Has wildlife suffered serious declines in population????

[redoak30]

Several history sites state "Estimated Bison population varied from 30 million to 70 million animals across North America, during presettlement times"


From the American Bison Society "William Hornaday, illustrated the species’ decline in his 1889 study which showed that only 1,091 bison remained in North America"

The current population estimate from the American Bison Society is about 400,000 bison. Now you take into account all the current farmland and development across the plains and how little the bison actually have to use compared to their historic range and IMO there could of been 50 million bison in pre-white man days.

[redhawk]

That story was a bunch of bunk. 50 million could have been an exageration! NO????
Remember who wrote some of this history. Big story tellers...... Hasn't history been incorrectly told before by every race, culture and religion? Could this be wrong as well? 50 million is just wacked. Can you even count to 50 million? I wonder what non-educated fool kept track of these numbers. "One, two, three...What's for breakfast Bill? Is Suzie coming over tomorrow with uncle Jed? Ninety-nine, One hundred. Wow, that is a bundle of Buffalo.
I've seen 100 deer look like about 4000 after a long winter of not seeing any. Has anyone else seen similar things as this?

At least carry a basketball that is going to come close to the hoop. My arms are getting tired! In fact, I'm putting the hoop down as well as my fingers to this post.

Thats white history, not native American.

So, you were there? You have proof that history is wrong?(It often is, but not his time).

There are a lot of people who claim anothe holocast never happened either.

That's the trouble Dave, it seems that facts are selective. If it suits you, then it's "fact", whether it's verified or not.

If it doesn't fit in, then it's propaganda, created by some left wing bleeding heart liberals. Even if it's recorded history.

OK, here's my challenge. Find me any kind of credible documentation that Sheridan's "Final Solution" is Myth. It's been authenticated by respected, credible western historians. And find me any contradiction to the number of buffalo on the Great Plains in the 1860's.

As for my proof, just read any history book dealing with the Palins Wars.

There are many accounts of people talking about having to wait hours for herds of buffalo to pass White as well as Indian. there are pictures of ACRES of buffalo bones killed by buffalo hunters in a matter of days.

So don't scoff. As i have said before. get an open mind and do some research for facts, not just the information you would like to find.

[GW]

there are lot's of forums that cater to hunters. Why not habg out and post there? Not that you're not welcome here, but this is primarily a board for hiking in the Adirondacks and many people here have different views then hunters.

In fact many of them are tired of the recent surge of hunting and gun threads on this forum.

Myself, I don't go to hunting forums because I disagree with a lot of whats posted, so being a decent individual I stay clear so not as to disrupt or confront.

There's an old Lakota Proverb.....

"If you don't want the pot stirred, don't put your spoon in the pot"

Then Hawk...for Credibilities sake-of course....You should probably quote a "Source" for those numbers...instead of just saying "Many". Otherwise some people may mistake what you have said as simply Your Opinion and not Fact as You Claim it to be.

Just a suggestion....
Should the "Facts" be as you say and the "Many" do not want the surge of posts by "Hunters" and or people who use "Guns"...
You, and the others who share your view, could probably Eliminate these problems(for the most part) by simply having the board Administrators remove the forum room notated in RED:
Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum
Hunting and Fishing in the Adirondacks


P.S.
Tuesday afternoon I'll be "Hiking" into a trout stream, "Hunting" hungry fish, I'll be going there as a "Predator".
Seems like a perfect balance to me, and I feel completely welcomed by Nature, but thats just my Opinion.

[Dick]

This is neither a hunting nor a hiking website. It is the Adirondack forum, with many valued posters who post in all sections, including hunting, hiking, and wildlife sections. We believe these, and all of the sections on this website are valuable ones. They will NOT be removed. Civil posts in all sections, including hunting, hiking, wilderness discussion, and others, are welcomed. We ask that EVERYONE in ALL sections to consider your posts carefully before posting, and avoid unfriendly and personal suggestions to other posters.

