Hunting and the Wildlife Overpopulation Myth

[DarkLion]

More

Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth," a review paper that will be published on July 15, 2011, in the journal Science, concludes that the decline of large predators and herbivores in all regions of the world is causing substantial changes to Earth's terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. The paper claims that the loss of apex consumers from ecosystems "may be humankind's most pervasive influence on nature."

Loss of top animal predators has massive ecological effects

More:

Humans often play a role in initiating boom and bust cycles by wiping out the top predator. For example, after gray wolves were hunted to near extinction in the United States, deer, elk, and other wolf-fearing forest critters had free reign and reproduced willy-nilly, gobbling up the vegetation that other consumers also relied on for food.

Or, more recently, researchers found that when fish stocks in the Atlantic Ocean are over fished, jellyfish populations boom. While jellyfish have few predators, removing the fish frees up an abundance of nutrients for the jellyfish to feast on.

Ecosystems provide us with the food we eat and help produce breathable air and clean water. But they're generally fragile and operate best when at a stable equilibrium, scientists say.

"These are our life support systems," Rooney said. "We're relying on them. This study points to the importance of top predators and that we need to be careful with how we deal with them."

Top Predators Key to Ecosystem Survival, Study Shows | LiveScience

 

[DarkLion]

Still more:

The predator-prey relationship is simple, right? If a predator is around, that is bad for the prey, and if the predator is removed, that is good for the prey.

Ecological theory, however, suggests that isn’t always the case, particularly if there is more than one predator species around and they share the same prey. In that case, elimination of the top predator may allow the midlevel predator to thrive, and a result may actually be worse for the prey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/science/11obprey.html?_r=0

 

[PaulS1950]

Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
The biggest difference between the 1600's and today is that there are fewer predators because people buy their food in stores rather than harvest it from nature. You get meat and vegetables that have been genetically altered or bred for consumers and kept healthy by the use of antibiotics and growth hormones. When the food is harvested from nature you get more natural foods. There is no fat (<1%) in venison. You can't get close to that with supermarket meats.

 

[FA_Q2]

Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
The biggest difference between the 1600's and today is that there are fewer predators because people buy their food in stores rather than harvest it from nature. You get meat and vegetables that have been genetically altered or bred for consumers and kept healthy by the use of antibiotics and growth hormones. When the food is harvested from nature you get more natural foods. There is no fat (<1%) in venison. You can't get close to that with supermarket meats.

Nature is quite incapable of feeding 6 billion people though. Without farming and herding we would be limited to the millions rather than billions.

 

[PaulS1950]

Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
The biggest difference between the 1600's and today is that there are fewer predators because people buy their food in stores rather than harvest it from nature. You get meat and vegetables that have been genetically altered or bred for consumers and kept healthy by the use of antibiotics and growth hormones. When the food is harvested from nature you get more natural foods. There is no fat (<1%) in venison. You can't get close to that with supermarket meats.

Nature is quite incapable of feeding 6 billion people though. Without farming and herding we would be limited to the millions rather than billions.

And that would be bad, WHY?

 

[FA_Q2]

Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.
The biggest difference between the 1600's and today is that there are fewer predators because people buy their food in stores rather than harvest it from nature. You get meat and vegetables that have been genetically altered or bred for consumers and kept healthy by the use of antibiotics and growth hormones. When the food is harvested from nature you get more natural foods. There is no fat (<1%) in venison. You can't get close to that with supermarket meats.

Nature is quite incapable of feeding 6 billion people though. Without farming and herding we would be limited to the millions rather than billions.

And that would be bad, WHY?

Because try and stop people from being people and you are going to fail, period. The idea that we should stop progress in farming or anything else that allows expansion of population is asinine in the extreme.

Why is it bad that there are 6 billion people?

 

[PaulS1950]

Famine, disease, genocide to name a few that would be offset by lower populations.

 

[daveman]

Famine, disease, genocide to name a few that would be offset by lower populations.

