# Environmental Issues



## The Accountant (Jul 7, 2015)

Figured this thread would peak some interest and serve as a place for some to have conversations/debates about environmental issues we're facing. 

I'll begin the thread with our oceans in relation to overfishing/illegal fishing. Recently the island nation Palau took hard action against illegal fishing. 

“We hope to send a very clear message to poachers, who are raping our marine environment,” Tommy E. Remengesau, Jr., the president of Palau, told National Geographic. “We will not tolerate any more unsustainable acts. Palau guarantees, you will return with nothing.”

Its unfortunate that we have to go to such extremes just to hope people start to see the sustainability issues that are looming over us. I am hoping more countries start to follow suit with the same outcome or similar consequences. Just in a decade here on Long Island I have seen drastic changes in the abundance and health of life.

Here is the article: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ng-boats-pirate-poaching-marine-conservation/

Fish populations can be healthy and flourish with commercial fishing. An example is if you look at the Gulf of Mexico and Red Snapper. There is a management system implemented to regulate the amount of Red Snapper caught by each commercial fisherman. Apparently it has helped the population and the fishermen are pulling in more fish daily because of system implemented. However, a system like this actually requires people to care.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 7, 2015)

I don't typically care where my fish come from, but how much I'm paying for it and if it's farm raised or not.


----------



## MOTOMETO (Jul 7, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I don't typically care where my fish come from, but how much I'm paying for it and if it's farm raised or not.



The second half of your sentence contradicts the first. If you care how much it costs and whether it's farm raised or not, then you have to care where it comes from.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 7, 2015)

MOTOMETO said:


> The second half of your sentence contradicts the first. If you care how much it costs and whether it's farm raised or not, then you have to care where it comes from.



I suppose that could be confusing if the over/illegal fishing in anyway had something to do with farming of the fish.


----------



## CQB (Jul 7, 2015)

I'm aware of the Pacific nations concern over their resources being  plundered, though not thoroughly conversant with it. It's primarily the larger Asian nations & their large factory ships that hoover up quite a lot of resource which leaves the tiny Pacific nations a little angry. There's a couple of issues I'd like to canvass:
Trophy hunting in Africa is controversial, whilst in a world of lemonade waterfalls, rainbows & unicorns it looks a treat, the figures don't seem to add to a sustainable industry. It even has a UN body supposedly overseeing things. 
It is a concern here as there's some tyre kicking currently regarding crocodile hunting being permitted in the Northern Territory. The proposed project has two aims, first to cull crocs as they can be a danger to life and second, to give local Aboriginals income as guides. Fine in theory, but the African model is not best practice, see below. With good measures in place however, the trophy hunting business can work out quite well here as crocs occasionally have to be dealt with. 

http://lionalert.org/page/trophy-hunting

The other issue which is more of an Oz one as well is the Green Left here has the default stance of no cruelty to animals. This extends to feral animals as well, as I understand it. So feral cats, feral dogs, munch their way through a metric tonne of local wildlife such as the tiny nocturnal marsupials, bilbys' et al. Feral pigs destroy creeks with their rutting, foxes eat anything that has a breath in it. We have quite a long list of introduced species; camels, deer, birds, rabbits, frogs & toads to generally name a few. But the Green Left seems oblivious to the grave threat posed to native species by these introduced species and would prefer a live & let live approach. 

One point which is more of a marketing pointer I guess. Ever noticed World Wildlife Fund etc. and their promos? All sexy beasts, your whales, your dolphins, your cheetahs, lions, tigers. All pinup animals. If you want to contribute, try something non sexy such as the Guatemalan Mountain Chicken. It's a frog & endangered. Not a pinup critter, but vital to the ecosystem, so pick your battles.

I'm along the thinking of @K9Quest with taking some care and thought about it all. All of the above points to a general malaise and  sloppiness regarding the environment. There has to be a point where sanity prevails but I'm not too sure we're there yet.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 7, 2015)

There are not enough fish left to feed much of asia.
I worked for the Navy and we had to stop placing current sounders between Japan and Korea because they constantly got snagged by nets. One estimate was every inch of the Sea of Japan had a net go through it four times a day.
The solution is to go farther out and poach smaller nations.  
The Vietnamese, Chinese are very protective of their fisheries, same rules, different outcome.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 8, 2015)

To really dive into the topic, you have to address over population and that's not really a friendly topic to debate.

