Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth

[9thIDdoc]

You have NOT done so and you continue to ignore the fact Man has in fact replaced "apex predators" over much of the US and that many species have thrived because of it. Your imagination does not trump reality.

So I post 5 links backing up my argument, yet you still refuse to see. And you were wondering why I was not in a rush to provide evidence. Nope, it doesn't work this way. Either provide evidence of your own, or discuss and debate mine, or this conversation is over.

I refuse to debate with people who demand evidence and then refuse to acknowledge it when it's provided.

And to those of you so concerned with "winning" debates, when evidence is provided and it's ignored with continuous "it's this way because I say so" posts, that's generally considered a concession

That would be a fine response were it not for the fact that your links do not support your argument. Again your argument remains 'because I say so'.

 

[DarkLion]

Seems to me that you are the only one with difficulty understanding predator/prey relationships.

I suppose the scientists who conducted the studies in my links don't understand predator/prey relationships, either?

Making judgments about the effects of changes in the biosphere is entirely a subjective matter. Eating venison that might otherwise have fed a possibly dangerous wolf seems like a great thing instead of a fuckup to me. And my opinion is as valid as yours.

And yet, my opinion is based in scientific fact and yours is based on emotion. My opinion is based on more than just the venison, the deer, and the wolf. Yours in extremely short sighted.

Have you also never considered for a moment that I, and my scientific studies, may be right?

 

[DarkLion]

That would be a fine response were it not for the fact that your links do not support your argument. Again your argument remains 'because I say so'.

In what way do they not?!

I was familiar with two of these studies long before I posted them here, and my opinions are influenced by them. Tell me, in depth, how they run contrary to what I have said

 

[FA_Q2]

Because I like people.

Compelling argument, that.

You want to control people

Actually, I'd prefer they control themselves. I barely have the energy to control what I can in my own life, let alone the lives of others. Is asking for education and the elimination of as much poverty as possible really that bad?



Actually, one could argue that increased population size has exacerbated these issues.

The difference, of course, is that we have PROGRESSED technologically which, coincidentally, also requires population growth.

Same here too. Increased technology means increased risk. During the days of the black plague it was very unlikely an epidemic could make it off a continent and threat the entire species, and weapons that could destroy the world completely were not even conceived of. Both are real dangers now. Thanks to technology.

We will extend outward from this tiny little planet eventually and bring life to completely dead planets. What you don’t realize is that humanity in all its glory IS beautiful. Extremely so and I would not trade humanity in its current state for some more clumps of trees and lions.

You would and that really makes me think that you are insane. No natural species limits its own population so that others can take their place, the very thought is unnatural in of itself.

No, that is insanity, to willfully destroy the only known planet in which we can survive for science-fiction pipe dreams. It's funny, vertical farming was decried as fantasy and yet terraforming entire planets is being used to debunk the very real problems we are facing and will continue to face.

Finding ways to conserve land for farming to feed more people: bad, evil, and the stuff of science fiction

Allowing earth and its inhabitants to be slowly consumed and destroyed: oh, that's fine because we'll just terraform an entirely dead planet when we need to

Interesting dichotomy.

Looks again.
Nope, didn’t say any of that bullshit that you just tried to toss on me. Also said that we need to keep this planet functioning well also. Nothing about destroying it at all.

You are the one that seems to think that we cannot do so at current and future populations. I think that we not only can but we will thrive. Anyone that thinks we will never expand to the stars is also ignorant of technological advance. Hundred years ago, the sky was unreachable and the moon was a pipe dream. Today, easy as pie.

 

[FA_Q2]

And I don’t think we are going to expand as a function of a dead planet. We are going to because that is what people (and all living things) do. They expand until they can no longer do so and when they hit that barrier, they try and evolve to expand more.

 

[Montrovant]

Because I like people.

Compelling argument, that.



Actually, I'd prefer they control themselves. I barely have the energy to control what I can in my own life, let alone the lives of others. Is asking for education and the elimination of as much poverty as possible really that bad?



Actually, one could argue that increased population size has exacerbated these issues.



