Predator Culling Study

[Pheroze]

Culling wolves alters the survivors and that could be 'bad news' for caribou, study finds

www-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[analog_peninsula]

I’m unimpressed with the article, and the focus is on FUD rather than expanding habitat in conjunction with intelligent wolf culling. It feel more political than biological.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

Culling wolves alters the survivors and that could be 'bad news' for caribou, study finds

www-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org

View attachment 615282

Who do you think funded this "study?" PETA?

 

[Pheroze]

Who do you think funded this "study?" PETA?

I have never been a fan of government culling. I don't know what to make of this study. But I do think the government should fund outcome studies when they tinker with nature. Professional hunters who become stewards of the land would probably have a better outcome. That's my bias anyways.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

I have never been a fan of government culling. I don't know what to make of this study. But I do think the government should fund outcome studies when they tinker with nature. Professional hunters who become stewards of the land would probably have a better outcome. That's my bias anyways.

So, you're saying that we should ban sport hunting and hire "guns" to control deer, elk and moose numbers? These "professional hunters" would care more about the land than the public? Have you ever met a government predator control agent? I have. No thank you.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

It is very unfortunate that when government plays with nature it’s never by adding hunting opportunities, because they don’t want us to have firearms. We really need less predators controls and more poaching control.

 

[Scott CWO]

Culling wolves alters the survivors and that could be 'bad news' for caribou, study finds

www-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org

View attachment 615282

Bunch of BS. Read it closely. A lot of “might” “could” “needs more study” slant. It’s not rocket science that the wolves began avoiding open areas. It won’t impact caribou in a significant negative way if wolves aren’t in the open areas as much. It’s all guesswork. The reduction of total numbers of wolves will outweigh any small impact of wolves being in more remote areas or areas with heavier cover.

 

[HankBuck]

Culling wolves alters the survivors and that could be 'bad news' for caribou, study finds

www-cbc-ca.cdn.ampproject.org

View attachment 615282

@Pheroze - I read this article and another written a few years earlier by the same author. It did Not contain any real measured data but more “data points” and assumptions. Some of the assumptions and proposed alternatives ie: preserve & expand habitat of “Boreal Forests” seems ridiculous….as if you can “create” a Boreal Forest in under a few 1000 years ? The Study area was also small (3500 sq kilometers = under 900,000 acres) and one or two Wolf packs can cover a larger area then that depending on prey availability. I thought that the Author had already reached a conclusion - before the article was written. There was nothing scientific or objective but it did at least raise questions and all across Canada Caribou herds are declining at alarming rates - especially in Quebec where a population drop of 50 to 90% has occurred in only 15 years and has Not recovered even after closing all hunting for the past 5 years…solutions to Nature problems are rarely simple.

 

[Pheroze]

So, you're saying that we should ban sport hunting and hire "guns" to control deer, elk and moose numbers? These "professional hunters" would care more about the land than the public? Have you ever met a government predator control agent? I have. No thank you.

No the opposite. If the government is going to intervene, they need to monitor their efforts closely. If a professional hunter, one who manages an area for sustainable use, we would probably see a better outcome. Ensuring a vibrant and healthy ecosystem is what I think hunting focuses on.

 

[HankBuck]

No the opposite. If the government is going to intervene, they need to monitor their efforts closely. If a professional hunter, one who manages an area for sustainable use, we would probably see a better outcome. Ensuring a vibrant and healthy ecosystem is what I think hunting focuses on.

@Pheroze sounds nice and almost a bit “Disney like” with words like “vibrant” that are dramatic but Not factual or specific. So far - No real substance or specifics to your posts just “concepts” - and it’s Unfair to expect you (or anyone) to resolve a wildlife Managment problem on a Forum…so its a fine discussion, many good ideas on this forum, good to learn the thoughts of others. Actual results are very hard to obtain and can take decades to see measurable change.

 

[Pheroze]

@Pheroze sounds nice and almost a bit “Disney like” with words like “vibrant” that are dramatic but Not factual or specific. So far - No real substance or specifics to your posts just “concepts” - and it’s Unfair to expect you (or anyone) to resolve a wildlife Managment problem on a Forum…so its a fine discussion, many good ideas on this forum, good to learn the thoughts of others. Actual results are very hard to obtain and can take decades to see measurable change.

I don't disagree. My point was to clarify my original statement that the government should ensure outcome studies are done of any intervention they conduct.

 

[HankBuck]

I don't disagree. My point was to clarify my original statement that the government should ensure outcome studies are done of any intervention they conduct.

@Pheroze: there is an inherent conflict of interest with the Government conducting their own “studies” to determine the outcome or effectiveness of ”Government programs”. While most Studies have a bias and start with a conclusion - then insert the data needed to support their desired outcome…..a Government Study will be even more likely to have bias due to politics and to defend tax $$ used. Of course, independent studies can have the same hidden agenda - want to prove the Government program was INeffective, wasted tax dollars etc. Every wolf Study conducted and every New Jersey Bear Study conducted “started” with a desired outcome to either Support or Reject Wolf reintroduction or in NJ - Bear Hunting.
Im very suspicious now of any studies I see and want to know who conducted the study, who funded the study etc.. Lastly, I do NOT have the answers - so I am No help here and being critical but unable to propose a better alternative.

