Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Do you think that the long term ecological damage caused by exterminating predators or holding them well below their natural pop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    their natural level is the level they would be at if we were not mucking things up.

    For predators, this number is mostly determined by the relationship to their prey species.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ed J
    replied
    What is their natural level?

    Leave a comment:


  • bonnier-admin_2
    replied
    Think Kaibab!

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    Idahooutdoors and isawooa-

    Do you agree with the following statement?

    Holding predator populations below their natural levels causes prey populations to rise above their natural levels. The prey then overgraze, taking food and habitat from other species and lowering the ecosystem's biodiversity.

    If you're interested I can cite a few papers on the subject that have been published in peer refereed academic journals.

    Leave a comment:


  • shane
    replied
    Why shouldn't we allow grizzlies to re-occupy their original range? I'm for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • ishawooa
    replied
    I believe that it goes without saying that my grizzly rant was nothing more than an effort at being facetious. In reality idahooutdoors presents a very logical picture of predator control and sometimes the lack thereof in the west. Oddly enough we see the elk moving back onto the flat and low meadows in an effort to calve. This type of ground offers them a bit more of a safety zone although the wolves definately locate them as I can personally attest from watching numerous encounters. Unfortunately several formerly primo elk areas in NW Wyoming are not being considered for a decrease from 250 total tags to 100. Additionally there is a proposal that archery hunters will only be able to hunt with their equipment during designated seasons. The reason for the alterations in these areas is due to the low numbers of calves born each recent spring as well as survival rate due to wolf depredation and the stress imposed by the pack on the herd. Before the early nineties this was not a problem. The overall picture is gloomy for the big game, the hunter, and the local economy. The wolf is just being a wolf. Proper management, not eradication, is the only answer that I can envision and it is not presently in place.

    Leave a comment:


  • idahooutdoors
    replied
    I can see holding them below natural levels through hunting in areas adjacent to towns and ranches for safety sake. I don't think it is a practice that is in place for safety reasons in the wild areas, say 5+ miles from private ground. In some areas such as here in Idaho, game managers attempt to reduce predator #'s to increase Elk survival rates, as many of the places elk now habitat offer little chance of escape for new born calves and calving cows from bears, cougars etc... I think as long as predator #'s are kept at healthy levels for breeding etc... like we currently have, then I don't see any problems. Where we live we often have problem cats, bears, and now wolves that venture into town that I believe have to be dealt with for safety reasons, no one wants lions in the bushes of their yards. The main reason we get predators in town is do to easy prey from the large amount of deer, pets, livestock, etc.. and also do to healthy populations of predators on public ground forcing often young predators to seek out new territory. I could see needing predators close to town if for instance they were an endangered species and humans recently encroached into the area, but to allow non-endangered species to populate areas close in and around towns and homes is unsafe and unwise.

    Where we often disagree Ken is when it comes to lowering predator #'s to increase sportsman's opportunities. I am of the belief that as long as you are not damaging their long term survival, and maintain a healthy # for reproduction, then I am for having lower #'s of predators if we gain larger Elk and Deer herds creating better hunter opportunities. Hunting provides $$ for local communities that have had their economies crushed during the last 30 years from the reduction in logging and mill jobs. I wish we could just leave mother nature to run her course, but unfortunately man has been a part of the natural cycle for 1000's of years, and I like the fact that through the hard work and $'s spent by sportsman Idaho has more wild game and sportsman's opportunities today than it did when Lewis and Clark ventured through 200 years ago.

    Leave a comment:


  • bonnier-admin_2
    replied
    People go backpacking in Denali State Park Alaska with very little problems unarmed.

    There is a serious difference of “WILD” animals in isolated and semiisolated areas compared to “WILD” animals around humans!

    Go figure!

    Leave a comment:


  • ishawooa
    replied
    I think that for about a century the small packs of gray wolves that existed in the Northern Rockies did nothing but improve the ecology as well as the enhance the survival of the herds of various big game animals. This is totally divergent from the situation we witness today in that the big game herds are daily being harrassed by these alien killers who know no season. If you participated in similiar activity you would soon serve time in prison. Ken I appreciate your previously stated opposite opinion on this matter but still stand by mine. Another suggestion I would like to throw out is to ask each of you to examine the original habitat of the grizzly bear prior to 1900. I suggest that we all pull togather to see that these magnificent animals are reintroduced back into their entire ecological community of yesteryear to lend balance to those neglected portions of our country. Its too bad that things might become unsafe in western Kansas and Nebraska, the Dakotas, Denver, Sante Fe, Sacramento, Redding, and many other locales. We must put those bears back where they belong. Since there is a shortage of bears in the Rockies, I only see 20 or 30 grizzleys a year, we need to import more from Canada and Alaska to occupy the cities and countryside. How else will we reestablish the grizzly's original and rightful place in America? If it works for wolves then it should be mandatory for grizzly bears. Call your congressmen for support and send in your money to help the bears return to the land of their forefathers. The outdoors is not always safe, that's part of what makes it so appealing. God bless the wilderness and keep it wild.

    Leave a comment:


  • Do you think that the long term ecological damage caused by exterminating predators or holding them well below their natural pop

    Do you think that the long term ecological damage caused by exterminating predators or holding them well below their natural population size is justified by the marginal increase in the "safety" of the outdoors? are the outdoors even supposed to be "safe"?

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X