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.
Well... Let's think of it for a minute and let's keep our mind open to the possibility that the idiots in this story may not be the ones we first thought.
-Have you EVER seen/run into/heard of a "newborn Bison calf" on its own? But like in EVER EVER?
-Have you ever confronted ANY big female mammal (Bison, Yack, Moose, etc) and tried to approach their offspring (let alone grabbing it and shoving it in the back of your car) without running into immediate, clear and present MORTAL danger?
-Do you think that a car stands a chance in front of a furious female bison? Let alone a herd.
-And the 50-lb calf became SO deadly dangerous to humans overnight? Right?
Now just take a big breath and pause. People: a newborn bison calf wandering in the woods on its own DOES NOT happen (because bisons live in herds) so the most likely hypothesis is that the mother died (from any cause) or was killed by wolves, hunters or any predator and the calf was abandoned by the herd!
-Hence the calf ACTUALLY WAS in trouble.
That said, what do you do (knowing that Bison is considered near threatened species)? Let the calf get eaten by predators? Or do you try to do something else?
Actually the biggest mistake these people have made is to go see bureaucrats Park Rangers (more worried about how much work it would take to place the phone calls to the list of wildlife rehabs they already have) instead of calling directly wildlife rehab centers who would have taken the calf in right away and would have thanked them for saving the calf from a certain death.
Now I don't want to point finger at the administration but who are the idiots you said?
Many bison calves will not survive their first year. That's how nature works.
Quote:
That said, what do you do (knowing that Bison is considered near threatened species)? Let the calf get eaten by predators? Or do you try to do something else?
In a national park, you leave it alone. That's one of the major POINTS of the national parks: non-interference with natural processes.
The Yellowstone bison herd is healthy from a population standpoint. And wolves and bears need to eat too. This was a situation where doing nothing was best.
Well... Let's think of it for a minute and let's keep our mind open to the possibility that the idiots in this story may not be the ones we first thought.
-Have you EVER seen/run into/heard of a "newborn Bison calf" on its own? But like in EVER EVER?
No. But then, I don't live around bison. However, this nature photographer leaves near Yellowstone and spends a great deal of time in the park observing and photographing wildlife.
Quote:
I met the bison calf that took a ride in an SUV early one evening as I drove west in Yellowstone National Park’s Lamar Valley, past the pullout known as “Picnic.” The late afternoon sun on a stormy landscape provided the light that we photographers dream of for shooting gorgeous mountains in the distance and wild animals on the horizon.
I spotted the calf near the road and all alone. It was crying out and seemed to be looking for its mother, but no other bison was anywhere close by. Instantly, I knew three things: The calf was orphaned or had become separated from its mother. The calf would not be adopted by another cow and could not survive alone, and so it was just a matter of time before it died or was killed. And I wanted a photo of that calf, in order to remember its short life.
[Baby bison dies after Yellowstone tourists put it in their car because it looked cold]
Every year in Lamar Valley, we see bison calves by themselves, destined to perish. Their mothers might have died in childbirth, abandoned them or become separated during a river crossing. We watch as the calf runs from cow to cow, looking for its mother. We watch the other cows react with violence, particularly if the calf attempts to nurse. A wild bison cow will not adopt another’s calf. I have seen calves take up with bulls, which sometimes tolerate them. But eventually the calves are too weak to keep up during the daily roaming and are most likely captured by a coyote, wolf or bear.
So, yes, it does happen. You don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corsicana
-Have you ever confronted ANY big female mammal (Bison, Yack, Moose, etc) and tried to approach their offspring (let alone grabbing it and shoving it in the back of your car) without running into immediate, clear and present MORTAL danger?
-Do you think that a car stands a chance in front of a furious female bison? Let alone a herd. -And the 50-lb calf became SO deadly dangerous to humans overnight? Right?
Uh... no one claimed that the calf was dangerous to humans. You are very confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corsicana
Now just take a big breath and pause. People: a newborn bison calf wandering in the woods on its own DOES NOT happen (because bisons live in herds) so the most likely hypothesis is that the mother died (from any cause) or was killed by wolves, hunters or any predator and the calf was abandoned by the herd!
