Is this to control the population for ecological reasons? It’s not like bears have any natural predators and I’d imagine humans have filled that role for most of history. If this is not the case, then it’s pretty sad.
It’s very much a relevant fact, especially in areas where natural predators have been eradicated either through habitat loss, or intentional hunting before we had conservation efforts in place. A wildlife manager considers every variable before determining how many hunting licenses are issued for the good of the ecology. Every hunter understands the balance, and the factors that determine a unit’s carrying capacity, it’s part of the mandatory hunter safety course training.
So starvation to control the population instead of hunting, got ya. What if the predators prey is plants? More predators => less plants => less predators => more plants?
Not sure if you are serious here. The definition of predation is killing and eating other animals. An organism eating plants is prey and its population gets controlled by predation.
My point here was for deer, deer in much of the US have no more natural predators. Hunters help fill that roll or else it’s disease, starvation, and cars that fill it.
So starvation to control the population instead of hunting, got ya.
A.K.A. The way nature works… for hundreds of millions of years? Yes. Exactly that.
If the carrying capacity of an ecosystem can’t support more predators, you don’t get more predators. The balance that nature has perfected always seems to be disrupted by humans looking to “control the population”.
What if the predators prey is plants? More predators => less plants => less predators => more plants?
Again, a balance that simply works without us interfering. When animals (and plants) are left to their own devices, they thrive. The only time this doesn’t happen is when humans get in the way.
Right, deer in the populated areas of north America have no preditors any more. So that population needs to be controlled. In the city and county i live in there are bow hunting programs in the parks since there aren’t many places you could hunt otherwise. If not disease and cars are what would control it. Thats led then ideal. Plus if you don’t want the meat there are programs to donate it to shelters.
Oh bull, humans have severely beaten natural predators and prey has exploded. And over population is bad news for any species; over feeding, disease, etc. I’ve seen deer populations that were staggering in size, no idea their fate, but it can’t be good.
Don’t want hunters? Fine, I’ve never hunted either, don’t care to. Reintroduce predators, so if you can make that happen. Farmers in Colorado shit kittens when the state reintroduced wolves.
Ever seen a panther in your neck of the woods? I have, and despite being armed, I wouldn’t fancy my chances. (And thank god, we ended up ignoring one another.) Maybe we could get some more of those? I’d be all for it.
Ever had a black bear in your house? I have. Love those guys, and they’re mostly harmless to humans. Given that people around here are used to them, they still flip when one hops the fence or dumps their garbage.
Consider that those two animals are absolutely illegal to kill except in self-defense. Think Bubba doesn’t smoke 'em on site anyway? Because Bubba do that.
So how well do you think reintroduction of predators would work?
Oh bull, humans have severely beaten natural predators and prey has exploded.
That proves my point, though.
And over population is bad news for any species; over feeding, disease, etc. I’ve seen deer populations that were staggering in size, no idea their fate, but it can’t be good.
To clarify, overpopulation can be a thing, but mostly because of human activity and our own perspectives.
Normally, the carrying capacity of any ecosystem has limits, and once the population of a certain species reaches that limit, there can be no more growth.
When we leave predators alone, there are ups and down of both prey and predator populations. Totally normal, and totally expected. There’s NOTHING wrong with this.
But when humans interfere, either directly (i.e. hunting) or indirectly (i.e. urban sprawl), it changes the dynamic of that ecosystem, and we notice or experience more conflicts.
The problem with hunting and mass culling, is that it creates side effects, and hunters will be chasing their own tail (no pun intended) going after “problem animals”.
Don’t want hunters? Fine, I’ve never hunted either, don’t care to. Reintroduce predators, so if you can make that happen. Farmers in Colorado shit kittens when the state reintroduced wolves.
You’d be surprised how many farmers will purposely bait predatory species just so they can have an excuse to eradicate them. Very few actually take steps to avoid conflicts with those animals, but there are non-profit groups who can help them develop a plan.
How do I know this? My wife spend nearly two decades in wildlife conservation, conflict avoidance (directly working with farmers), and wildlife rehabilitation. You should hear the stories!
Ever seen a panther in your neck of the woods? I have, and despite being armed, I wouldn’t fancy my chances. (And thank god, we ended up ignoring one another.) Maybe we could get some more of those? I’d be all for it.
Ever had a black bear in your house? I have. Love those guys, and they’re mostly harmless to humans. Given that people around here are used to them, they still flip when one hops the fence or dumps their garbage.
These aren’t examples to justify hunting. If your home has been developed in proximity to where these large animals naturally live, what do you expect?
If you do find a bear in your neighbourhood, the question that should be asked is, “who is leaving food out for them?”, not “do we have permission to kill them all?!!!”
We have coyote around here. They are harmless, more so than the off leash dogs you see running around near kids. Yet there’s an obsession for people to want to kill every one they see. Did I mention our rabbit population has exploded as a result? I guess it’s time to kill all the rabbits! /s
So how well do you think reintroduction of predators would work?
