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.
Seems to me that I learned early on in a biology class that nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation of a species. Excess prey usually results in addtional preditors, and excess preditors die off when there is insufficent prey. Over time, given no outside interference, the balance is restored. Many environmentalists are opposed to outside intervention. This too is science, not emotion. But nice try!
One fellow in the bush iN AK I've talked with some hasn't seen a moose in several years. The wolves have wiped them out where he is, they haven't returned yet either, and we're talking well over a decade...
These radical animal rights types don't base their positions on science but appeal to emotions instead.
Seems to me that I learned early on in a biology class that nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation of a species. Excess prey usually results in additional predators, and excess predators die off when there is insufficient prey. Over time, given no outside interference, the balance is restored. Many environmentalists are opposed to outside intervention. This too is science, not emotion. But nice try!
Since wolves don't have a census count they have no clue how much of their food they have left. They will eat it till it's all gone....then no more wolf. Is that easier to understand?
Just to give those unfamiliar some solid information on the why and how without any of the emotion or love of furry animals thrown in. I find wolves fascinating, and it sucks to think of them being killed. You have to look beyond the individual animals sometimes though and think of the species, other species and the ecosystem as a whole.
Seems to me that I learned early on in a biology class that nature has a way of dealing with overpopulation of a species. Excess prey usually results in addtional preditors, and excess preditors die off when there is insufficent prey. Over time, given no outside interference, the balance is restored. Many environmentalists are opposed to outside intervention. This too is science, not emotion. But nice try!
+1000
Just about to post this myself.
Unless you are republican. Then humans control every aspect of the universe.
Wait I thought that was God. No wait - I got it - God with his almighty powers, gives humans the ability to control every aspect of the universe.
Why should I? I'm perfectly comfortable with the amount of wildlife where I live. If I ever feel like there is too many wolves, bees, bears, etc. for me to live comfortably, I'll just have to move somewhere else, rather than try to change nature.
yeah I know what you're saying, but this is rarely the case. I live in NJ where they try this garbage every year w/ the black bear population. Who do you think is lobbying for the hunting restrictions on bears? NEVER any biologists, environmentalists, or scientists with environmental concerns. ALWAYS a bunch of gun-toting rednecks foaming at the mouth to get a chance to put a giant stuffed bear in their already tacky living room next to the fish that sings every time you walk past it.
You state humans are overpopulated but you're not willing to harm yourself to solve the problem.
Unless you are republican. Then humans control every aspect of the universe.
Wait I thought that was God. No wait - I got it - God with his almighty powers, gives humans the ability to control every aspect of the universe.
Sounds about right
The folks in Wyoming and Montana may beg to differ. They have actually lived through the uncontrolled over population of wolves and bear. Experience v.s theory? Which should I go with?
By the way I am not a republican. Independent or Libertarian but not republican or democrat. I have my pride.
You are simply so wrong. Talk with the AK Fish and Game people about wolves. They're overpopulated in certain areas, not statewide. Those areas where the problem is severe is where the predator control takes place. Loss of habitat isn't an issue yet in Alaska for the most part, seeing as how less than 1 percent of the land is privately owned and available for development...
Loss of habitat isn't a problem yet? An average of 600 moose are hit by cars a year in Alaska. That has nothing to do with loss of habitat? Okay.
Again, they're not overpopulated. They just happen to be fighting against man for the moose/deer and elk meat and they're losing.
Roads, trains...global warming (at least for polar bears).
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.
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.
(at least for polar bears).
