Post by: JuryRig on April 13, 2012, 02:44:24 PM
Research: Less Major Predators, More Large Herbivores Harms Ecosystems, Diversity
http://www.cbbulletin.com/419340.aspx
Here's a great quote:
It also concludes that human hunting, due to its limited duration and impact, is not effective in preventing hyper-abundant densities of large herbivores. This is partly “because hunting by humans is often not functionally equivalent to predation by large, wide-ranging carnivores such as wolves,” the researchers wrote in their report.
So the problem with hunting is that we have seasonal, limited taking of game animals. Got that? So if WDFW got rid of seasons and license requirements, we wouldn't need wolves? The science says so. :rolleyes:
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 13, 2012, 03:02:04 PM
Post by: humanure on April 13, 2012, 03:34:37 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 13, 2012, 03:39:53 PM
Post by: wraithen on April 13, 2012, 03:52:30 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 13, 2012, 04:11:05 PM
So let hunters hunt as they please would be the fix? Where's the science to back that claim up? Serioulsy, not trying to talk smack. If your going to make that claim, please explain how it is a better route. Also, how are you going to regulate what and how people are hunting with that kind've leeway? I'm sorry, but I fear more for the herds at the idea of a limitless hunting season than wolves, cougar and bear.You can use history if you'd like. Back in the day, humans (~1/5 the population too, 1900) had little to no regulations regarding hunting and killed off the game to the point of deer/elk almost being eliminated. Pretty much the catalyst for national parks, forest reserves, hunting seasons, game departments, sportsmans movement, etc. Humans can be much more effective than woofs. Reasons they don't seem to be is they aren't allowed to be--short seasons, daylight only, no aircraft, etc. If there really are problems with herd overpopulation, humans could easily handle the job....woofs aren't necessary, nice for some to have but not necessary.
Post by: whuppinstick on April 13, 2012, 04:41:00 PM
Here's the "science" behind wolf reintroduction:
What science are you contesting from the article? It all seemed pretty straight-forward to me: ecosystems suffer when there is an overabundance of ungulates and predators play an important role keeping them in check, which helps keep the ecosystem healthy.
I did not see this as an anti-hunting. The hunting quote you pulled specified that hunting is not sufficient in "hyper-abundant" populations. Do we have any deer/elk hyper-abundance in Washington? To me, this means places like back east where the limit is a deer-a-day and they still can't kill enough of them? No argument there that hunting is not sufficient. But the paper (or at least the summary we are reading) is not saying that hunting should or shouldn't be expanded; it's taking hunting as it stands now (limited to fall seasons) and then how a predator integrates into that system.
JimmyHoffa raises a good point, which is that humans probably could do the job of the wolves, but that is beyond the scope of the study you linked. The linked study compiled the results of 42 other studies to reach their conclusions. So by definition, this study is nothing new. :)
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2012, 08:51:54 AM
So let hunters hunt as they please would be the fix? Where's the science to back that claim up? Serioulsy, not trying to talk smack. If your going to make that claim, please explain how it is a better route. Also, how are you going to regulate what and how people are hunting with that kind've leeway? I'm sorry, but I fear more for the herds at the idea of a limitless hunting season than wolves, cougar and bear.You can use history if you'd like. Back in the day, humans (~1/5 the population too, 1900) had little to no regulations regarding hunting and killed off the game to the point of deer/elk almost being eliminated. Pretty much the catalyst for national parks, forest reserves, hunting seasons, game departments, sportsmans movement, etc. Humans can be much more effective than woofs. Reasons they don't seem to be is they aren't allowed to be--short seasons, daylight only, no aircraft, etc. If there really are problems with herd overpopulation, humans could easily handle the job....woofs aren't necessary, nice for some to have but not necessary.
And you have to remember that it was hunters who passed the regulations necessary to bring that game back from near extinction to their abundant levels today, through the Lacey Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and The Wildlife Restoration Act (Pittman Robertson). Wolves were killed off after the conservation movement began because they competed with man for both game and his livelihood. Man has replaced the wolf in our ecosystems as the top predator. And, if the ungulate populations are too high, I suggest more tags be given out. There are never more elk or deer than we can kill.
