SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: No Science in Indiscriminate Hunting...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
rangersven Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3654
Joined: Jul. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 01 2013, 5:00 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

http://missoulian.com/news....7a.html

--------------
"Backpacker.com's Original Provocateur."
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
pass-thru Search for posts by this member.





Group: Members
Posts: 1525
Joined: Jul. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 01 2013, 9:08 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

just a bunch more of the same old tofu munching garbage from those whom it can be expected
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
wycanislatrans Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 2760
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 01 2013, 9:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I wouldn't say there is no science in it, more like science that is being told what to do by politics.

That said, I do hunt, but within the last decade switched to only taking what I need to last us a year (fill the freezer) and I no longer hunt animals I don't eat.

I have a friend that I stopped hunting with partly because he wanted to kill a game animal (bear) and leave the meat to waste.

Pass-thru, could you clarify your statement, I'm not sure where you stand...
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43931
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 02 2013, 12:47 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

While disrupting group hierarchies is quite likely disruptive I'm not certain that random hunting deletions would be all that significantly different than the same animal deaths due to disease, misadventure and inter pack violence. All of which wolves have successfully withstood for generations beyond counting.

Granted with smaller populations the situation isn't as robust as before but even so. I wonder what research shows.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16689
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 02 2013, 11:12 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I agree there is politics in the agenda of wolf control proponents but:

Back in the late 90s and early part of the last decade it SEEMED the "pro" wolf contingent not only wanted no hunting but wanted no management at all of wolves in the GYE. The cynic in me indicates that was seriously political as well with the way money machines like Defenders of Wildlife were/are raking in huge piles of money by deceitfully suggesting the GYEs wolves were under an all out assault with an aim of extermination.

When ultimate numbers quickly went several times beyond the most optimistic of qualified ultimate expectations the continued hands off at all costs mantra certainly further angered most "anti" wolf proponents on the ground around the ecosystem. There was discriminate killing by USFWS, special permitting, etc., but even that angered masses of wolf advocates in media markets around the world. Conveniently dog-like wolves had become the biggest cash cow organizations like Defenders had ever had.

I'm sure HSF and others remember when we discussed/argued ultimate numbers vs. genetic exchange when the provisions of the ESA  were re-implemented a few years back. While many educated environmentalists were horrified at the prospect the wolf gene pool would be far too limited anti-wolf proponents were horrified by rising numbers no expert had suggested would be ultimately possible. It was a microcosmic example of the polarization across the American Political Spectrum that continues to debilitate us all, the latest episode being Sequestration..

I have suggested any future hunting of Grizzlies in our Nation's Northern Rockies be extremely discriminate with F&G/W personnel coordinating with permitted hunters to remove problem bears instead of randomly. From my observation of wolves and how far and fast they move short of collaring just about every one of them and allowing permitted hunters to zone in on the appropriate, "problem wolf" signals, it simply would not work. I think far too many wolves are collared already, especially since donors are allowed to pay for collars incentivizing the wolf project folks to collar as many as they possibly can.

I believe there was a window for compromise back near the begining of reintroduction, but IMO the perpetual, protracted arrogance of the hands of at all costs crowd squandered any chance of that. The animosity festered and continues to because of special interests on both sides. I think the only future possibility of compromise could come if numbers crashed and both sides modified expectations. But I don't think that's going to happen, while numbers have dropped a little bit within Yellowstone itself across the broader ecosystem wolves continue to thrive despite trapping, predator zones, and the "shoot, shovel, and shut up" culture. The States have no rational interest in having the ESA reimplemented.

So I agree with much of this former hunting guide turned ecologist has to say. What I don't agree with is the implication that the hands of at all costs mantra should be re-embraced since no real alternative control measures were proposed.

Control: That's the ultimate crux of the proverbial biscuit here. Each side wants complete control of the control process. Some folks believe there should be no measures of control, some people believe in extirpation. Those of us that fall somewhere in the middle get drowned out by the economic, not just "scientific," agendas coming from both ends. Some say wars are good for economies, and it certainly seems to me there are several interests at both of those ends that are profiting from the continuation of these politics of polarization.  

One last thing I've brought up before. I've never really understood the scientific basis of the objection to trophy hunting. With my admittedly limited knowledge/education it seems that facilitating certain dominant males to procreate while the vast majority of other males are prohibited to breed
seriously limits the gene pool. However much younger wolves might be more susceptible to killing by humans does not the prospect of a benefit from a more expansive gene pool deserve consideration?


