Wolves Hunted This Season

Got some old "Shikaar" tales to share? Found a great new spot to Fish? Any interesting camping experiences? Discussion of Back-packing, Bicycling, Boating, National Parks, Wildlife, Outdoor Cooking & Recipes etc.
Forum rules
PLEASE NOTE: There is currently a complete ban on Hunting/ Shikar in India. IFG DOES NOT ALLOW any posts of an illegal nature, and anyone making such posts will face immediate disciplinary measures.

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby Hammerhead » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:27 am

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" .....Benjamin Franklin.....

And its unfortunate that these were killed just for fun unlike Deer hunting!


Every one's not hunter in gun ownership and being a sportsmen , we hardly criticize each other on the bases of personal choices . And some times we happens to be all over the world and many countries in the world enjoy hunting rights and for centuries we been hunters and gatherers .

But it's long story , Predator control is the shortest - Haji

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/111 ... -by-coyote
Last edited by Hammerhead on Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
User avatar
Hammerhead
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:52 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby ckkalyan » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:22 am

Those are some HUGE wolves :cpix: Thanks for sharing!
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
User avatar
ckkalyan
 
Posts: 819
Age: 53
Joined: Sat May 29, 2010 10:37 pm
Location: Richmond BC, Canada

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby xl_target » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:33 am

Haji make a very good point. We are all into guns for different reasons. Harping on one another about our interests doesn't further our cause.

Besides that, for this is a fact that has been reiterated many times, a large chunk of American conservation dollars come from hunters. Money for conservation is earmarked from the sale of guns and ammunition and from hunting licences. Without hunters, in today's economy, North American flora and fauna would suffer a setback. Regardless of whether a person hunts for trophies, to protect their livelyhood or for subsistence, the monies gained from those activities help wildlife as a whole.

We can disparage hunters and hunting all you want but without the money they pump into conservation, the losers will be the very animals that many of us claim to want to protect. You only have to look at the state of some of Africa's game sanctuaries that have been reduced to shadows of their former selves to see how prosperous banning legal hunting has made them. For that matter you only have to look at your own backyard and look at the pathetic state of India's wildlife at present. It is so far gone in many areas that even opening it up to hunting now will not solve the problems. At least, for all its faults, the British Raj practiced conservation. After years of self governance, we have failed miserably to carry on that tradition. Did banning legal hunting solve the problem or even help the decline of wildlife in India?
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941
User avatar
xl_target
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby Biren » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:38 pm

All said in favour of hunting correct... but the question is with weak implementation of law and already burderned judicial system whether conservation aping west will do any good here?

Allow hunting, open licences... in grab of legal, iilegal will flourish... all will be in open.. which atleast as of now is hidden..

What happened in Kashmir.. when hunting was banned, trader/artisans were asked to declare the no of hides/furs in their possesion.. and ppl holding 2 declared 2000.

Instead copying west.. Gov should work out after taking into account ground realities in this sub continent. For example allow boar hunting in a specfic area for a specific period for a fee involving locals & local executive. The aim should be to control the population in wild but no trophies or fur to be retained. Let the money earned be ploughed back in the local economy... let the local be the custodians.

Cheers
Biren
Biren
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:51 am
Location: delhi

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby Hammerhead » Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:03 am

Here we go .....

Hunters Are People Too
By Tovar Cerulli

Feb 15 2012, 9:06 AM ET 8

Like many fellow vegans, Cerulli abstained from animal-derived foods because he cared about the consequences of his eating, but his decision to hunt was an extension of the same feelings.

Watching hunters headed to the woods each autumn, I used to shake my head. As a vegan who abhorred violence and suffering, I wondered what possessed such people. That they ate flesh was bad enough. That they spent time and money in pursuit of the chance to deal death to fellow creatures was incomprehensible.

From where I stood in our organic vegetable garden, I saw hunting as a barbaric relic of humanity's pre-agricultural past, the antithesis of our gentle efforts to coax sustenance from the soil. I couldn't possibly have pictured myself a decade later, mapping deer trails all summer in hopes of dragging home venison come November.