Post by: xsf1 on April 16, 2012, 11:40:20 AM
Post by: Humptulips on April 16, 2012, 05:03:41 PM
I'm excited for the hunting season that will come eventually, that would be awesome to go out and kill a Wolfe. Imagine hunting a pack!
I wouldn't hold my breath for that. That is going to be a long time coming.
Post by: humanure on April 16, 2012, 07:59:10 PM
Man has replaced the wolf in our ecosystems as the top predator.
How is that idea natural? Man does not know everything, we learn as we go and some knowledge is shown to have been false. How can we honestly(and gloatingly) say we have replaced a key-stone predator and assume that we can do a better, no, a sufficient job? You do realize there are alot of hunters who could care less about the ecosystem? Man is not infallable. Infact, man is a very flawed species. We trip over our own dicks all the time and try to act like we meant to do it. What I'm saying is, YOU guys might have well meaning idea's, but the rest of the hunting world probably doesn't feel the same. Some are out there just to shoot something and don't care what it is or if it's ethical. We need to regulate ourselves.
Post by: 724wd on April 17, 2012, 11:39:14 AM
Man has replaced the wolf in our ecosystems as the top predator.
How is that idea natural? Man does not know everything, we learn as we go and some knowledge is shown to have been false. How can we honestly(and gloatingly) say we have replaced a key-stone predator and assume that we can do a better, no, a sufficient job? You do realize there are alot of hunters who could care less about the ecosystem? Man is not infallable. Infact, man is a very flawed species. We trip over our own dicks all the time and try to act like we meant to do it. What I'm saying is, YOU guys might have well meaning idea's, but the rest of the hunting world probably doesn't feel the same. Some are out there just to shoot something and don't care what it is or if it's ethical. We need to regulate ourselves.
What do you think hunting seasons and bag limits are, if not regulations we've placed on ourselves? with the proliferation of people, moving west, building cities, farming... we've changed the landscape. for wolves to come back as THE apex predator, man would have to vacate the land. man has superior firepower, superior intellect (when's the last time you saw a wolf build a microchip?), superior numbers. and it's the numbers that are at issue here. in a state a populous as washington, is there "room" for wolves? what happens once wolves find much easier pickings in the suburbs of seattle or spokane, with little fear of man (since they can't be hunted), how long before a child gets nabbed off a soccer field or a high school cross country runner never makes it to the finish line?
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2012, 11:45:18 AM
As far as the study is concerned, it seems obvious that its "scientific data" was compiled by someone with an agenda. You can prove anything you set out to prove and it's clear that is the case with this "study". It is clear from the ridiculous argument about overpopulated wildlife. We could solve that problem within a week or two with firearms. The idiots doing the study use this as a reason to justify tolerating wolves.
Post by: humanure on April 17, 2012, 12:23:06 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 17, 2012, 12:30:21 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2012, 12:54:55 PM
I've wrestled with this idea for a while and I have to agree that hunting alone is not adequate management for ungulates in our altered systems. Hunting, coupled with hazing and more consistant pressure would maybe do it. Hunting seasons in the fall don't manipulate wildlife movements and create the necessay instability that wolves do. People laugh about the wolves helping the riparian zones, but I can see that being quite possible. It would require more frequent hazing and movement year 'round for people to replicate that.
But this so-called study is what we're concerned with here. The study makes the assumption that man can't manage populations levels enough to bring wildlife down to healthy levels. That's pure BS and it comes from an agenda. Given enough tags, we would kill enough animals.
Whether or not wolves are necessary is another discussion altogether. This specific article is the discussion and because of its slant, has marginal if any value of scientific nature.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 17, 2012, 01:49:33 PM
I still think that people could control the ungulates however needed if they are willing to--either overall numbers or constant pressure, the 'system' is designed to NOT allow it. If WDFW really wanted constant pressure on the animals, they could stagger permits for an area that allowed for year round hunting... Or allow helicopter hunting (like for hogs in other states), I'd be willing to bet there would be plenty of hunters flying around pushing the elk into the deep timber. Or if they wanted numbers to drop, they could sell more permits/extend the season--like they are doing in Winston with all the new anterless permits.
