|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eliminating wolves and other animals
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The CBC reports that an entire wolf pack in Washington state, USA, is going to be killed. The reason given is that it its primary food source is livestock, cows, apparently.
Story here- "Washington state wolf pack targeted for elimination
Wolves roaming B.C. and Washington border area turn to livestock as food source"
What do you think, both about this specific situation, and the general situation of human hunting, culling (reducing numbers) or eradicating animals because of their interference with human activities.
I can kind of see the point of a wolf pack which has unnatural behaviour, but wonder about the ethics of simply shooting them, and human encroachment on wilderness. Parallel situations have occurred with bears.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
I find it strange that they are attacking cattle. There are wolves and coyotes in the forest behind the family farm but they don’t attack the cattle. In fact, wolves keep well away from anything to do with humans.
It sounds that the wolves historic bad name has got them into trouble again. Wolves are in fact much less dangerous than dogs. There has been only one death and one possible one from wolves in the last hundred years in the whole of North America.
There seems to be a cultural thing going. Here in Quebec, at least, no-one really bothers about wolves, despite there being large numbers of them. But across the border in the USA, they get really up tight.
Over the past few years, wolves have also migrated from Quebec into the northern USA sates. As in the case quoted here, there has been an outcry. Not quite a Canadian four legged illegal immigrants scare but certainly along the lines of the Canadians should keep their wolves to themselves.
The unanswered question is that if the Canadians have been coping with wolves since Canadians were invented (English, French and Aboriginal) why can’t Americans?
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Since they are experimenting with bringing back wolves, whose numbers had dropped to very low numbers in the recent past, I think that they need some lattitude in how to deal with the populations.
Uncontrolled wolf populations are no picnic to deal with, as centuries of human experience has shown.
As for the ethics of shooting them, people kill so many animals, both for food and other reasons, that it is hard to take a strong stand on this short of becoming vegetarian.
Where I live we are over-run with beautiful white tailed deer, as is common elsewhere. As much as I love the sweet Bambis I see the necessity of culling these herds. I would not be thrilled aobut introducing wolves to the neighborhood to do the job, though.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Uncontrolled wolf populations are no picnic to deal with, as centuries of human experience has shown.
Really? Examples?
quote:
Where I live we are over-run with beautiful white tailed deer, as is common elsewhere. As much as I love the sweet Bambis I see the necessity of culling these herds. I would not be thrilled aobut introducing wolves to the neighborhood to do the job, though.
Why not?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Uncontrolled wolf populations are no picnic to deal with, as centuries of human experience has shown.
Really? Examples?
I am familiar with literature such as "Little Red Riding Hood" and the true stories of the old west by Albert Payson Terhune.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Where I live we are over-run with beautiful white tailed deer, as is common elsewhere. As much as I love the sweet Bambis I see the necessity of culling these herds. I would not be thrilled aobut introducing wolves to the neighborhood to do the job, though.
Why not?
I am familiar with literature such as "Little Red Riding Hood" and the true stories of the old west by Albert Payson Terhune.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
I find it strange that they are attacking cattle. There are wolves and coyotes in the forest behind the family farm but they don’t attack the cattle. In fact, wolves keep well away from anything to do with humans.
The behavior of "my" coyotes has changed in the past couple of years. They used to stay well away from the house and keep their distance while hunting, but now for the past two nights I have spotted three of them near the house. Perhaps the Washington wolves are also showing erratic behavior.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Little Red Riding Hood! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
That's not really about wolves you know...
"The worst wolves are hairy on the inside"
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
The behavior of "my" coyotes has changed in the past couple of years. They used to stay well away from the house and keep their distance while hunting, but now for the past two nights I have spotted three of them near the house. Perhaps the Washington wolves are also showing erratic behavior.
We have the same situation with deer and bears. I suspect the cause is overpopulation. Apparently there are more deer along the US eastern seaboard than there were in 1600. I don't have any figures for bears, but they are showing up in urban areas.
Moo
[ 24. September 2012, 21:29: Message edited by: Moo ]
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Freddy---You're pulling ken's leg, right?
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
We have the same situation with deer and bears.