--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Reminiscence Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4381
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 02 2013, 11:37 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(double cabin @ Mar. 02 2013, 11:12 am)
QUOTE
One last thing I've brought up before. I've never really understood the scientific basis of the objection to trophy hunting. With my admittedly limited knowledge/education it seems that facilitating certain dominant males to procreate while the vast majority of other males are prohibited to breed
seriously limits the gene pool. However much younger wolves might be more susceptible to killing by humans does not the prospect of a benefit from a more expansive gene pool deserve consideration?

Actually, females instinctively select the most genetically fit males in species with such a wide disparity between "studs" and "duds". The studs are usually studs by virtue of their genetic quality.

--------------
"To be a friend of the Earth, you have to be an enemy of the people." -T.C. Boyle
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
double cabin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16689
Joined: Nov. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 02 2013, 11:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

But is not the redundant replication of genetics, whatever the quality, ultimately a limitation of genetics? Why would you encourage a certain degree of inbreeding amongst wild animals but not amongst the human animal?

--------------
We have nothing to fear but an industry of fear...and man skirts.

http://www.facebook.com/media/albums/?id=129511480442251
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Reminiscence Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4381
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 02 2013, 12:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(double cabin @ Mar. 02 2013, 11:45 am)
QUOTE
But is not the redundant replication of genetics, whatever the quality, ultimately a limitation of genetics? Why would you encourage a certain degree of inbreeding amongst wild animals but not amongst the human animal?

Each sperm cell made by the male has a novel set of genetic variation; no one sperm is created equal. It is known as meiosis and is one of the reasons that sex exists at all. Inbreeding is problematic when it leads to the passing on of undesirable characteristics. Persistent generational inbreeding, such as in the famous royal family histories, leads to the accumulation and hence passing on of undesirable mutations. If only the most fit genotypes are reproducing, there are fewer negative mutations being passed along. I don't know if the royals had the most fit genotypes or not....Additionally, any negatively-affecting recessive trait that comes into the inbreeding from an outside population can essentially leave the presence of that trait forever in the inbreeding population. Genetic variation is pretty important for many species, but on the other hand, many species also have almost all females who reproduce, with only a few rank-stud males reproducing with many females. And like I said, each baby that the male helps produce is going to be genetically different; it's only problematic if he's consistently passing a negative recessive allele to all of these females. By virtue of having the negative recessive allele, he is likely less fit and not reproducing in such species. That is a quick synopsis of my imperfect understanding of it, anyway.

--------------
"To be a friend of the Earth, you have to be an enemy of the people." -T.C. Boyle
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
TravisNWood Search for posts by this member.
W Y O M I N G
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16693
Joined: Apr. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 02 2013, 1:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If George Wuethner has grounds to criticize the state of Montana, he could say much worse about the state of Wyoming.

There is nothing more "hands-off-at-any-cost" than the State of Wyoming's refusal to manage wolves in 88% of the state. The shoot-on-sight "Predator Zone" is Wyoming's hands-off-at-any-cost strategy. It is plain and simply NON-management of a species that the state went to great lengths to obtain the privilege of managing.

Nothing has been more hypocritical than the vociferous demands for state management by the very people who absolutely refuse now to allow management of wolves in the vast majority of this state.

The euphemistically called "Predator Zone" comprising about 88% of Wyoming Territory is in reality an extermination zone. Despite the fact that 1/3 of designated suitable habitat in Wyoming is found within that extermination zone, the State of Wyoming has chosen to keep its hands off at any cost — fully aware that that cost will be extermination of wolves in 88% of the state.

That is the real "hands-off-at-any-cost mantra" prevailing today in the Wyoming Wolf Plan, a plan that flunked peer review but was instituted anyhow by the state's reactionaries. Genetic diversity in the existing population was never a concern of Predator Zone advocates. The Predator Zone is not the creation of people who care about genetic diversity.


--------------
Location — Wyoming
Webpages — Cloud Peak Wilderness Maps — Rocky Mountain Wildlife
Photos — Bighorn Mountains — Wyoming Steppes
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 10
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5221
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 04 2013, 7:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

There is plenty of evidence that in social animals, killing older more experienced animals results in a breakdown of culture, creating more problems for humans that live in close association with those animals. African elephants and orca are both examples. Management policies for wolves are undermining their stated goals.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
9 replies since Mar. 01 2013, 5:00 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply No Science in Indiscriminate Hunting...
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions