Researchers rethink 'natural' habitat for wildlife (rabbits, raccoon, turkey, geese)

[sargentodiaz]

Date: April 18, 2014, Source: Stanford University


Summary:
Protecting wildlife while feeding a world population predicted to reach nine billion by 2050 will require a holistic approach to conservation that considers human-altered landscapes such as farmland, according to researchers. A new study finds that a long-accepted theory used to estimate extinction rates, predict ecological risk and make conservation policy recommendations is overly pessimistic. The researchers point to an alternative framework that promises a more effective way of accounting for human-altered landscapes and assessing ecological risks.


Mountain lions roaming in Southern California backyards. Coyotes scavaging for food in Las Vegas Neighborhoods. Bears in trash cans on Long Island. Raccoons chasing pets outside Atlanta.


We could cite hundreds of examples but it's all a case of “wildlife” finding out how to co-exists with Humanity that is taking away their natural habitat.

[Linda_d]

Some agricultural practices/residential land-use patterns actually encourage the growth of wildlife populations of species that adapt easily. Certainly white-tail deer, coywolves, raccoons, rabbits, wild turkeys, Canada geese, and many duck species prove that.

I think that one of the biggest factors in saving wildlife species is limiting the use of pesticides. Since the banning of DDT back in the 1960s, the recovery of bald eagle, osprey, peregrine falcon, and other raptor populations here in the East has been phenomenal. Numerous eastern cities have peregrine pairs nesting among their skyscrapers and limiting their pigeon populations.

[jackmichigan]

Yet another dumb study with a dumb premise. Sure, we all know that some species are adept at taking advantage of human-built environments. Heck, some don't have an alternative. But far too many species are falling victim to the human species inability to control our own population levels. In merely the last 100 years, we have greatly altered the entire landscape on this planet and have caused the population of numerous wildlife species to plummet, some to be never seen again.

If Stanford or any other so-called institution of higher education wants to truly do something meaningful, they should promote policies which can stabilize and ultimately reverse the population of homo sapiens on planet Earth. Overpopulation remains the greatest unspoken tragedy this world is facing.

[Linda_d]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

Yet another dumb study with a dumb premise. Sure, we all know that some species are adept at taking advantage of human-built environments. Heck, some don't have an alternative. But far too many species are falling victim to the human species inability to control our own population levels. In merely the last 100 years, we have greatly altered the entire landscape on this planet and have caused the population of numerous wildlife species to plummet, some to be never seen again.

If Stanford or any other so-called institution of higher education wants to truly do something meaningful, they should promote policies which can stabilize and ultimately reverse the population of homo sapiens on planet Earth. Overpopulation remains the greatest unspoken tragedy this world is facing.

And in the meantime, let other species die off rather than seek ways that they might survive in a world full of human activity.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

Yet another dumb study with a dumb premise. Sure, we all know that some species are adept at taking advantage of human-built environments. Heck, some don't have an alternative. But far too many species are falling victim to the human species inability to control our own population levels. In merely the last 100 years, we have greatly altered the entire landscape on this planet and have caused the population of numerous wildlife species to plummet, some to be never seen again.

If Stanford or any other so-called institution of higher education wants to truly do something meaningful, they should promote policies which can stabilize and ultimately reverse the population of homo sapiens on planet Earth. Overpopulation remains the greatest unspoken tragedy this world is facing.

If you'd even bothered to read the article, you'd realize that the entire premise of this study was accommodating wildlife given the fact that there are nine billion humans encroaching on habitat.

The issue of overpopulation is well-known. Stanford, a research university, is in the information business. It is for others to take that information and translate it into useful policies. The precise nature of human/wildlife interaction is a field open for a great deal more study - such as this one here. Such collected information is tremendously valuable in plotting the future course of humans on one hand and flora and fauna on the other. And human population is like an ocean life at full throttle - it has a very long, very large turning radius. In the meantime, it would be woefully irresponsible to do nothing and just complain that the only solution is to wait for policies which will take many decades to even begin to turn around the human population trajectory and take no other short-term action.

Angrily denouncing this and that as 'dumb' isn't a coherent response - it's just child-like lashing out.

[jackmichigan]

Sorry, but we don't need more apologists trying to deal with the "fact" that human population will be so much more by 2050. We need to start slowing the train of population increase so it can stop and slowly go in reverse. These types of studies do nothing towards that end and only suggest that we can keep continuing on our treacherous path.

[arctichomesteader]

Eventually our population will crash as we exhaust the resources our high density requires (petroleum, fisheries, etc.). The more time between now and then, the more other species we take down with us in the process.