Is this to control the population for ecological reasons? It’s not like bears have any natural predators and I’d imagine humans have filled that role for most of history. If this is not the case, then it’s pretty sad.
You do know that (alpha) predator populations are self-regulating?
More predators => less prey => fewer predators => more prey => more predators
This is a fact that every hunter wants to ignore, yet that justification always comes up when [insert any animal] is killed.
It’s very much a relevant fact, especially in areas where natural predators have been eradicated either through habitat loss, or intentional hunting before we had conservation efforts in place. A wildlife manager considers every variable before determining how many hunting licenses are issued for the good of the ecology. Every hunter understands the balance, and the factors that determine a unit’s carrying capacity, it’s part of the mandatory hunter safety course training.
So starvation to control the population instead of hunting, got ya. What if the predators prey is plants? More predators => less plants => less predators => more plants?
Not sure if you are serious here. The definition of predation is killing and eating other animals. An organism eating plants is prey and its population gets controlled by predation.
My point here was for deer, deer in much of the US have no more natural predators. Hunters help fill that roll or else it’s disease, starvation, and cars that fill it.
A.K.A. The way nature works… for hundreds of millions of years? Yes. Exactly that.
If the carrying capacity of an ecosystem can’t support more predators, you don’t get more predators. The balance that nature has perfected always seems to be disrupted by humans looking to “control the population”.
Again, a balance that simply works without us interfering. When animals (and plants) are left to their own devices, they thrive. The only time this doesn’t happen is when humans get in the way.
Right, deer in the populated areas of north America have no preditors any more. So that population needs to be controlled. In the city and county i live in there are bow hunting programs in the parks since there aren’t many places you could hunt otherwise. If not disease and cars are what would control it. Thats led then ideal. Plus if you don’t want the meat there are programs to donate it to shelters.
And that’s rather the problem with predator populations, isn’t it? You understand all of this, yet still think hunters are using false justifications?
Deer? Turkey? Rabbits? Feral hogs? Cane toads?
Oh bull, humans have severely beaten natural predators and prey has exploded. And over population is bad news for any species; over feeding, disease, etc. I’ve seen deer populations that were staggering in size, no idea their fate, but it can’t be good.
Don’t want hunters? Fine, I’ve never hunted either, don’t care to. Reintroduce predators, so if you can make that happen. Farmers in Colorado shit kittens when the state reintroduced wolves.
Ever seen a panther in your neck of the woods? I have, and despite being armed, I wouldn’t fancy my chances. (And thank god, we ended up ignoring one another.) Maybe we could get some more of those? I’d be all for it.
Ever had a black bear in your house? I have. Love those guys, and they’re mostly harmless to humans. Given that people around here are used to them, they still flip when one hops the fence or dumps their garbage.
Consider that those two animals are absolutely illegal to kill except in self-defense. Think Bubba doesn’t smoke 'em on site anyway? Because Bubba do that.
So how well do you think reintroduction of predators would work?
That proves my point, though.
To clarify, overpopulation can be a thing, but mostly because of human activity and our own perspectives.
Normally, the carrying capacity of any ecosystem has limits, and once the population of a certain species reaches that limit, there can be no more growth.
When we leave predators alone, there are ups and down of both prey and predator populations. Totally normal, and totally expected. There’s NOTHING wrong with this.
But when humans interfere, either directly (i.e. hunting) or indirectly (i.e. urban sprawl), it changes the dynamic of that ecosystem, and we notice or experience more conflicts.
The problem with hunting and mass culling, is that it creates side effects, and hunters will be chasing their own tail (no pun intended) going after “problem animals”.
You’d be surprised how many farmers will purposely bait predatory species just so they can have an excuse to eradicate them. Very few actually take steps to avoid conflicts with those animals, but there are non-profit groups who can help them develop a plan.
How do I know this? My wife spend nearly two decades in wildlife conservation, conflict avoidance (directly working with farmers), and wildlife rehabilitation. You should hear the stories!
These aren’t examples to justify hunting. If your home has been developed in proximity to where these large animals naturally live, what do you expect?
If you do find a bear in your neighbourhood, the question that should be asked is, “who is leaving food out for them?”, not “do we have permission to kill them all?!!!”
We have coyote around here. They are harmless, more so than the off leash dogs you see running around near kids. Yet there’s an obsession for people to want to kill every one they see. Did I mention our rabbit population has exploded as a result? I guess it’s time to kill all the rabbits! /s
Incredibly well.
The trick is that humans need to be as hand’s off as possible. And when that happens, nature thrives.
My man studied the Lotka–Volterra evaluation. Good job
Still hear my math prof using that phrase
Money. Hunting permits = $$$$
There can’t be much money in issuing 486 licenses.