My brother lives a little farther from Philadelphia than I do. A few weeks ago he found that a bear had been climbing all over his mini-cooper in the driveway. Pawprints, fur - it looked like he mistook it for another bear. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Freddy---You're pulling ken's leg, right?
Yes, I've never actually had much to do with wolves. But I have seen a few videos of them on Youtube. They are huge!
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
We have the same situation with deer and bears. I suspect the cause is overpopulation. Apparently there are more deer along the US eastern seaboard than there were in 1600. I don't have any figures for bears, but they are showing up in urban areas.
Moo
The problem in some parts of Canada is the continued urbanization of the forest where the bears live. A search of Vancouver, bear and cougars will turn up videos and written reports about residents finding them in their backyards. The problem may be partly adaptation to living with people when the people have moved into their territory, but also their good ability to find food among their new habitat.
There is deer and bear hunting in many provincial parks in western Canada. Although these parks are supposed to preserve wild areas, they can't do it all. As these have become oases of wilderness among urban sprawl, the population of animals grows large enough that they spill over into towns. I suppose the solution is either to control the people or the wildlife. I think the people should be more controlled frankly by not allowing everyone to own a house and garden or yard. We certainly don't want wild areas to resemble the pseudo wilderness and farm-scape of Europe.
As for Ken's comment about wolves, you certainly don't want them near your home. They will eat your pets and sometimes attack people: "a search party found the partially consumed body", wolf attacks Saskatchewan man, though there is more problems with packs of stray dogs in the north of Canada. The dog problem is bad enough that towns hire "dog shooters" who are authorized to shoot any dogs running loose. Trappers are hired to kill beavers as well, because they can destroy all the trees and create massive flooding.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
nickel
Shipmate
# 8363
|
Posted
From what I've read about wolves, I think killing an entire family group might be more compassionate than killing part of the pack, leaving the survivors in social chaos. But I'd prefer to pay a bit more for my cow or sheep products and let the wolves have a share.
Posts: 547 | From: Virginia USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Uncontrolled wolf populations are no picnic to deal with, as centuries of human experience has shown.
Really? Examples?
quote:
Where I live we are over-run with beautiful white tailed deer, as is common elsewhere. As much as I love the sweet Bambis I see the necessity of culling these herds. I would not be thrilled aobut introducing wolves to the neighborhood to do the job, though.
Why not?
it is just SO not this simple, folks. people spend their lives studying population dynamics and anything we say here will be oversimplifying.
basically, though - the way populations fluctuate is you get booms and die offs. closely following that, you get the same fluctuation with the predator population. So, say you have a cranking big deer population. the food gets scarce, they raid gardens or whatever, and eventually die off from starvation, disease, and other factors (highway kills, etc) - one of those other factors being predation. in come the wolves who cull the weak and the babies and whatnot. just as the deer population is dying off, the wolves crank out a ton of cubs and they peak. but the food source is crashing. The wolves - who are nothing if not resourceful - go looking for other sources of food. in bad cases those can be livestock, pets, even people though that's so rare it's almost unheard of (I can think of one case in Alaska in my memory).
and so it goes - the livestock population gets knocked down, say, and our food prices go up, and if the lifestock thing works then we get more cubs that need feeding and the pressure gets worse.
Wolves need a lot of area. up here, they get it. yes, the population cycle still happens, but wolf predation on those things we are attached to - our livlihoods, or pets, ourselves - are pretty rare. they just die off and the cycle continues. down south it's a much bigger deal because the wolves just don't have the range they need, so they're coming into contact with humans and human-stuff much more often, which opens up the opportunity for diversifying their food sources.
And honestly, the reason the wolves are better off away from us is because we really don't want them habituated to humans. once they are comfortable with us, it's one more step towards seeing us as possible prey. it's happened, it can happen. it's because we don't get in their faces that these conflicts don't happen.