How many fish in the sea vs how many people need to eat, (same-same on live stock and pretty much all agricultural food sources). 

Unfortunately we can't control the population growth without discussing morality issues.

My big issue is with deforestation and the follow on result of deserts lands growing. It's reversible, but again eventually you have to discuss population growths and the idea of of population growth control.


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 8, 2015)

CQB said:


> I'm aware of the Pacific nations concern over their resources being  plundered, though not thoroughly conversant with it. It's primarily the larger Asian nations & their large factory ships that hoover up quite a lot of resource which leaves the tiny Pacific nations a little angry. There's a couple of issues I'd like to canvass:
> Trophy hunting in Africa is controversial, whilst in a world of lemonade waterfalls, rainbows & unicorns it looks a treat, the figures don't seem to add to a sustainable industry. It even has a UN body supposedly overseeing things.
> It is a concern here as there's some tyre kicking currently regarding crocodile hunting being permitted in the Northern Territory. The proposed project has two aims, first to cull crocs as they can be a danger to life and second, to give local Aboriginals income as guides. Fine in theory, but the African model is not best practice, see below. With good measures in place however, the trophy hunting business can work out quite well here as crocs occasionally have to be dealt with.
> 
> ...




Agree'd on trophy hunting. It's an issue I've followed for some time as I've donated decent amounts of money to wolf conservation. While the wolf isn't probably the first to be thought of in that topic, its among them for sure and it receives a bad reputation due to ignorance. I have absolutely no issue with hunting, but killing apex predators is unnecessary aside from the rare self defense situation. Look what happens when you remove any of the apex predators from an ecosystem, you get overpopulation of animals like whitetail deer. This is really when @JAB 's point adds in too, overpopulation is another force that is destroying ecosystems whether its for residential land or farming. 

Back to trophy hunting though. It's ridiculous when these trophy hunters label themselves as "conservationist" or justify it by saying "My substantial fee for the hunt goes to save the population of xxx animal." My issue with this is if they were to truly care they would donate the money without expecting a pelt in return. I have a fraction of the money that these trophy hunters have and donated a large percentage for a cause, there is really no justifying trophy hunting endangered species. 

Also, I will bring up excuses for "accidentally" killing a species people should not have. Since I announced my interest in wolves, recently there was the first wolf ever to reintroduce itself to the Grand Canyon region for the first time since the 1940's and traveled over 750 miles to get there. That animal was killed not long after its announcement, the hunter claimed "I thought was a coyote". 

Personal opinion, if you can't tell the difference of animals your hunting  and not hunting you don't belong out there. Especially when there is public knowledge of the animal in the area. Similar situation as when peoples dogs are shot, but thats a perfect scenario that illustrates how important it is for you all to have reflective hiking vests on your dogs when your out. 
Article on GC wolf: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...es-grand-canyon-animals-science-rockies-dead/

Also, since you brought up lion trophy hunting. There are 7 lions (currently in quarantine) to be introduced into Rwanda. They will be the first lions living on the land there for 15 years. 
Article on lions: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lions-be-r...ing-wiped-out-1994-genocide-aftermath-1508406


The next point you make. I'm assuming your speaking directly about invasive species. HUGE issue and plenty of examples here in the U.S. as well. Lionfish in the Caribbean, pythons in Florida, hogs in the states, snakehead fish, various insect species which recently included the asian longhorn beetle where I live. You even have species of plants in freshwater systems that cause havoc on a ecosystem. I agree with you, these species need to be killed and removed to recover the ecosystem they were introduced to. But thats where your "Green left" you brought up make things difficult. I consider myself a tree hugger, but I can go on all day about how foolish some of those Green lefts act. 

I've personally seen the lion fish invasion in the Caribbean during various dives. If you enjoy diving and/or spearfishing you can go out and spear as much lion fish as you desire and will be lending a helping hand and lionfish are supposedly pretty tasty. If you want to see how bad its really become, look on youtube for "Lionfish airplane"


I can go further into the topics but I'll stop here, it's been enough rambling on for me.


----------



## Etype (Jul 12, 2015)

We just need more global warming. More CO2 equals more phytoplankton equals more food for the whales and fish and shit.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 12, 2015)

Watched this a few months ago. Pretty interesting idea on how to better farm fish.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 12, 2015)

JAB said:


> To really dive into the topic, you have to address over population and that's not really a friendly topic to debate.
> 
> How many fish in the sea vs how many people need to eat, (same-same on live stock and pretty much all agricultural food sources).
> 
> ...



I've read before that the issue isn't that we aren't growing enough food, but logistics.


----------



## Grunt (Jul 12, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I've read before that the issue isn't that we aren't growing enough food, but logistics.



Yep...we are growing more than enough...that's why farmers are being subsidized for "not" growing certain crops in my area. That way we can pay to have those very same crops imported to us.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 12, 2015)

This is a little off topic, but made think of this article.

Myanmar fisherman goes home after 22 years as a slave

And right now I'm watching MSNBC about underage prostitution. Really starts making you never want your children to leave your sight.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 12, 2015)

I disagreed with your post K9 due to knowing what a prevalence of Apex predators such as wolves does for inhabited areas.  It results in humans becoming prey.  Your attitude would change if you actually saw up close and personal (ie, within 100M) a wolfpack conducting it's proper business of a hunt.


----------



## medicchick (Jul 13, 2015)

Etype said:


> We just need more global warming. More CO2 equals more phytoplankton equals more food for the whales and fish and shit.


Scientists are predicting the opposite will happen.

Mini ice age likely from 2030 to 2040, European scientists say


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 13, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> I disagreed with your post K9 due to knowing what a prevalence of Apex predators such as wolves does for inhabited areas.  It results in humans becoming prey.  Your attitude would change if you actually saw up close and personal (ie, within 100M) a wolfpack conducting it's proper business of a hunt.



Fair rebuttal, and I respect your disagreement. 

My "ignorance about wolves" comment was mostly for the comments some choose make who think they kill for "fun" because they find a partially eaten prey animal while in the forrest. However, science and easy mathematics disputes that. The average pack is 6-7 individuals, and they can eat up to approximately 20 lbs of food at a time. Elk, moose and caribou weigh much more. So that at most 120-140lbs eaten from the large animals that weigh 500-900 lbs can be interpreted falsely. Also I argue, even if they did kill for fun. It's somewhat hypocritical for the average human to say, most people these days don't hunt only to sustain themselves. As for anything else, I'm limited on knowledge truthfully. 

For the within 100M comment, I'm not going to sit here and try to pretend like I have been within that distance from a wild pack of wolves nor did I try to make it seem so in my post you quoted. I can't comment whether or not my opinion would change on that specific species either. However I can attest to other apex predators. 

I have a similar stance to sharks, even though my service to help them is mainly for the entire ocean where I go volunteer to clean up garbage our species inappropriately discards of. Anyway, back on track. As far as that apex predator (sharks in this case) is concerned I've been way within that 100M you referred to, and my stance remains for them. Swimming with bull sharks is I admit a little sketchy though, especially when they are actively feeding. But yeah thats not human inhabited area since we don't live in water, so possibly not so great a parallel argument. I have also been around a few large cats in the wild, most notably in Mexico with a Jaguar. Still I believe they should not be hunted based on a fear of what they "may" do. Unless, like I said in my post that its out of that self defense situation which I suppose you can include a predator encroaching into human inhabited area.  

Still based on opinion, I believe our species which has a high level of cognitive thinking (actually maybe not) and are capable of resolving the apex predator with human interactions without just killing what frightens us. Although, in those human inhabited areas where the wolves/apex predators live we should take into account the interactions between human and predator. It should involve not only the cases  where a person was attacked, but also the passive, passive-agressive cases. I would wager that most cases of the apex predators near human inhabited ever result in aggressive cases. 

Those aggressive/passive/passive-aggressive cases also bring in the overpopulation issue that @JAB brought into the conversation. Should humans be encroaching/inhabiting these wild environments that are becoming smaller and smaller? Or should we respect the life there, we are after all capable of making decisions to save species from extinction. 

Don't get me wrong though. If a pack of wolves or any other animal for that matter comes within a close enough proximity to my family I would be on high alert. But as you can tell about my ramble, yes I guess I'm kind of a fucking tree hugger. :-/ 

I do ask you @Ranger Psych directly on our disagreement, what do you believe is the best solution for wolves and humans. To kill the wolves? Or do you believe a possible solution would be tranquilize, tag and relocate some individuals to areas not human inhabited that once had a thriving population and possibly stabilize the ecosystem? I'm also assuming based on your disagreement with me you have been within that 100M distance you questioned with me. I also wonder where your case can be noted in the aggressive/passive-aggressive/passive statistics.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 13, 2015)

Your opinion WOULD change significantly if you actually encountered them. Trank/Tag/Relocate is a waste of time in a species that is as mobile as a wolf, and considering all things it'd be better if... you know.... you just issued hunting permits and let HUMANS fill the role of apex predator when wolves either waned naturally or otherwise.