This planet can sustain billions of people -- if local government officials didn't interfere.

 

[DarkLion]

Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.

Of course. But we cannot replicate apex predators, for reasons I have outlined now several times.

 

[DarkLion]

Why is it bad that there are 6 billion people?

Pollution, environmental degradation, overcrowded cities and urban areas, urban sprawl, diminishing resources, war, famine, disease.....

Why is it GOOD that there are 6 billion people?

 

[DarkLion]

Famine, disease, genocide to name a few that would be offset by lower populations.

This planet can sustain billions of people -- if local government officials didn't interfere.

Yet more "it's this way because I say so" shtick.

I have now proven my points in this thread to the point of redundancy, it would be nice if others could begin to do so as well. Though, I would happily settle for discussion and/or acknowledgement of the proof that I have provided

 

[Missourian]

Things are going along pretty well with hunting and without huge populations of apex predators.

That's all the proof anyone needs.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Mankind has always been and will continue to be a natural predator.

Of course. But we cannot replicate apex predators, for reasons I have outlined now several times.

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.

 

[DarkLion]

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

 

[FA_Q2]

Why is it bad that there are 6 billion people?

Pollution, environmental degradation, overcrowded cities and urban areas, urban sprawl, diminishing resources, war, famine, disease.....

Why is it GOOD that there are 6 billion people?

Because I like people. You don’t seem to though you decry that ‘population’ control is not your cover.

The premise is actually completely nuts. You want to control people and Paul seems to think that there is a problem with progressing technology to feed people. Lunacy.

Let me let you in on a secret, war famine disease all exist at all population levels. The worst of ALL those was experienced during MUCH lower populations. The black plague hit when there were far fewer people and the wars that used to be fought in the dark ages seen large percentages of the entire population die off. The difference, of course, is that we have PROGRESSED technologically which, coincidentally, also requires population growth.

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.

 

[DarkLion]

Things are going along pretty well with hunting and without huge populations of apex predators.

That's all the proof anyone needs.

So in other words, you have nothing for rebuttal. I knew I was right all along, but it's always nice to see it confirmed.

 

[Missourian]

Things are going along pretty well with hunting and without huge populations of apex predators.

That's all the proof anyone needs.

So in other words, you have nothing for rebuttal. I knew I was right all along, but it's always nice to see it confirmed.

The rebuttal is "open your eyes".

Look around...it's a done deal.

The wolves are gone in large numbers, the bears are gone in large numbers, the big cats are gone in large numbers, and nature remains as "in balance" as it was before, with a little help from hunting...which man has been doing since the dawn of mankind.

You are the only one who doesn't see it.

Things change, heatwave, droughts, wildfires and Ice Ages...and nature adapts.

I'm pretty sure you are the only one in this thread that has defended your view.

Have you ever considered for a second that you might be wrong?

That hunting is part of the natural order of things?

 

[DarkLion]

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?

Let me let you in on a secret, war famine disease all exist at all population levels.

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&#8217;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.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"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."

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

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

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.

 

[DarkLion]

The rebuttal is "open your eyes".

Look around...it's a done deal.

Yet links and facts are strangely absent from your post. If it's such a done deal, surely evidence via scientific study should be easy to come by. Mine were.

The wolves are gone in large numbers, the bears are gone in large numbers, the big cats are gone in large numbers, and nature remains as "in balance" as it was before, with a little help from hunting...which man has been doing since the dawn of mankind.

Exploding populations of foxes, coyotes and deer seem to suggest otherwise.

I'm pretty sure you are the only one in this thread that has defended your view.

I am also the only one who has provided scientific basis to defend my view as well. Until someone can post some scientific data of their own, your argumentum ad populum does little to convince me.

Have you ever considered for a second that you might be wrong?

If someone could make a compelling scientific argument I might. Have you considered, for just a fleeting moment, that I might be right?