Wildlife

[Fiona]

Today they have reintroduced beavers into this country. There have already been reintroductions of some birds of prey which were extinct in the UK. Some people are arguing for the reintroduction of the wolf in Scotland. I haven't heard anyone pushing the case for the bear but it's probably a matter of time.

Do people think this is sentimental or are there good environmental reasons for it?

[dj_venom]

Well I think that reintroducing spieces to their natural habbitat is a good thing. Out here in Aus, we run the risk of the Koala being endangered, so they are making sanctuaries for them, and then when they become densely populated, they take them out of there and place them back in an abandoned enviroment. Funnily enough, one such place was Kangaroo Island, which now has so many Koalas they need to be culled... so much for Kangaroo island.

So even though they are dangerous animals, they have as much right there as we do. Also, this helps keep them from becoming extinct, because once that happens, you can never get them back... just like the Tasmanian Tiger.

[Chanak]

Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes it's not

The successful reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone National Park here in the US is an encouraging example of such operations at their best. In this case, the numerous herds of elk had no real predator since the wolves receded many years ago due to ruthless hunting and extermination by humans; fortunately for us all, Canada served as a refuge for the grey wolves that once called the Yellowstone region their home. Cooperation between the US and Canada made the Yellowstone story a huge success.

As a footnote, projects like this are underway in other regions of the US. Again, we owe a great debt to Canada. If it weren't for the refuge their lands offered the grey wolf as they retreated from the aggression of hunters and ranchers in the US, there might not be any of these beautiful animals left on North America to reintroduce into their former territory. As of 5 years ago, grey wolves have been spotted as far south as Tennessee, where they haven't been seen in over 70 years.

The United States and Canada have considerable tracts of territory that are sparsely inhabited by humans. The same applies to Australia. This is an ideal setting for the reintroduction of predator species that were driven out previously. Overall, I support the reintroduction of predator species to their former ranges when success is favored by a lack of urban development and the presence of prey animals.

Truth be told, most predators will avoid humans when one catches wind of our scent. By nature of their profession, predators have evolved large brains to boost their chances of survival and over time have learned that humans = death. Wolves are a prime example of this: packs are elusive in the wild and avoid contact with humans. It's a major victory when a team of researchers manages to locate a pack.

Not all efforts to reintroduce species are wise, in my estimation. If the enviroment doesn't favor their relative seclusion from the urban sprawl of humanity or the ire of ranchers and farmers (in the case of predators), then I would think it shouldn't be done.

@venom: White-tailed deer are a similar story in the US. Even with hunting so prevalent in the US, in some places their populations are so heavy they wander into urban areas and on highways, where both motorists and the deer become casualties as cars collide with the deer. Even a modest-sized doe can ruin a car; a large buck can total one. A friend of mine related that one evening as he sat in his living room watching the news, the glass of his sliding patio door suddenly shattered. It shattered because a rutting white-tailed buck had jumped through it! This was in the heart of suburbia. He frantically opened every door in the house, whereby the panicking deer eventually exited.

[Cuchulain82]

[QUOTE=Fiona]Today they have reintroduced beavers into this country. There have already been reintroductions of some birds of prey which were extinct in the UK. Some people are arguing for the reintroduction of the wolf in Scotland. I haven't heard anyone pushing the case for the bear but it's probably a matter of time.

Do people think this is sentimental or are there good environmental reasons for it?[/QUOTE]
How long ago did the extinction take place? Was it been a few decades, or rather a period of millenia?

I guess for me the question is whether or not the extinction was man-made or more natural...

[ch85us2001]

There have been successes with such programs in the United States (yellowstone National Park and grey wolves) but there have also been dismal failures

One that comes to mind is Ted Turners (an american land baron) attempt to "reintroduce" grizzly bears into New Mexico.
Firstly, Grizly bears (as far as anyone knows) were never native to New Mexico in the first place! Secondly he released the grizzly bears into land that he allowed an adjacent boy scout camp use for back country (and I do mean BACK country) hiking . Needless to say it didnt go over well

[Fiona]

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]How long ago did the extinction take place? Was it been a few decades, or rather a period of millenia?

I guess for me the question is whether or not the extinction was man-made or more natural...[/QUOTE]
I don't really know but this suggests it was fairly recent (if you count the 12th or the 16th century as recent) and therefore perhaps man-made.


"Distribution in Scotland

Based on palaeontological and archaeological remains and historical evidence, scientists have concluded that the beaver was widely distributed throughout mainland Scotland, with bones having been discovered from Dumfriesshire in the south to Caithness and Sutherland in the north, as well as in Perthshire and Moray.