Like many vegans and vegetarians, I abstained from animal-derived foods because I cared about the consequences of my eating, for the planet and for the beings who inhabit it. I sought a kind of responsible dietary citizenship, a respectful, holistic way of living as a member of the larger-than-human world. My turn toward hunting was an unexpected extension of that same search.

Even local, organic greens and strawberries came to us courtesy of missing forests, smoke-bombed woodchucks, and rifle-shot deer.

By the time my fiance' and I returned to eating eggs and dairy due to health concerns, I had realized that everything I ate took a toll on animals. I knew that clearing crop land wipes out wildlife habitat, that grain harvesters mince birds and mammals (PDF), and that farmers kill to protect virtually every crop grown in North America. Even local, organic greens and strawberries came to us courtesy of missing forests, smoke-bombed woodchucks, and rifle-shot deer. If farmers had had their way in the late 19th century, deer populations here in the Northeast would have remained at the near-extinction levels to which they had been driven by over-hunting and the clearing of forests for agriculture.

Our return to eating local chicken and wild fish was even more unsettling. These creatures had not died as a side effect of agriculture. They had been killed specifically so I could eat them.

So I took up hunting. I needed to take responsibility for at least a few of the deaths that sustained me, to confront that emotional and moral difficulty. I needed to look directly at living, breathing creatures. I couldn't have all the killing done by proxy.


As in my vegan years, I sought a respectful, holistic way of living as a member of the larger-than-human world. Ecologically, venison from local woods made more sense than anything shipped cross-country. Ethically, a truly wild animal made more sense than any creature raised in confinement.

Hunting, of course, is hard for many Americans to swallow.

In part, that's a matter of history. From the Puritans, who saw hunting as a sign of degeneracy in both European nobles and American Indians, to lionized hunters like Daniel Boone and Theodore Roosevelt to our modern stereotype of hunters as reckless rednecks, we have inherited a wildly conflicted legacy.

In part, it's a matter of current events. Some hunters take dangerous shots at unidentified flashes of movement, occasionally resulting in tragedy. Some take marginal shots at animals, with little care for the suffering inflicted or the risk of a slow, painful death.

We are -- and should be -- troubled by such behavior. But we should also see it for what it is: the dark side not just of hunting but of our culture as a whole.

As writer and hunter Ted Kerasote pointed out years ago, recklessness and disrespect are hardly unique to thoughtless hunters. As a society, we engage in all kinds of gratuitously harmful behavior, from drunk driving and factory farming to rapacious development and agricultural practices that cause soil erosion and poison birds by the tens of millions . Poor hunter conduct -- attributable to the willful actions of individual members of a minority -- serves as a lightning rod for disapproval, but it is not particularly unusual.

In great part, our difficulty with hunting stems from the simple fact that we are disturbed by the killing of animals. Most burger-wolfing Americans don't want to know what happens in slaughterhouses. Most yogurt-scooping vegetarians don't want to know that dairy farming depends on the constant butchering of male calves for veal. As a salad-munching vegan, I didn't want to know about the impacts of agriculture.

Unlike going to the grocery store, the idea of hunting brings us face to face with animal death. Though hunters may go days, weeks, and even years without shooting an animal or bird, we all know that they intend to kill eventually.

Fifteen years ago, I found such voluntary participation unfathomable. In my imagination, I painted hunters with a dark brush. At best, I thought, they must be callous and ignorant. Now, after nearly a decade as a hunter, I think hunting deserves a fair hearing.


Other Americans are concluding the same. As the local food movement grows, vegetarians and omnivores alike are seeking paths to responsible dietary citizenship. Disturbed by the industrialized food system's impacts on humans, other animals, and the wider natural world, many of us are supporting local farmers. Many are planting gardens or raising backyard chickens. And some are taking up rifles, shotguns, and bows.

Though hunting will never provide a substantial portion of our national food supply -- deer hunting, for instance, yields roughly 300 million pounds of venison per year, less than one pound per American -- it can be significant for individual families. Four of the past five autumns, I have hiked into the woods with a rifle, waited patiently, killed swiftly, and dragged home 70-100 pounds of healthy, local, sustainable, free-range meat.