Same here too. Increased technology means increased risk. During the days of the black plague it was very unlikely an epidemic could make it off a continent and threat the entire species, and weapons that could destroy the world completely were not even conceived of. Both are real dangers now. Thanks to technology.

We will extend outward from this tiny little planet eventually and bring life to completely dead planets. What you don’t realize is that humanity in all its glory IS beautiful. Extremely so and I would not trade humanity in its current state for some more clumps of trees and lions.

You would and that really makes me think that you are insane. No natural species limits its own population so that others can take their place, the very thought is unnatural in of itself.

No, that is insanity, to willfully destroy the only known planet in which we can survive for science-fiction pipe dreams. It's funny, vertical farming was decried as fantasy and yet terraforming entire planets is being used to debunk the very real problems we are facing and will continue to face.

Finding ways to conserve land for farming to feed more people: bad, evil, and the stuff of science fiction

Allowing earth and its inhabitants to be slowly consumed and destroyed: oh, that's fine because we'll just terraform an entirely dead planet when we need to

Interesting dichotomy.

Looks again.
Nope, didn’t say any of that bullshit that you just tried to toss on me. Also said that we need to keep this planet functioning well also. Nothing about destroying it at all.

You are the one that seems to think that we cannot do so at current and future populations. I think that we not only can but we will thrive. Anyone that thinks we will never expand to the stars is also ignorant of technological advance. Hundred years ago, the sky was unreachable and the moon was a pipe dream. Today, easy as pie.

Hey, I'm a big sci-fi fan and wish I could live long enough to see terraforming done. That said, the moon is not 'easy as pie'. When did we last go to the moon?

It's also entirely possible that we will never expand 'to the stars'. To other planets in our solar system, sure. But unless we find a way to greatly exceed or circumvent the speed of light and the theoretical issues with matter traveling at that speed, we will not expand very far.

I do think we can continue at the current population for quite some time, but I don't know how far we can expand the population before it becomes a real problem.

 

[DarkLion]

At least you admit the world has a maximum capacity limit. That is progress. How much more would say it will take before it's reached? 9 billion? 10 billion?

Those numbers are not that far off

 

[Lonestar_logic]

As you yourself said earlier, just saying so doesn't make it so. Are you going to provide evidence or support for your outrageous ideas or is talking fantasy all you're able to do? What happened to wanting to debate ideas?

I gave what I get. Thus far, all anyone has had to say is "I can replace natural predators because I say so". As I have been saying all along, predators contribute more than just numbers on a chalkboard. See here:

Predation can have far-reaching effects on biological communities. A starfish is the top predator upon a community of invertebrates inhabiting tidally inundated rock faces in the Pacific Northwest. The rest of the community included mollusks, barnacles and other invertebrates, for a total of 12 species (not counting microscopic taxa). The investigator removed the starfish by hand, which of course reduced the number of species to 11.

Soon, an acorn barnacle and a mussel began to occupy virtually all available space, out competing other species. Species diversity dropped from more than 12 species to essentially 2. The starfish was a keystone predator, keeping the strongest competitors in check. Although it was a predator, it helped to maintain a greater number of species in the community. Its beneficial impact on species that were weak competitors is an example of an indirect effect.

When non-native species (exotics) invade an area, they often create "domino" effects, causing many other species to increase or decrease. The rainbow trout, beautiful, tasty, and beloved by anglers, has been purposefully spread to virtually all parts of the world where it can survive. In New Zealand, it has out-competed the native fishes, which now are found only above waterfalls that act as barriers to trout dispersal. Because it is a more effective predator than the native fish species, the invertebrates that are prey to the trout are reduced in abundance wherever trout occur. Algae, which are grazed by the invertebrates, increase because of reduced grazing pressure. This is an example of a trophic cascade.

Predator-Prey Relationships

See in the first part how the removal of what the article calls the "keystone predator" had an impact on biodiversity and most notably, the lesser predators. We are experiencing the exact same thing in regards to foxes and coyotes. The removal of wolves and cougars has caused their populations to explode, and they are ranging far beyond what has normally been considered their natural range. It was an indirect effect wolves had, because their larger ranges meant fewer territories for coyotes, and thus fewer breeding opportunities. The effects of removing them are obvious.