Dick
Adkforum owner

[alpha60]

In the spirit of inclusion I'd like to say that I have nothing against hunters and fisherman. I love to both hunt and fish and I don't see those activities as a major problem when practiced responsibly. But I think the serious decline of wildlife is very well documented. You can read the science, talk with Native American elders or just drive across the country, and especially if you're comparing to the 17th century I think anyone with an open mind would conclude there has been a drastic decline. By far the biggest problems are habitat destruction and pollution. Doesn't the simple fact that the 90 percent of the original forests have been cleared indicate a decline? I would have thought that an Adirondack forum would have plenty of experience with the effects of acid rain. Twenty percent of Adirondack lakes are acidified. How can this not be taken as a serious decline?. What does the fluctuation of some numbers of game species have to do with any of this? New Jersey is overrun with whitetails but most people there would be hard pressed to consider them truly wild.. Questioning whether elk or wolves are too dangerous to be allowed back sounds more like zoo management that wildlife biology. Wild nature is dangerous. I thinks it threatens the remaining wildlife to suggest it's doing just fine or possibly on the upswing.

[poconoron]

That story was a bunch of bunk. 50 million could have been an exageration! NO????
Remember who wrote some of this history. Big story tellers...... Hasn't history been incorrectly told before by every race, culture and religion? Could this be wrong as well? 50 million is just wacked. Can you even count to 50 million? I wonder what non-educated fool kept track of these numbers.

Not a very helpful post, to say the least. But it's interesting that you'll accept within minutes a post reporting wildlife numbers put out by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and yet question or ridicule multiple historical sources as to bison populations in pre-settlement times. Oh well, so much for evenhandedness........

From my perspective, I'd like to ask the following question:

Why do many hunters appear to have a double standard on wildlife, i.e. it's GREAT to have some species flourish (deer, turkeys, ducks, etc.) but for many others (mainly predators) - to hell with them- they're not needed. This smacks very much of a "good wildlife-bad wildlife" mentality......isn't that what got us into trouble in the first place years ago (along with unregulated and irresponsible hunting) when Europeans brought those good wildlife/bad wildlife ideas with them from the "old country"?

[doug]

I think this discussion is entirely too local in it's focus. Suburban habitat is very favorable to deer and geese for example. However, the song-bird population is in serious decline in the entire Northern Hemisphere due to habitat loss here but most importantly in their winter range south of the U.S. The ocean fishery is actually already in almost complete collapse and marine biologists are warning of a for-all-practical-purposes dead ocean worldwide by mid-century due to over-fishing, pollution and climate change. The global picture is not a good one.

[poconoron]

I think this discussion is entirely too local in it's focus. Suburban habitat is very favorable to deer and geese for example. However, the song-bird population is in serious decline in the entire Northern Hemisphere due to habitat loss here but most importantly in their winter range south of the U.S. The ocean fishery is actually already in almost complete collapse and marine biologists are warning of a for-all-practical-purposes dead ocean worldwide by mid-century due to over-fishing, pollution and climate change. The global picture is not a good one.

Some good points especially the song birds situation, which directly relates to the ADKs and NY state. No one (playing with a full deck) could deny there are problems there. The global situation should probably be discussed in the "By the Fireside" category since it's way beyond ADK scope,

The initial discussion was begun by someone making a direct comparison of wildlife levels today vs. Plymouth Rock days, or "as far back as I can remember" days..........or "whatever" days.............

[Connie Bear Orion]

A few million years of evolution?

No, thats not true. MORE is the key there. Are MORE needed?
Evolution does not prove that.
Evolution proves Balance is needed. Not that MORE is needed.

Are we in Balance? Prove to me things are not in balance.
SOme areas are not some are. Predators may not stay where we want them.

Read your history, the slaughter of 50 million bison in three years was the plan of General Phil Sheridan as "the final solution" to subjugate the people of the plains.

I have. Many times. Not all but alot.
It was a simple plan. Kill the food. Control the native Population.
It was wrong treatment of the bison and more so the people of the plains.

