RE: Preying on the predators
January 25, 2021 at 5:51 pm
(This post was last modified: January 25, 2021 at 6:13 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
What data contradicts what assumption? None of the enclosure studies are assumptions, for example. They are observed trends that have been persistently identified and recreated since the 1940s. The numbers of deer in a area have an effect on the types of plants which grow, and how - and this ripples all the way up and down the ecosystem. There's nowhere where they haven't found this to be the case. The specific groups and their relationships, and the density numbers can, ofc, differ by place and time. In florida, for example, it's usually not fern deserts (though I've seen a few small ones) - it's palmetto. The numbers are higher but that's because the deer are just flat out smaller and available forage goes further, and neither the deer nor the wild flora has to overwinter. I can tell you about those studies too, if you need more examples.
Who do you think puts more money into conservation than hunters? Do you, does anyone you know?
I think that you don't understand hunters enthusiasm for being part of this process. They can go out there and kill the deer without collecting any data at all. On the fishing side, they've (the state) started to pay for tags sent back to them - so that's the state of play with respect to how many volunteers there are to replace these folks. I'm sure they could be replaced, but by whom, and how would we pay them?
We can all assume the worst about motivations - but that was the point. Wouldn't you expect to see taxes for conservation dry up? You know how we feel about taxes here in the states. If we're premising the survival of species on the notion that americans are going to fall over themselves to pay for pest deer and coyotes to be protected by non hunters who breed and cull on restricted lands owned by the public........then friend...deer and coyotes aren't long for this world. Assuming the worst of them and their motivations, ofc.
What does not endorsing hunting look like, practically? Not hunting? Or opposing successful hunting conservation programs that produce funds and repair the environment? For groups like the humane society of the us, it's very much the latter. Hunting is bad, therefore no amount of success or benefit from hunting is legitimate. In an impressive show of bad faith, you'll find that they actually reference the work of the NRS in Allegheny and other places as why hunting should be illegal. In your own links. They do so by selectively employing the data on what happens when there are too many and too few deer - and leave the reader to assume that hunters are the cause in both cases...which....they're not. Hunters are the people doing the work to try and get the numbers to acceptable levels. In the absence of predation, and that's what we are, those numbers fluctuate wildly with all of the attendant effects on the forests and the deer pops themselves - effects which we know can be comprehensive and last for decades or centuries.
Nature, iz nt vry smrt....and it's definitely not up to the task of repairing the damage we've done left to it's own devices. The low quality forests and fern deserts and cherry thickets and palmetto wastes and chronic wasting disease and tb......literally -are- natures devices.
-and I get that it might be that none of this reflects where you are. You may have predators in your region that we don't have and never will have on the east coast. Different pops, different forest comps. Nothing that I've been discussing applies one for one with mule deer in the plains, for example
Who do you think puts more money into conservation than hunters? Do you, does anyone you know?
I think that you don't understand hunters enthusiasm for being part of this process. They can go out there and kill the deer without collecting any data at all. On the fishing side, they've (the state) started to pay for tags sent back to them - so that's the state of play with respect to how many volunteers there are to replace these folks. I'm sure they could be replaced, but by whom, and how would we pay them?
We can all assume the worst about motivations - but that was the point. Wouldn't you expect to see taxes for conservation dry up? You know how we feel about taxes here in the states. If we're premising the survival of species on the notion that americans are going to fall over themselves to pay for pest deer and coyotes to be protected by non hunters who breed and cull on restricted lands owned by the public........then friend...deer and coyotes aren't long for this world. Assuming the worst of them and their motivations, ofc.
What does not endorsing hunting look like, practically? Not hunting? Or opposing successful hunting conservation programs that produce funds and repair the environment? For groups like the humane society of the us, it's very much the latter. Hunting is bad, therefore no amount of success or benefit from hunting is legitimate. In an impressive show of bad faith, you'll find that they actually reference the work of the NRS in Allegheny and other places as why hunting should be illegal. In your own links. They do so by selectively employing the data on what happens when there are too many and too few deer - and leave the reader to assume that hunters are the cause in both cases...which....they're not. Hunters are the people doing the work to try and get the numbers to acceptable levels. In the absence of predation, and that's what we are, those numbers fluctuate wildly with all of the attendant effects on the forests and the deer pops themselves - effects which we know can be comprehensive and last for decades or centuries.
Nature, iz nt vry smrt....and it's definitely not up to the task of repairing the damage we've done left to it's own devices. The low quality forests and fern deserts and cherry thickets and palmetto wastes and chronic wasting disease and tb......literally -are- natures devices.
-and I get that it might be that none of this reflects where you are. You may have predators in your region that we don't have and never will have on the east coast. Different pops, different forest comps. Nothing that I've been discussing applies one for one with mule deer in the plains, for example
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
