|
[ Return to Contents
| Post a Reply
| Post a new message
]
a few more thoughts
Posted by twodux on Mar 08 2006
One of the reasons we seem to have more wolves now may also be that there aren't really more wolves, but that ADF&G is more efficient in counting them. Or it may just be that they use different or improved methods now or even a different biologist who's better at couning wolves and extrapolating information. I've seen that in countless fishing situations. The best example thet comes to mind is the biomass of 3B halibut. For years it was calculated one way, then they decided that way wasn't efficient so they used a new method. Bingo, the estimate of biomass went up about a third the first year the new system was in use.
Another end result to consider in knocking predators way back may be increased disease in prey populations. While the big predators will take healthy animals when they need to, it's in their interest to make the best use of their energy when taking food, so if there are weak or sick animals, they will generally be taken first. That's one reason fawn and calf populations get hit hardest by predators. Human hunters have no desire to take sick or diseased animals. So, I've been wondering for a time, if they had more large predators in the lower 48, would the spread of chronic wasting disease and hair loss disease and other diseases been so bad as it is now? If large predators had been around to pick off the sick and weakened animals at the start of these epidemics, maybe they wouldn't have spread like they have. When we try to knock predators down to unatural levels, are we setting our herds up for epidemics?
Previous: David---let's use common sense facts bushrat Mar 07 2006
Next: Yes and yes David Johnson Mar 09 2006
 Message Thread:
|