But that does not say the Bison that lived east of the Mississippi were not going extinct at the hands of mother nature.
How long after the pilgrims arrived did they go extinct?

it's not as sporting when the animal might fight back?

It would be more sporting if they could fight back.
But in this state it would be a long time before killing an Elk is at all an option.

What benefit was it to destroy them?
There seem to have been benefit in the areas where that have been reintroduced.

Stupid humans feared them and wanted their skins and did not kill selectivly so that the renewable resource could renew itself before it became extinct.
Thats the great part about animals you shoot a few and a few more will be born next year.
They taste good and their fur keeps you warm.

What benefit is there to reintroduction?

I don't see that argument used when the subject of reintroduction of game animals is suggested. Why bring them back then? If you can reintroduce prey, why not predators?
What's the difference?

Whats the benefit of re-introducing the predators?
Prey animals are generally plant eaters that get eaten by other animals.
They provide food. The predators eat the prey etc.
What prey other then turkey has been released in this state?
Pheasent has but thats a waste.

As far as controlling them if they are introduced. nature did well in controlling and keeping the balance for hundreds of thousands of years. it was only since the euro-Caucasian was "introduced" that the balance was upset.

Well that invasive species is here.
Some members of that invasive species are less invasive then others.
Even beneficial.
The place has changed. Would it still be balanced.

From my perspective, the main "negative" view as you call it is simply this: Why do many hunters appear to have a double standard on wildlife, i.e. it's GREAT to have some species flourish (deer, turkeys, ducks, etc.) but for many others (mainly predators) - to hell with them- they're not needed. This smacks very much of a "good wildlife-bad wildlife" mentality......

No the question is.
What good would the introduction of different predators do?
We have predators here. Do we need a larger variety?
Predators are needed. But in balance.
What effect would the introduction of Wolves have on the prey populations?
Would it put to much of a burdon on the populations?
I am not anti on any of the pedators really I just question if we need them and if the introduction will cause problems.

No one has proven fact that it will be a good thing.

I think you need to provide the "proven facts" on Plymouth Rock wildlife levels first.
It appears you're not willing to do that.
On second thought, here's 2 sites on the bison- range maps clearly show bison were found nearly to the Atlantic coast:

http://www.northern.edu/natsource/MAMMALS/Bison1.htm

http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=8&id=97

Still waiting for your info, BTW......

As far as dangerous elk goes, I haven't heard of that being an a big issue or problem anywhere, have you? The same can be said about moose being dangerous- are you opposed to them as well? Pennsylvania's had a herd numbering 500-700 elk for decades now, and haven't heard any issues.

As far as predator reintroduction- I know, I know........ you don't want them as your competition........

As for plymouth rock, how many times do I have to say: "I can't prove it. But you can't prove me wrong."

And as for my line of reasoning.
It was more virgin timber, so less ground food for the ground dwellers.
The native population was not enough to do forest management of most of this state.
And look at some of the areas that were planted during the depression, alot of those crappy pines. That is why I don't beleive your statement of "probably more natural disturbances creating openings in the forest canopy than you realize. Storms, wind damage, lighting, naturally caused fires, diseases attacking trees, and native-american caused fires all had an impact." from a few days ago. The ground around that stuff is almost bare. The places that it has been selectively thinned have lots of ground vegetation.

Interesting links, it does not say when the ones disapeared from NYS.
When was that?

I am not opposed to elk.
I just want to know what the benefit is?
Is this state the proper habitat for them anymore?
Big changes since they killed them all here.

As for Wolves etc. being competition. I have no problem with that.
I am just not convinced its the best idea.
No one has proved it to be a good idea.
All I have seen on here is people saying "We need more predators."
Thats based on what facts?
Just because the animal was here before does that mean we should reintroduce it?

Wolves etc. realeased in this state would not do much about the deer populations that are loading the suburbs and eating the flowers etc.
And if they did is that what you want roaming the suburbs?
That is where the issues that an over a bundance of prey animals exist.
The ADK seems to keep a pretty good balance, as far as I am concerned.
SHot a few healthy coyotes and usually see a bunch of healthy looking deer.