I've had to kill Bear out of self defense, I've had to secure my vehicle so my family didn't turn into 3 Wolf Moon Kibble. There's no MAY with regard to them being a hazard and causing harm to humans and human related activities. If you like, I can start quoting events in Alaska which is about the least populated state in the nation and oh yeah, it has more wolves than the rest too.

Last but not least: Homo sapiens is an apex predator...  I guess you've forgotten that, and that we are the penultimate predator on this planet.


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 13, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Your opinion WOULD change significantly if you actually encountered them. Trank/Tag/Relocate is a waste of time in a species that is as mobile as a wolf, and considering all things it'd be better if... you know.... you just issued hunting permits and let HUMANS fill the role of apex predator when wolves either waned naturally or otherwise.
> 
> I've had to kill Bear out of self defense, I've had to secure my vehicle so my family didn't turn into 3 Wolf Moon Kibble. There's no MAY with regard to them being a hazard and causing harm to humans and human related activities. If you like, I can start quoting events in Alaska which is about the least populated state in the nation and oh yeah, it has more wolves than the rest too.
> 
> Last but not least: Homo sapiens is an apex predator...  I guess you've forgotten that, and that we are the penultimate predator on this planet.



I am interested in statistics of varying incidents in Alaska since you specify that region.. but yeah I was out of some strange reason only thinking of the lower 48 which as you noted has a far different ratio of human to wolf. I do however believe reading that packs differ from one another in their lifestyle I suppose you can call it. It would make sense that a pack that originated near humans or possibly under some form of a domestic nature absolutely poses a great risk to the well beings of humans, which I believe could be a justifiable situation to cull them. 

However I still don't see rational thought behind just killing a species possibly to endangerment. I am willing to try and look into the statistics objectively for sure though. 

I never discredited the thought of us being an apex predator, in fact I agree with you 100% that we are the penultimate predator. I did however say I believe we are capable of making decisions at a higher level than a "kill everything" mentality. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 14, 2015)

While obviously not the best source, you can start with Wolf attacks on humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia then follow onto http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/news/pdfs/wolfattackfatality.pdf and some views and such http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static-f/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/mgt_rpts/12_wolf.pdf

Packs hunt and kill. Period. That's what they do. It is simpler, easier, and overall more effective and beneficial to simply cull rather than waste time, money, and effort involved in relocation because they range so far that relocation is a waste since if they don't like it where you put them.. they're going to move.

I have no doubt that if we didn't have a vehicle to shelter in, our long guns and pistols would have been brought into play regarding the pack that I have encountered personally at close distance.


----------



## x SF med (Jul 14, 2015)

Here is the USFWS report on the Region 6 (Mountain-Plains Region) on the delisting of Grey Wolves.


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 14, 2015)

Thanks for the links @Ranger Psych .. As for the Wiki page, yeah I agree not always the best source but often good for guidance for further reading. Here are a few tidbits I want to quote. 

"Nevertheless, they tend to fear and avoid human beings, especially in North America.[6] Wolves vary in temperament and their reaction to humans. Those with little prior experience with humans, and those positively conditioned through feeding, may lack fear. Wolves living in open areas, for example the North American Great Plains, historically showed little fear before the advent of firearms in the 19th Century,[7] and would follow human hunters to feed on their kills, particularly bison.[8] In contrast, forest-dwelling wolves in North America were noted for shyness.[7] Wolf biologist L. David Mech hypothesized in 1998 that wolves generally avoid humans because of fear instilled by hunting.[9] Mech also noted that humans' upright posture is unlike wolves' other prey, and similar to some postures of bears, which wolves usually avoid.[6]"

In all honesty it seems like a combination of both our views (although yours is a firsthand encounter, with more credibility). Yes, in Alaska it appears they have less fear for humans I can definitely agree with that. It also seems that its only a certain percentage of their population that have interactions with human despite their mobility. Unless of course a human decides to go deep into the wilderness and in that case, your out of human habitation where the dangers of confrontation is inherent.. in my opinion. 


