#46
|
|||
|
|||
the words wolf (cougar) (in most places but perhaps not everywhere bear) and management creates a bit of an oxymoron at least as "management" is typically used. Most apex predators very effectively self regulate their populations.
There is no state in the lower 48 where an apex predator is anywhere near its ecological capacity or even a level where it can actively fullfill it's niche as a regulator on other species. I think this is also true for most of Alaska where predators are agressively killed to prop up ungulate populations for hunters. Consider the eastern U.S.: if state game officials really wanted to slow down the ecosystem destruction underway due to the overpopulation of deer they could and should be trying to actively reintroduce, at a miminum, cougars if not eastern timber wolves from Ontario (interestingly coy wolves - often a mix of timber wolf, coyote and dog are evolving into a larger canid species capable of taking down deer). Chronic wasting disease in ungulates, and spreading to domestic stock; the tick explosion and lyme disease - there's a whole laundry list of the bad unintended consequences of our historic "predator management" which treats anything we don't like to eat or that potentially interferes with the domestic production of cattle and ship gets "managed' as vermin. You might argue that introducing cougars into the populous east coast would create a risk to human life, but cougars walk among all of us who use the outdoors in from the rocky mountains west to the Pacific ocean with very little human user/cougar conflict. Our limbic systems retain eons old fear of predators from a different time; a time when man actually competed with other predators for food and probably did have more adverse interactions. But the current reality is far different. But our agrarian focused approach to wildlife management still lingers on with far too strong a hold on state agencies. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
We don't have any wolves coming back here but the Coyotes have really moved in and the bears are moving back in too.
I don't hunt, I do like to fish. Fishing is kind of futile sometimes in that the fish are all full of Mercury. So far my view on the impact is just that the Coyotes are keeping the balance of deer way back towards normal and that's just fine. My deer sightings are WAY down since I started sighting Coyotes locally. Hunters can't take deer in the suburban areas but Coyotes can. (There are blocks of land where you can hunt in my town FWIW but it's mostly too developed.) I did see 10+ deer once this spring all in one sighting, that's the only time I've seen them this year. I used to see them almost every day I was out road cycling. It would be extremely rare to see less than 20 in a week all year round. I don't see anything wrong with states allowing more lenient hunting techniques/equipment when a population is getting out of control. Hunting is nowhere near as popular as it used to be and it seems like even with relaxed rules and incentives sometimes there are not enough hunters to bring things back under control. New Hampshire (I lived there for quite a while) has had an exploding Black Bear population to the point they are getting a little out of control and dangerous. No one has wanted to fund wildlife control and the state has basically kept having to lower the limits on what is allowed with respect to hunting and it just has not worked. The bears just keep outreproducing whatever the hunters manage to take. IIRC bear baiting and hunting with dogs has been legal for some time and hasn't helped. There's a lot of perspective that if the bears get too populous they're going to be far more obnoxious & dangerous than wolves. This whole thing of running a business on the federal wild lands is very complicated.. one thing to keep in mind is most of us especially in the East do not live in states where the Feds "own" almost all the land. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
A very interesting OT thread!