Actually, as demonstrated above, it does happen. You're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corsicana
-Hence the calf ACTUALLY WAS in trouble.
It might well have been. There are almost 5000 bison in the Yellowstone ecosystem. About 1000 calves are born each year. Roughly 1/3rd of bison calves do not survive the first year so, yeah, the mortality rate among calves is high. And that is normal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corsicana
That said, what do you do (knowing that Bison is considered near threatened species)? Let the calf get eaten by predators? Or do you try to do something else?
I leave the bison be. Because I'm not an idiot.
Bison are not endangered. They are not threatened. There are over half a million bison, with over 30,000 in the wild. And thousands of them will die every year, because that's what happens to wild animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corsicana
Actually the biggest mistake these people have made is to go see bureaucrats Park Rangers (more worried about how much work it would take to place the phone calls to the list of wildlife rehabs they already have) instead of calling directly wildlife rehab centers who would have taken the calf in right away and would have thanked them for saving the calf from a certain death.
This is so utterly wrong on every level. First, no park ranger is idiotic enough to 'rescue' or aid in the 'rescue' of a wild animal that is not endangered. Second, it would be unlawful to remove one of these animals from a national park on the misguided notion that a wild animal in danger of dying in the wild (which is the fate of every wild animal) needs to be 'rescued'. Third, no wildlife rescue center staffed by non-idiots would take an animal from a national park. And when the idiot delivering the bison told them that the calf 'looked cold', they'd probably tell said idiot just what an idiot they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corsicana
Now I don't want to point finger at the administration but who are the idiots you said?
I am using every ounce of my strength not to answer this question honestly. I simply won't answer it at all.
What I will say, again, is that wild animals live and die in the wild. They don't need to be 'rescued'. Yellowstone is a rough place. Bison face rough lives, and the ends of their lives usually suck. They get taken by wolves (usually when young - healthy adults can fend off the wolves). They get sick and fall to disease, or are simply weakened enough to perish to the elements. They break a leg, and perish. They get old and infirm and starve, or die in a harsh winter.
But those that die before they get old? Good. That's how populations get stronger. It's called natural selection. The last thing a population needs to thrive are misguided idiots who make sure the weak specimens that should not be breeding, that should be allowed to fail and remove themselves from the gene pool, are given outside assistance and thereby allowed to remain as breeding stock.
Yes, the calf was in trouble. So what?
Many bison calves will not survive their first year. That's how nature works.
Really? What is the relation between other calves dying and this very one being left to die? Because a bunch of people die in car accidents, maybe we should not provide assistance to those who have a car accident? It does not make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
In a national park, you leave it alone. That's one of the major POINTS of the national parks: non-interference with natural processes.
Really? So why on earth would the department of fish and wildlife pay (on our tax dollars) several thousands of people to man the gov. owned wildlife rehabs centers? For goldfish maybe? Or maybe should they close them all?
Also why better managed Ranger services and better organized parks (and less full of themselves maybe also) such as in Maine for example, work more actively with wildlife rehabs and reward people who rescue an animal instead of fining them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
The Yellowstone bison herd is healthy from a population standpoint. And wolves and bears need to eat too.
This was a situation where doing nothing was best.
You may want to consider educating yourself then: What do you know about their health? Bison is nearly endangered and suffers from one major problem: Lack of genetic diversity. So herd stable in Yellowstone, or not, every life counts because this very life could have helped repopulating another depleted herd somewhere else and contributed to its genetic diversity. Besides, Bison calves are running with the mother within minutes, not laying low in the grass like fawns so this calf on its own was in trouble and I quite don't get why it should have been left to die. Wolves and bears have enough work getting rid of the old and sick population of mammals.
Now here is the true problem there IS a wildlife rehab center that takes bisons right next to Yellowstone. Its problem? It is in Montana. Its second problem? Human utter laziness. Instead of going the extra mile, giving a few more phone calls, pull their weight and deserve their wages, some are more concerned by getting home by 5 to eat their soup.
