Has wildlife suffered serious declines in population????

[Connie Bear Orion]

On another thread in what is really not the appropriate place for the conversation it was stated to me that "wildlife has suffered serious declines in population."

So I am curious what other people on here think.

It seems to me that there are more animals around compared to as far back as I can remember, and when I hear the old timers I hunt with talk about the old days.

There are some animals in this country that there are very few or non-existant but over all I would most animals are either staying stable or increasing in population.

What does everyone else think??????

[poconoron]

On another thread in what is really not the appropriate place for the conversation it was stated to me that "wildlife has suffered serious declines in population."

It seems to me that there are more animals around compared to as far back as I can remember, and when I hear the old timers I hunt with talk about the old days.

What does everyone else think??????

For clarity, the quote "wildlife has suffered serious declines in population" was a comparison to Plymouth Rock days as stated by Connie Bear on the other thread- not to the "as far back as I can remember" days, which is now the benchmark being used.

[Connie Bear Orion]

And what proof do you have of that?

"on the decline" would suggest a still happening.

Its not on the decline anymore.

Is it?

I say the populations are going up. As compared to 50 years ago or any benchmark you want.
Whether it is lower now then it was when the pilgrims landed or not, "In decline" means "Still is declining".

Is it still declining????????

[St.Regis]

I think some are declining, but a lot are increasing. Used to see pheasants all the time, but very few now. Resident Canada geese are everywhere. Same with coyotes - they are all over the place. Turkeys - tons. Bluebill (scaup) ducks are on the decline. Some songbirds are declining, but cardinals are increasing. Depends on the critter and its adaptability and what's happening to their habitat.

[poconoron]

And what proof do you have of that?

"on the decline" would suggest a still happening.

Its not on the decline anymore.

Is it?

I say the populations are going up. As compared to 50 years ago or any benchmark you want.
Whether it is lower now then it was when the pilgrims landed or not, "In decline" means "Still is declining".

Is it still declining????????

I would respectfully suggest that if you are trying to do a comparison of today vs.

Plymouth Rock
or 50 years ago,
or "as far back as I can remember",
or 1950
or ???????- then you need to be very specific. Otherwise any responses will be of very questionable value.....

And for the record, I stated "wildlife has suffered serious declines in population."
as compared to Plymouth Rock days(which you brought up) . YOU continue to say "in decline".....

Let's look at some species:

elk- once found across NY, now gone
bison- once found across NY, now gone
mt. lions- once found across the state, now probably gone except for stragglers
wolf- once found across the state, now gone
moose- once found across NY, now only a few hundred or so in ADKs plus stragglers
bald eagles- once found across NY, now perhaps a few hundred if we're lucky
Lynx- once found in northern NY, now gone
fisher- once found across NY, now only in wilder areas and gradually expanding from there
bobcat- only found in wild areas of state and even there in uncertain numbers- See the Adirondack Atlas
ravens- only recently coming back into wilder areas and (hopefully) expanding from there; beware of crows as mis-identifications
martens- once found in wide distributions across northeast, now confined to only wilder areas
many fish species- once found in most ADK lakes, now many are gone from those lakes- acid rain, over-fishing, and the like
many forest birds- once found across NY, now only found in densely forested areas like ADKs, Catskills, wildlife preserves, etc.
golden eagles- once found in NY, now all but gone
loons- in decline due to acid rain http://www.bsc-eoc.org/clls-bw5.html- the same is true for ADK and New England loons
otters- once found across NY, now pretty much confined to wilder areas of ADKs, Catskills, Alleghenies and the like
black bears- once found across the state, now mainly in ADKs, Catskills, Alleghenies and a few remote pockets

I don't think I need to go on. Aside from deer, coyotes, turkeys, raccoons and suburban type birds which seem to thrive around man, many many other species have suffered. Now, if you are a hunter after deer or turkey- then that's great. Otherwise, not so great for the rest of wildlife and us.