That story was a bunch of bunk. 50 million could have been an exageration! NO????
Remember who wrote some of this history. Big story tellers...... Hasn't history been incorrectly told before by every race, culture and religion? Could this be wrong as well? 50 million is just wacked. Can you even count to 50 million? I wonder what non-educated fool kept track of these numbers. "One, two, three...What's for breakfast Bill? Is Suzie coming over tomorrow with uncle Jed? Ninety-nine, One hundred. Wow, that is a bundle of Buffalo.
I've seen 100 deer look like about 4000 after a long winter of not seeing any. Has anyone else seen similar things as this?

At least carry a basketball that is going to come close to the hoop. My arms are getting tired! In fact, I'm putting the hoop down as well as my fingers to this post.

Not to mention the oral history that comes down with some of those times.

Thats white history, not native American.

So, you were there? You have proof that history is wrong?(It often is, but not his time).

I just question the fact that pre-white man's arrival wasn't most of the history taught as verbal, not written.
Stories change in the telling.
Even it was written what about different languages.
Lost in the translation.

I don't doubt there was alot of bison out west.
And I don't doubt that white man's arrival started a big downfall.

[redhawk]

Then Hawk...for Credibilities sake-of course....You should probably quote a "Source" for those numbers...instead of just saying "Many". Otherwise some people may mistake what you have said as simply Your Opinion and not Fact as You Claim it to be.

http://history.cbc.ca/history/?MIval=EpisContent.html&lang=E&series_id=1&episode_id=10&chapter_id=2&page_id=2

http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec05/b65lec05.htm#American_Buffalo

http://etext.virginia.edu/railton/roughingit/map/figures3/bufhornaday.html

The Great Buffalo Hunt. by Wayne Gard, Nick Eggenhofer
Review author[s]: Edward Hake Phillips
The Journal of Southern History, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1960), pp. 128-129
doi:10.2307/2954375

===========================================

Testimony of
Tim Stevens, Program Manager
National Parks Conservation Association
Re: "Yellowstone National Park Bison"
before the
House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Oversight Hearing
U.S. House of Representatives
March 20, 2007
Mr. Chairman, and other distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the bison that make Yellowstone—our first national park—their home. Founded in 1919, the National Parks Conservation Association works to protect and enhance America’s National Park System for present and future generations. Today, we have 22 regional and field offices across the country, including the Yellowstone Field Office in Livingston, Montana, which I manage. I’m here today on behalf of our more than 325,000 members, who care deeply about our national treasures and want to see them protected.
The History of Bison, and Bison Management, in Yellowstone National Park
Yellowstone National Park remains the only place in the country home to truly wild, genetically pure bison with an unbroken connection to their native habitat. Tens of millions of bison once thundered upon western plains in the mid-19th century. When the buffalo slaughter of the late 1800s ended, only 23 bison remained in the wild, and Yellowstone was their sanctuary. Numbering 3,600 today, Yellowstone’s herd has irreplaceable biological, cultural, spiritual and historic value, and is one of our nation’s great conservation success stories."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Encyclopedia Americana, Encyclopedia Britainacca,

Several publications by the University of Oklahoma at Norman

500 nations

and pretty much any history written about the plains wars as well as many grade school and high school history textbooks.

All the sources are historical, written by academics and historians who had no agendas other then reporting the facts.

The exact number has ranged from as many as 75 million to as few as 30 million. I chose the middle ground.

Of course if you also want to make a relative comparison, then you also need to compare the number of wolves, mountain Lion, panther, and grizzly bear from the mid 1800's to the present.

So there are some of the references, there are a lot more. Not hard to find if you really want to.

And with that, I'll retire from this thread as well as many of the others since it's apparent that there really isn't a lot of concern for fact.

It's been fun, but it seems we're getting out of hand and the state of this forum is much more important to me than making a point.

