Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth

[daveman]

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.

"Painted myself into a corner"? Jesus fucking Christ, why does everyone on this site approach threads like they are some sort of competition? Doesn't anyone on here discuss things for the sake of discussing them?

And as for your point, see my post on vertical farming.

Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally unworkable.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

"Painted myself into a corner"? Jesus fucking Christ, why does everyone on this site approach threads like they are some sort of competition? Doesn't anyone on here discuss things for the sake of discussing them?

And as for your point, see my post on vertical farming.

Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally unworkable.

complete fantasy

stuff for the gullible

 

[daveman]

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.

You can ask, but you probably won't like the answer.

 

[daveman]

"Painted myself into a corner"? Jesus fucking Christ, why does everyone on this site approach threads like they are some sort of competition? Doesn't anyone on here discuss things for the sake of discussing them?

And as for your point, see my post on vertical farming.

Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally unworkable.

complete fantasy

stuff for the gullible

It makes for interesting science fiction, but that's all it can ever be. As the article shows, it's more harmful to the environment than dirt farming.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally unworkable.

complete fantasy

stuff for the gullible

It makes for interesting science fiction, but that's all it can ever be. As the article shows, it's more harmful to the environment than dirt farming.

true

but anyone out here in the farm belt and sees just how much grain we produce

knows it is nothing more then fantasy

 

[Montrovant]

Vertical farming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Totally unworkable.

complete fantasy

stuff for the gullible

It makes for interesting science fiction, but that's all it can ever be. As the article shows, it's more harmful to the environment than dirt farming.

Maybe with current technology. If we're lucky, at some point some new technology will allow something like it to be feasible.

Of course, that may just be the sci-fi nerd in me talking.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You can ask, but you probably won't like the answer.

That really points out the crux of the issue though. It is nothing more than man hating. I never really understood the motivation to hate one’s own race. The entire concept makes no sense whatsoever. There is nothing special about nature nor is man separate from it. We are all part of nature. Nor is death and extinction outside of normal events that do not include man. There were more extinct species before man ever walked the earth than there are live ones today. Nature in itself is brutal as all hell. The real arguments for keeping nature in good health are that we require the ecosystem to survive. We need to care for the world so that we don’t cause our own extinction. Dark is talking about this on another level though as though a natural forest is any less beautiful without human existence than it is with the local souvenir shop and hiking trail.

There is really nothing to say to that because it is all predicated on some form of nature worship that has no real connection with logic. The assumption that was made in the OP has become a lot clearer to me than when this thread started. It is not a statement that hunters don’t love nature. It is a statement that hunters do not love a nature that is totally devoid of human existence. I would say that is likely true but then I think that most people would not be overly fond of a reality that would require them to ceace to exist.

The most telling trait of these people is that they are more than willing to keep going on. Phrases like ‘population’ control seem to never include themselves. It reminds me of this group – completely comprised of hypocritical nutcases:

VHEMT​

They talk a LOT but what they really want is for everyone to die off but not until they are finished living themselves. There is no more fitting term than insane.

 

[daveman]

complete fantasy

stuff for the gullible

It makes for interesting science fiction, but that's all it can ever be. As the article shows, it's more harmful to the environment than dirt farming.

true

but anyone out here in the farm belt and sees just how much grain we produce

knows it is nothing more then fantasy

...promoted by people who have never even been to a farm.

 

[daveman]

complete fantasy

stuff for the gullible

It makes for interesting science fiction, but that's all it can ever be. As the article shows, it's more harmful to the environment than dirt farming.

Maybe with current technology. If we're lucky, at some point some new technology will allow something like it to be feasible.

Of course, that may just be the sci-fi nerd in me talking.

I'm a huge SF fan, too, and it's an intriguing idea...would be more applicable on space colonies and generation ships than the Earth's surface, however.

 

[daveman]

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.



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

You can ask, but you probably won't like the answer.

That really points out the crux of the issue though. It is nothing more than man hating. I never really understood the motivation to hate one’s own race. The entire concept makes no sense whatsoever. There is nothing special about nature nor is man separate from it. We are all part of nature. Nor is death and extinction outside of normal events that do not include man. There were more extinct species before man ever walked the earth than there are live ones today. Nature in itself is brutal as all hell. The real arguments for keeping nature in good health are that we require the ecosystem to survive. We need to care for the world so that we don’t cause our own extinction. Dark is talking about this on another level though as though a natural forest is any less beautiful without human existence than it is with the local souvenir shop and hiking trail.

There is really nothing to say to that because it is all predicated on some form of nature worship that has no real connection with logic. The assumption that was made in the OP has become a lot clearer to me than when this thread started. It is not a statement that hunters don’t love nature. It is a statement that hunters do not love a nature that is totally devoid of human existence. I would say that is likely true but then I think that most people would not be overly fond of a reality that would require them to ceace to exist.

The most telling trait of these people is that they are more than willing to keep going on. Phrases like ‘population’ control seem to never include themselves. It reminds me of this group – completely comprised of hypocritical nutcases:

VHEMT​

They talk a LOT but what they really want is for everyone to die off but not until they are finished living themselves. There is no more fitting term than insane.

Indeed.

They fail to see the contradiction in their views. Man evolved from lesser beings -- yet Man is not a part of nature.

Of course, this whole thing is based solely on emotion, not facts and logic, so there you go.

 

[DarkLion]

Then you oppose ethanol mandates.

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

I was never in favor of ethanol mandates. For one thing, they are geared around corn ethanol, which burns almost as dirty as fossil fuels anyway and takes away from our food supply. If it were built around sugar ethanol, which burns far cleaner and has less impact on the environment to process, I might feel a bit differently.

The RFS mandate was bullshit from the start, and I never supported it.

 

[DarkLion]

complete fantasy

stuff for the gullible

They once said that about every scientific leap we have made in the last 100 years. Who knows?

I do know one thing, the earth's human population continues to grow with no end in sight, and with more people comes more need to feed them. More food means more farmland. But more people means less land to farm. Something will have to give one day

 

[DarkLion]

You can ask, but you probably won't like the answer.

Indeed, humanity is still too immature to make such decisions.

 

[DarkLion]

That really points out the crux of the issue though. It is nothing more than man hating. I never really understood the motivation to hate one’s own race.

Saying that humanity needs to reproduce more responsibly doesn't mean one hates mankind. In fact, I cannot think of a more "pro-humanity" argument to make.

The real arguments for keeping nature in good health are that we require the ecosystem to survive. We need to care for the world so that we don’t cause our own extinction. Dark is talking about this on another level though as though a natural forest is any less beautiful without human existence than it is with the local souvenir shop and hiking trail.

No, you're seeing what you want to see. Nowhere have I once said anything remotely close to what you describe. My argument, from the beginning has been in favor of keeping ecosystems in the best health they can be, for we cannot survive without them.

We keep them in health by limiting our impact as much as possible and returning natural predators to them. We cannot take the place of wolves and cougars in an ecosystem, because what they bring is more than bagging a certain number of quotas each year. There are intangibles to wild predation that mankind cannot hope to replicate.

If people would pay closer attention to what I'm actually saying, as opposed to building strawmen around what they want to argue against, my posts would make much more sense to them.

It is not a statement that hunters don’t love nature. It is a statement that hunters do not love a nature that is totally devoid of human existence. I would say that is likely true but then I think that most people would not be overly fond of a reality that would require them to ceace to exist.

That is close. But still wrong. I cannot remember what page it's on, somewhere near the beginning, but I made a post clearly stating that hunters do not love nature, they love a "managed" nature that caters to what they want: to shoot animals. Which is why the most vocal opponents to returning wolves and other predators to the wilds tend to be hunting activists.

If hunters loved nature, they want to go out there and compete against the apex predators with the added risk of becoming the hunted themselves. Bagging a buck would actually a hell of an accomplishment then! Even I might be tempted to take part in such an activity. But as it is hunters want a nature that poses as little threat to them and as little competition as they can get. That is not loving nature, that is loving hunting. Two separate things.

The most telling trait of these people is that they are more than willing to keep going on. Phrases like ‘population’ control seem to never include themselves.

That is because "population control" is not synonymous with killing, eugenics or all of the other Adolf Hitler references people like to come up with when the hear it. It's no secret that the more educated and prosperous a society is, the lower its birthrate usually is. So really the best way to "control population" is to lift as much of the world as we can out of poverty and educate them. And if that education also entails information about reproducing more responsibly, so be it.

Unless you think people on welfare having 6+ kids is a good thing, I do not see how one can actually be opposed to advocating more responsible reproduction.

 

[dilloduck]

If hunters loved nature, they want to go out there and compete against the apex predators with the added risk of becoming the hunted themselves.

You're equating loving nature with being willing to be hunted ? Quite a stretch.

 

[DarkLion]

You're equating loving nature with being willing to be hunted ? Quite a stretch.

Nature is dangerous.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"We keep them in health by limiting our impact as much as possible and returning natural predators to them. We cannot take the place of wolves and cougars in an ecosystem, because what they bring is more than bagging a certain number of quotas each year. There are intangibles to wild predation that mankind cannot hope to replicate".

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?

 

[dilloduck]

You're equating loving nature with being willing to be hunted ? Quite a stretch.

Nature is dangerous.

It always ends in death

 

[DarkLion]

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.

 

[DarkLion]

More:

When the construction of a hydroelectric dam on Venezuela's Caroni River was finally completed in 1986, it flooded an area twice the size of Rhode Island, creating one of South America's largest human-made lakes: Lake Guri.

In the predator's absence, their prey—howler monkeys, iguanas, leaf-cutting ants—began multiplying. Soon these plant-eaters had devoured most of the once pristine forest.

It is a classic cautionary tale of the dangers of removing top predators from an ecosystem.

"Taking out predators has a cascade of effects on other populations, down to the plant life," said John Terborgh, a professor of environmental science at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.

Without Top Predators, Ecosystems Turn Topsy-Turvy