I'm sad to hear about a pack being wiped out. I hope they've tried everything else, first. and before anyone asks - relocation when it comes especially to bears and wolves really doesn't work very well. the tenacious bastards always find their way home again.
it's a tough call in wildlife management, and there are no easy answers. I can tell you, though, that I've worked with many, many wildlife management folks and never did a single one of them have anything but great respect for the animals. the people making this decision are not doing it easily. they are probably agonizing over it.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
I live in Ottawa, Canada's capital. The city has a bear hotline, and schools are often locked down in the suburbs for bear alerts.
No wolves that I'm aware of in the city, but many coyotes. I came within seconds recently of hitting one on a major highway during heavy traffic with my car (no fan of hitting anything, but I did still think it was a dog until I was quite close.)
There's also a weasel-type predator called a fisher that's a frequent cat-killer. Although I still think the major cause of dead cats is cars, and I'd rather my neighbors kept their cats indoors.
Bears and wolves in populated areas are generally going to be trapped and moved, or killed.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Thanks, comet!
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
I never thought I would write a defense of wolves! Sorry no prophet you are adrift with your comment “As for Ken's comment about wolves, you certainly don't want them near your home. They will eat your pets and sometimes attack people”. The article you cited in support actually mentions that it was only a possible wolf attack. If so, the only one in a hundred years. The only confirmed wolf death in North America was back in the nineteenth centenary.
As I mentioned before, wolves avoid humans and places with human scent. On our family farm, we see wolf tracks in the snow that take a massive detour around the human occupied areas and the also cattle.
I believe that the problem is that there is a whole wolf mythology from medieval Europe. Perhaps those more literary educated than me can elucidate. This has given wolves a major image problem!
As mentioned by many posters, the eradication of wolves leads to an imbalance of nature, especially major problems with over population of other species e.g. deer.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Comet, all that's true... but...
... this is in North-Eastern Washington State., The place has a population densiity of 2 or 3 humans per square kilometre. That probably seems crowded to someone from Alaska (well, if you ignore Anchorage) but by most people's standards its the middle of nowhere. There is a handy map of population denisty in the USA here If wolves can exist anywhere in the contiguous United States outside Yellowstone, its places like that.
The cattle these eight wolves kill aren't going to affect any food prices anywhere. They will affect the livelihooid of the farmers and ranchers, so the thing to do is compensate them. It probably cheaper in the long run anyway.
Things might be different if they were where Freddy lives, or in New England, or in England. But the borders of Washington State, Idaho, and British Columbia? This is not exactly downtown Philadelphia.
Though personaly I think there is might be room to re-establish wolves in some circumstances even in quite densely populated countries. (and in England their predation on deer might even help farmers) After all there are a many wolves in Spain. Central European countries such as Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, put together have more wolves in them than the USA and Mexico do together. To someone from where I live (or even where Freddy lives) those countries may look like endless empty plains surrounded by vast mountainous wildernesses covered in promeval forests but compared to Washington or Idaho they are densely populated. (Romania has about the same population density as Illinois or California - as does Turkey, which also has more wolves than the contiguous USA) Even in the USA, Wisconsin and Minnesota, which have about the same population density as Washington or Oregon, have many more wolves, quite likely because they have a bigger conservation effort.
There are still a few wolves left in Italy and tiny numbers in France and Germany - some of which even wander into Belgium and the Netherlands now and again. (and in American terms that's like having wolves in Connecticut or Massachucetts ... I can never spell those names...) There are wolves in Israel!
Lots of people say that wolves don't attack humans. That's not in fact true. What is true though is that wolves attack and kill many fewer humans than domestic dogs do. (And in the USA probably fewer than coyotes do) If we can tolerate them in our landscape, we can tolerate wolves. Of course we need to keep them under control, there are so many of us we can't get away from that any more. But we also need to keep a lot of other species under control, and wolves might even help with that. Also wolves are remarkably good at keeping hidden from humans - no-one was really sure there were any wolves at all in Ethiopia until this decade.
Anyway, this is a long-winded way of agreeing with Comet that its not simple (& I have studied this stuff for real) and that there are real problems, and that wolves, like othe rwild mammals, need to be managed by humans for their good as well as ours. BUT I woudl expect that the north-east corner of Washington State is the kind of place that management ought to be easiest, not hardest. Few enough people that the woves can keep out of our way, but enough of us around to keep an eye on what's going on.