The exact date of the beaver's disappearance from Scotland is unknown, but it was certainly still present in the 12th century, when excise duty was collected on the export of its pelt. Written records indicate that it may have survived in small numbers at a few locations until the 16th century."

[Lestat]

It also the depends on the size of the natural habitat a group of the animals need to survive, and how much natural habitat remain. So while it might seem possible to reintroduce the beaver and even some larger carnivores in Scotland, I hardly see the same happening for instance in the Belgian Ardennes (the beaver might just work, but for the wolves it might get tricky).

[Galuf the Dwarf]

I can sort-of relate to Chanak's deer story in a rather different way. Connecticut is almost up to it's armpits in White-tailed Deer after the species was reintroduced decades ago. Nowadays, hunting of them is permitted during certain seasons, and once in a while I have spied a random buck or doe either in my yard or crossing the road with its eyes out for oncoming vehicles. Fortunately, I always have my eyes out for them, so I have yet to hit any.

We supposedly have cougars somewhere around my residence (mostly active during the winter), and an a few moose and black bears have been reported in other parts of the state. Connecticut still has much unsettled areas to it, although there still have been more houses being built in a few spots.

But that's not to say that too much is being destroyed. In fact, a number of trees have to be selectively cut and certain numbers of deer may have to be killed or otherwise things will likely die out altogether. Otherwise, there could be too little food for deer, or too little space for the younger estabilished trees to grow.

In many ways, Connectict is very full of wildlife.

[slade]

[QUOTE=Fiona]I don't really know but this suggests it was fairly recent (if you count the 12th or the 16th century as recent) and therefore perhaps man-made.


"Distribution in Scotland

Based on palaeontological and archaeological remains and historical evidence, scientists have concluded that the beaver was widely distributed throughout mainland Scotland, with bones having been discovered from Dumfriesshire in the south to Caithness and Sutherland in the north, as well as in Perthshire and Moray.

The exact date of the beaver's disappearance from Scotland is unknown, but it was certainly still present in the 12th century, when excise duty was collected on the export of its pelt. Written records indicate that it may have survived in small numbers at a few locations until the 16th century."[/QUOTE]

They say that in England they hunted down Beavers at about 400 years ago..nearly or completly wiping them out

As far as reintroducing them into Scotland, people are having second thoughts because they fear that the beaver might bring deadly diseases or sickness to the population..like Giardiasis that targets the immune system also known as "beaver fever"...farmers are also saying that "the beavers are a destructive pest and thats why they were hunted down 400 years ago"
Poor beavers......

[Fiona]

I don't think they are destructive. There is some information in the article my quote came from

http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/beaver_r ... ction.html

On the other hand I don't think people eat them and they must have been hunted to extinction for some reason. Our ancestors weren't mindlessly destructive, so far as I know.

Some of the other posts point to worries about unintended consequences, and although nothing disastrous has been reported here it is something to think about.

[slade]

[QUOTE=Fiona]I don't think they are destructive.[/QUOTE]

Oh I know, thats just what people who own farmlands there are arguing about, but the Scottish National Heritige is saying that there is no hard evidence of them being a pest to anyone and as far as diseases go the Scottish National Hertige says that Giardiasis was already there before...

[Lestat]

On the other hand I don't think people eat them and they must have been hunted to extinction for some reason. Our ancestors weren't mindlessly destructive, so far as I know.

Pelts. See the quote of the article

The exact date of the beaver's disappearance from Scotland is unknown, but it was certainly still present in the 12th century, when excise duty was collected on the export of its pelt. Written records indicate that it may have survived in small numbers at a few locations until the 16th century."

If people were exporting them, there was money in it.

[Fiona]

I presumed that people would not have destroyed a source of income by over-exploitation at that date. Not because I thought they were smarter then, but I didn't think they had the technology till later. But I suppose you must be right

[slade]

[QUOTE=Fiona]I presumed that people would not have destroyed a source of income by over-exploitation at that date. Not because I thought they were smarter then, but I didn't think they had the technology till later. But I suppose you must be right [/QUOTE]

Maybe thats not how it started at first,but later lead up to that....IMO

[Hill-Shatar]

Canada is not totally clean...

I remember that a while ago, there was a situation about red wolves up here, soon after the problem in the states. Down in the states, they had tried to restrict hunting the last 500 red wolves left. When the law was apssed, the irate hunters went out, shot several red wolves and left there bodies to rot, taking the head off of one and nailing it to a post in the pub.

They were arrested. I do not know what happened to them. I know we had a similar problem with hunting up here... but it stopped eventually.