"Following the Icy Bay incident, biologist Mark E. McNay compiled a record of wolf-human encounters in Canada and Alaska from 1915-2001. Of the 80 described encounters, 39 involved aggressive behavior from apparently healthy wolves and 12 from animals confirmed to be rabid.[41] The first fatal attack in the 21st century occurred in 2005, when a man was killed in Saskatchewan, Canada by wolves that had been habituated to humans,[42] while in 2010, a woman was killed whilst jogging near Chignik Lake in Alaska.[43]"

Out of 96 years it had 39 "aggressive" cases and with 12 incidents involving rabid animal incidents out of the ENTIRE geographical area of Canada and Alaska. I'm wondering what constitutes aggressive in those cases as well, does it involve actual attacks or scenarios where the animal was showing aggression but in the end it involved both parties parting ways.  Not denying attacks happen, as they clearly do... but seems somewhat rare in comparison to other animals. I am going to try to dive more into statistics on my own accord. 

I'm not referencing the second link, since it's mentioned in the Wiki page you shared. I would agree with that incident (without reading it) that the wolf should be taken care of because it clearly poses a future threat if it killed somebody. Unfortunately the final and last link you provided I can't open for some strange reason. 

How often do Ungulates and human interactions involve in human injury/death in human inhabited areas? I would think its a safe assumption it greatly outnumbers its predators incidents. Yes, both incidents are different scenarios (e.g., Vehicle accidents vs Attack incidents) but based on statistics its clear Ungulates pose a greater risk to human life. It could be attributed that its because for example, the deer overpopulation. The ironic part about why is there an overpopulation, ah yes, their natural predators are being killed by humans.... So maybe we should kill all the deer, wolves and avoid those thousands of incidents a year. Than we will have to control the foliage, and than what. I don't know, out of my knowledge and now I'm rambling again. 

Humans try to fill that predator role here in the Northeast U.S. and it seems it not going well as deer are still overpopulated and incidents occur frequently. Than you have situations like in Pennsylvania a few years ago. The deer were culled to sustainable and safe numbers, than the hunters complained they didn't have enough to hunt. No matter what people will bitch. 

Clearly my view is let nature take care of itself and that humans shouldn't try to fill a niche they don't belong in and my view won't change. Animals in human inhabited areas are prone to the will of humans as are humans in animal inhabited areas. Further, my opinion is fragile ecosystems away from human habitation should be largely regulated and left alone.

 It seems much more difficult for us to keep stability in an ecosystem despite being the penultimate predator. I do truly wish we lived in a world where people filled their apex predator role and actively hunt meat rather than hunt at the supermarket for it but it seems unlikely. Who is right? I am not trying to make it seem my point of view is whats best, its merely based on opinion. @Ranger Psych if its good with you I would like to end our debate on this specific subject after your response to this post and move onto a different topic some others mentioned. I feel we both clearly stressed our opinions. Our debate is exactly the reason why I created the thread to begin with, for us to portray opinion on issues.

Thanks for the link @x SF med .. No issue with the delisting, I just prefer they stay delisted from there being thriving environments. 

Maybe we should move onto the Global Warming topic brought up or uh, mini ice age...


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 14, 2015)

NavyBuyer said:


> This is a little off topic, but made think of this article.
> 
> Myanmar fisherman goes home after 22 years as a slave
> 
> And right now I'm watching MSNBC about underage prostitution. Really starts making you never want your children to leave your sight.



Thats horrible shit, give me just another reason to dislike illegal fishing.


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 14, 2015)

Etype said:


> We just need more global warming. More CO2 equals more phytoplankton equals more food for the whales and fish and shit.



Its pretty funny. Charts produced by NASA show the average temperature around Earth has increased. An exception was an area of around 2/3's of the mainland of United States has actually decreased in its temperature.


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 14, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Watched this a few months ago. Pretty interesting idea on how to better farm fish.



Awesome clip. Since I am a scuba diving nut and reef keeping hobby nerd I want to share these videos with you.

Replanting the reefs:






Israeli company growing coral for bone grafting (segment starts at approximately 1:10 into the video)
Inside a million dollar coral farm... in the Negev Desert - CNN.com


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jul 14, 2015)

Humans have a niche in nature. I understand your treehuggery but you completely forget WE ARE OF AND BELONG HERE TOO.