 

[Doug Hamilton]

No the opposite. If the government is going to intervene, they need to monitor their efforts closely. If a professional hunter, one who manages an area for sustainable use, we would probably see a better outcome. Ensuring a vibrant and healthy ecosystem is what I think hunting focuses on.

You are opposed to government culling, but you want government hunters to manage wildlife? Then that would make for a healthy ecosystem? I think you need to reevaluate your position.

 

[Pheroze]

You are opposed to government culling, but you want government hunters to manage wildlife? Then that would make for a healthy ecosystem? I think you need to reevaluate your position.

No, thats not at all what I am writing. I have no idea how my words are being interpreted the way they are in this thread. I will try again

1. If the government is going to cull it sould make sure the results are studied. I never said they should study it. I said it has to be evaluated.

2. Hunters, separate from government, I believe I used the term professional hunters. With that reference I evoked the style of management seen in parts of Afirica, where people commit themselves to ensuring a proper management of the land as a part of a business. But, regardless of this specific model, sustainable use is a proven part of the mix. I have no idea where the idea of government hunters came from. In any event, it's not what I was attempting to communicate. I was talking about regulated hunting in some manner.

There is a misunderstanding of what I am trying to communicate. I suppose typing a text on a phone while at work meant my words did not come across clearly. I hope this makes it clearer.

 

[HankBuck]

No, thats not at all what I am writing. I have no idea how my words are being interpreted the way they are in this thread. I will try again

1. If the government is going to cull it sould make sure the results are studied. I never said they should study it. I said it has to be evaluated.

2. Hunters, separate from government, I believe I used the term professional hunters. With that reference I evoked the style of management seen in parts of Afirica, where people commit themselves to ensuring a proper management of the land as a part of a business. But, regardless of this specific model, sustainable use is a proven part of the mix. I have no idea where the idea of government hunters came from. In any event, it's not what I was attempting to communicate. I was talking about regulated hunting in some manner.

There is a misunderstanding of what I am trying to communicate. I suppose typing a text on a phone while at work meant my words did not come across clearly. I hope this makes it clearer.

@Pheroze - it’s Not your typing and No one is misinterpreting your words, it’s just Two things, 1). You fail to make any point…just “comments” Or opinions that make no sense. 2). When you try to explain your points - it gets worse.…like a child explaining How Santa (Professional Hunters getting paid by “whom”?) really could get into all those homes in one night…the Adults just don’t believe it (but it is a Nice Thought). Now,take my “tone & sarcasm” away because that’s my Poor writing skills and inability to properly & politely explain why I think your Posts make no sense - to the point that they can’t be commented on any longer (going in circles). But, I did enjoy the article you attached and digging into it deeper.

 

[Pheroze]

@Pheroze - it’s Not your typing and No one is misinterpreting your words, it’s just Two things, 1). You fail to make any point…just “comments” Or opinions that make no sense. 2). When you try to explain your points - it gets worse.…like a child explaining How Santa (Professional Hunters getting paid by “whom”?) really could get into all those homes in one night…the Adults just don’t believe it (but it is a Nice Thought). Now,take my “tone & sarcasm” away because that’s my Poor writing skills and inability to properly & politely explain why I think your Posts make no sense - to the point that they can’t be commented on any longer (going in circles). But, I did enjoy the article you attached and digging into it deeper.

Good bye

 

[Doug Hamilton]

No, thats not at all what I am writing. I have no idea how my words are being interpreted the way they are in this thread. I will try again

1. If the government is going to cull it sould make sure the results are studied. I never said they should study it. I said it has to be evaluated.

2. Hunters, separate from government, I believe I used the term professional hunters. With that reference I evoked the style of management seen in parts of Afirica, where people commit themselves to ensuring a proper management of the land as a part of a business. But, regardless of this specific model, sustainable use is a proven part of the mix. I have no idea where the idea of government hunters came from. In any event, it's not what I was attempting to communicate. I was talking about regulated hunting in some manner.

There is a misunderstanding of what I am trying to communicate. I suppose typing a text on a phone while at work meant my words did not come across clearly. I hope this makes it clearer.

No, thats not at all what I am writing. I have no idea how my words are being interpreted the way they are in this thread. I will try again

1. If the government is going to cull it sould make sure the results are studied. I never said they should study it. I said it has to be evaluated.

2. Hunters, separate from government, I believe I used the term professional hunters. With that reference I evoked the style of management seen in parts of Afirica, where people commit themselves to ensuring a proper management of the land as a part of a business. But, regardless of this specific model, sustainable use is a proven part of the mix. I have no idea where the idea of government hunters came from. In any event, it's not what I was attempting to communicate. I was talking about regulated hunting in some manner.

There is a misunderstanding of what I am trying to communicate. I suppose typing a text on a phone while at work meant my words did not come across clearly. I hope this makes it clearer.

Who would pay these "professional hunters" if not the government? Therefore government hunters. Who then would conduct the study if not the government?

I think your words were clear enough, unless of course, we are separated by a common language.