When we're talking 18 million people in NY and their "human footprint" of cities, suburbs, road systems, superhighways, shopping malls, strip malls, agricultural areas- then it's pretty obvious that most of those areas today are off limits to alot of wildlife species. That was just NOT the case in Plymouth Rock days when the entire native American population in the US was estimated at a fraction of today's population.

Now, if we want to talk about how certain species have shown the resiliency to come back despite man's persecution, then that's an entirely new discussion......

[redhawk]

On another thread in what is really not the appropriate place for the conversation it was stated to me that "wildlife has suffered serious declines in population."

So I am curious what other people on here think.

It seems to me that there are more animals around compared to as far back as I can remember, and when I hear the old timers I hunt with talk about the old days.

There are some animals in this country that there are very few or non-existant but over all I would most animals are either staying stable or increasing in population.

What does everyone else think??????

Bears, wolves, bald eagles, Cougars, Bison, have definately declined in two centuries. If fish are considered wildlife in your reckoning, the numbers and species here have declined and as a result so have many of the waterfowl that depend on them for rood. Some may be making a comeback by reintroduction but as soon as the numbers get up a little, people want them de-protected so they can kill them.

So really need to know what the time frame is you are talking about.

And it's always funny talking to "old timers". Very often the longer the time that has passed, the more the memory has been dimmed and the fuzzier the facts are.

On the other thread you stated that there was more game now then when the Pilgrims landed. I asked you who counted them then and didn't get an answer. And if someone did count them, where are the numbers for that count?

[Neil]

Depends on the critter and its adaptability and what's happening to their habitat.

I don't have accurate numbers, (no one does!) but in Quebec the ministry of the environment says there are more black bears than in recent history. In small towns they roam around like stray dogs which people with children aren't fond of. The increase is attributed to a decrease in hunters. I remember reading an article about suburban black bears in the states. There are supposedly a lot of these about, living off of garbage and weighing about 100 pounds more than their "wild" brethren.


Animal populations fluctuate normally, 2 classics being the snowshoe hare-lynx populations and lemmings. Without accurate records, painstakingly compiled by wildlife biologists, the rest is just idle speculation, usually by people with a predetermined, agenda driven conclusion.

[redoak30]

I believe the question shouldn't be "Has wildlife suffered serious declines in population????" Instead how is species x doing and is the population healthy and genectically viable with cooridors to reach changes in habitat that favor that species. For example, Man has changed New York to a more early successional condition (minus the ADK wilderness) where these species have flourished. In the Plymouth Rock days these early successional species populations would of a mere fraction of what they are today. But the population was able to respond to change and fill the new habitats created with Man's influence. Populations are continually increasing and decreasing in responce to their environment, so mere numbers IMO is not a good guage for species health.

[redhawk]

Without accurate records, painstakingly compiled by wildlife biologists, the rest is just idle speculation, usually by people with a predetermined, agenda driven conclusion.

BINGO!!!!

[Adirondack_hunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Without accurate records, painstakingly compiled by wildlife biologists, the rest is just idle speculation, usually by people with a predetermined, agenda driven conclusion.

BINGO!!!!

that is right BINGO called out by people that are "Blinded by the light!"

Have populations suffered significantly? Yep.
Are many animal populations on the rise? Yep Are some falling. Yep too!
Is this natural? Yep unless you say man is not natural......
Should we give credit to man for both? Only an idiot would say no.

We could go through the entire list of animals above and bury it with a shovel yet what we really need to do is put populations in perspective along with time.
We could throw flora in this mix as well and really complicate the issue. Populations are going to rise and fall. Some polulations significantly.
Is this unnatural? Not at all. Might man be speeding the rate in which these populations fall as well as rise? Oh my...yep again!
We in North America are blessed. We have driven species from their normal range as well as hunted them for bounty. We have also helped these same species to make a comeback and we have learned how to do this effectively and efficiently.
In my history in earth I have seen of course like many of you, the deer population rise, the gray squirrel population rise, the turkey population rise, I have seen the grouse population fall, (Blame the squirrel and deer) I have seen the timber wolf population rise as well as the river otter make a comeback. Ravens??? I never saw one 25 years ago and now I see them daily. I have seen some tree species totally wiped out from poor forestry practices. I have seen the pheasant population fall due to behaviors that pheasants have been exihibiting when flushed. (Ain't my fault!) Dumb birds!!! Fly birds....don't run. Preditors can catch you easier...