Pretty much the reason why populations of animals survive so well up here is because we are not so populated in certaain regions. However, recently we saw the reintroduction of the wild turkey from New York state in the St. Lawrence lowland, the most populated place in the country. Also, we recently had several types of birds come back that we thought had been killed off. The number of Peligans coming back up the Eastern coast is climbing again, as is the number of Grey Herons roosting around Eastern Canada in the summer. Also, the number of Migrating whales along the Eastern and Western coast. Big things going on.

The ties between Canada and the US are extremely tight, as Chanak said, in these cases. The past decades have seen the coming back of dozens of species.

In the case of beavers, Europenas killed off the beavers long ago to use as pelts for the making of clothes, however, mainly for the making of hats, which became a popular ladies item accross the country. When people first found bevaers in Canada, they were extremely exited and began hunting them immediately. It had become a valuble commodity and was still well liked by the well-off nobility. There was a point when the only animals remainging were those in areas not easily accessible by humans. Seculded areas in BC, such as the Okanagan valley and several springs, had warm weather year round, so when the valleys were found, the biodiversity index was astounding. They even found shrimp in warm ponds on the Alberta/BC coast.

There was a reason that the HBC had such a large amount of land; trapping. McDonald bought it off the European government for a cent every three hectares, approx. Ruperts land has since been called many things, but today has toes in Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, Saskathewan, NWT, and Nunavut.

Anywyas, the wolf has now been reintroduced in the mountains as well. Canada has had many deer crisises, where entire forests had a level that the leaves and branches were gone. Eventually, the typically alpine Grizzly Bear and the Mountain Lion began migrating from their mountain homes south, and has resulted is some deaths by people who have no idea how to handle a bear, which, by the way, is being relocated accross the two countries of America and Canada as well.

Anyways, I was unaware that New Mexico was alpine. Grizzlies like the ability to stay above the tree line, the reason for the shaggy fur and other adaptions, and only reside in forests if they have to. Mountainous areas are for the grizzly bears. Plains are not. Forests are more for black bears, anyways.

[Phreddie]

just want to add something that i tohught i saw people trying to destinguish between different species between countires, animals dont care about human political boundaries, why should they? the species are specific to regions not countries, southern canada and north u.s. should ahve a lot of the same species. just thought id pop in and share what i thought was a big thing missing, bye...?

[Hill-Shatar]

A bah to you. One of the reasons that animals are here in Canada is because they were hunted to extinction elsewhere. Althoguh the animals do not reconize (I would not say care) human political boundaries, they still can not live in a plce where they can easily be killed.

The incapability of americans to kill things on Canadian soil halted them in their tracks, since we do not need to hunt the animals as much as other countries. Thus, they live in Canada.... but not in America. They live on our side... but no in the states. Recently those crossing the border are not killed and we are assisting in the movement of those (most of them) that do not migrate that far south naturally.

A political line if you will.

[Phreddie]

[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]A bah to you. One of the reasons that animals are here in Canada is because they were hunted to extinction elsewhere. Althooguh the animals do not reconize (I would not say care) human political boundaries, they still can not live in a plce where they can easily be killed.

The incapability of americans to kill things on Canadian soil halted them in their tracks, since we do not need to hunt the animals as much as other countries. Thus, they live in Canada.... but not in America.

A political line if you will. [/QUOTE]
Dont say what we can and cannot hunt, we have deep runing streak of pride arrogance and ignorance, for all we knwo canada is a myth.

Seriously, that is true, and i guess wheree endangered species live is basically up to the gov'ts i see yalls poitn now.

[Athena]

Humans were gifted with speech, that doesn't give them the authority to drive all others off the earth.
[QUOTE=Chanak] most predators will avoid humans when one catches wind of our scent. By nature of their profession, predators have evolved large brains to boost their chances of survival and over time have learned that humans = death.[/QUOTE]

[dj_venom]

[QUOTE=Chanak]@venom: White-tailed deer are a similar story in the US. Even with hunting so prevalent in the US, in some places their populations are so heavy they wander into urban areas and on highways, where both motorists and the deer become casualties as cars collide with the deer. Even a modest-sized doe can ruin a car; a large buck can total one. A friend of mine related that one evening as he sat in his living room watching the news, the glass of his sliding patio door suddenly shattered. It shattered because a rutting white-tailed buck had jumped through it! This was in the heart of suburbia. He frantically opened every door in the house, whereby the panicking deer eventually exited.[/QUOTE]

Ouch, that's gotta be bad.

We also have the problem with Kangaroos, if you hit one it smashes your car, which is why the bull bar is so good . But yes, you also are issued licenses for hunting kangaroos in Summer, because otherwise they eat all the grass and ruin the environment, and that's a major problem because it's so dry down here. We're in a massive drought, so if we lose the grass, we lose the herds, and once we lose that, we are really stuffed when it comes to income and exporting.