The second half is a great example of humans fucking up an ecosystem for their own enjoyment.

That's a contradiction.

The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.

Another contradiction.

Larger range size means less territory?

It's sad that you actually believe that nonsense.

 

[jon_berzerk]

As you yourself said earlier, just saying so doesn't make it so. Are you going to provide evidence or support for your outrageous ideas or is talking fantasy all you're able to do? What happened to wanting to debate ideas?

I gave what I get. Thus far, all anyone has had to say is "I can replace natural predators because I say so". As I have been saying all along, predators contribute more than just numbers on a chalkboard. See here:

Predation can have far-reaching effects on biological communities. A starfish is the top predator upon a community of invertebrates inhabiting tidally inundated rock faces in the Pacific Northwest. The rest of the community included mollusks, barnacles and other invertebrates, for a total of 12 species (not counting microscopic taxa). The investigator removed the starfish by hand, which of course reduced the number of species to 11.

Soon, an acorn barnacle and a mussel began to occupy virtually all available space, out competing other species. Species diversity dropped from more than 12 species to essentially 2. The starfish was a keystone predator, keeping the strongest competitors in check. Although it was a predator, it helped to maintain a greater number of species in the community. Its beneficial impact on species that were weak competitors is an example of an indirect effect.

When non-native species (exotics) invade an area, they often create "domino" effects, causing many other species to increase or decrease. The rainbow trout, beautiful, tasty, and beloved by anglers, has been purposefully spread to virtually all parts of the world where it can survive. In New Zealand, it has out-competed the native fishes, which now are found only above waterfalls that act as barriers to trout dispersal. Because it is a more effective predator than the native fish species, the invertebrates that are prey to the trout are reduced in abundance wherever trout occur. Algae, which are grazed by the invertebrates, increase because of reduced grazing pressure. This is an example of a trophic cascade.

Predator-Prey Relationships

See in the first part how the removal of what the article calls the "keystone predator" had an impact on biodiversity and most notably, the lesser predators. We are experiencing the exact same thing in regards to foxes and coyotes. The removal of wolves and cougars has caused their populations to explode, and they are ranging far beyond what has normally been considered their natural range. It was an indirect effect wolves had, because their larger ranges meant fewer territories for coyotes, and thus fewer breeding opportunities. The effects of removing them are obvious.

The second half is a great example of humans fucking up an ecosystem for their own enjoyment.

That's a contradiction.

The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.

Another contradiction.

Larger range size means less territory?

It's sad that you actually believe that nonsense.

The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.

every ranchers dream

--LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

Compelling argument, that.



Actually, I'd prefer they control themselves. I barely have the energy to control what I can in my own life, let alone the lives of others. Is asking for education and the elimination of as much poverty as possible really that bad?



Actually, one could argue that increased population size has exacerbated these issues.



Same here too. Increased technology means increased risk. During the days of the black plague it was very unlikely an epidemic could make it off a continent and threat the entire species, and weapons that could destroy the world completely were not even conceived of. Both are real dangers now. Thanks to technology.



No, that is insanity, to willfully destroy the only known planet in which we can survive for science-fiction pipe dreams. It's funny, vertical farming was decried as fantasy and yet terraforming entire planets is being used to debunk the very real problems we are facing and will continue to face.

Finding ways to conserve land for farming to feed more people: bad, evil, and the stuff of science fiction

Allowing earth and its inhabitants to be slowly consumed and destroyed: oh, that's fine because we'll just terraform an entirely dead planet when we need to

Interesting dichotomy.

Looks again.
Nope, didn’t say any of that bullshit that you just tried to toss on me. Also said that we need to keep this planet functioning well also. Nothing about destroying it at all.

You are the one that seems to think that we cannot do so at current and future populations. I think that we not only can but we will thrive. Anyone that thinks we will never expand to the stars is also ignorant of technological advance. Hundred years ago, the sky was unreachable and the moon was a pipe dream. Today, easy as pie.

Hey, I'm a big sci-fi fan and wish I could live long enough to see terraforming done. That said, the moon is not 'easy as pie'. When did we last go to the moon?