What we fail to think of is that invasive species take a bit of that space that we claim to be another animals space. Carrying capacity, a great term. Add it all up, the question is...do we have more animals ("bio-mass") now than we did 50 years ago? How about 100? How about 150? How about 300?
The next thing you have to ask is how many arm chair computer guys don't get out there and spend time in the out of doors? If the average guy spent 200 hrs afield 30 years ago and now 30 years later he is only getting out there 20 hrs can he really say honestly he has a clue? Or does he just jump on the bandwagon and ride the coattails of other extremists with agendas?

Oh.....let's just

[redhawk]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Without accurate records, painstakingly compiled by wildlife biologists, the rest is just idle speculation, usually by people with a predetermined, agenda driven conclusion.



that is right BINGO called out by people that are "Blinded by the light!"

Have populations suffered significantly? Yep.
Are many animal populations on the rise? Yep Are some falling. Yep too!
Is this natural? Yep unless you say man is not natural......
Should we give credit to man for both? Only an idiot would say no.

We could go through the entire list of animals above and bury it with a shovel yet what we really need to do is put populations in perspective along with time.
We could throw flora in this mix as well and really complicate the issue. Populations are going to rise and fall. Some polulations significantly.
Is this unnatural? Not at all. Might man be speeding the rate in which these populations fall as well as rise? Oh my...yep again!
We in North America are blessed. We have driven species from their normal range as well as hunted them for bounty. We have also helped these same species to make a comeback and we have learned how to do this effectively and efficiently.
In my history in earth I have seen of course like many of you, the deer population rise, the gray squirrel population rise, the turkey population rise, I have seen the grouse population fall, (Blame the squirrel and deer) I have seen the timber wolf population rise as well as the river otter make a comeback. Ravens??? I never saw one 25 years ago and now I see them daily. I have seen some tree species totally wiped out from poor forestry practices. I have seen the pheasant population fall due to behaviors that pheasants have been exihibiting when flushed. (Ain't my fault!) Dumb birds!!! Fly birds....don't run. Preditors can catch you easier...

What we fail to think of is that invasive species take a bit of that space that we claim to be another animals space. Carrying capacity, a great term. Add it all up, the question is...do we have more animals ("bio-mass") now than we did 50 years ago? How about 100? How about 150? How about 300?
The next thing you have to ask is how many arm chair computer guys don't get out there and spend time in the out of doors? If the average guy spent 200 hrs afield 30 years ago and now 30 years later he is only getting out there 20 hrs can he really say honestly he has a clue? Or does he just jump on the bandwagon and ride the coattails of other extremists with agendas?

Oh.....let's just

Why so defensive? This thread asks about populations, more or less, and no where do I see a particular cause being put to blame.

I think the biggest problem is the fact that as more and more of their natural habitat is taken, populations decline, because there is not enough food for huge numbers.

Invasive plant species, pollution, diseases, and other factors all add to the cause.

As for your question about the "armchair computer guys", beat that horse on another forum. Most people here have spent most of their lives in the woods. I've been in the woods since 1946 when i was 4 years old and pretty much ever since except for the years I was in the jungle.

And yes Dave, based on my experience and observations, in general, most big game is in much less evidence then it was 60 years ago and 50 years ago and 20 years ago, and 10 years ago.

there are some places where species are coming back through re-introduction, but no where near the numbers necessary to keep a balance in nature.

And as Poconoron says, unless you have accurate numbers, reached by professional people using scientific means to reach the numbers no one can unobjectively say for sure.

