Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth

[Lonestar_logic]

Yes they do die of old age, just not in the human context. When they get old they lose many of the abilities they need to survive, speed being a major one.

They die a violent death at the teeth, claw, and beaks of predators and scavengers. They don't lie down in a field of clover and calmly pass on. They get old and are killed by other animals. Their lives are an every day challenge to stay alive or be eaten. They all eventually lose that challenge - that is what they live for. They are food for others just as they feed on other things.

WE are all alike. We all kill to survive. I for one would rather be closely connected to where my food comes from than go to the market and buy meat that has been raised on hormones and antibiotics and fed chemicals and supplements with their food. I have been harvesting strawberries, squash and tomatoes from my garden for weeks now and the cantelope are getting big and ripe. They will soon be harvested too. Being connected to your food gives you a greater respect for it - you should try it.

Yes and that's how wild animals die of old age. Thanks for supporting my statement.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What specifically was wrong with the "first part" of what he stated?


For a person whining about folks not debating, you sure missed a good chance.

A) It says deer and cattle are in the same place in "an" ecosystem. Cattle are not part of the same ecosystems that are being disrupted for hunting and livestock. In fact, one could make the argument that the presence of cattle is harming the ecosystem of the deer.

B) Even if cattle were a part of the ecosystem man most certainly does not play the same role as wolves.

There is more, but I really don't feel like picking it apart further.

One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.

I own cattle and the deer that graze in my pastures doesn't hurt anything at all. As a matter of fact, they are more than welcome to graze in my pastures, eat my corn and grace my dinner table with their presence.

What hurts my wallet or the feral hogs, dogs and coyotes.

By the way cattle IS livestock.

 

[DarkLion]

One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.

I own cattle and the deer that graze in my pastures doesn't hurt anything at all. As a matter of fact, they are more than welcome to graze in my pastures, eat my corn and grace my dinner table with their presence.

What hurts my wallet or the feral hogs, dogs and coyotes.

By the way cattle IS livestock.

Ahh, so there you go. The presence of cattle can hurt the ecosystem, of which the deer is only a part. If you're killing coyotes to protect them, then that is taking away natural predators from an ecosystem that depends on them to keep prey animal populations in check.

And don't give me that crap that coyotes have ranged far beyond their natural realms. If man hadn't culled wolves and mountain lions into oblivion coyotes would never have ranged as far as they have. All coyotes are doing is taking the place of natural predators that were once there.

 

[9thIDdoc]

One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.

I own cattle and the deer that graze in my pastures doesn't hurt anything at all. As a matter of fact, they are more than welcome to graze in my pastures, eat my corn and grace my dinner table with their presence.

What hurts my wallet or the feral hogs, dogs and coyotes.

By the way cattle IS livestock.

Ahh, so there you go. The presence of cattle can hurt the ecosystem, of which the deer is only a part. If you're killing coyotes to protect them, then that is taking away natural predators from an ecosystem that depends on them to keep prey animal populations in check.

And don't give me that crap that coyotes have ranged far beyond their natural realms. If man hadn't culled wolves and mountain lions into oblivion coyotes would never have ranged as far as they have. All coyotes are doing is taking the place of natural predators that were once there.

And man-also a natural predator- taking the place of wolves and cougars is every bit as "natural" as it is for coyotes, etc.

 

[DarkLion]

And man-also a natural predator- taking the place of wolves and cougars is every bit as "natural" as it is for coyotes, etc.

*Sigh*

As I have been saying, all along, there is nothing "natural" about the way mankind is treating the ecosystem. Other predators do not have the means to eliminate all other predators from their proximity. Mankind does. And the consequences of this are unstable stream beds, depleted numbers of trees and other plant life, and as has been stated by others, excessive populations of prey animals. It's a cascading effect; absence of apex predators means trees don't grow as tall or as plentiful, which means less habitat for song birds. In areas with beavers there aren't enough strong trees to make ponds, which means fewer fish, reptiles, amphibians.

And the benefits apex predators, such as wolves, bring to an ecosystem don't just come from the predators actually killing the animals. Just the presence of wolves in an ecosystem causes prey animals, as well as other predators, to change their behavior.

For this fact alone, mankind will never "replace" apex predators within an ecosystem. Nor can coyotes, for that matter.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

One could argue that but they'd would be wrong.