It's also entirely possible that we will never expand 'to the stars'. To other planets in our solar system, sure. But unless we find a way to greatly exceed or circumvent the speed of light and the theoretical issues with matter traveling at that speed, we will not expand very far.

I do think we can continue at the current population for quite some time, but I don't know how far we can expand the population before it becomes a real problem.

I think that looks at the issue backwards. Everyone 20 years ago was stating that we would have grown to a point that was untenable already but that does not occur. I believe that you can present a damn good case that population grows until it can no longer support itself and then stops. Natural scarcity of resources essentially stops population growth when you hit that barrier.

It is not a matter if whether or not we can sustain more; we will cease to expand when we can’t.

We no longer go to the moon because there is no point. It is fairly easy but rather expensive. You do realize that NASA at its LARGEST budget was at 33 billion dollars (adjusted to 2007 constant). That is a mere 4% of what we spend on military. It is not that difficult today and it looks as though commercial interests are taking over. 50 years from now, it will likely be heavily commercialized (space flight) and will likely be a rather normal thing.

A LOT happens in 50 years. Hell, 30 years ago computers were mere fantasy and NO ONE would have suspected the massive impact that they would have had. When you really look at what we can do today versus what we were capable in the 70’s and 80’s there is a hell of a difference. Particularly on the cutting edge.

 

[FA_Q2]

At least you admit the world has a maximum capacity limit. That is progress. How much more would say it will take before it's reached? 9 billion? 10 billion?

Those numbers are not that far off

There is always a maximum capacity. I don’t think that anyone has ever disputed that.

There is also the simple fact that maximum is NOT static. It changes with technological advance. That is how things work. We hit a limit, stop expanding, make a discovery (like crop rotation or other land use/farming discoveries) and then we begin to expand again as resources become available. That is the natural order of things.
You base that those ‘numbers are not that far off’ on what?

There is lots of undeveloped space available. If you get out of the cities and go to the country it starts to become obvious. We also have a shit ton of capacity to produce food. We are nowhere near our limit. What is limiting the Human population right now is actually NOT a scarcity of resource or space but rather a logistical nightmare. The US could feed the world but there simply is no way for us to get the food there. With fractured governments and no real unity, it becomes very difficult to deal with logistical problems on a scale that large.

 

[9thIDdoc]

That would be a fine response were it not for the fact that your links do not support your argument. Again your argument remains 'because I say so'.

In what way do they not?!

I was familiar with two of these studies long before I posted them here, and my opinions are influenced by them. Tell me, in depth, how they run contrary to what I have said

You tell me. Where is any support for your arguments that:

Man is not part of the ecosystem?
Man is not a natural predator?
Farmland is not part of the same ecosystem as other land?
Any change in the ecosystem initiated by man is bad and to be avoided?
Any change initiated by "natural predators" is good and to be fostered?
Man cannot replace top predators?

Your claim of science is pretty pathetic compared to the ongoing studies made by professional biologists and other professionals-paid for almost entirely by hunters and fishermen-into the health and well being of wildlife along with providing programs to help maintain, inhibit, or expand them as needed. Every state has it's own programs and agencies with that same mission. That is the benefit man brings to the table as the apex predator. What benefit does a wolf offer?

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Wildlife Habitat & Conservation

 

[DarkLion]

That's a contradiction.

The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.

Another contradiction.

Larger range size means less territory?

It's sad that you actually believe that nonsense.

Again, you seem to have difficulty understanding my sentences. When I place a period (.) at the end of the sentence, my thought does not end there.

We are experiencing the exact same thing in regards to foxes and coyotes. The removal of wolves and cougars has caused their populations to explode, and they are ranging far beyond what has normally been considered their natural range.

The word "their" is in reference to foxes and coyotes, mentioned in the previous sentence. I can perhaps understand this error, but your next one really perplexes me:

It was an indirect effect wolves had, because their larger ranges meant fewer territories for coyotes,

Is it not obvious that I am referencing to wolves' larger territories, and that their impact on coyotes was that, as a result of the wolf's larger territory than the coyote's that the coyote had fewer breeding opportunities?

Serious, honest question that is not meant to insult: why do you have such difficulty understanding my posts?

