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.
Because deer are better adapted to living around dense human populations. Deer are also smaller. A given area can generally support fewer animals the larger they are. You need to consider the habitat in the east and Midwest where elk and other species once lived is nothing like it was 200 or more years ago. We have vast areas of farmland required to feed our population, large cities, suburban sprawl. The chestnut trees that once flooded the forests with mast crops every year are gone, replaced with less reliable food sources like oaks and beech trees.
Where I am in PA we tend to blame deer for all of our problems. The timber industry blames them, environmentalist blame them, home owners and landscapers blame them, the insurance company blames them, we even named the Lyme disease tick after deer (even though it is more likely carried by squirrels and mice).
But, like you point out with the chestnut trees; their environment has changed over the years. To me it isn't clear if our acid rain and lack of large forest fires has not tipped the balance? around me, on the top of the old Appalachian hills, the limestone has been depleted. Vegetation does not grow quick in sour soil. Deer are a quick scape goat for more complicated problems.
Links are your friend. Post scientific links if you want me to buy what you are saying.
Unless you are hunting because your life depends on it (which pretty much applies to no hunters in the USA or a very small percentage) you are doing it because you like to kill things, which is sick. Anyone who hunts for sport or enjoyment is mentally ill, they enjoy watching animals suffer and die, that's right up there with serial killer mentality.
It wasn't only hunting, but hunting and trapping were one of the biggest causes, probably the biggest. To say otherwise is to be naive. Commercial slaughter is just hunting on a larger scale.
That is absurd. Source, links? Being so willfully ignorant isn't an attractive quality.
That's a lie. I'm sure some people are like that but the vast majority are not, and I don't support those that act like that.
Yeah 1/50 of their natural population in the lower 48 is too well. Give me a break.
Coyote populations drop when wolves, bears or cougars are reintroduced. It's because hunters killed the apex predators that coyotes are doing so well. Coyotes have no competition in much of the US so their population flourished. The Lotka- Volterra differential equations explain this.
The prey equation is dx/dt=ax-bxy where dx/dt is the change in in prey numbers over time, x is the number of prey and y is the number of predators, a and b are constants. If the predator population y goes to 0 then dx/dt=ax. Solving the differential equation gives x(t)=ce^(at) which is the equation for exponential growth. This growth is only limited by the food source of the prey animal, which in the case of the coyote is abundant.
When coyotes outnumber rednecks then I will start to worry about them. For now the rednecks are a much bigger problem for this country.
Links are your friend. Post scientific links if you want me to buy what you are saying.
You seem to think I'm trying to sway or convince you of something. I'm not, and I can care less if you "buy what I'm saying".:. You just hate hunters, have a view of yourself as morally superior, and think you are educated about wildlife because you live somewhere somewhat close to some.
You betray yourself with use of terms like "redneck" and generalized commentary about how hunters are just wanton killers with some kind of feral bloodlust. Its OK to raise animals in pens and shoot them in the head as they stand there looking at you, but not OK to take to the field with a bow or rifle and hunt? Sure, makes perfect sense...to someone. "Ignorance", indeed. It takes a special kind of "education" to mold such a mindset. But, it really makes no never mind. Folks will continue to hunt, and eat the game they take. A lot of people prefer their meat , taken by their own hand, out of a clean mountain meadow, than shot in a killing pen, with dung urine and blood on the ground. Before those neat, mastic packages hit Smiths, they don't look so neat.
We eat it anyway. But, with hunting we have a choice, and hunters work harder and contribute much more to the benefit of wildlife than the anti hunters do.
Because deer are better adapted to living around dense human populations. Deer are also smaller. A given area can generally support fewer animals the larger they are. You need to consider the habitat in the east and Midwest where elk and other species once lived is nothing like it was 200 or more years ago. We have vast areas of farmland required to feed our population, large cities, suburban sprawl. The chestnut trees that once flooded the forests with mast crops every year are gone, replaced with less reliable food sources like oaks and beech trees.
