I heard an interesting radio snippet on National Public Radio yesterday morning. The topic of discussion was the damage and environmental changes created by excessive numbers of elk and deer. Elk and deer eat shrubs and pieces of trees, among other things. This may cause the trees to thin out and discourage specific birds from populating those trees, thus changing the ecological balance. The population of elk and deer, in some places, have far exceeded historic population levels. The excess of elk and deer populations are causing this eco-damage. The excess of elk and deer is possible now because there are fewer predators than in the historic past to keep their populations moderated.
Some people think that increasing the population of grizzly bears and gray wolves can provide a solution to this problem. These people are interested in conducting a full trial in the area surrounding Yellowstone National Park -- I'm not sure what this area includes. I suppose if such a trial is conducted and succeeds, the next step would be propogating gray wolves and grizzly bears to other areas overrun by elk. I'm not sure what the connection with deer was, unless they were talking about mule deer in the west. Surely they aren't intent on reintroducing the grizzly bear to suburban Illinois or Pennsylvania?
Towards the end of the radio snippet they referred to the grizzly bear and gray wolf as "charismatic and well-liked animals." I somehow feel this is a very loaded, biased use of words. I really think charismatic and well-liked is in the eye of the beholder. In the eye of a backpacker, a grizzly bear is likely to be considered respected, awesome, frightening, nightmarish . . . but probably not charismatic or well-liked.
I found it funny that they did not suggest the obvious elk and deer population management mechanisms of quota based sport hunting. Perhaps hunting has the tendency of removing the fittest animals (large antlered males), turning Darwin on his head. But you would have thought balanced journalism would have addressed this obvious alternative solution, if for no other reason than to indicate why it isn't the right solution. Another media bias example.
I thought that this "Trial" had been ongoing for the past 20 years in and around the Yellowstone area and has been quite successful. The various packs of wolves have flourished both in and around Yellowstone, and in various other regions where they have been reintroduced. While it may be true that nature, left alone, will find a proper balance, there are few if any places left in the world where the influence of man does not play a role. Many seem to forget that man himself is a predator and should play a role in this cycle. For the protectionists it is all very simple, ban all hunting and the influence of man and let nature run its course. For others, it is more complicated. The rancher trying to make a living with large predators around doesn't see things in that same light and those of us that enjoy hunting and fishing are forced to live with restrictions on our ability to utilize areas set off limits due to overzealous agencies often times tilting at windmills.
I found it funny that they did not suggest the obvious elk and deer population management mechanisms of quota based sport hunting. Perhaps hunting has the tendency of removing the fittest animals (large antlered males), turning Darwin on his head. But you would have thought balanced journalism would have addressed this obvious alternative solution, if for no other reason than to indicate why it isn't the right solution. Another media bias example
Your probably right...if they leave out a solution that they personally dodn't care for then they easily eliminated it from ever being brought up. In today's world there is so much of that going on to try and brainwash the masses into thinking a certain way, I don't doubt for a minute they left itut on purpose. But like Coastie said Man is a prdeator and is a big reason for the way nature is today to eliminate him from the equasion would be foolish.
Good points trapper!!! I wonder if the people commenting in the USFS threads have the sense to realize these are the[:'(] SAME[:'(] peopleon BOTH of these issues.
They would rather get people killed with thier ideas than even think of hunting as a solution to the problem
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Alsatian
.
I found it funny that they did not suggest the obvious elk and deer population management mechanisms of quota based sport hunting. Perhaps hunting has the tendency of removing the fittest animals (large antlered males), turning Darwin on his head. But you would have thought balanced journalism would have addressed this obvious alternative solution, if for no other reason than to indicate why it isn't the right solution. Another media bias example.
__________________
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Snowmobile Alliance of Western States
WSSA
NRA
RMEF
GO DAWGS!!!
Controlling game animals