I own cattle and the deer that graze in my pastures doesn't hurt anything at all. As a matter of fact, they are more than welcome to graze in my pastures, eat my corn and grace my dinner table with their presence.

What hurts my wallet or the feral hogs, dogs and coyotes.

By the way cattle IS livestock.

Ahh, so there you go. The presence of cattle can hurt the ecosystem, of which the deer is only a part. If you're killing coyotes to protect them, then that is taking away natural predators from an ecosystem that depends on them to keep prey animal populations in check.

And don't give me that crap that coyotes have ranged far beyond their natural realms. If man hadn't culled wolves and mountain lions into oblivion coyotes would never have ranged as far as they have. All coyotes are doing is taking the place of natural predators that were once there.

Why do I need natural predators when I take that responsibility on myself.

I don't kill coyotes to protect them, I kill coyotes to protect my livestock.

Next time you sit down to a good T-bone, you can thank me.

 

[DarkLion]

Why do I need natural predators when I take that responsibility on myself.

Because you cannot, for reasons I outlined in a post above. There is more to what apex predators accomplish within an ecosystem than just simply culling a number of deer each year.

Read the post above yours. It answers in greater depth than I care to repeat.

I don't kill coyotes to protect them, I kill coyotes to protect my livestock.

Again confused when it comes to my using the term livestock. Why?

Like a few posts ago I said that ecosystems is disrupted by hunting and the keeping of livestock, and you felt the need to tell me that cattle ARE livestock, when I was clearly referring to cattle as such.

And now here. When I say you kill coyotes to protect your livestock, you think I'm talking about the deer.

Serious question: is my grammar off?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"As I have been saying, all along, there is nothing "natural" about the way mankind is treating the ecosystem. Other predators do not have the means to eliminate all other predators from their proximity. Mankind does."

A man is as "natural" as a wolf or coyote and as much a part of the ecosystem. Man does not exist outside of the existing ecosystem but rather is as much a part of it as any other animal. Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing as the elements within them change. Man does indeed have a great impact on the ecosystem he cannot help to be a part of. But his role as a natural predator has relatively minor impact compared to the other ways his presence impacts the environment.

Like it or not Man is the apex predator, to the extent there is such a thing, and most of us are quite happy about that. I don't want to go hungry because wolves ate too much beef and pork even if they kept my family's needs down by also eating some of my children. And if tame animals are easy meals the deer other grazers may overpopulate and strip the fields of grain and vegetables leaving vegans to go hungry.

Man is the only predator willing and able to study conditions and make his predation a positive rather than a negative factor. And that is why we have indeed replaced the wolf long since

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why do I need natural predators when I take that responsibility on myself.

Because you cannot, for reasons I outlined in a post above. There is more to what apex predators accomplish within an ecosystem than just simply culling a number of deer each year.

Read the post above yours. It answers in greater depth than I care to repeat.

I don't kill coyotes to protect them, I kill coyotes to protect my livestock.

Again confused when it comes to my using the term livestock. Why?

Like a few posts ago I said that ecosystems is disrupted by hunting and the keeping of livestock, and you felt the need to tell me that cattle ARE livestock, when I was clearly referring to cattle as such.

And now here. When I say you kill coyotes to protect your livestock, you think I'm talking about the deer.

Serious question: is my grammar off?

Oh but I can take the place of natural predators and I do.


About the cattle/livestock issue:

You stated, "Cattle are not part of the same ecosystems that are being disrupted for hunting and livestock.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. You're saying cattle are not part of the same ecosystem that's being disrupted for livestock.

Then you stated, "If you're killing coyotes to protect them, then that is taking away natural predators from an ecosystem that depends on them to keep prey animal populations in check."

My response is this:

I kill coyotes to protect my livestock, I keep "prey" animals in check by hunting the deer, rabbits, quail, dove, ducks and geese and taking my cattle to market.

 

[DarkLion]

A man is as "natural" as a wolf or coyote and as much a part of the ecosystem. Man does not exist outside of the existing ecosystem but rather is as much a part of it as any other animal. Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing as the elements within them change. Man does indeed have a great impact on the ecosystem he cannot help to be a part of. But his role as a natural predator has relatively minor impact compared to the other ways his presence impacts the environment.

Exactly! Man cannot hope to have the same predatory impact as wolves or mountain lions. Which leads into....

