Two Biology related stories caught my eye this morning. First, a moose calf that was hanging around Duluth was found to have brainworm, the common name for the infection shown above, the scientific name being parelaphostrongylus tenuis. It is a natural parasite of the whitetail deer and does not hurt them, but when it infects Moose or Caribou, it is fatal. The worm crawls around inside the brain making holes as it goes. Often, as whitetail numbers increase due to landscape or climate change, the number of Moose goes down, and this is one of the culprits. The other is the Wisconsin Conservation Congress voting their desire for a wolf hunt to "keep the population within management objectives". That sentence compares to a French deconstructionist for lacking meaning. What it really means is this. The wolf population of Wisconsin is not a " management success" for their DNR. They did not reintroduce them, nor manage them, for reintroduction would have raised howls(yes, irony) and bellows from the slack jawed morons that populate most of the U.S. There is an area on the east side of Minnesota bordering Wisconsin that has very few roads or people, and as wolves expanded within the state, they moved into and through that area, eventually populating Wisconsin and the U.P. Now, there are actual packs, oh my, and they might take the occasional hunting dog, calf, lamb or hopefully, several of the millions of deer roaming Wisconsin( the state's deer numbers are so far out of whack it is a biological emergency). It shows a common misperception, that "sportsmen" (hunting is not a sport, it is a method of getting food) are knowledgeable. They are often not. As the former director of one states Deer management section said, " the average hunter in____ wants to sit on a stump for an hour, have a deer walk by, shoot it, then go back to sitting in his shack". Witness the trucks loaded with equipment every year, with entire fleets of atv's towed behind trucks loaded with enough gear and fuel to outfit a company of troops. I once did research in Wisconsin, and as it approached bear season, I would have hounds show up in my plots confused at my presence as the bear hunters worked their dogs. Often, they would have better telemetry equipment than researchers. What many hunters want is the equivalent of a canned hunt and a trophy to bs about, not the actual experience of hunting. It is a fast food equivalent of the natural experience. My concern is for allowing at least some natural processes to occur, and for species other than americanis modernis be allowed to roam and live free, and this includes humans. For more info on Moose decline in Minnesota, go here
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Two Biology related stories caught my eye this morning. First, a moose calf that was hanging around Duluth was found to have brainworm, the common name for the infection shown above, the scientific name being parelaphostrongylus tenuis. It is a natural parasite of the whitetail deer and does not hurt them, but when it infects Moose or Caribou, it is fatal. The worm crawls around inside the brain making holes as it goes. Often, as whitetail numbers increase due to landscape or climate change, the number of Moose goes down, and this is one of the culprits. The other is the Wisconsin Conservation Congress voting their desire for a wolf hunt to "keep the population within management objectives". That sentence compares to a French deconstructionist for lacking meaning. What it really means is this. The wolf population of Wisconsin is not a " management success" for their DNR. They did not reintroduce them, nor manage them, for reintroduction would have raised howls(yes, irony) and bellows from the slack jawed morons that populate most of the U.S. There is an area on the east side of Minnesota bordering Wisconsin that has very few roads or people, and as wolves expanded within the state, they moved into and through that area, eventually populating Wisconsin and the U.P. Now, there are actual packs, oh my, and they might take the occasional hunting dog, calf, lamb or hopefully, several of the millions of deer roaming Wisconsin( the state's deer numbers are so far out of whack it is a biological emergency). It shows a common misperception, that "sportsmen" (hunting is not a sport, it is a method of getting food) are knowledgeable. They are often not. As the former director of one states Deer management section said, " the average hunter in____ wants to sit on a stump for an hour, have a deer walk by, shoot it, then go back to sitting in his shack". Witness the trucks loaded with equipment every year, with entire fleets of atv's towed behind trucks loaded with enough gear and fuel to outfit a company of troops. I once did research in Wisconsin, and as it approached bear season, I would have hounds show up in my plots confused at my presence as the bear hunters worked their dogs. Often, they would have better telemetry equipment than researchers. What many hunters want is the equivalent of a canned hunt and a trophy to bs about, not the actual experience of hunting. It is a fast food equivalent of the natural experience. My concern is for allowing at least some natural processes to occur, and for species other than americanis modernis be allowed to roam and live free, and this includes humans. For more info on Moose decline in Minnesota, go here
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
No offense, but if we really want to reduce the deer herd, we would simply make it legal for a land owner to take a deer any time they want on their own land.
I have nothing special against wolves. I like them - in moderation. As someone who lives in wolf country, I'm somewhat concerned at the ever increasing number of attacks on dogs. It will, whether you want to admit it or not, ultimately lead to attacks on livestock and perhaps humans, children even.