Here's Connie saying that he can state with confidence that the numbers are going up, yet earlier Ken999 stated that he didn't want to see predators reintroduced into the dacks because it's tough enough to find then now. So which is it? Who's right?

Using Connie's argument that none are in decline because there has been an increase in the last 50 years, does that mean that if the population once was 100,000 and now it's 1,000, that everything is fine?

That's special agenda logic. And it plays out that way on both sides of the argument. Somewhere there has to be middle ground, but one extreme side wants to protect everything and the other extreme side says that man is the dominant species and therefore that's all that should be considered.

Until there is moderation and both sides compromise, and yes that means that YOU have to give up something too, the it's a stalemate and in the long run, you'll all lose.

so if anyone has anything to say about numbers up or own, then come up with figures scientifically reached by professionals. otherwise it's just opinion, based mostly on heart and not head.

[Connie Bear Orion]

Well due to technical difficulty I lost a rather long post to this thread.
So here is a shortened version.

I would respectfully suggest that if you are trying to do a comparison of today vs.

Plymouth Rock
or 50 years ago,
or "as far back as I can remember",
or 1950
or ???????- then you need to be very specific. Otherwise any responses will be of very questionable value.....

And for the record, I stated "wildlife has suffered serious declines in population."
as compared to Plymouth Rock days(which you brought up) . YOU continue to say "in decline".....

Let's look at some species:

elk- once found across NY, now gone
bison- once found across NY, now gone
mt. lions- once found across the state, now probably gone except for stragglers
wolf- once found across the state, now gone
moose- once found across NY, now only a few hundred or so in ADKs plus stragglers
bald eagles- once found across NY, now perhaps a few hundred if we're lucky
Lynx- once found in northern NY, now gone
fisher- once found across NY, now only in wilder areas and gradually expanding from there
bobcat- only found in wild areas of state and even there in uncertain numbers- See the Adirondack Atlas
ravens- only recently coming back into wilder areas and (hopefully) expanding from there; beware of crows as mis-identifications
martens- once found in wide distributions across northeast, now confined to only wilder areas
many fish species- once found in most ADK lakes, now many are gone from those lakes- acid rain, over-fishing, and the like
many forest birds- once found across NY, now only found in densely forested areas like ADKs, Catskills, wildlife preserves, etc.
golden eagles- once found in NY, now all but gone
loons- in decline due to acid rain http://www.bsc-eoc.org/clls-bw5.html- the same is true for ADK and New England loons
otters- once found across NY, now pretty much confined to wilder areas of ADKs, Catskills, Alleghenies and the like
black bears- once found across the state, now mainly in ADKs, Catskills, Alleghenies and a few remote pockets

I don't think I need to go on. Aside from deer, coyotes, turkeys, raccoons and suburban type birds which seem to thrive around man, many many other species have suffered. Now, if you are a hunter after deer or turkey- then that's great. Otherwise, not so great for the rest of wildlife and us.

When we're talking 18 million people in NY and their "human footprint" of cities, suburbs, road systems, superhighways, shopping malls, strip malls, agricultural areas- then it's pretty obvious that most of those areas today are off limits to alot of wildlife species. That was just NOT the case in Plymouth Rock days when the entire native American population in the US was estimated at a fraction of today's population.

Now, if we want to talk about how certain species have shown the resiliency to come back despite man's persecution, then that's an entirely new discussion......

Where do you get these ideas.
"only found in wild areas of state"
"once found across NY, now pretty much confined to wilder areas of ADKs, Catskills, Alleghenies and the like"
ALot of these animals are all over this state, and moving to the more poulated areas.
Fishers are moving into the suburbs of Albany.
A Black bear has been found roaming the city if Utica.
One of my buddies lives 5 miles north of utica and he has one that has been around his backyard during the last few summers.

Ravens lots of them around. See them often. The tip off for identification at a distance is the beak.

Otters I see them all over. Gotta be real quiet in the woods.
See them alot while duck hunting.

