Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday September 04 2016, @01:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the untangling-the-food-web dept.

The Center for Biological Diversity reports via Common Dreams

Killing predators such as wolves, mountain lions and bears in order to protect livestock may have intuitive appeal, but a rigorous review of multiple studies that was published today shows little or no scientific support that it actually reduces livestock losses. In fact, in some cases it even leads to increases in livestock loss. These conclusions directly counter the reasoning behind the common practice of killing predators in response to livestock depredations--as carried out by the secretive federal program, Wildlife Services, and many state game agencies.

"This study [paywalled] shows that not only is Wildlife Services' annual killing of tens of thousands of wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, cougars, and other animals unconscionable--it's also ineffective", said Michael Robinson of the Center for Biological Diversity. "Our government should ground the aerial snipers, pull the poisons and remove the steel leghold traps in response to these findings."

The unexpected finding that carnivore killings can increase depredations is likely based on disruption of the predators' social dynamics--namely, by removing dominant animals that maintain large territories, these killings release sub-adult animals that are less-skilled hunters and thus more likely to target domestic animals.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jimshatt on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:38PM

    by jimshatt (978) on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:38PM (#397398) Journal
    I'm not sure, but this link on BBC Earth (When you start killing wolves, something odd happens [bbc.com]) was in my history. The point was that when you kill the alpha-male, the sub-alpha's suddenly get the chance to mate and create more offspring than when the alpha was in charge of who mates with who.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:53PM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday September 04 2016, @02:53PM (#397402) Homepage

    Killing wolves is morally reprehensible unless one's life depends on it.

    This is a list of animals which are okay (and often recommended) to to kill:

    Pigeons
    Seagulls
    Ducks
    Geese
    Hogs
    Rabbits
    Humans

    As somebody who has shot a few animals, it feels amazing when you drop your prey. Then you can walk up to the still-thrashing body and take potshots at it, or you can fire a 12-gauge shotgun from point-blank range -- they literally explode! Taking an animal with a gun is such a powerful feeling, it raises you to the top of the world! You are king of the jungle!

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by jimshatt on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:13PM

      by jimshatt (978) on Sunday September 04 2016, @03:13PM (#397406) Journal
      Non-flying creatures such as hogs and humans are less fun though, unless of course they are flung into the air first.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:56PM (#397479)

        Bacon catapult?

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @08:33PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @08:33PM (#397496)

      I'm certain serial killers feel the same way.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:49PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:49PM (#397525)

        I'm certain other serial killers feel the same way.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:50PM

    by frojack (1554) on Sunday September 04 2016, @07:50PM (#397477) Journal

    The point was that when you kill the alpha-male, the sub-alpha's suddenly get the chance to mate and create more offspring than when the alpha was in charge

    This assumes that females go unmated just because the alpha was in charge. For most pack animals, that simply isn't true, and all the mating is not done by the alpha.

    The alpha may kill pups he thinks aren't his - but so will any beta male as it ascends to a position of status in the pack.

    In short this theory is pretty much unproven rhetoric used to oppose wolf control policies by governments. There is no reason to believe alpha males will succumb to wolf control anyway. Its usually these same immature animals that are dumb enough to be caught in the traps or the gunsites. This whole line of reasoning is by people who don't know what they are talking about.

    TFS says

    these killings release sub-adult animals that are less-skilled hunters and thus more likely to target domestic animals.

    This too is BS, because it isn't the Alpha that teaches or possesses the best hunting skills.

    https://www.livingwithwolves.org/how-wolves-hunt/ [livingwithwolves.org] :

    Although the alpha male is usually in the thick of the hunt, it would be an exaggeration to say that he is leading it. The alpha may select the animal to be pursued, or he may chose to break off the hunt if it is going poorly. But he is not barking out orders to his subordinates like a general on the battlefield. The wolves just seem to know what to do, and they do it as one.

    When juvenile wolves finally join in the hunt, they imitate the more experienced wolves and perfect the precise skills of herding and tackling. By the time they are full grown adults, they have become part of a well-oiled machine.

    Further, prey is often chased down an cornered by the slightly liter and faster females, who also frequently choose the most vulnerable prey, and they are often running well ahead of the alpha male, and making decisions on their own.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday September 04 2016, @08:13PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday September 04 2016, @08:13PM (#397486) Journal

      Froj, you're loosing it! Here, I'll help:

      In short this theory is pretty much unproven rhetoric used to oppose government control policies by wolves.

      See? States rights in wolves clothing! But then:

      chased down an cornered by the slightly {liter} quarter and faster females,

      Better, at least American units of wolf measure.

      Its usually these same immature animals that are dumb enough to be caught in the traps or the gunsites. This whole line of reasoning is by people who don't know what they are talking about.

      Yes! I love it when frojack illustrates the point he is making so well and with such irony! Oh, BTW, I would avoid sites with guns, whether you are immature, or not.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:05PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04 2016, @09:05PM (#397503)

        gunsites

        Homophones can be a bitch.

        liter

        ...especially when you get Madison Avenue's made-up stuff involved.

        That "gh" thing is a pretty stupid notion anyway.
        Damned Frenchies. Putting letters into words then not pronouncing them. The idea!
        (Bordeaux)

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]