Precisely my point. That assumption is born out of a presumption: you gave authority to the ranger where it was unwarranted on two counts. First, you assumed the ranger a disinterested arbiter, a person without an institutional interest in inflicting wolves upon the surrounding population. Such is hardly the case. Second, you assumed that people posting on FR are just like yourself, traders in second hand information at best.
When I found out he knew what he was talking about, I apologized to him.
No, you conceded when you realized that you couldn't win, which is something quite different.
But even throughout the whole thread I got nothing but insults from people right after my first comment which wasn't meant to be "condescending"; "you don't know what you're talking about"; "shut up and read your weekly reader"; of course I'm going to sound "condescending" in my replies.
Oh really? Well, let's take a look at the language in your first post.
Whoever made that video is an ignoramus. As a zoology major, I will say that wolves do NOT kill for sport, they kill for food, just like every other predator. Removing them completely would entirely screw up the food chain.
With the use of the word, "ignoramus" your first statement is crappy in its tone, thus earning every bit of the vitriol you later received for your false assertions. Further, it begins with your own authority as a zoologist, and not the at least second hand (probably more) information from the bureaucrat who at least vicariously has a financial interest in extending wolf territory into the private lands outside the park, which is what happened contrary to the contractual obligations upon the part of the agency.
It is your lack of healthy skepticism applied to the bureaucrat compared to a desperate rancher that would earn you suspicion here on FR. Although unschooled in successfully designing a message that would tug your heartstrings, ranchers care more about the health of the land and perhaps know more about it than you probably realize. For sure as hell, neither you nor those who might agree with you have compensated for his losses that are a direct result of such whimsical preferences.