[ARCHIVED THREAD] - How Wolves Change Rivers (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 9/16/2014 2:47:51 PM EDT
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q
For your daily ration of herp derp. 
|
|
We have a lot of runoff related problems around the Chesapeake and a fuckton of deer, so from this video I learned it might really help the local ecosystems if we reintroduced wolves to Northern Virginia, DC, and Maryland, especially in the more populated areas. DC, Baltimore, Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc.
|
|
Quoted:
So, what are we mad about? More wolves in Yellowstone? Yeah, people are pissed about the reintroduction of wolves, and don't agree with how they're managed (and probably rightfully so), so any positive outcome from having wolves around is bullshit propaganda. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, people are pissed about the reintroduction of wolves, and don't agree with how they're managed (and probably rightfully so), so any positive outcome from having wolves around is bullshit propaganda. Quoted:
Quoted:
So, what are we mad about? More wolves in Yellowstone? Yeah, people are pissed about the reintroduction of wolves, and don't agree with how they're managed (and probably rightfully so), so any positive outcome from having wolves around is bullshit propaganda. Okay, just wanted to make sure. Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
I know, science...pfft, it's such bullshit right? Quoted:
Quoted:
This message brought to you by the ministry of propaganda. I know, science...pfft, it's such bullshit right? That's only one side of the science. The other side is that those are elk. There's a difference. Even in the religion of climatesiogy. |
|
I was out bow hunting elk last weekend the fucking wolves were screaming during the day non stop, it was almost impossible to hear a bull bugle. The worst part of it was that none come close enough to stick or shoot. I do have a wolf tag that I'm going to do my best to fill. |
|
Quoted:
Wolf good for mother nature Deer bad for mother nature aka Deer are the Devil Got it We need cheap machineguns that any hunter can afford so we can kill more deer. Hughes Amendment needs to be nullified - for the children I don't see any problem with any of this. But the fucking antlered rats ate every single one of my fucking vegetable plants. And the watermelons. And I wanted those fucking watermelons. |
|
I fail to see how any of this is herp or derp.
It's a rather simple demonstration of what happens to a biome when the herbivores get out of control. 4th grade science. Fuck any effort that tries to be smart about managing the environment. Says the peanut gallery |
|
Quoted:
I don't see any problem with any of this. But the fucking antlered rats ate every single one of my fucking vegetable plants. And the watermelons. And I wanted those fucking watermelons. Quoted:
Quoted:
Wolf good for mother nature Deer bad for mother nature aka Deer are the Devil Got it We need cheap machineguns that any hunter can afford so we can kill more deer. Hughes Amendment needs to be nullified - for the children I don't see any problem with any of this. But the fucking antlered rats ate every single one of my fucking vegetable plants. And the watermelons. And I wanted those fucking watermelons. Thats racist. |
|
Quoted:
I don't see any problem with any of this. But the fucking antlered rats ate every single one of my fucking vegetable plants. And the watermelons. And I wanted those fucking watermelons. Quoted:
Quoted:
Wolf good for mother nature Deer bad for mother nature aka Deer are the Devil Got it We need cheap machineguns that any hunter can afford so we can kill more deer. Hughes Amendment needs to be nullified - for the children I don't see any problem with any of this. But the fucking antlered rats ate every single one of my fucking vegetable plants. And the watermelons. And I wanted those fucking watermelons. I got some dags I could let you have cheap. They don't like the bastards either. I watched them pull down a little one and eat it this summer. |
|
Quoted:
That's only one side of the science. The other side is that those are elk. There's a difference. Even in the religion of climatesiogy. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This message brought to you by the ministry of propaganda. I know, science...pfft, it's such bullshit right? That's only one side of the science. The other side is that those are elk. There's a difference. Even in the religion of climatesiogy. And elk are a species of the deer family(Cervidae) believe it or not. I know...Science is hard 
|
|
Quoted:
And elk are a species of the deer family(Cervidae) believe it or not. I know...Science is hard Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This message brought to you by the ministry of propaganda. I know, science...pfft, it's such bullshit right? That's only one side of the science. The other side is that those are elk. There's a difference. Even in the religion of climatesiogy. And elk are a species of the deer family(Cervidae) believe it or not. I know...Science is hard They aren't worried about the deer population. It's the elk that they hate. If you want to use genus and species that's fine. You'll just look stupid trying to appear smart. Why didn't this video describe any of the problems the wolves are creating? |
|
Quoted: They aren't worried about the deer population. It's the elk that they hate. If you want to use genus and species that's fine. You'll just look stupid trying to appear smart. Why didn't this video describe any of the problems the wolves are creating? Quoted: They aren't worried about the deer population. It's the elk that they hate. If you want to use genus and species that's fine. You'll just look stupid trying to appear smart. Why didn't this video describe any of the problems the wolves are creating? |
|
Quoted:
He isn't using the term deer to appear smart. The guy is British and the Brits tend to use the term deer for Elk. Quoted:
Quoted:
They aren't worried about the deer population. It's the elk that they hate. If you want to use genus and species that's fine. You'll just look stupid trying to appear smart. Why didn't this video describe any of the problems the wolves are creating? OK. That, combined with soccer, is even more reason to never listen to the fucking British. |
|
The last time this got posted, I made a tasteless comment about how Mr. Overly Excited Narrator has just discovered something the rangers figured out in 1940.