Like it or not Man is the apex predator, to the extent there is such a thing, and most of us are quite happy about that. I don't want to go hungry because wolves ate too much beef and pork even if they kept my family's needs down by also eating some of my children. And if tame animals are easy meals the deer other grazers may overpopulate and strip the fields of grain and vegetables leaving vegans to go hungry.

...the problems we are facing. You don't like competing with wolves for food, so you kill them off. As a result people die from hitting deer on the highway, because there are too many of them now that wolves are gone. And coyotes have run amok without them. How's that working out for you?

Man is the only predator willing and able to study conditions and make his predation a positive rather than a negative factor. And that is why we have indeed replaced the wolf long since

It's the exact opposite. Wolf and mountain lion predation was the positive, man has brought nothing but disruption and unintended consequences. Name one single positive aspect of man's predation over a natural predator's negative. Remember: just naming something positive won't back up such an outrageous claim, you must also offset it with a negative aspect of natural predation.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

A man is as "natural" as a wolf or coyote and as much a part of the ecosystem. Man does not exist outside of the existing ecosystem but rather is as much a part of it as any other animal. Ecosystems are dynamic and constantly changing as the elements within them change. Man does indeed have a great impact on the ecosystem he cannot help to be a part of. But his role as a natural predator has relatively minor impact compared to the other ways his presence impacts the environment.

Exactly! Man cannot hope to have the same predatory impact as wolves or mountain lions. Which leads into....

Like it or not Man is the apex predator, to the extent there is such a thing, and most of us are quite happy about that. I don't want to go hungry because wolves ate too much beef and pork even if they kept my family's needs down by also eating some of my children. And if tame animals are easy meals the deer other grazers may overpopulate and strip the fields of grain and vegetables leaving vegans to go hungry.

...the problems we are facing. You don't like competing with wolves for food, so you kill them off. As a result people die from hitting deer on the highway, because there are too many of them now that wolves are gone. And coyotes have run amok without them. How's that working out for you?

Man is the only predator willing and able to study conditions and make his predation a positive rather than a negative factor. And that is why we have indeed replaced the wolf long since

It's the exact opposite. Wolf and mountain lion predation was the positive, man has brought nothing but disruption and unintended consequences. Name one single positive aspect of man's predation over a natural predator's negative. Remember: just naming something positive won't back up such an outrageous claim, you must also offset it with a negative aspect of natural predation.

The over population of deer isn't because we're killing off wolves it's because of the increasing population of man, i.e. roads, housing communities, industries etc....

The solution is to increase hunting in those areas. Trust me, men would much rather kill a deer than a wolf.

 

[DarkLion]

Oh but I can take the place of natural predators and I do.

No, you cannot. For reasons I outlined above. Bagging a couple of deer a year doesn't come close to taking the place of natural predators.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. You're saying cattle are not part of the same ecosystem that's being disrupted for livestock.

They are not. The deer and other native animals live within the natural ecosystem that was there long before you existed.

Your cattle are a part of the agro-ecosystem that you provide for them. Outside your property lines is the real ecosystem, and you are not a part of that, nor is your cattle, no matter how badly you wish it to be true.

 

[DarkLion]

The over population of deer isn't because we're killing off wolves it's because of the increasing population of man, i.e. roads, housing communities, industries etc....

You're talking urban sprawl, which brings people into closer contact with wild animals. That is completely different from an excessive number of some animal populations due to predator annihilation.

The solution is to increase hunting in those areas. Trust me, men would much rather kill a deer than a wolf.

Or maybe....just maybe....it's time to ask our fellow man to either control his population better or stay in the cities.

 

[9thIDdoc]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ecosphere has several different meanings:
In ecology the term ecosphere can refer to the Earth's spheres, a planetary ecosystem consisting of the atmosphere, the geosphere (lithosphere), the hydrosphere, and the biosphere.

Note that ALL animals and plants are part of the biosphere which in turn is part of the ecosphere.

"Exactly! Man cannot hope to have the same predatory impact as wolves or mountain lions. Which leads into....

Over most of the country wolves and mt. lions have exactly zero (0) predatory impact. They are no longer here. Does the above have a point?

As a result people die from hitting deer on the highway, because there are too many of them now that wolves are gone. And coyotes have run amok without them. How's that working out for you?