Over the past two years, articles on hunting for food have appeared in newspapers and magazines across the country. From New York and Virginia to Arizona and Wisconsin, people are enrolling in classes designed for what I call "adult-onset hunters." Others are learning on their own or getting guidance from lifelong hunters they know personally.

Even if this surge of interest in hunting proves to be a passing trend, it has already begun the important work of busting stereotypes. As more Americans find that hunters exist within their circles of family and friends, hunters are getting harder to pigeonhole. Shattered stereotypes offer us a chance to think and see with greater clarity.

As we continue to reassess our relationships with food and nature, hunting -- like agriculture -- should be examined with a discerning eye. Approached with hubris, it can perpetuate the worst of who we are: humans at our greediest and most careless. Approached with humility, it can encourage the best of who we are: humans at our wisest and most mindful.

This post is straying dangerously away from the topic of hunting wolves and toward a different subject that is both controversial with religious implications and barely related to the original subject. Be aware that further straying from the original topic will lead to this thread being locked and possible disciplinary actions - moderator

:
:
Once you finish reading take a look at this ......
:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... e-1.177004
:
A timely article appeared on some other hunting forum , not bad 100th post - Haji
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
User avatar
Hammerhead
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:52 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby Hammerhead » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:05 am

Montana Governor Encourages Ranchers to Kill Problem Wolves

Defying federal authority over gray wolves, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock and said the state will start shooting packs that hurt elk herds.
AR Guns & Hunting Read It Now

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — Defying federal authority over gray wolves, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer on Wednesday encouraged ranchers to kill wolves that prey on their livestock — even in areas where that is not currently allowed — and said the state will start shooting packs that hurt elk herds.

Schweitzer told The Associated Press he no longer would wait for federal officials to resolve the tangle of lawsuits over wolves, which has kept the animals on the endangered species list for a decade since recovery goals were first met.

"We will take action in Montana on our own,'' he said. "We've had it with Washington, D.C., with Congress just yipping about it, with (the Department of) Interior just vacillating about it.''

State wildlife agents and ranchers already kill wolves regularly across much of the Northern Rockies, where 1,700 of the animals roam parts of five states. Rules against killing wolves have been relaxed significantly by federal officials over the past decade but hunting remains prohibited.

Livestock owners in southern Montana and Idaho have authority to defend their property by shooting wolves that attack their cattle, sheep or other domestic animals. And federal agents regularly kill problem wolves, with more than 1,000 shot over the past decade.

But Schweitzer is moving to expand those killings beyond what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has so far allowed, including to parts of Montana where ranchers are not allowed to shoot the predators.

Fish and Wildlife spokesman Chris Tollefson said the agency was working with Montana and other states in the region to address their concerns over the wolf population.

"We've been in negotiations with Montana and the other states for some time, and we're committed to continuing that and trying to find a solution that works for everybody,'' he said.

In a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar provided by Schweitzer's office, the Democratic governor said state game wardens will be directed to stop investigating wolf shootings north of Interstate 90, the part of the state with the strictest protections for the animals.

That follows a similar show of defiance from Idaho's Republican governor, C.L. "Butch'' Otter.

Otter said in the fall that Idaho Fish and Game agents would no longer participate in wolf management efforts, including shooting investigations. The move forced federal officials to step in to enforce restrictions on killing the animals.

Federal enforcement of laws against killing protected wolves also would be expected in Montana.

But critics of federal wolf policies appeared emboldened by the governor's Wednesday statements. Robert Fanning, who heads a group that advocates protecting elk herds around Yellowstone National Park from wolves, sent out an e-mail urging Montana residents to ``lock and load and saddle up while there is still snow on the ground.''

In the Bitterroot Valley south of Missoula, Schweitzer directed Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks to begin removing wolf packs blamed for driving down elk populations.

The state has a pending petition before the Fish and Wildlife Service to remove a dozen wolves in the Bitterroot. A decision on that petition is pending, according to federal officials.