Your lack of ability to understand this and have a salient decision making matrix regarding wildlife in general is absurd. Specifically "my view won't change"

I'll do a celebratory wolf hunt once I move back to Alaska in your honor.


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 14, 2015)

I never said humans don't have a niche, but only said I don't believe we should fill other species niches. Like I said I could be wrong. Could you argue that that's what we are meant to do? As in part of human nature is to kill off other apex predators so we are the only predator? Sure, it could make sense. Which I believe that means I'm giving credit to your opinion. 

What's absurd is you can't respect an individual's point of view even if you cannot agree or think it's nonsense, as I respect yours without insulting you. What's more absurd is you decide to call me out on my "my view won't change" comment when why should it? You failed to provide me with sufficient statistics of cases you were alluding to, to even change my view. If you are truly going to talk about my lack of understanding something perhaps when you try to convey your point with information don't throw me a Wiki page (which you said isn't sufficient), one article of an incident and a possible broken link. Perhaps maybe than I can begin to understand and align myself with your point of view. 

Instead I'll look at statistics and incidents on my own because now I want to know why my opinion and view could/is/may be flawed. 

I never wanted this to turn into a direct back and forth, but when you continue to dismiss my opinion for a lack of understanding and insult me. It turns a good-natured debate sour. 

Enjoy your hunt.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 15, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Humans have a niche in nature. I understand your treehuggery but you completely forget WE ARE OF AND BELONG HERE TOO.
> 
> Your lack of ability to understand this and have a salient decision making matrix regarding wildlife in general is absurd. Specifically "my view won't change"
> 
> I'll do a celebratory wolf hunt once I move back to Alaska in your honor.



I would agree that humans have a niche, I would disagree that 7 Billion humans have a niche.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 15, 2015)

@K9Quest - pertinent to your views on the role of wolves I thought this TED talk was really fascinating about the cascading effects on environments of reintroducing some species.  Here is the link: Video: How wolves can alter the course of rivers

Essentially the speaker is talking about how the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone national park had massive effects - positively - to the ecosystem that aren't intuitive (or at least weren't too me).


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 15, 2015)

Il Duce said:


> @K9Quest - pertinent to your views on the role of wolves I thought this TED talk was really fascinating about the cascading effects on environments of reintroducing some species.  Here is the link: Video: How wolves can alter the course of rivers
> 
> Essentially the speaker is talking about how the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone national park had massive effects - positively - to the ecosystem that aren't intuitive (or at least weren't too me).



I've seen that video heard the story. I appreciate the link to the video. If I recall correctly, I remember reading an article of a scientist who spent years researching wolves in the field (I could dig up the text if you wish). He referenced that video/story's exaggeration that JUST  the wolves introduction Yellowstone caused the improvement of it's ecosystem, but that it is due to numerous changes happening simultaneously. Wolves were indeed a driving force for current Yellowstone like the story suggests, just not nearly at "that" scale.


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 15, 2015)

Roger, I think that's totally fair.  Seems like in any ecosystem you have a huge number of variables - each of which is important but may not be independently decisive.  Seems like one of the core difficulties of any effort to repair/improve environmental conditions.  The intent may be altruistic but the lack of understanding catastrophic.  I remember another TED talk in the same vein (believe it was sampled in the same show - the NPR TED radio hour - as the wolf story linked) about the killing off of African herd animals in an effort to slow desertification which had the opposite effect.


----------



## The Accountant (Jul 15, 2015)

Il Duce said:


> Roger, I think that's totally fair.  Seems like in any ecosystem you have a huge number of variables - each of which is important but may not be independently decisive.  Seems like one of the core difficulties of any effort to repair/improve environmental conditions.  The intent may be altruistic but the lack of understanding catastrophic.  I remember another TED talk in the same vein (believe it was sampled in the same show - the NPR TED radio hour - as the wolf story linked) about the killing off of African herd animals in an effort to slow desertification which had the opposite effect.



It appears the individual I referenced was actually "field biologist" and not 100% sure on his credibility, actually. But his explanation does indeed make sense. 
Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/opinion/is-the-wolf-a-real-american-hero.html?_r=0

Also, the writer says within "..large carnivores clearly do cause trophic cascades in other places.." while linking us to documentation found...
Here: Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores


----------



## Il Duce (Jul 15, 2015)

Postdoctoral fellow at Yale, not too bad.


----------

