accept that a specific explanation for an observed phenomenon is probably true then I feel ready to accept it. I added the word open minded because there are always scientists who have been trained to a certain way of thinking who are unable to accept new ways of thinking. 

 

[towhee]

I have seen this so many many times in science reporting. Journalists overstate and overgeneralize a scientific result and then a contradictory study comes out and they rush to say that the original study was completely wrong. The truth (an accurate understanding of the way the world works) is in there somewhere. 

Just my 2 cents. Take it or leave it. 

 

[LeeRevell]

As usual, the great amount of variables makes determining the true interactions difficult. Take four different researchers, give them access to the same data, and they will come to four widely different hypothesis. Each will apply his/her own preferences and prejudices to the data, skewing the results. They present the results to foster their own opinions, not necessarily the truth. We see this in all aspects of nature, science, politics, etc. All life, really.

 

[ZoNiE]

Hey, for once, someone created something positive and up lifting. Do we have to shit on that too? Yeah, the river bit was a stretch, but in today's internet and TV environment, where all reality TV is really just staged, this was something different.

It was nice to watch. Hence why I share it.

 

[LeeRevell]

Positive and uplifting is a good thing. For sure. But not if it isn't correct. At best it is a 'feel-good' fluff piece. I just question the science behind it. I personally oppose the wolf introduction to these areas. They brought in the larger more aggressive Canadian Grey Wolf, not the smaller wolves that were native at one time. Different impact on the environment. Sometimes when Man tries to help nature, he gets it wrong......