|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
TravisNWood 
W Y O M I N G
Group: Members
Posts: 14880
Joined: Apr. 2006
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 06 2013, 11:24 am |
|
    |
I'll dispute the first paragraph in the article. It's a poor job by the writer and quite misleading:"Moose have been falling over and dying across Northeastern Minnesota at a disturbing rate in recent years, and researchers still don’t know why." I think researchers have had a very good idea of the problem for years. Moose are highly prone to heat stress. Warming temperatures make areas less habitable.
Heat stress in moose does not always produce one set of symptoms easily defined. Rather, it weakens the animal to an extreme that makes it highly susceptible to parasites and dietary problems. This is no secret. It's been known a long time. Unfortunately, some folks want to ignore it. Climate change, you know.
--------------
Location — Wyoming
Webpages — Cloud Peak Wilderness Maps — Rocky Mountain Wildlife
Photos — Bighorn Mountains — Wyoming Steppes
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
WiscoHiker
Group: Members
Posts: 365
Joined: Aug. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 06 2013, 12:09 pm |
|
|
There are so many articles about climate change effecting the demise of the moose, it makes me wonder if these researchers are pretending to be ignoring the obvious just so they can spend the $1.2 million budget? I'm all for research, and I'm really all for finding out what causes animal populations to come and go, but really!!! Is this a phenomenal waste of taxpayer's money or is it really necessary?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
ChasWill
Group: Members
Posts: 819
Joined: Dec. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 2:24 pm |
|
|
Since about 50% of the US public doesn't even believe in climate change, it takes lots of little studies to show how pervasive the science is. You have the research on the mega fauna like moose and bear, pine beetles, reefs, ice cover, ocean warming, etc. Who knows, maybe enough research might actually convince them it is a valid concern. After that they might even conclude that man is part of the problem.
--------------
Charlie
OuachitaMaps.com
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
WiscoHiker
Group: Members
Posts: 365
Joined: Aug. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 5:22 pm |
|
|
Apparently we are reading different reports -- the ones I read say that most people believe that the climate is changing, and only a very small minority don't believe it's changing at all. The dispute is primarily the cause, not whether it's changing.
The reports that I've read vary greatly as to cause, but most agree that man has had an effect on the change -- the degree (no pun intended) is still in dispute, from man's contribution being zero or negligible, to man's contribution being a major factor. The causes that are attributable to man include increased gases emitted by manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture. The nay sayers primarly downplay those effects saying that the natural cycles of the climate caused the change and man's effect, although existent, is slight and the change would be ocurring even without the manufacturing, transportation and agricultural emissions.
So the debate goes on and on and on.
My comment about the moose study was more to the point that the climate change has been proven to be the cause of the decline in the moose population, and this study has nothing more to offer -- it's kind of a "duh" moment! The study has little if anything to do with determining the cause of climate change. Thus, the debate as to the cause of climate change is not the issue here, just whether or not the study is needed when the cause of the moose population decline has already been shown. Just my observations.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