I don't know why we think we are so much smarter than our ancestors of a hundred years ago. Wolves were hunted for a reason - they are indeed dangerous. We, who have not lived with high wolf populations, just don't get it. We will one day, and we'll have to hunt them down again.
Don't paint me as a wolf hater. I'm not. But the stated reason for re-introducing them is completely bogus. We have plenty means to control the deer herd ourselves. Wolf protection is truly the realm of people who are out to protect nature at any cost. I don't necessarily believe in that.
I usually do not do this, but I will reply myself to the above. I will not enter into the politics of deer seasons, for as you said there are ways for us to reduce the herd. The necessity for it has been shown ( I could show you piles of data on forest regeneration and what foresters have had to do to protect not just the favorite foods, but unpalatable species). There are areas where there is not enough population where your suggestion would not work, and overall, the first people squawking would be the MDHA( I worked for the wildlife division for years, believe me I know). You do not live in wolf country unless you live in a roadless area where wolves outnumber humans. You live in an area which has wolves,but humans still dominate the landscape by numbers and alteration. Your living or growing up there has nothing to with the strength of your argument. I did and do also. I hunt in wolf country and have lost a dog also, but that makes me no more knowledgeable than the talking monkey that I am and we all are. So, let's go point by point in what you say.
First, the ever increasing numbers of attacks on dogs. Is your evidence solid over a large scale? How many? Is there evidence? And the final crux is this: You are saying that human domesticated animals are justification for killing off large numbers of another, in this case, wild species. Why? You, and many others, assume by default that only humans matter. Second, you then fall into the fallacy commonly called the slippery slope, if we let this happen, then this will happen, and then draw an extreme example. In this case you soon have them eating children. I am going to assume you now regret saying this, because if you view your own words, the example is so ludicrous any sarcasm is justified.You need to be laughed off the street. You obviously are immersed in the old European tradition of red riding hood. Yes, wolves do attack livestock when they live in areas where they live and there isn't enough normal food, or they just learn to eat them. Again, the question is, and you must justify your reasons for your answer, is you say only human domesticated species count. Why? Why do we alter an entire landscape to defend a shitzu? I will not even compare the numbers of dogs dieing due to car impacts or human maltreatment, yet you do not advocate lower speeds, car warning systems, the outright ban on cars, or making abuse a felony. I will also ask another question; In many cultures, dogs are merely food and not treated with the utter insanity Americans treat their pets with. Their argument would be akin to your livestock argument; they are stealing my saved food source. The ancestor argument is so empty, and I have to be sarcastic. People also believed illness was caused by vapors, smoking was good for you, and that you could evaluate humans by skull measurements. The same justification used for wolves was also used to slaughter entire indigenous peoples. I will mention my particular favorite on "how rain follows the plow", which caused enough erosion to create whole deltas. Your " ancestors knew better argument" is then empty. You must evaluate their argument. Their argument was they killed everything and used it up as fast as possible. People, geese, pigeons, hides, etc...etc...They never lived with high wolf populations..there was nothing left by the time settlement got there. Sheep farming in Montana..come on. If there was ever a boondoggle that needed to be stopped that was it, and thank goodness. The area still has not recovered from the erosion. Finally, the question of means is suspect. Where re-introduction was done was wilderness, and the results for the plant life of Yellowstone have been amazing. We simply allowed one thing; a large dominant predator which eats herbivores. Finally, you complain about protecting nature at any cost. Why? You assume this is wrong, but maybe it isn't. Why is it? 98% of the lower 48 has roads within a certain distance; that is not enough dominance? Is a wetland which filters and stores water more important than an Arby's and a stripmall? I believe so.The privilege of one person driving around in a three ton vehicle burning fuel it took billions of years to make? While we mine away half of northern Alberta in a toxic process to maintain commuting in oversize vehicles in a ridiculous living arrangement called suburbia, one so grossly inefficient and unsustainable we bury our own FARMLAND to cover it with asphalt and Macdonalds? Isn't there something wrong with that system? On a given day in the U.S., more people, including children, are murdered by other humans than have been attacked by wolves in all our history on the planet. Do you say we need to thin human numbers out? You do not. I suggest you need to go back and think over all your assumptions. It is a little more complex than that.
Isn't the point that we have plenty of means to control deer populations on our own with minor modifications of our hunting laws? If we did that, we wouldn't need to worry about wolf numbers - equilibrium would be reached in short order.
Post a Comment