Bison? in NYS?
Where? When?
They are primarly a plains and grassland animal. How did they survive in the hills and mountains of this state?

There are alot of animals around now that are more common to be seen all over some even in cities.
I had a long list of animals that are getting more and more common in thsi state, but I don't have the time to retype it.

As for fish. Because of restocking and proper management and the lowering of acceptable polution levels they are doing great.
Only fish in this state I knwo of that are in real danger of not ever being a good population is the heritage strain brook trout and the round whitefish. Even Sturgeon are looking like they might be able to get a good population going again.

I hear Pa. is pretty polluted, are you sure your not observing there?
Trappers in the state of new york supplied a bunch of otters to your state and it did not even put a dent in the population here.

[ken999]

I see my name was brought up ...

Just where exactly are we talking about? The dacks? NY? North America?

I'd say that IN GENERAL populations of most game animals (which I'm most familiar) are going up.

I don't think many indigenous ADK fish are in immenant danger.

The lynx are troubled here...probably due to coyotes more than anything...

Rattlesnakes are probably the most endagered animal we have right now in the dacks...

Lot's of Bald Eagles here now.

Maybe as many as 500 Moose...DEC thinks 300 is realistic, but there could be more.

Deer #'s are steady to rising in the dacks...although this winter might have knocked the #'s back a bit...we've had a pretty good run of winters over the last 10 years, and winters are the major factor in deer #'s.

Bears are increasing statewide.

...still looking for Bigfoot...

[Connie Bear Orion]

I see my name was brought up ...

Just where exactly are we talking about? The dacks? NY? North America?

I'd say that IN GENERAL populations of most game animals (which I'm most familiar) are going up.

I don't think many indigenous ADK fish are in immenant danger.

The lynx are troubled here...probably due to coyotes more than anything...

Rattlesnakes are probably the most endagered animal we have right now in the dacks...

Lot's of Bald Eagles here now.

Maybe as many as 500 Moose...DEC thinks 300 is realistic, but there could be more.

Deer #'s are steady to rising in the dacks...although this winter might have knocked the #'s back a bit...we've had a pretty good run of winters over the last 10 years, and winters are the major factor in deer #'s.

Bears are increasing statewide.

...still looking for Bigfoot...

300 moose in this state? Damn, did not think it was that many.
Now I am just angry.
For all the stuff I have seen in this state I am never around at the right time for seeing a moose.

One was on my beach a few years back. And a Neighbor got a picture.
Was it a monday and I had to be at home for work?
Yes.

Just gives me a reason to spend more time in the woods.


I saw big foot a few years back.
Wait.
No.
That was just a really hairy ugly man.
Or was it an extremely ugly woman?

[Connie Bear Orion]

Using Connie's argument that none are in decline because there has been an increase in the last 50 years, does that mean that if the population once was 100,000 and now it's 1,000, that everything is fine?

Pretty sure I did not say none. I think i refered to the animal kingdom in this state as a whole, and said it was increasing.
And as I said before "in decline" is the opposite of increasing.

So if something is not "In decline" it is either remaining the same or increasing.
Which is good.

Even if there was 100,000 over 100 years ago, and there is 1,000 now. If there was only 100 of the species 50 years ago. That is not "In decline."

That is increaseing.

Now as for the why?

The increase in alot of cases is because of proper management by humans.

The decreases no doubt had something to do with improper management by humans.

And hunting with in the limits that the gov't biologists set by in large is proper management.

Because if the population gets to big.
Mother Nature takes care of the management and animals starve to death or die of disease. Not a pretty way to die.
Raccoon rabies is an example of mother nature in action on a high population animal.

Since shooting the over population of people is illegal.
We are gonna have to stick to proper management of the animals.

And since they don't commit suicide like the cows people buy at the grocery store, something has to be done.:.

And even if the humans did commit suicide, and the meat gets sold, I hear they taste like pork and I bet they are high in fat and cholesterol.