What I will say, again, is that wild animals live and die in the wild. They don't need to be 'rescued'. Yellowstone is a rough place. Bison face rough lives, and the ends of their lives usually suck. They get taken by wolves (usually when young - healthy adults can fend off the wolves). They get sick and fall to disease, or are simply weakened enough to perish to the elements. They break a leg, and perish. They get old and infirm and starve, or die in a harsh winter.
But those that die before they get old? Good. That's how populations get stronger. It's called natural selection. The last thing a population needs to thrive are misguided idiots who make sure the weak specimens that should not be breeding, that should be allowed to fail and remove themselves from the gene pool, are given outside assistance and thereby allowed to remain as breeding stock.
That would be idiocy.
So let me get this straight (More critical thinking lessons are needed, Methinks): Why would the fact of taking few pictures in a park make this person an eminent biologist? A Clinic secretary is not a nurse, she is a secretary that is all; taking pics in a park do not give anyone a PhD in biology nor does it make them a vet, that JUST makes that person a photographer. No more. If we talk about camera, I may listen to his opinion. For the rest forgive me but I would rather stick to science.
You are right, life is difficult in Yellowstone, now you put the weakness of the American Bison in a weird place. If the calf's mother died because she broke a leg or had an hemorrhage, that does not make the calf unsuitable for breeding, that just makes it an orphan healthy calf.
As for the gene pool PRECISELY. American bison suffers from lack of genetic diversity due to the fact that only few bison were left when the US gov. realized that the species was going extinct. Right now the diversity problem is so serious that ANYTHING that contributes to making a herd smaller makes the problem worse and multiplies the risk of debilitated individuals being born. Instead of being euthanized this calf could have been hand reared, rehabilitated and he/she could have helped another herd with this genetic diversity problem.
But Hey, it requires common sense, elbow grease, forward thinking, intelligent breeding policy, all these these thing that tend to lack these days (could be the lack of genetic diversity?) So yeah it is easier to put the blame on the tourist, euthanize the calf and justify this lack of commonsense by saying that hand reared bison become dangerous... Talking about idiocy, people in wildlife rehab must hold their heads in their hands by now.
Really? What is the relation between other calves dying and this very one being left to die?
Young bison in the wild that become separated from their mothers before they are weaned die. It's as simple as that. What reason is there to intervene in this completely natural process, apart from mere sentimentality?
Quote:
Really? So why on earth would the department of fish and wildlife pay (on our tax dollars) several thousands of people to man the gov. owned wildlife rehabs centers?
To aid species that ARE in trouble in areas that are not wilderness preserves.
Quote:
You may want to consider educating yourself then: What do you know about their health? Bison is nearly endangered and suffers from one major problem: Lack of genetic diversity. So herd stable in Yellowstone, or not, every life counts because this very life could have helped repopulating another depleted herd somewhere else...
No, it can't. Not under current laws. The bison herd in Yellowstone carries Brucellosis. Right now there is no way to legally remove them from the park, as they would have to be quarantined first and there are currently no quarantine facilities set up for this.
Bison are not truly endangered, by the way. We have nearly 500,000 in the US and Canada. The IUCN just doesn't count most of them when considering the species' Red Book Status, as most bison are in privately owned herds raised for commercial purposes. From their own document: "Under the IUCN Red List Guidelines, commercial herds are not eligible for consideration in determining a Red List designation..." Bison bison (American Bison). But strictly from a population genetics standpoint those commercial herds do count.
Quote:
Now here is the true problem there IS a wildlife rehab center that takes bisons right next to Yellowstone. Its problem? It is in Montana.
And it can't take a calf from inside the park, because of the quarantine regulations. Animals that might be infected with Brucellosis must be quarantined and shown to be disease-free before they can be transported across state lines. (This was discussed extensively on another thread, by the way.)
(Because the Yellowstone herd is genetically valuable, I do wish quarantine facilities would be set up so bison from there could be legally exported to other states. But as of now, it can't legally happen.)