On the other hand, back on this side of the water, reintroducing mammals into the British Isles is a long hard job. We managed to bring back wild boars by accident, and most people never even noticed! Even though the main population is just outside the southern suburbs of London in Kent, Surrey, and Sussex. (which is also the part of Britain with the highest density of deer) Which is luckym because its very unlikely that anyone would ever have agreed to do that if it had been planned. Boars are more dangerous to humans than wolves are, and at the moment we're having enough trouble getting agreement to reintroduce beavers. Farmers don't like them. Farmers certainly wouldn't like wolves. But then farmers don't like badgers, either. I think it'll be a long while before we get bison roaming our national parks ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Though personally I'm holding out an absurd hope for elephants
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Sorry about that an overlong near rant. Most of what I meant to say was in the first paragraph. I think the reason I got worked up about it was that I've been reading the British government's defence of their plan to cull badgers because of bovine TB and getting annoyed about it.
First they tell you about the reasearch they did. And they very honestly give the reasons why a badger cull probably won't work. Then they say they will do it anyway because its cheaper than the alternative, and even though it probably won;t work the farmers want them to and farmers have more votes than scientists. OK, they don't say that in so many words, but I think that is what it boils down to. And then they describe all sorts of rules and regulations that are almost certainly unenforceable, and if they were enforced would probably kill off what little chante the strategy has of working in the first place. So we get to have sick cows, angry farmers, *and* dead badgers, all at the same time.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[Where I live we are over-run with beautiful white tailed deer, as is common elsewhere. As much as I love the sweet Bambis I see the necessity of culling these herds. I would not be thrilled aobut introducing wolves to the neighborhood to do the job, though. [/QB]
yellowstone after the wolves retun
The results on the forestrs are interesting in places where wolves can be re-introduced. Part of the continuing problem in the coastal western US is that forest with no big trees become the sites for huge forest fires that burn everything.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
The article you cited in support actually mentions that it was only a possible wolf attack. If so, the only one in a hundred years. The only confirmed wolf death in North America was back in the nineteenth centenary.
I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but We had one two years ago. We count as north america.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The cattle these eight wolves kill aren't going to affect any food prices anywhere. They will affect the livelihooid of the farmers and ranchers, so the thing to do is compensate them. It probably cheaper in the long run anyway.
great post, and I don't disagree, but consider this on the micro level rather than the macro. Habituating these particular eight wolves to considering a human-provided food source is a very dangerous game. As the strategy works for them they get bolder - this can lead to two shitty outcomes. Like I said above, if this is a successful strategy they have bumper crops of cubs who then need even more food, which causes the pack to get bolder which then impacts the cattle in that area further. over a few generations, a single pack can even become two or three. in the right setting, this is fine, if the resources are there to support them. If those resources are penned up easy pray cattle, the impact will soon no longer be negligible.
the much bigger issue to me is that the wolves are going to want to stay near their prey source, and in consequence will be around humans themselves more often. the first time a truck goes by, you run, but the 12th time, you don't even wake from your nap. More and more time in proximity is going to lead to conflicts. And let me tell you from experience - even if it's a human who initially gets injured or killed, it's the wolf that will lose.
last month a hiker in the park up here was killed by a bear. he was in the wrong - he was told to give the bear at least a quarter mile radius and he chose to stay close, let the bear unknowingly approach him, while he took photos. (we have his camera, we know what happened) eventually, he startled the bear and the bear killed him.
and then ate him. unofficial word is that more than one bear was involved in the feasting part.
so yeah, the guy was dumb and he paid for it. But so did the bear. The park service couldn't risk having a bear (or four) who had developed a taste for humans as prey, so all of those bears were killed.
Say what you like, but to my mind those bears got screwed. they were doing what their instincts tell them to do, nothing "aberrant" (I punned!) and paid the ultimate price, because some dumbshit couldn't follow some simple rules.
We're looking at a future pattern for these wolves that could lead to a similar result. I wish the wildlife managers felt they had another option besides culling the pack, that really sucks. but I understand completely if they're concerned about escalating habituation leading to some major conflicts leading to major headlines leading to major hatred of wolves yet again.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
I need to add - in most of the cases I know of predators (mostly bears) getting killed after a conflict with humans, the human is not killed. in many, not even injured. it doesn't have to ever get to that point. often, the animal behaved towards a human in an unusually aggressive fashion, showing they are no longer shy of human interactions. This is bad news and game managers all know that if left alone it will lead to something bad, like a death. so the critter is often killed, if a successful relocation is unlikely. This may very well be the scenario with the wolves already. once wild predators are habituated to humans they get bold and bad shit happens.
hell, not even predators - we had a moose kill a guy in anchorage about 15 years ago just for walking by it. the moose was habituated to humans, so it didn't shy away from people, and the dude was habituated to the moose and thought he could just walk by it like someone's pet. he was stomped to death, and the moose was then killed. Habituation is a dangerous game.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sorry about that an overlong near rant. Most of what I meant to say was in the first paragraph. I think the reason I got worked up about it was that I've been reading the British government's defence of their plan to cull badgers because of bovine TB and getting annoyed about it.
First they tell you about the reasearch they did. And they very honestly give the reasons why a badger cull probably won't work. Then they say they will do it anyway because its cheaper than the alternative, and even though it probably won;t work the farmers want them to and farmers have more votes than scientists. OK, they don't say that in so many words, but I think that is what it boils down to. And then they describe all sorts of rules and regulations that are almost certainly unenforceable, and if they were enforced would probably kill off what little chante the strategy has of working in the first place. So we get to have sick cows, angry farmers, *and* dead badgers, all at the same time.
I have to say that I'm 100% with ken on this one.
The scientific evidence for the effectiveness of culling is weak in the extreme. In fact, the only way it will work is to eliminate ALL badgers in an area - with consequential knock-on effects on the ecosystem. And even then, it won't eliminate Bovine TB - it MIGHT reduce it, but that's all.
When you have an organisation like the RSPCA manning the barricades against you, you should know that something has gone very very wrong.
But as ken says - there are more Tory votes to be found in farmers than in pathetic, liberal bleeding heart naturalists.....
(Also - this is coming from a government that Dave promised would be the "greenest government ever". And people actually believed him!)
[ 26. September 2012, 07:03: Message edited by: Oscar the Grouch ]
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Sorry, can't help it. a few more points, here.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
After all there are a many wolves in Spain. Central European countries such as Romania, Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, put together have more wolves in them than the USA and Mexico do together. To someone from where I live (or even where Freddy lives) those countries may look like endless empty plains surrounded by vast mountainous wildernesses covered in promeval forests but compared to Washington or Idaho they are densely populated. (Romania has about the same population density as Illinois or California - as does Turkey, which also has more wolves than the contiguous USA)
please keep in mind that these are not the same wolves. They may have (and I suspect they do have) very different range requirements than our wolves. I'd hazard a guess that just due to the population densities in Europe over the millennia compared to ours, they have developed strategies for coping and therefore not getting into conflicts. Just because they are all called "wolves" does not mean they are the same wolves.
in the same token, you can't compare wolves to dogs or coyotes. they ain't the same beastie.
on another note - more wolves than mexico and the US do together? I'd love to see numbers. Alaska alone has a gigantic (relatively speaking) wolf population. the number that is tossed around is 17,000, but I'll go look for an updated estimate. I find it hard to believe that that many wolves are thriving in such a populated part of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Though personally I'm holding out an absurd hope for elephants
Hoff Hoff! It's a horrible Heffalump!
[ 26. September 2012, 07:17: Message edited by: comet ]
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
looks like closer to max 11,000. I know I shouldn't trust what I read on bumper stickers. still, that's no small number.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
quote:
(Also - this is coming from a government that Dave promised would be the "greenest government ever". And people actually believed him!)
I didn't. This is the same man who had himself flown to the South Pole so he could hug a husky.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sorry about that an overlong near rant. Most of what I meant to say was in the first paragraph. I think the reason I got worked up about it was that I've been reading the British government's defence of their plan to cull badgers because of bovine TB and getting annoyed about it.
First they tell you about the reasearch they did. And they very honestly give the reasons why a badger cull probably won't work. Then they say they will do it anyway because its cheaper than the alternative, and even though it probably won;t work the farmers want them to and farmers have more votes than scientists. OK, they don't say that in so many words, but I think that is what it boils down to. And then they describe all sorts of rules and regulations that are almost certainly unenforceable, and if they were enforced would probably kill off what little chante the strategy has of working in the first place. So we get to have sick cows, angry farmers, *and* dead badgers, all at the same time.
Ken, have you lived this long and not figured out how politicians think when they're under pressure?
1. We must do something
2. This is something
Therefore, we will do this.
I know, I know:
1. Cats have four legs
2. My dog has four legs
Therefore my dog is a cat.
But they don't tend to have been trained in formal logic.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Please keep in mind that these are not the same wolves. They may have (and I suspect they do have) very different range requirements than our wolves. I'd hazard a guess that just due to the population densities in Europe over the millennia compared to ours, they have developed strategies for coping and therefore not getting into conflicts. Just because they are all called "wolves" does not mean they are the same wolves.
The one in Transylvania, Spain, Little Red Ridinghood's Granny's bed etc is called canis lupus. It looks rather like what used to be called an Alsatian and is now called a German Shepherd. It howls. What is the one in Alaska called?
On badger culls, since humans can be and are routinely injected against consumption, I can't see why cows aren't as well. They are injected against quite a lot of other things.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On badger culls, since humans can be and are routinely injected against consumption, I can't see why cows aren't as well. They are injected against quite a lot of other things.
Part of the problem is that TB vaccination, particularly with BCG, just isn't as effective as it once was. As far as I am aware the near-elimination of TB in the 20th century was down to a two pronged approach, of eliminating it from the national cattle herd and also of vaccination of humans. However, TB is constantly evolving whereas BCG isn't, and we now face developing new vaccines which isn't easy or quick. Remove on prong, and the other has to take the strain.
Ag
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
on another note - more wolves than mexico and the US do together?
Sorry, I thought I said contiguous USA. Alaska has loads of wolves. As does Canada of course, and Russia.
quote:
Hoff Hoff! It's a horrible Heffalump!
![[Smile]](smile.gif) The Hundred Acre Wood where Winnie the Pooh went on a hunt for the Heffalump is based on Ashdown Forest in Sussex, about 20 miles north of Brighton (my home town) and 30 miles south of London, not far from Gatwick Airport. Its right in the middle of the part of England that has the highest density of wild deer, and bordering on the part with the most reintroduced wild boar. Which gives a whole new light to Piglet.
And now, genuinely, at least one pair of small kangaroos...
quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
On badger culls, since humans can be and are routinely injected against consumption, I can't see why cows aren't as well. They are injected against quite a lot of other things.
Part of the problem is that TB vaccination, particularly with BCG, just isn't as effective as it once was. As far as I am aware the near-elimination of TB in the 20th century was down to a two pronged approach, of eliminating it from the national cattle herd and also of vaccination of humans. However, TB is constantly evolving whereas BCG isn't, and we now face developing new vaccines which isn't easy or quick. Remove on prong, and the other has to take the strain.
Bovine TB is a slightly different disease than human TB, though humans can get it as well, the names are misleading. The vaccinations work quite well in cattle, and are used in places. If you read the document I linked to, it seems the main reason vaccination is not used more is cost. Also the government and the farmers want to put the costs on each other - so the farmers said vaccinate badgers asnd pay for it yourselves and the government said vaccinate cows. Shooting badgers is a lot easier and cheaper than vaccinating them.
Also there is a price premium for guaranteed TB-free cattle and you can't do that if they are vaccinated because they test positive for antibodies. (Which is why some jurisdictions that are officially TB-free want to either ban vaccination or ban trade with places where vaccination is used)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Please keep in mind that these are not the same wolves. They may have (and I suspect they do have) very different range requirements than our wolves. I'd hazard a guess that just due to the population densities in Europe over the millennia compared to ours, they have developed strategies for coping and therefore not getting into conflicts. Just because they are all called "wolves" does not mean they are the same wolves.
The one in Transylvania, Spain, Little Red Ridinghood's Granny's bed etc is called canis lupus. It looks rather like what used to be called an Alsatian and is now called a German Shepherd. It howls. What is the one in Alaska called?
Canis lupus.* you're missing my point - these are very separate populations, with very separate learned behaviors over very long periods of time. The difference isn't in genetic variant, it's in behavior adaptation over thousands of years.
*in particular, Canis lupus arcticus, Canis lupus alces, Canis lupus pambasileus, Canis lupus tundrarum, and most commonly, Canis lupis occidentalis. yours, I believe, are Canis lupus lupus.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Comet is correct on this one. As a parallel, one look at the range of dog breeds, sizes, shapes and temperament will tell a similar story. Timber wolves here, and I have seen them only a handful of times, always in winter. They will range over several 100s of square miles. And they are big. Large bodies on top of very long legs and broad feet, with very long noses. Canids of all kinds habituate well to humans if they have the time and aren't instantly aggressive. Hence the complete extermination of the plains wolf, but the ongoing survival of the grey or timber wolf. Wolf fur is by far the best as parka hood fringing as it does not ice up in very cold weather. Less seen these days with animal rights activism, but more common when there are traditional peoples around, here First Nations and Metis.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And now, genuinely, at least one pair of small kangaroos...
I presume, since you say 'small' you don't mean actual 'kangaroo' kangaroos, but some type of smaller macropod? (Having asked that question, it appears from wikipedia that 'kangaroo' kangaroos aren't a real clade.)
[ 26. September 2012, 18:54: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
[totally pointless contribution]
saw this this evening and it reminded me of the thread. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[/pointless contribution]
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
The UK's greatest vermin problem is of course grey squirrels, which need wiping out immediately, if not sooner. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Boar got out from farms. I thought there was some talk of wiping them out? I think there is an established population in the New Forest.
The UK has had some wildlife successes. Otters are more widespread in the densely populated south east.
When I was growing up in rural Wiltshire I don't remember seeing any buzzards, but they're common now. Kites are doing well too. I've done quite a bit of walking near Basingstoke; and over the last few years I've seen them further and further south, now into Hampshire.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
The UK's greatest vermin problem is of course grey squirrels, which need wiping out immediately, if not sooner.
Boar got out from farms. I thought there was some talk of wiping them out? I think there is an established population in the New Forest.
The UK has had some wildlife successes. Otters are more widespread in the densely populated south east.
When I was growing up in rural Wiltshire I don't remember seeing any buzzards, but they're common now. Kites are doing well too. I've done quite a bit of walking near Basingstoke; and over the last few years I've seen them further and further south, now into Hampshire.
Yup! Let's use the money being spent on badger-culling to start getting rid of grey squirrels. Then let's get started on the likes of ring-necked parakeets and muntjac....
The re-introduction of the red kite to England has been - on the whole - a fantastic success so far. We almost certainly have a pair nesting not far from us - I've seen them flying together on a number of occasions. The furthest south I've seen one so far is just to the north of Southampton.
It wasn't that long ago that the only way to catch a glimpse of a red kite was to go up in to the heart of the Welsh mountains.
Which reminds me - ospreys are now breeding in Wales.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
T Kites are doing well too.
Numbers up from less than 30, all in Wales, to over 3,000, mostly in south-central England. That (& the spread of buzzards towards the east, and return of peregrines and the slight spread of ravens) is pretty much entirely due to gamekeepers not shooting them or trapping them or destroying their nests any more.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
T Kites are doing well too.
Numbers up from less than 30, all in Wales, to over 3,000, mostly in south-central England. That (& the spread of buzzards towards the east, and return of peregrines and the slight spread of ravens) is pretty much entirely due to gamekeepers not shooting them or trapping them or destroying their nests any more.
Not entirely. Buzzards and ravens, yes. Peregrines have spread because of the removal of various pesticides from the foodchain that affected their eggshells. Kites have spread naturally in Wales. A possible reason is genetic improvement. In SE England, and elsewhere, there have been re-introduction programmes. Until about the time of Jane Austen, they were quite common.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