 

[DarkLion]

The removal of animals make their populations explode? If that were true then my herd should be ten times the size it currently is.

every ranchers dream

--LOL

The removal of animal causes another animal's population to explode. Who doesn't understand what about predator/prey relationships?

 

[DarkLion]

There is lots of undeveloped space available. If you get out of the cities and go to the country it starts to become obvious. .

That's just it; how much land do you want to be developed? All of it? Not every inch on undeveloped land should one day go to human use. We are not the only inhabitants on this planet. I also believe it does the human psyche good to see greenery and undeveloped nature, if only from afar

 

[DarkLion]

Man is not a natural predator?

I never said that, I said mankind cannot replace apex predators, even you wish to classify mankind as an apex predator himself. My links clearly show the consequences of predator removal.

Any change in the ecosystem initiated by man is bad and to be avoided?

Never really said that either, I'm simply outlining negative impacts of man's ecosystem "management". Most "positive" changes man makes are to offset the negative consequences of his prior actions. Name one positive contribution mankind has made to an ecosystem that has not been made to offset his own previous negative impact.

Any change initiated by "natural predators" is good and to be fostered?

Predators don't change anything. Their removal certainly does, and the links prove that such change is bad.

Your claim of science is pretty pathetic compared to the ongoing studies made by professional biologists and other professionals-paid for almost entirely by hunters and fishermen-into the health and well being of wildlife along with providing programs to help maintain, inhibit, or expand them as needed.

Oh I'm sure there are studies that show exactly what you want to see and hear, and I have no doubt that they are indeed paid for entirely by hunting and fishing groups/lobbyists/enthusiasts. You might want to think about that a bit.

What benefit does a wolf offer?

Did you read the links?

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency - Wildlife Habitat & Conservation

Ugh

 

[FA_Q2]

There is lots of undeveloped space available. If you get out of the cities and go to the country it starts to become obvious. .

That's just it; how much land do you want to be developed? All of it? Not every inch on undeveloped land should one day go to human use. We are not the only inhabitants on this planet. I also believe it does the human psyche good to see greenery and undeveloped nature, if only from afar

As much of it as we can while still maintaining a stable and healthy ecosystem.

 

[DarkLion]

As much of it as we can while still maintaining a stable and healthy ecosystem.

That's kind of a cop out. Let's say we could develop all but the worst of rocky, desert and mountain terrain and be able to sustain our survival. "Wildlife" as we know it would cease to exist, leaving only very small zoo-like preserves as windows into what the earth used to be. Would you support a world like that?

I'm just trying to see how far you'd go. How much does the wild, untamed and undeveloped world mean to you?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground

Wildlife officials on Monday were investigating a reported wolf attack on a 16-year-old boy camping last weekend in northern Minnesota

The attack reportedly occurred early Saturday in a campground along the shore of Lake Winnibigoshish in the Chippewa National Forest.

The teen, who was sleeping at the time, suffered nonlife-threatening cuts to his head and puncture wounds to his face.

If confirmed, it would be the first documented wolf attack of such severity in Minnesota and likely in the continental U.S

Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground - TwinCities.com

 

[DarkLion]

Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground

Wildlife officials on Monday were investigating a reported wolf attack on a 16-year-old boy camping last weekend in northern Minnesota

The attack reportedly occurred early Saturday in a campground along the shore of Lake Winnibigoshish in the Chippewa National Forest.

The teen, who was sleeping at the time, suffered nonlife-threatening cuts to his head and puncture wounds to his face.

If confirmed, it would be the first documented wolf attack of such severity in Minnesota and likely in the continental U.S

Teen recovering after apparent wolf attack at northern Minnesota campground - TwinCities.com

A) The injuries were not life threatening

B) It's the first attack of its kind ever recorded, and that includes when wolves were widespread and before humans had fortified cities

C) The teen was in the wolf's domain, not the other way around.

D) If you're trying to use this story to justify killing wolves, keep in mind that an entire species is more important than one human

E) Still avoiding commenting on the links, eh? I guess the cries for evidence were made on the assumption I had nothing to back myself up with. Little was it considered that I actually know what I'm talking about