Young bison in the wild that become separated from their mothers before they are weaned die. It's as simple as that. What reason is there to intervene in this completely natural process, apart from mere sentimentality?
I get the let nature take it course but honestly we do intervene in the process. We manage populations beyond what nature does so the needs of human population wont be infringed upon and animal populations can still survive. As well, have one animal kill or maim a human or become dangerous or bothersome and we hunt it down and take it out. How is that not interference. Just sayin.
I get the let nature take it course but honestly we do intervene in the process. We manage populations beyond what nature does so the needs of human population wont be infringed upon and animal populations can still survive. As well, have one animal kill or maim a human or become dangerous or bothersome and we hunt it down and take it out. How is that not interference. Just sayin.
That's true, complete non-intervention in this day and age (with 8 billion people on the earth) is an impossibility. But in the nation's national parks and wilderness preserves, we've made the conscious choice to intervene actively as little as possible. In Yellowstone, for instance, it's park policy that a grizzly which injures of kills a person will NOT be killed if it is determined that the bear was acting defensively rather than in a predatory manner. Outside the parks and wilderness areas, that's not true (which of course is why we no longer have grizzlies in most of their former range).
I'm fine with the idea that for the sake of species conservation the Park Service is eventually going to need to figure out a viable way to safely move bison in and out of the Yellowstone herd without risking the spread of Brucellosis. We will eventually need to "mix things up" between the few wild herds left in order to maximize their genetic diversity. But when hundreds of bison calves die from natural causes in Yellowstone every year without any significant detriment to the herd's overall numbers (which are slowly increasing), Corsicana's argument (that saving that one individual calf merely because it was (un)lucky enough to be spotted by some soft-hearted tourists instead of meeting its end in some remote corner of Hayden Valley is actually important for bison conservation) is simply ridiculous.
That sort of thinking is nothing more than Bambi Syndrome dressed up in conservation camouflage, and I oppose it because ultimately Bambi Syndrome harms wild animals.
What wild animals actually need from us is the one thing we're increasingly reluctant to give to them: wilderness.
That's true, complete non-intervention in this day and age (with 8 billion people on the earth) is an impossibility. But in the nation's national parks and wilderness preserves, we've made the conscious choice to intervene actively as little as possible. In Yellowstone, for instance, it's park policy that a grizzly which injures of kills a person will NOT be killed if it is determined that the bear was acting defensively rather than in a predatory manner. Outside the parks and wilderness areas, that's not true (which of course is why we no longer have grizzlies in most of their former range).
I'm fine with the idea that for the sake of species conservation the Park Service is eventually going to need to figure out a viable way to safely move bison in and out of the Yellowstone herd without risking the spread of Brucellosis. We will eventually need to "mix things up" between the few wild herds left in order to maximize their genetic diversity. But when hundreds of bison calves die from natural causes in Yellowstone every year without any significant detriment to the herd's overall numbers (which are slowly increasing), Corsicana's argument (that saving that one individual calf merely because it was (un)lucky enough to be spotted by some soft-hearted tourists instead of meeting its end in some remote corner of Hayden Valley is actually important for bison conservation) is simply ridiculous.
That sort of thinking is nothing more than Bambi Syndrome dressed up in conservation camouflage, and I oppose it because ultimately Bambi Syndrome harms wild animals.
What wild animals actually need from us is the one thing we're increasingly reluctant to give to them: wilderness.
Excellent comment. I would only add / qualify
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel
In Yellowstone, for instance, it's park policy that a grizzly which injures of kills a person will NOT be killed if it is determined that the bear was acting defensively rather than in a predatory manner.
It's not so black-and-white. NPS takes other factors into consideration. For example, if bear consumed the victim, bear will die, regardless how defensive it was. NPS would also take into account bear movements and territory. If bear was a known nuisance, it might also be put down. Nuisance bears tend to live on the fringes of bear habitat, where the more powerful bears occupy the prime real estate, and push the weaker ones out towards the fringes.
Parks like Yellowstone are like Disney. Bad PR hurts the revenue. Bear killing "innocent" human is bad PR.
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.