The truth is that there are very few places where deer are overpopulated and essentially none at all where overpopulation is the result of a lack of wolves or mt. lions. In my part of the country they (wolves, etc) were about gone before there were any cars or highways to speak of and so were the deer and turkey. It was human hunters who footed the bill for the restoration of the herds/flocks. Not wolves; not tree-huggers. If human hunters could exterminate coyotes they would have been extinct long ago. And good riddance.

"Wolf and mountain lion predation was the positive, man has brought nothing but disruption and unintended consequences. Name one single positive aspect of man's predation over a natural predator's negative. Remember: just naming something positive won't back up such an outrageous claim, you must also offset it with a negative aspect of natural predation."

That sword cuts both ways and I'm interested in hearing how wolf predation is a positive and human predation a negative in your view. Why is it that you think I must provide support for my opinions but you offer no such thing for your own outrageous statements?

Hunters provide the vast majority of the money that is spent to benefit ALL wildlife through license, permit and tag fees along with PR taxes and the contributions from various hunter oriented organizations. Wolves don't buy licenses and are just as happy to kill a cow or an endangered species as a deer. Men pay for the studies that determine the location, age, sex, optimum number and species to cull in order to maintain a healthy herd. Wolves don't.

"They are not. The deer and other native animals live within the natural ecosystem that was there long before you existed."

As do men and cattle (see definition above)

"Your cattle are a part of the agro-ecosystem that you provide for them. Outside your property lines is the real ecosystem, and you are not a part of that, nor is your cattle, no matter how badly you wish it to be true"

Now that is a fine example of an outrageously untrue statement!

 

[daveman]

Dunno about where you are, but preditors around here are ballooning. Coyotes are everywhere. When I was a kid, I saw one. Total. Now I see roadkill coyotes on the road several times a week.

Do you know why that is? It's because wolves have been systematically destroyed across America. Wolves have always kept coyote populations in check, without them coyotes balloon, to the point to where coyotes are spreading into places they have never been. Same with coyotes and foxes, in areas where coyotes have been culled, fox populations grow.

There's a balance to nature, and mankind is always upsetting that balance.

Not when we take the place of the top-tier predators.

And while the coyote population around here has exploded, so has the fox population. Again, as a kid, I saw maybe one or two. Now they're everywhere.

As of March 19th of this year, it's legal to hunt coyotes year-round and at all hours in KY.

That's a good thing.

 

[daveman]

Yuk. My mother cooked a possum once for my brother. I was VERY young, but I recall it was really greasy.

Disgusting. But it couldn't be any worse than squirrel, my dad used to hunt and eat them. I tried it once, and it was nothing but gristle and very stringy. No thanks.

I fondly remember my grandmother's squirrel. Very tasty!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yuk. My mother cooked a possum once for my brother. I was VERY young, but I recall it was really greasy.

Disgusting. But it couldn't be any worse than squirrel, my dad used to hunt and eat them. I tried it once, and it was nothing but gristle and very stringy. No thanks.

I fondly remember my grandmother's squirrel. Very tasty!

squirrel is good eats

 

[daveman]

Of course hunters hunt for food.

Oh sure, there's no enjoyment in it at all, huh?

And I notice you avoided the issue of killing by proxy. Hypocrite, know thyself.

A) I'm a vegetarian.

B) The animals in slaughterhouses were bred to be food. Some of the domesticated livestock we have couldn't even survive without man. While I have no desire to eat meat, I can accept store bought meat because the animals killed in the process were specifically there for that purpose.

I could accept traditional hunting as well, if environments were not manipulated to their detriment to support it. This isn't about killing animals; it's about destroying natural ecosystems for the perceived benefit of mankind.

Then you oppose ethanol mandates.

Ethanol responsible for this year's expected record dead zone, researcher says | NOLA.com

 

[daveman]

If you care so much about the animals, why do you eat their food?

Well, for one thing, I'm not going out into their land and taking their food. Farmland is for human food.

Farmland USED to be animal land.

What's the statute of limitations? When does the land no longer belong to Gaea, but to the farmer?

 

[daveman]

If you care so much about the animals, why do you eat their food?

Well, for one thing, I'm not going out into their land and taking their food. Farmland is for human food.

Not originally. Here in western KY there were herds of bison that lived on the land that is now farm land. It was open prairie. I do believe you have painted yourself into a corner there. All farm land in the US is land where animals once lived and fed.

Have you seen the bison and elk at LBL? Way cool! I drive down The Trace a couple times a week, past the bison range. Man, those suckers are big!