So you are telling me that elk were more prevelent than deer before human arrival to the US? Elk are actually a type of deer so I don't even know what he meant, white tail?
Where I am in PA we tend to blame deer for all of our problems. The timber industry blames them, environmentalist blame them, home owners and landscapers blame them, the insurance company blames them, we even named the Lyme disease tick after deer (even though it is more likely carried by squirrels and mice).
But, like you point out with the chestnut trees; their environment has changed over the years. To me it isn't clear if our acid rain and lack of large forest fires has not tipped the balance? around me, on the top of the old Appalachian hills, the limestone has been depleted. Vegetation does not grow quick in sour soil. Deer are a quick scape goat for more complicated problems.
You seem to think I'm trying to sway or convince you of something. I'm not, and I can care less if you "buy what I'm saying".:. You just hate hunters, have a view of yourself as morally superior, and think you are educated about wildlife because you live somewhere somewhat close to some.
Okay whatever. You don't know anything about my life.
Quote:
You betray yourself with use of terms like "redneck" and generalized commentary about how hunters are just wanton killers with some kind of feral bloodlust.
Care to explain?
Quote:
Its OK to raise animals in pens and shoot them in the head as they stand there looking at you, but not OK to take to the field with a bow or rifle and hunt?
You must have missed everything I wrote about the meat industry. I said I don't support ranchers because I don't support the meat industry. I don't eat meat and I think it is worse than hunting for what it's worth. However, that is a seperate discussion.
Quote:
We eat it anyway. But, with hunting we have a choice, and hunters work harder and contribute much more to the benefit of wildlife than the anti hunters do.
Keep telling yourself that. You are the problem. Environmentalist are trying to undo the damage done by hunters. Hunters claim they are trying to help the environment by causing more damage.
So you are telling me that elk were more prevelent than deer before human arrival to the US? Elk are actually a type of deer so I don't even know what he meant, white tail?
The elk were more widespread. I think you know what animal I refer to when I say elk, and deer in the lower 48 general means the white tail. The mule deer and black tailed deer have much smaller ranges.
The elk were more widespread. I think you know what animal I refer to when I say elk, and deer in the lower 48 general means the white tail. The mule deer and black tailed deer have much smaller ranges.
Elk are a closer relative to cattle and bison , than deer. Deer are a close relative to goats. Thus, their diet can be more diverse, as you say, they get along around people better. Like coyotes, that flat thrive around people. If the 19th century had been a bit less brutal, and more forward thinking had been at the helm, our meat diet could have been way better. Elk and Buffalo should be our staple meat. If things had been done better, beef could be as alien to us as eating horsemeat. Lol. Yea, wishful thinking, I know. But I sure wouldn't complain about such a diet.
The elk were more widespread. I think you know what animal I refer to when I say elk, and deer in the lower 48 general means the white tail. The mule deer and black tailed deer have much smaller ranges.
I cannot find any sources to back up what you are saying, please post some as I would be interested in reading them.
Elk are a closer relative to cattle and bison , than deer. Deer are a close relative to goats. Thus, their diet can be more diverse, as you say, they get along around people better.
Where do you get this stuff? Elk and white tailed deer are in the same family, Cervidae. Bison, cattle, goats, sheep and antelope are in the same family, Bovidae. Elk are certainly not closer to cattle and bison than they are to deer. It's totally acceptable to not know something but if you don't know something don't spread nonsense.
Quote:
Like coyotes, that flat thrive around people. If the 19th century had been a bit less brutal, and more forward thinking had been at the helm, our meat diet could have been way better. Elk and Buffalo should be our staple meat. If things had been done better, beef could be as alien to us as eating horsemeat. Lol. Yea, wishful thinking, I know. But I sure wouldn't complain about such a diet.
We could be even more forward thinking now and just stop eating meat instead.
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.
. You just hate hunters, have a view of yourself as morally superior, and think you are educated about wildlife because you live somewhere somewhat close to some. 
