List the native wildlife species you deem acceptable in the world.
- Thread starter mevertsen
- Start date
Bluffgruff
Well-known member
I know this is about predators, but a mountain goat species lived in Nevada til around the time of the end-pleistocene megafaunal extinction. If we have to deal with feral horses, can we keep the only briefly absent mountain goats?
en.m.wikipedia.org
Harrington's mountain goat - Wikipedia
mevertsen
Well-known member
Interesting.
I haven't heard of that one before.
I haven't heard of that one before.
I know this is about predators, but a mountain goat species lived in Nevada til around the time of the end-pleistocene megafaunal extinction. If we have to deal with feral horses, can we keep the only briefly absent mountain goats?
Harrington's mountain goat - Wikipedia
PablitoPescador
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2020
- Messages
- 131
Instead of working so hard to knock predators down, I guess I’m of the opinion that we need to strive for a world so plentiful with game that predators are no longer deemed a threat. The reason we struggle with predators is that we’ve replaced wild bison and bighorn sheep with domestic counterfeits that we can profit off of
Hydrophilic
Well-known member
Idk, I think of how many deer are in Michigan and the part of the state I’m familiar with is still pretty keen on having no coyotes around. People put poison out for them. Oh, and chronic wasting disease is a government conspiracy against hunters, and the insurance agencies are behind any article mentioning there are too many deer in Michigan. Not joking! So I’m skeptical that mindset will ever change, pretty embedded.
BrentD
Well-known member
I will keep them all, thanks.
Matthew57
Well-known member
I agree, keep as many as we can. Predators and prey. My worry is more on the native habitat side. With the proliferation of cheat grass, the chukar are gonna win out so definitely keep them and work to make habitat better for natives.
gonhunting247
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2010
- Messages
- 343
Keep them all (native wildlife), but that doesn't mean getting rid of all non-natives. Personally I think getting rid of a small population of Mt.Goats up in Washingtons Olympic Penninsula because we speculate they are causing a small plant to decline for intance, is a poor excuse for trying to do something useful. Lower the numbers and use the money made from tags to help control/manage a species that we know have a much more profound negative affect on the landscape such as horses.
Notice I said manage, not eliminate. I feel the same way about predators; manage them to a point where we have huntable species.
I find it interesting when all of these scenarios don't include humans as part of the equation, as far as, being a consumptive user.
Yes we have to put controls on the amount of game we can take, because we are too efficient and there are too many of us. But when it comes to large predators, I am for managing to a point that we have a peice of the pie also.
Like it or not we have altered the wintering grounds, migration corridors and the landscape in general with towns, cities and highways. We can do what we can to fix our mistakes and mitigate with habitat projects, but it isn't going back to pre civilization or settlement!
Since obviously we can't control human population we put limits on take, but that doesn't mean we can't manage predators or non-natives to a level that allows for sustainable native wildlife, while still allowing for non-natives that are a benefit to native wildlife and large predators, including humans.
The huge benefit to including humans, is the funding that is gained to put into habitat projects and scientific studies. Although we have contributed to major loss of habitat and made many mistakes through the uncontrolled market hunting in the past. The fact is we as humans are the only portion of all the aforementioned groups/species that contributes funds to the programs to repair those mistakes that benefit the others.
Repair the habitat as much as possible while using some common sense about all the factors that are depressing some native wildlife, not just eliminate all non-natives to later find out they were just one minor factor/piece of a puzzle, and now we don't have any of them. If we control non-natives to reasonable levels and repair the available habitat, we can enjoy native wildlife, non-natives and predators.
Just my opinion, but you can get rid of all non-natives and stop all hunting, and all you will end up with, is less wildlife, a disconnected user group and a huge loss of income to do anything to benefit the habitat that is left or implement studies and projects to boost struggling or depressed native wildlife.
We can't go back to some of the population numbers of game animals in the heydays of no predators; the habitat can't withstand it. We can't go back to the numbers of large predators to populations of pre-bounty or pre modern civilization levels either because the prey levels can't sustain it either.