But Schweitzer indicated Wednesday he was not going to wait, and would leave it to state wildlife agents to decide when to kill the wolves. He was less adamant in the letter to Salazar, which said the Bitterroot packs would be killed "to the extent allowed by the Endangered Species Act.''

Department of Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the agency agreed there was an "urgent need'' to turn over wolf management to states that have acceptable management plans for the animals.

"But the governor's letter is not the answer,'' she added.

Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court.

A provision in a budget bill pending before Congress would revoke endangered species status for wolves in Montana and Idaho. Other measures introduced by lawmakers would lift federal protections across the lower 48 states.

Despite the bitter public divide on the issue, attacks on livestock by other, unprotected predators such as coyotes far exceed damage from wolves, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. But the lack of state control over wolves because of their endangered status has frustrated both livestock owners and elk hunters, who complain that their hands are tied by federal protections.

"This is a real-life problem in Montana — and we plan to start solving the problem,'' Schweitzer said.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
User avatar
Hammerhead
 
Posts: 497
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:52 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby timmy » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:50 am

This is the situation in the USA, and it bears noting as a study with regard to conservation efforts worldwide.

I would note that, as I've said before, hunting can provide a valuable contribution to wildlife conservation, in that it can and does fund a major part of conservation efforts. This is a cost hunters are willing to sustain, while the general public seldom is at necessary levels.

On the other hand, with regard to the previous post and Montana, I would also note that in Montana, both ranching and guided elk hunts are a huge revenue source to the state, even apart from conservation costs. Therefore, as in most any state or nation run by elected officials, sectors of the economy that contribute to the public coffers often have an outsized influence in the running of the government that goes beyond the idea of one man, one vote.

Having noted this fact, I would suggest that those reading the above quoted article consider the voices of economic advantage that are brought to bear on the governor, and also that one ought to weigh who represents the scientifically demonstrated value of the wolves in the wild. In short, the main advocate for wolves is the Federal Government's wildlife policies, and to a lesser extent, those of an individual state. I'd further point out that, without any government regulation, one would be back to that situation that existed at the beginning of the 20th Century, when elk were just about wiped out to extinction in the USA, (two of the six subspecies of elk are extinct) due to everyone having the freedom to do what they want. In these cases, only the government can protect any animal from extinction.

Ramachandra Guha once noted that the government exists to ensure the well being of society by regulating disputes. As there is nobody to represent the plight of animals, that would also be the government's function in my view -- to take an enlightened and dispassionate approach that considers the well-being of our environment (and, by extension, everyone in society) without overwhelming regard to any one group's pocketbook.

Just so that I am not misunderstood, I am a firm and dedicated advocate of hunting rights. However, I do not believe that those rights extend to unfettered exploitation of the environment.

Having lived a good part of my life in Montana (and hunted there as a resident), I am well aware of the sorts of political pressures that can be brought to bear on the government of what is, in the USA, a poor small state, especially by inadequately educated people who see their economic basis threatened. I am not saying that this is the case here, but I do say that I perceive it as a danger, and one ought to read the article above with the recognition that it significantly represents the interests of various groups' pocket books, and takes very little care for dispassionate environmental science.
Regards,
tim
User avatar
timmy
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: I'm a Nuevo Mexicano

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby YogiBear » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:12 am

Aloha,

Slightly OT

About Deer and Automobiles in the US

According to the US Government National Traffic Safety Administration

There are 1,000,000 (one million) Deer/vehicle crashes every year in the US.

1 Billion $$$ in damages.

10,000 injuries

200 people killed

There are More deer in the US Now than there were when the first european settlers came.

I have seen magnificent trophy Buck deer standing on the side of the freeway outside Washington DC.

In many states, fresh road kill deer are harvested and given to homeless shelters as free food.
YogiBear
 
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 2:42 am
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby Rajat » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:52 am

YogiBear wrote:
There are More deer in the US Now than there were when the first european settlers came.



Most deer species are native to America and must have existed for hundreds or thousands of years before the first European settlers came I guess. I wonder who used to control their population for all these years and maintain the balance before the settlers and why is it that we see this imbalance only now? :?
Rajat
 
Posts: 612
Age: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby Rajat » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:59 am

Biren wrote:All said in favour of hunting correct... but the question is with weak implementation of law and already burderned judicial system whether conservation aping west will do any good here?

What happened in Kashmir.. when hunting was banned, trader/artisans were asked to declare the no of hides/furs in their possesion.. and ppl holding 2 declared 2000.

Instead copying west.. Gov should work out after taking into account ground realities in this sub continent. For example allow boar hunting in a specfic area for a specific period for a fee involving locals & local executive. The aim should be to control the population in wild but no trophies or fur to be retained. Let the money earned be ploughed back in the local economy... let the local be the custodians.

Cheers
Biren


Makes sense.
Rajat
 
Posts: 612
Age: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby xl_target » Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:56 pm

Rajat wrote:
YogiBear wrote:
There are More deer in the US Now than there were when the first european settlers came.



Most deer species are native to America and must have existed for hundreds or thousands of years before the first European settlers came I guess. I wonder who used to control their population for all these years and maintain the balance before the settlers and why is it that we see this imbalance only now? :?


Rajat,

A certain amount of land will support a certain amount of deer. The amount of deer that can be supported is dictated mainly by the amount of cover offered in that patch of land and the amount of food/forage available. Prior to settlers appearing here, Nature kept the animal populations down to what the land could support. Most Native Americans here (like the Sioux and the Dakota) at the time were hunter gatherers and their numbers were comparatively small (though there were many Indian tribes that were agricultural in nature - mostly in the southern parts of the US).

Let us take the example of southern MN where I live. This area was mainly Prairie. It consisted of large tracts of relatively flat land covered mainly by grasses (among other plants typical to the ecosystem). When white settlers came here, they burnt off the prairie grasses and broke the sod with plows. They used typical European agricultural practices of plowing a furrow and planting. They also planted trees around their farm sites and as windbreaks. Prior to their appearance here, about the only places where trees were found were along river banks.

In time hilly areas and areas unable to be plowed by the oxen/draft animals were also planted with trees to prevent erosion. Today, with the ample crops planted here and the profusion of trees available, the land can support a huge amount of deer. Adding to that is the fact that farmers over the years have removed any predators that would prey on their livestock. This leaves no natural predators in this area that can control deer. The result of this is that the deer population has exploded. If there is a bad winter, very large numbers of deer will starve. When you have too many deer on a piece of land that will not support them (in winter), the whole herd gets sickly and suffers. Hunting is the only way the only way to keep them in check at present. The state Dept. of Natural Resources sets the quota that can be harvested on a county by county basis (and sometimes even by township). The carrying capacity of the land in question is carefully calculated and the numbers of hunting permits are issued on that basis.

Scientific management techniques along with prevalent agricultural practices are what keeps the deer population high. Fortunately for the US, human overpopulation didn't occur and deer were able to compete favorably with humans for natural resources. Why overpopulation didn't occur here is due to socio-economic factors, the discussion of which is beyond the purview of this forum. Another issue is that with the increased urbanization of America, fewer and fewer people are exposed to firearms and hunting nowadays and many of these quotas go unfilled. A problem that is cropping up is that with fewer people buying hunting licences, revenue for conservation could drop. If that happens, the losers will only be the wildlife. Fortunately, for now, gun and ammo sales have not really decreased that much. A percentage of gun and ammo revenue is set aside for conservation (by law).

I hope that answered your question.
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941
User avatar
xl_target
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby xl_target » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:17 pm

Quoting from the article that Haji posted:
Federal wildlife officials have tried twice in the last four years to lift endangered protections for wolves and turn over management to the states. Both attempts were reversed in federal court.


One thing to consider is that the Federal Wildlife Officials (Biologists and Conservation Officials) have twice tried to remove Wolves from the Endangered Species list but have been prevented by court cases brought by people who do not want to see the wolves come off the list (for whatever reasons).