I don't deny that woofs can reduce numbers and haze, but have to agree with others that people can manage the ungulates and land without woofs if the WANT to.
Post by: humanure on April 17, 2012, 06:14:11 PM
I've wrestled with this idea for a while and I have to agree that hunting alone is not adequate management for ungulates in our altered systems. Hunting, coupled with hazing and more consistant pressure would maybe do it. Hunting seasons in the fall don't manipulate wildlife movements and create the necessay instability that wolves do. People laugh about the wolves helping the riparian zones, but I can see that being quite possible. It would require more frequent hazing and movement year 'round for people to replicate that.
But this so-called study is what we're concerned with here. The study makes the assumption that man can't manage populations levels enough to bring wildlife down to healthy levels. That's pure BS and it comes from an agenda. Given enough tags, we would kill enough animals.
Whether or not wolves are necessary is another discussion altogether. This specific article is the discussion and because of its slant, has marginal if any value of scientific nature.
Agenda or not, the study is there. You guys don't have an agenda with your studies? That's news to me.
It's not just killing enough animals, there is NOTHING simple about balance and the health of the eco-system. There are variables that go into how the wild works, and we will NEVER be able to fully understand it, nor will we ever come close to replicating it.
Post by: dreamunelk on April 17, 2012, 08:11:49 PM
http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/Ripple_Beschta_large_predators.pdf
Once you have read this paper if you know anything at all you should check the literature cited to verify how good that information is or if it is a little twisted around or even misused.. I am familiar with some of the papers and all I can say is "HORSE POOP".
Check the paper by Shriener et al. 1996. I have great difficulty excepting that trees falling and creating an enclosure is evidence of ungulate over grazing and should be used as evidence that wolves are needed. should this have been used as data?
http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/refugia.pdf
Or maybe they can find the flaws in this paper by the same authors as this questionable paper?
http://www.cof.orst.edu/leopold/papers/2008%20Beschta%20&%20Ripple,%20Olympic%20trophic%20cascades.pdf
Often a paper will pass peer review and get published because the methods are sound. They trust that the data was collected correctly. In many cases a paper will get published that was not subject to a local review. Thus they can get away with an apples to oranges comparison.
Also most papers are just a start of research into a big picture and are narrowly focused. In papers such as these they are written by people with a very narrow focus. For example these authors also blame elk for channel migration in rivers. If you actually new anything about fish and wildlife ecology. The big picture! You would know this is horse poop and that channel migration is a good thing since areas where channel migration occurs is also the areas of the highest density of salmon and steelhead reds. Channel migration is caused by many other factors and even the lowly unappreciated beaver can cause it, not to mention a tree falling, floods events, and soil type and or all the above. Also ungulates are disturbance capitalists and benefit from disturbances. Finally many ungulates are often considered a key stone species. Thus they can affect there environment to benefit them selves. And often many others. And guess what, they east plants so yes it will look different if they are not there!
Humanure your quote, "It's not just killing enough animals, there is NOTHING simple about balance and the health of the eco-system. There are variables that go into how the wild works, and we will NEVER be able to fully understand it, nor will we ever come close to replicating it." Just proves your ignorance. Balance is a term not used in any modern Wildlife ecology book except to explain why it should not be use. The answer is simple. People like you do not know what it means. Please explain "Health of the eco-system? Do you know what it means? Is the ecosystem unhealthy? Do you know what an ecosystem is? How do you determine that is unhealthy? What measures would you use?
I recommend everyone read the following links. Perhaps it will sink in who the real enemy of the environment is..
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/another-round-conservation-on-a-human-shaped-planet/
http://breakthroughjournal.org/content/authors/peter-kareiva-robert-lalasz-an-1/conservation-in-the-anthropoce.shtml
Not that I do not have some issues with the above recommended reading but, I do think they are very thought provoking especially considering the individual.
Post by: humanure on April 17, 2012, 08:29:10 PM
And I don't know what book's you've read, but I more than once read books by biologists referring wolves, bears and cougars as 'keystone predators' because of the balance they create.
Post by: humanure on April 17, 2012, 08:35:37 PM
And I don't pretend to know everything. My words are just opinions and theories, just like all of yours.