I learned a few things I would not have know otherwise being a city slicker myself. when i first thought about it, my initial question was: is it legal for a farm owner to shoot a wolf on his property if he perceives it is a threat to his livestock, but i never considered that the farmer may be using public land on a use lease to feed his animals, which certainly complicates the question. anyway, good to hear different perspectives from different areas. enhances the conversation, and it is nice that is is mostly civil. |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What's not often mentioned is that a lot of the land used by ranchers is actually owned by the federal government. Too many deer? Worried about Lyme disease, your vegetables, your flowers, your car? Well, that's what you get for killing off the wolves, coyotes, cougars, etc., down to miniscule percentages of their historical populations. Other species are suffering the same fate - birds, frogs... We return now to your regularly scheduled
__________________
It's not an adventure until something goes wrong. - Yvon C. Last edited by reuben; 05-06-2021 at 02:28 PM. |
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
NJ: Population 8.9 million people, 8.7 thousand sq miles, ~1022 residents/sq mile (0 wild wolves, 0 wild wolves per sq mile) ID: Population 1.8 million people, 83.6 thousand sq miles, ~21 residents/sq mile (1,556 wild wolves, 0.02 wolves per sq mile) Fragmentation results from a number of factors, but the most deadly, perhaps in both states, is development: homes and highways. Another problem is perception of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA only says when the population of animals is critically low to cause extinction. It does not say what a healthy population is or even if being delisted means that the population is healthy or sustainable. Not only do apex predators control ungulates, but they require large areas and corridors so that there is a trickle-down effect in conservation. When the apex predators are protected, any other species that uses a part of that biome is benefitted. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
I mentioned being OK with relaxing hunting rules if things are out of control.
Note I was not implying Idaho is overflowing with wolves and they're out of control. Who knows how many wolves it takes for it to get to the point hunters can't even hope to control their numbers with normal rules.. it doesn't seem any part of the US is anywhere near that. 1500 Wolves in Idaho seems like nothing... 1500 wolves in a state as big as Idaho seems like nothing. Our black bear density is 10x that in New England, but Wolves seem to have a reputation problem that bears maybe deserve and just don't seem to have. edit: Regarding Lyme.. haven't seen a tick once since the Coyotes arrived either. I'm still super paranoid about them but they seem way down since the deer became scarce. Last edited by benb; 05-06-2021 at 02:40 PM. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
yep. In part why we are pushing a federal widlife corridors act (and state acts - passed in Virginia, resolution pending in Pa, passed. (twice in New Hampshire). This is my daily bread of policy work: https://wildlandsnetwork.org/policy/
Quote:
|
#53
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Thread drift ... One of the things that is coming out of what has recently been labelled the climate crisis, is that the fastest way forward is to put a price on greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent units. For example, methane is many times more amplifying of climate warming than carbon dioxide, so its price would be a multiplier. The only place in the US that has put a price on carbon dioxide in the US is California through cap and trade. The advantage of doing this is that, immediately, banks can estimate risk and cost associated with climate change. The European Central Bank has included the cost of biodiversity in its climate guidance, but a similar pricing scheme has not been developed |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The two ends of the spectrum: Nev-85% Utah-65% New York-.03% Iowa - .03% Maybe, just maybe, people out west have a justified reason for feeling like they do? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
coyote
Live in RI on a cove within Narragansett Bay. We have viewed coyotes within 30 feet of us (we behind fence) and the eaten leftovers of a Canadian goose in our driveway. Here is probably the guilty party And we live in densely populated area (as most of shoreline is).
IMG_4841.jpg Last edited by buddybikes; 05-06-2021 at 04:13 PM. Reason: picture |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Seriously though, the wilderness is what it is...if you go there, be prepared and knowledgeable and you will be fine. More people die in the wilderness from getting lost or other stupidity (e.g. taking selfies at the Grand Canyon) than are eaten by animals. I am around the most dangerous predators on the planet everyday....well, at least I was pre-COVID.....and I never feel the need to carry a gun. Depending on where you are, I do not wholeheartedly disagree with this. Fishing remote rivers in Alaska or Montana, where surprising a grizzly could be bad news. A gun makes sense...see "be prepared" above. With mountain lions though, if they are healthy, you never see them coming. My bad....I was being snarky. Sorry. Most animals (including grizzlies, black bear, cougar, wolves, etc) make a point of avoiding humans. Surprising them, getting between them and cubs or food is another matter. The reality is, animal attacks are humans are incredibly rare (What animals kill the most humans) Wolves kill about 10 per year (#14). Grizzly, black bear and cougar don't even make the this list!
__________________
2003 CSi / Legend Ti / Seven 622 SLX |
|
|