If you get rid of the apex predators and allow the herbivores to do whatever they want, they overpopulate and wreck the place. Welcome to the high school ecology class I took in 1978. Sadly, most eco-weenies still don't understand this. |
|
Quoted:
They aren't worried about the deer population. It's the elk that they hate. If you want to use genus and species that's fine. You'll just look stupid trying to appear smart. Why didn't this video describe any of the problems the wolves are creating? Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This message brought to you by the ministry of propaganda. I know, science...pfft, it's such bullshit right? That's only one side of the science. The other side is that those are elk. There's a difference. Even in the religion of climatesiogy. And elk are a species of the deer family(Cervidae) believe it or not. I know...Science is hard They aren't worried about the deer population. It's the elk that they hate. If you want to use genus and species that's fine. You'll just look stupid trying to appear smart. Why didn't this video describe any of the problems the wolves are creating? Probably because there is plenty of that everywhere else? Why is it that when people bitch about wolves, they don't discuss the positives? His video, his perspective. Which problems are you referring to? |
|
In the late '80s -- nearly a decade before wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone -- there was a controversy about the Park Service's "natural regulation" policy. Namely, the Park Service was so devoted to the "nature is best" thesis that they ignored the obvious ecological problems caused by it. Some people called it idiotic and short-sighted. I bring this up because many critics at the time pointed out the park's northern elk herd was severely overpopulated and was degrading the northern range. John Varley, then the chief Park biologist, publicly stated the northern range was in perfect shape and could handle far, far more elk than it currently did. Fast forward some 25 years, and now the Park Service and environmentalists are goo-gooing about how the wolves have "saved" the northern range from destruction. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they way they have seamlessly morphed from "nothing is wrong" to "wolves saved the park" without even acknowledging their previous errors is amazing. |
|
Quoted:
Probably because there is plenty of that everywhere else? Why is it that when people bitch about wolves, they don't discuss the positives? His video, his perspective. Which problems are you referring to? The problems created by the predation of livestock and the natural herding the packs do which tend to run "deer" through fences and just create problems for those that try to make a living in the area. The wolves are creating far more problems than they will ever solve. Well, problems for ranchers. I guess perspective is important here. The ranchers I know in the Rockies love the elk. They create additional income streams, add to the natural beauty of the area without having to worry about elk eating your livestock every night. |
|
Quoted: obama signed an Executive Order so everything is gonna be fine Quoted: Quoted: The rivers. The fucking rivers changing without our fucking permission. That's what we're mad about. obama signed an Executive Order so everything is gonna be fine before or after his daily game of golf |
|
Quoted: In the late '80s -- nearly a decade before wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone -- there was a controversy about the Park Service's "natural regulation" policy. Namely, the Park Service was so devoted to the "nature is best" thesis that they ignored the obvious ecological problems caused by it. Some people called it idiotic and short-sighted. I bring this up because many critics at the time pointed out the park's northern elk herd was severely overpopulated and was degrading the northern range. John Varley, then the chief Park biologist, publicly stated the northern range was in perfect shape and could handle far, far more elk than it currently did. Fast forward some 25 years, and now the Park Service and environmentalists are goo-gooing about how the wolves have "saved" the northern range from destruction. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they way they have seamlessly morphed from "nothing is wrong" to "wolves saved the park" without even acknowledging their previous errors is amazing. |
|
Quoted: Yellowstone is still missing one key predator. Quoted: Quoted: In the late '80s -- nearly a decade before wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone -- there was a controversy about the Park Service's "natural regulation" policy. Namely, the Park Service was so devoted to the "nature is best" thesis that they ignored the obvious ecological problems caused by it. Some people called it idiotic and short-sighted. I bring this up because many critics at the time pointed out the park's northern elk herd was severely overpopulated and was degrading the northern range. John Varley, then the chief Park biologist, publicly stated the northern range was in perfect shape and could handle far, far more elk than it currently did. Fast forward some 25 years, and now the Park Service and environmentalists are goo-gooing about how the wolves have "saved" the northern range from destruction. They aren't necessarily wrong, but they way they have seamlessly morphed from "nothing is wrong" to "wolves saved the park" without even acknowledging their previous errors is amazing. They used to shoot elk in the park for that very reason -- to keep the numbers down. |