[adkmoose]

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

[poconoron]

No, thats not true. MORE is the key there. Are MORE needed?
Evolution does not prove that.
Evolution proves Balance is needed. Not that MORE is needed.

Are we in Balance? Prove to me things are not in balance.
SOme areas are not some are. Predators may not stay where we want them.

Whats the benefit of re-introducing the predators?
Prey animals are generally plant eaters that get eaten by other animals.
They provide food. The predators eat the prey etc.

No the question is.
What good would the introduction of different predators do?
We have predators here. Do we need a larger variety?
Predators are needed. But in balance.
What effect would the introduction of Wolves have on the prey populations?

No one has proven fact that it will be a good thing.

I'm going to clue you into what's going on in Pennsylvania these days, which is probably a microcosm of what is (or what will be happening) all over the East. Pennsylvania has over 1 million licensed hunters in the state, more than any other state in the country. And yet, despite this fact the state's forests are being literally eaten away by overabundant deer. Here's a quote from the Pa. Game Commission:

"Deer are a valuable natural resource, but they must be closely managed or they'll quickly overpopulate the range they inhabit. When overpopulation occurs, deer strip their habitat of its life-supporting qualities, not just for deer, but for many woodland wildlife species. Crop and other property damage problems also increase, as well as deer-vehicle collisions."

That is what is meant by an out-of-balance ecosystem. Right now the entire STATE and the entire EASTERN US is out of balance ecologically- and if you can't see that , then you don't WANT to see it......

Unfortunately for the deer and the rest of us non-hunters, the Game Commissions of the various states have been in-the-pocket of the hunting lobby, and even they are afraid to state the obvious- natural predators (non-human) are also needed in the equation.

http://www.fws.gov/news/newsreleases/R9/A2D9B201-0350-4BD4-A73477A70A25FC69.html?CFID=8420216&CFTOKEN=69388529

http://www.audubon.org/news/press_releases/PA_Deer.html

BTW, as an FYI for you, the city of Buffalo, NY was named after the buffalo that once inhabited New York State......

[ken999]

ALOT of the problem in PA stemmed MIS-MANAGEMENT of the deer heard, not effectiveness of the hunters.

Gary Alt has all but put his neck on the chopping block and turned things around big time.

I'd like to have this conversation in another 10 years to see how his changes have worked.

That being said the dacks are a whole nuther world when it comes to Whitetails. Aside from population centers I believe deer densities are less than 10 per square mile. We do not need another predator here. I'd rather not get into that argument again, but am pointing out that PA and the dacks are not an apples to apples comparison.

As an aside...My memory isn't what it should be but...didn't I just hear than the sea elephants or some other large mammal were just removed from the endangered species list??

[redhawk]

As an aside...My memory isn't what it should be but...didn't I just hear than the sea elephants or some other large mammal were just removed from the endangered species list??

Manatees or "Sea Cows"

[poconoron]

ALOT of the problem in PA stemmed MIS-MANAGEMENT of the deer heard, not effectiveness of the hunters.

Gary Alt has all but put his neck on the chopping block and turned things around big time.

Turned what around? The population has skyrocketed (he hasn't changed that) to the point where the State has resorted to fencing off (10 ft. high) large acreages in many places on state forest land to keep the deer out. These are all over the place and if you read the notice on the "exclosure" it relates the facts: deer are destroying the understory of the forest and this is having deleterious long-term negative effects on the forest and it's creatures.

IMHO, mis-management is a bit of a code word acknowledging that there are not enough controls on the deer population- but the state is afraid (of the hunting lobby) to state what other natural controls could be used.

BTW, each and every year in the US at least 100 people are killed in vehicle collisions with deer, which are drastically overpopulated in many areas. Since 1890 (a period of 117 years), about 20-25 fatalities from mt. lion/wolf attack have been recorded. I'll let those facts speak for themselves as to whether those who oppose predator reintroduction (because they are "too dangerous) are misinformed or have other motives.