I won't say much on the above on the above except to say that the Feds themselves feel that there are enough wolves now that they can be taken off the Endangered Species list. Till the wolves come off the list, wolf management practices cannot be implemented, by statute. A whole different criteria is applied to animals on the list (by law). This impacts the livelyhood of livestock ranchers who are a significant part of the economic system in Montana.
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941
User avatar
xl_target
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby xl_target » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:38 pm

Biren wrote:All said in favour of hunting correct... but the question is with weak implementation of law and already burderned judicial system whether conservation aping west will do any good here?

Allow hunting, open licences... in grab of legal, iilegal will flourish... all will be in open.. which atleast as of now is hidden..


Instead copying west.. Gov should work out after taking into account ground realities in this sub continent. For example allow boar hunting in a specfic area for a specific period for a fee involving locals & local executive. The aim should be to control the population in wild but no trophies or fur to be retained. Let the money earned be ploughed back in the local economy... let the local be the custodians.

Cheers
Biren


The biggest problem as you bring up is that illegal hunting and poaching will flourish. Why is that?
To prevent poaching, you have to have conservation officers on the ground, adequately equipped to tackle and shut down poachers. This costs money, a lot of money - to pay for salaries and equipment. Where does this come from?

In countries that have successful conservation programs, this money comes from sportsmen who buy licences and pay taxes on certain sporting goods; usually arms and ammo. If you delegitimize activities like hunting, make legal arms and ammo difficult to procure; you have just removed a major revenue stream that could be applied to conservation. Most hunters are more than willing to pay these taxes. Most tree huggers aren't. The less money available for conservation, the more poachers will have unfettered access to take wildlife and the worse the situation becomes for your flora and fauna. There aren't enough conservation officers to stop people from cutting down trees in National Forests or Game Sanctuaries.

The above is not wishful thinking. It is fact and has been shown to occur all over the globe.

Another thing to think about: Regardless of laws preventing access, poachers or other criminals never seem to lack access to arms and ammo, do they?
“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense” — Winston Churchill, Oct 29, 1941
User avatar
xl_target
 
Posts: 2671
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 7:47 am
Location: USA

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby timmy » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:06 pm

I wonder who used to control their population for all these years and maintain the balance before the settlers and why is it that we see this imbalance only now?


Besides what XL wrote, I would add that agricultural interests were opposed to natural predator populations. For instance, packs of wolves don't mix too well with cattle and sheep ranching. Eagles and hawks were also, at one time, hunted to very low numbers. In one specific instance of this, there were strong worries at one time that the Bald Eagle, the USA's national bird, could become extinct. When populations drop to very low levels, the gene pool is very small and it is much more likely that some parasite or sickness can put an end to the whole population.

Because of the lack of natural predators, there are large overabundances of other animal populations, in other words.

Just in our neighborhood, the whole place is overrun with rabbits. In the natural scheme of things, these rabbits would be considerably thinned out by bobcats and coyotes, but those predators have been largely, though not completely, eradicated from many habitats.

There are other reasons for this, too. Pesticides and herbicides tend to affect predator populations much more, since the concentrations of harmful substances become more concentrated as one moves up the food chain, and the top predator is where these substances usually are found in the highest amounts.
Regards,
tim
User avatar
timmy
 
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:03 am
Location: I'm a Nuevo Mexicano

Re: Wolves Hunted This Season

Postby Rajat » Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:33 pm

Hello XL and Timmy,

When I first saw the reply it was merged with my post and I could not see the name of the person who had answered. Had to be one of the Mods, :wink: either you or Timmy I thought. It was your post and now I have Timmy's reply too.

Thanks for the detailed replies and explanation. It was not really a question and well, I had known and expected most of the points mentioned in your replies to my post. I do not wish to comment on the points, it is not necessary. :)

But what I do sincerely and truly appreciate is the way both of you have expressed and explained your points. Technically most the details are correct. Some opinions and solutions I might not agree with or dislike but we all have our own beliefs and ways to handle situations and may be right in what we believe.

The important thing at this time is how you have in an unbiased manner stated the reasons and tried to explain things. I do appreciate it. It good to have people like you on this forum. Thanks.
Rajat
 
Posts: 612
Age: 39
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Hunting, Hiking, Camping, Fishing & other Fresh Air Activities

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest