U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-03-2013, 03:56 PM
 
Location: PNW native currently residing in the SoCal high desert
259 posts, read 558,238 times
Reputation: 212

Advertisements

No, we don't need the specific subspecies indigenous to the specific area as all of North America is one big continuous ecosystem with no variations in climate, terrain, flora or fauna. No possibility of specialization of subspecies to different regions here, so we can just reintroduce the species with no worries that they can't adapt then subsequently predate more heavily on certain prey species the former subspecies did not.
If'n ya'll can't tell, that thar was sarcasm

"All North American wolves are Greys" is the most recent "accepted prevailing theory," and if you haven't noticed, theories change constantly. I remember much research showing the differences between the various subspecies of the north American wolves (and other species as well). Studies showing that regional wolves were different than the reintroduced Greys and the effect it would have (and did have in some areas of reintroduction).

The recent popularity of this prevailing theory is possibly to make reintroduction of a single subspecies into all the various niches more appealing, we feel good because we think we're fixing our mess. If the theory is truth, then we don't need to worry about the Red, Mexican, Artic, etc. wolf subspecies as we can just replace them all with with the dominate Grey because "they are all the same."
Are all the various Brown bears all the same? Yes? I remember studies on that as well showing the differences between all the Browns, now they say all Browns are the same, even Polar bears are just big, white Brown bears if you are looking only at genetics.

And in regards to the Brown bear reintroduction to California, I didn't even touch on loss of the various natural food resources, like salmon runs, in this state. In that regard alone I think reintroduction of Brown bears to California is a mistake. Salmon are a keystone species, they keep the forest and habitat healthy and vibrant, they feed the land and animals. If the Brown bear was still here, he'd be preying far more heavily on other species and probably be a major nuisance to people and their pets/livestock more often as salmon was a major source for fattening up for hibernation.

Yes we damaged the environment, eradicated species, and reshaped the landscape. It's horrible and inexcusable, but we are very arrogant creatures if we think we know enough to be able to fix the mess we made quicker or better than mother nature herself. Yes, nature moves very slow in healing from our insults, but that is her way of letting us make things inhospitable to the ungrateful species who think they can improve upon or exclude nature from their lives. The earth will live on, she will keep spinning and life will continue, just maybe without us, if we don't wise up.

Last edited by YellowHorse; 08-03-2013 at 04:06 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2013, 08:27 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,000 posts, read 69,929,188 times
Reputation: 75777
Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowHorse View Post
No, we don't need the specific subspecies indigenous to the specific area as all of North America is one big continuous ecosystem with no variations in climate, terrain, flora or fauna. No possibility of specialization of subspecies to different regions here, so we can just reintroduce the species with no worries that they can't adapt then subsequently predate more heavily on certain prey species the former subspecies did not.
If'n ya'll can't tell, that thar was sarcasm

"All North American wolves are Greys" is the most recent "accepted prevailing theory," and if you haven't noticed, theories change constantly. I remember much research showing the differences between the various subspecies of the north American wolves (and other species as well). Studies showing that regional wolves were different than the reintroduced Greys and the effect it would have (and did have in some areas of reintroduction).

The recent popularity of this prevailing theory is possibly to make reintroduction of a single subspecies into all the various niches more appealing, we feel good because we think we're fixing our mess. If the theory is truth, then we don't need to worry about the Red, Mexican, Artic, etc. wolf subspecies as we can just replace them all with with the dominate Grey because "they are all the same."
Are all the various Brown bears all the same? Yes? I remember studies on that as well showing the differences between all the Browns, now they say all Browns are the same, even Polar bears are just big, white Brown bears if you are looking only at genetics.

And in regards to the Brown bear reintroduction to California, I didn't even touch on loss of the various natural food resources, like salmon runs, in this state. In that regard alone I think reintroduction of Brown bears to California is a mistake. Salmon are a keystone species, they keep the forest and habitat healthy and vibrant, they feed the land and animals. If the Brown bear was still here, he'd be preying far more heavily on other species and probably be a major nuisance to people and their pets/livestock more often as salmon was a major source for fattening up for hibernation.

Yes we damaged the environment, eradicated species, and reshaped the landscape. It's horrible and inexcusable, but we are very arrogant creatures if we think we know enough to be able to fix the mess we made quicker or better than mother nature herself. Yes, nature moves very slow in healing from our insults, but that is her way of letting us make things inhospitable to the ungrateful species who think they can improve upon or exclude nature from their lives. The earth will live on, she will keep spinning and life will continue, just maybe without us, if we don't wise up.
Good post. But don't worry, the OP has no workable plan, as he has proven repeatedly. It's all just wishful thinking on his part, nothing to get excited about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-04-2013, 08:29 AM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,000 posts, read 69,929,188 times
Reputation: 75777
Quote:
Originally Posted by SETI_listener View Post
U. a. horribillis isn't a marketable name when camping with the family. That one you mentioned living on the coast of Alaska might work (especially as the family gets so frequently redefined in CA), the U. a. gyas or the Peninsular brown bear.
The idea isn't marketable or doable, anyway, so what difference does it make what name you use in a discussion?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top