Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
M&M
climber
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 02:06pm PT
|
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
|
The real world is a rough place. A species population fluctuations are not always a good thing. As a society we hire the best professionals we can to make the best decisions they can regarding proper wildlife management. Do they always make the best decisions? Of course not but they are much better at it than off the hip emotional uneducated decisions.
Sometimes those decisions indicate that hunting and trapping are good for an ecosystem or at least not detrimental.
Also I do not take lightly the fact that some people make a living this way and I do not condemn that way of living if regulated for responsible preservation of the ecology of an area.
Everything dies. In the wild death is often much less humane than the way a proper hunter or trapper does the job.
I also think its a really really bad form of governance for people without proper training to make decree's by petition when it comes to important science based ecology decisions.
To make your concerns heard is good. But I suggest if you really care about a species you should do some serious research. Inform yourself to find out if the harvesting is possibly a good thing for the overal environment and even the species itself.
Without that research you should at least be honest enough to say you are not informed well enough to have good advice on the suject.
I am definately not informed enough on the bobcat situation to have anything close to a reasonable opinion on the subject. I am sure the proper approach to this issue varies a great deal depending on the specific area in question.
|
|
Tan Slacks
climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 03:04pm PT
|
We have a bunch of chickens and in kind, we have a bunch of bobcats. I'd say over the last ten years we have fed the bobcats over thirty chickens!
We have a fenced in chicken house, but we like to let them out on sunny days. At first we just let them run around, then we lost our first chicken to our cat. So then we always let the dog watch the chickens while they roamed. That worked for awhile until we watched the bobcat grab the chicken from right next to the dog. So then .... we would stay out when the chickens roamed figuring that no bobcat would challenge us. Boy were we wrong, that bobcat would walk right up to me winked, yawned and then run off with another chicken. One day the bobcat took the chicken up our cottonwood... see the pictures and just ate it right there in front of me.
Never ever did we consider trapping or hurting the bobcats. Signed the petition some time ago
Thanks Scott for posting it here
|
|
ncrockclimber
climber
The Desert Oven
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
|
I will ask a serious question of the folks that advocate for the various wildlife management plans that require massive amounts of selected killing of specific species; how did these species and ecosystems work before man came on the scene?
The argument, as I understand it, is that species like wolves or bobcats or whatever would, without the intervention of man, would quickly overpopulate and send the entire ecosystem into chaos and decline. To me, it seems odd that all these ecosystems survived for 1000s of years without man's systematic intervention, and that now it is imperative for us to actively manage selected populations.
I am not being facetious here; will some please give me a reasoned explanation as to how this is supposed to work.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 03:16pm PT
|
I guess we killed the wolves when we moved in, so now we are the wolves.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 03:23pm PT
|
NC rock
It's just the basic predator prey population relationship model. Something generally introduced in any basic biology course. Then expended upon in great detail if one goes deeper into the natural sciences.
Such that as predator population reaches a climax you tend to get a crash in prey populations which is then followed by starvation and disease in predators.
Then prey booms and it can face similar problems.
And the cycle then repeats.
From a purely humane point of view massive numbers of starvation and disease deaths are better off avoided.
Especially it is good to avoid population extremes that create a hotbed for disease evolution. As from time to time these may cross over into human populations.
Good management can help reduce these peaks and valleys of population extremes and the accompanied disease and starvation deaths.
Generally it's not a matter of survival of a species. But the argument that it is more humane and safer than an unharvested situation can be readily made.
Another way of looking at it is that man is a part of the natural world. He is naturally intelligent and capable of being a positive predatory variable in ecology.
|
|
ncrockclimber
climber
The Desert Oven
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 03:37pm PT
|
Ron, yes that is clear. I asked a simple and honest question. Why the dicky and condescending response?
cs2, that makes sense, but doesn't the "boom / bust" cycle serve a purpose? I mean, it worked well for a long time before we came along. Does the fact that the boom / bust is not good for hunting drive any of the decision making?
I am not 100% anti hunting, but have always suspected that a lot of the management plans were put in place so that there were enough deer and other trophy animals around for hunters to kill.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 03:40pm PT
|
Most certainly land managers take into account the users of the land and are generally mandated to provide for hunting and trapping.
Fortunately this can dovetail nicely into good population management.
One might say that mistakes are made from time to time.. Infact one could argue that mistakes are ALWAYS made. Yet it seems to me that a little mistake from proactive policies is better than a major mistake from no policies.
One result that can arguably be made for allowing boom bust cycles is that it may increase evolutionary selection thus more rapid adjustment to changing environments.
Even for humans diseases may increase the species survival long term.
Harsh but true.
A tough balance with endlessly debatable priorities and outcomes.
But uneducated uninformed opinion does not seem to be in anyway a productive way to make these important decisions.
|
|
ncrockclimber
climber
The Desert Oven
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 10:20pm PT
|
NP Ron. I do appreciate your response. You present a reasonable argument.
For me, it comes down to two issues. One is that it seems that when we (humans) try to alter or augment the natural order, we often cause many unintended consequences and make things worse in the long run. Nature, like most extremely complex systems does a good job of self regulating and doesn't seem to need our help.
The other issue is that the scale of destruction of wildlife (like what is shown on the trapping website linked above) is just disgusting to me. I know that nature is cruel, and I get all the arguments that start with the question "do you know what a slaughterhouse looks like?" However, apex predators, like bobcats, are having their habitats destroyed at an astounding rate. Sure there are lots of wild places still left in the west, but they are becoming fewer by the day. Despite the argument that this killing is helping to "manage" the populations, is seems like they are having a hard enough time finding a place to live without any more of our "help." The "management" arguments remind me of the classic quote from the Vietnam war about Ben Tre: "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
CS2 and Ron, thanks again for your responses.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 11:23pm PT
|
However, apex predators, like bobcats, are having their habitats destroyed at an astounding rate.
We ARE the apex predator!
And the United States, especially the west is an astoundingly empty place.
Just stop randomly on about any highway and walk for fifteen minutes perpendicular to the road, anywhere from the Mississippi to the San Bernardinos.
Other than isolated urban pockets, more wildlife than human.
Closer to home, keep driving past 29 on 62 on any weekday and tell me how many cars you see in an hour?
|
|
MisterE
Social climber
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 11:29pm PT
|
Ron Anderson, you used to be OK - Skip and I were talking about you the other night.
Not so much anymore. Something in you has changed and become angry, abrasive and confrontational.
I understand injuries can get one pissed off, but you have undergone a very fundamental change in your behavior on-line in the last couple of years.
It is sad to me, I liked you at one time.
Erik
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
Feb 20, 2013 - 11:38pm PT
|
Bobcats do seem to be plentiful. We have them here roaming the UConn Medical Center campus. One walked across the road 30 yards from me a few months ago. Didn't seem the least bit shy, broad daylight, she/he sat down near the curb, licked itself a few times, then just sauntered away. Pretty damn cool.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|