We can benefit from some non-native species for consumptive uses (humans and other predators) and enjoyment (=money to benefit other species) as long as we use common sense and science to help us stay in the constraints of the habitat that is currently available also!
For instance if we find we are able to rid the landscape of cheat grass etc. and find that chukars are taking up habitat that native gamebirds need, due to population number recoveries, then at that point reduce chukar numbers to a level that is exceptble in that location. (For the record I don't think this will happen, as the landscape is changed/changing and the wildlife is adapting to it as it changes. If we restore the habitat to the best level possible, I believe the native wildlife/non-native wildlife/predators will adjust back to levels that the particular habitat will support.
This doesn't include invasive or noxious wildlife, plants or insects; I am talking wildlife that has been integrated into our landscape and with native wildlife for many years. Hopefully this statement will stop far reach rebuttles
!
All this depends on us to assist with population levels to help eliminate the huge population swings created by uncontrolled predator/prey population swings made unsustainable or at the very least undesirable due to limited habitat, especially lack of winter range habitat created by us!
I know all this kind of strays off the main OP question, but it all seemed somewhat relevant and is only my opinion
Notice I said manage, not eliminate. I feel the same way about predators; manage them to a point where we have huntable species.
I find it interesting when all of these scenarios don't include humans as part of the equation, as far as, being a consumptive user.
Yes we have to put controls on the amount of game we can take, because we are too efficient and there are too many of us. But when it comes to large predators, I am for managing to a point that we have a peice of the pie also.
Like it or not we have altered the wintering grounds, migration corridors and the landscape in general with towns, cities and highways. We can do what we can to fix our mistakes and mitigate with habitat projects, but it isn't going back to pre civilization or settlement!
Since obviously we can't control human population we put limits on take, but that doesn't mean we can't manage predators or non-natives to a level that allows for sustainable native wildlife, while still allowing for non-natives that are a benefit to native wildlife and large predators, including humans.
The huge benefit to including humans, is the funding that is gained to put into habitat projects and scientific studies. Although we have contributed to major loss of habitat and made many mistakes through the uncontrolled market hunting in the past. The fact is we as humans are the only portion of all the aforementioned groups/species that contributes funds to the programs to repair those mistakes that benefit the others.
Repair the habitat as much as possible while using some common sense about all the factors that are depressing some native wildlife, not just eliminate all non-natives to later find out they were just one minor factor/piece of a puzzle, and now we don't have any of them. If we control non-natives to reasonable levels and repair the available habitat, we can enjoy native wildlife, non-natives and predators.
Just my opinion, but you can get rid of all non-natives and stop all hunting, and all you will end up with, is less wildlife, a disconnected user group and a huge loss of income to do anything to benefit the habitat that is left or implement studies and projects to boost struggling or depressed native wildlife.
We can't go back to some of the population numbers of game animals in the heydays of no predators; the habitat can't withstand it. We can't go back to the numbers of large predators to populations of pre-bounty or pre modern civilization levels either because the prey levels can't sustain it either.
We can benefit from some non-native species for consumptive uses (humans and other predators) and enjoyment (=money to benefit other species) as long as we use common sense and science to help us stay in the constraints of the habitat that is currently available also!
For instance if we find we are able to rid the landscape of cheat grass etc. and find that chukars are taking up habitat that native gamebirds need, due to population number recoveries, then at that point reduce chukar numbers to a level that is exceptble in that location. (For the record I don't think this will happen, as the landscape is changed/changing and the wildlife is adapting to it as it changes. If we restore the habitat to the best level possible, I believe the native wildlife/non-native wildlife/predators will adjust back to levels that the particular habitat will support.
This doesn't include invasive or noxious wildlife, plants or insects; I am talking wildlife that has been integrated into our landscape and with native wildlife for many years. Hopefully this statement will stop far reach rebuttles
!All this depends on us to assist with population levels to help eliminate the huge population swings created by uncontrolled predator/prey population swings made unsustainable or at the very least undesirable due to limited habitat, especially lack of winter range habitat created by us!
I know all this kind of strays off the main OP question, but it all seemed somewhat relevant and is only my opinion
Last edited:
Similar threads
