The wild animals that Walt Disney created for his animated film classics were i-m-a-g-i-n-a-r-y!  The *real* Bambi's "father" would just as soon gore you full of unauthorized holes, as admire your impassioned commitment to the survival of his offspring.  So when we meddle in the affairs of wild animals, they *really* don't notice.  They just keep on being wild animals, unfazed by our efforts.  How gauche of them...

gus.

 

Bald eagles, bouncing back after years of decline, are swaggering forth with an appetite for great cormorant chicks that threatens to wipe out that bird population in the United States.

The eagles, perhaps finding less fish to eat, are flying to Maines remote rocky islands where theyve been raiding the only known nesting colonies of great cormorants in the U.S. Snatching waddling chicks from the ground and driving adults from their nests, the eagles are causing the numbers of the glossy black birds to decline from more than 250 pairs to 80 pairs since 1992.

Theyre like thugs. Theyre like gang members. They go to these offshore islands where all these seabirds are and the birds are easy picking, said Brad Allen, a wildlife biologist with the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. These young eagles are harassing the bejesus out of all the birds, and the great cormorants have been taking it on the chin.

 

 

1. you ever deer hunt gus? Deer run away 99 times out of 100 kinda like a wingnut chickenhawk.

2. Eagles were not the only species of bird harmed almost to extinction by ddt, just the poster bird to signify the cause.

3. just like the wolf, deer, panther balance here, the eagle/prey bird balance will work itself out.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

1. you ever deer hunt gus? Deer run away 99 times out of 100 kinda like a wingnut chickenhawk.

   Ever seen a pissed-off deer attack a person, general? It only takes once.

2. Eagles were not the only species of bird harmed almost to extinction by ddt, just the poster bird to signify the cause.

    I know, screw a few bazzillion dead Africans, we have our birds to consider.

3. just like the wolf, deer, panther balance here, the eagle/prey bird balance will work itself out.

    Day-old calves aren't part of the "balance".  So when people who *own* the land decide to make a living on it, guess who's coming to dinner?  Apparently the eagles either can't find enough fish, or simply find the sea-birds less effort to shop for.  I suppose it will come down to who is "cuter" in the eyes of the Bambiphiles.  Consequences...

gus.

 

yea, gus, I know every deer season one or two hunters get hurt by deer, but those deer are wounded and frightened, the hunter is careless and the possibility is remote. I doubt I have seen more than two belligerent deer in all my years in the outdoors. One of those was a doe with fawn.

big whoop. much ado about nothing by some city dweller.

It does remind me of a story though, We were camping up the boundary waters when the kids were litte. Some people came in late and set up just down the trail from us. Then they came up to introduce themselves, nice people from the twin cities. They started back, froze, beckoned to us, whispering "bring the kids" We did. They were looking a rabbit. One said "boy you don't see that in the city." I didn't want to tell them that we got bears in our trees all the time. Rabbits were nothing.

A favorite story of one old sports writer and broadcaster down in the twin cities is a colleague of his who got a job in Duluth. One morning he got up and saw a bear in his yard. He hid in his house, soon he heard kids laughing, they had the bear treed and were throwing green apples at it.

First time I ever ran into a bear, I was a little kid, I was cutting between two garages at dusk, going to the corner store. A bear ducked in heading in the other direction. I turned and ran, I looked back---the bear had turned and run also.

Bear are a lot tougher than deer. Some time I'll have to tell you about shepherding a flock of neighborhood kids through a herd of cattle invluding the bull. But for now rest assured bambi's daddy might kick you while he is running away or is cornered but he only uses his antlers to become bambi's daddy.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson

We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan

I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.

I have no idea what your point is supposed to be, Gus. It looks like you've once again invented your opponent in your head. Everyone I know understands full well that eagles are predators and they understand full well what a predator is.

Oh and by the way, it's pretty damn hard to "just keep on being wild animals" if they're extinct.





And why do you suppose they might be finding less fish to eat?

yea, gus, I know every deer season one or two hunters get hurt by deer, but those deer are wounded and frightened, the hunter is careless and the possibility is remote. I doubt I have seen more than two belligerent deer in all my years in the outdoors. One of those was a doe with fawn.

   Actually, larger numbers of people are injured or killed when they visit wilderness areas to see Disney scenes, rather than hunt.  They are, after all, unarmed, and they are generally completely oblivious in every way it is possible to be oblivious.  I would suspect that the single largest incident of injury is when they inadvertantly threaten the offspring of a female animal.  Doe, after all, can reduce a human to doll-rags in short order with their sharp hooves.  Yes, few healthy animals are ever normally agressive toward humans.  But oblivious humans can, and often do, walk innocently between a female, or a guarding male, and their offspring, or walk up with a cookie, for example, thinking the bear goes "Cool! a nice human with a cookie, just for me!".  Disney. *chortle*

gus.

 

 

 

I have no idea what your point is supposed to be, Gus. It looks like you've once again invented your opponent in your head. Everyone I know understands full well that eagles are predators and they understand full well what a predator is.

   My point is the often-witnessed failure to realize the unintended consequences when applying human social-engineering mentality to wilderness "management".  Had these people *realized* that if they brought the eagles back, at some point, it would be at the expense of the sea-birds, would they have done it? 

Oh and by the way, it's pretty damn hard to "just keep on being wild animals" if they're extinct.

   Well, do they know it?  Only if they go to animal-heaven, and look back?  We protect certain species for *our* benefit, not theirs.

And why do you suppose they might be finding less fish to eat?

   Apparently no one knows, since it isn't mentioned in the article.  Maybe the area is fished out, or maybe the fish's environment has shifted them elsewhere, or gone.  That's part of my point.  So do we now manage the fish, so the managed eagles won't eat the endangered sea-birds?  Wheels within wheels.

gus.

 

 

 

 

My point is the often-witnessed failure to realize the unintended consequences when applying human social-engineering mentality to wilderness "management". Had these people realized that if they brought the eagles back, at some point, it would be at the expense of the sea-birds, would they have done it?

I fail to see how it can be an unintended consequence that saving a predator species from extinction results in living members of that species behaving as predators. I assure you the biologists and environmental groups who worked to save the bald eagle understood that perfectly well.

What's your answer? To just drive predator species into extinction?



Well, do they know it? Only if they go to animal-heaven, and look back? We protect certain species for our benefit, not theirs.

Ummm ... while I'll agree that preserving a function, diverse wildlife is to our benefit, it can hardly fail to be to their benefit since it saves species from extinction. You are aware that we're currently seeing the most rapid extinction event in the last 65 million years, aren't you? Do you really think it's a good idea to do nothing about that?



Apparently no one knows, since it isn't mentioned in the article. Maybe the area is fished out, or maybe the fish's environment has shifted them elsewhere, or gone. That's part of my point. So do we now manage the fish, so the managed eagles won't eat the endangered sea-birds? Wheels within wheels.

Damn right the area is fished out. We're talking about coastal Maine here.

And yes, we'd better damn well manage the fisheries. The result of not doing that is that the whole industry is collapsing.


Again, your answer is just to barrel ahead fucking things up more?

Around here the deer are getting hit by cars so much that the government has ask Obama for 3.79 billion to begin the "Deer Painting Project" (DPP)! The intent is to capture and paint every deer in the state International Orange! I've read that Obama will send the money as soon as the state sends him a guarantee that the painting will be done by minorities and overseen by ACORN....United Auto Workers are believed to be the designated deer trappers and are going to be moved into the state as soon as FEMA can organize the 54,972 mobile homes necessary to house them! The workers will still be making between $37 and $53 dollars an hour and still have all their benefits payed by Uncle Sam as well as still having the Job Banks! The Deer have refused to comment although the ACLU has been said to have taken-up their case and should present it to the Supreme Court by this fall...no deer are slated to be water boarded except in the cases of those that are like "Bambi's" father or knows the location of suck terrorist bucks...the ACLU has stated that the "Buck Stops At Water Boarding"...but no one seems to really know what that means exactly!

The language of priorities is the religion of Socialism.....Aneurin Bevan

My point is the often-witnessed failure to realize the unintended consequences when applying human social-engineering mentality to wilderness "management". Had these people realized that if they brought the eagles back, at some point, it would be at the expense of the sea-birds, would they have done it?

I fail to see how it can be an unintended consequence that saving a predator species from extinction results in living members of that species behaving as predators. I assure you the biologists and environmental groups who worked to save the bald eagle understood that perfectly well.

   I think the unintended consequence was the predator switching it's diet to an endagered sea-bird, further endangering it.  Do you think the groups understood that perfectly well?  I doubt the groups studying the Cormorants would agree.

What's your answer? To just drive predator species into extinction?

   Nope, my answer is nothing more than some level of awareness that cuts through the fog of arrogance that drives the thinking of so many of these people.  



Well, do they know it? Only if they go to animal-heaven, and look back? We protect certain species for our benefit, not theirs.

Ummm ... while I'll agree that preserving a function, diverse wildlife is to our benefit, it can hardly fail to be to their benefit since it saves species from extinction. You are aware that we're currently seeing the most rapid extinction event in the last 65 million years, aren't you? Do you really think it's a good idea to do nothing about that?

   The planet has been through 5 great extinction events, resulting in the round figure of around 90% of all known animals that are now known to be extinct.  Since the last one was millions of years ago, we have had little to do with it.  What makes you now think we can make even a microscopic difference in the larger issues of the life of the planet?  We attempt to manage what is *our* perception, which may, or may not have a thing to do with what's coming along as scheduled, or *not* scheduled.  It wouldn't take much of a planetary pffttt, and *we* would be extinct!  The entire idea of us being "stewards of the planet" is so laughable as to be the perfect example of exactly the arrogance of which I speak. 



Apparently no one knows, since it isn't mentioned in the article. Maybe the area is fished out, or maybe the fish's environment has shifted them elsewhere, or gone. That's part of my point. So do we now manage the fish, so the managed eagles won't eat the endangered sea-birds? Wheels within wheels.

Damn right the area is fished out. We're talking about coastal Maine here.

And yes, we'd better damn well manage the fisheries. The result of not doing that is that the whole industry is collapsing.

    I have no problem with managing the fisheries as a food supply for us, *not* the eagles.  If they wish to help themselves, as opposed to munching on the endangered Cormorant chicks, I don't have a problem with that either.  I doubt the consumption of the eagles will endanger *us*. 


Again, your answer is just to barrel ahead fucking things up more?

   Sometimes I wonder if that isn't *exactly* what the "animal rights" people are doing!  It has certainly turned out to be the case with the Western wolf programs, which is such a classic example.

gus.

 

 

 

I think the unintended consequence was the predator switching it's diet to an endagered sea-bird, further endangering it. Do you think the groups understood that perfectly well? I doubt the groups studying the Cormorants would agree.

That's not an argument against saving the bald eagle.


Nope, my answer is nothing more than some level of awareness that cuts through the fog of arrogance that drives the thinking of so many of these people.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. You apparently have no concept how much research has gone into understanding ecologies. And you don't seem to have any concept of the importance of predator species to the functioning of ecologies.



The planet has been through 5 great extinction events, resulting in the round figure of around 90% of all known animals that are now known to be extinct. Since the last one was millions of years ago, we have had little to do with it. What makes you now think we can make even a microscopic difference in the larger issues of the life of the planet? We attempt to manage what is our perception, which may, or may not have a thing to do with what's coming along as scheduled, or not scheduled. It wouldn't take much of a planetary pffttt, and we would be extinct! The entire idea of us being "stewards of the planet" is so laughable as to be the perfect example of exactly the arrogance of which I speak.

What do you imaging is causing the current extinction event? How to you reconcile this argument of yours with this cause?



I have no problem with managing the fisheries as a food supply for us, not the eagles. If they wish to help themselves, as opposed to munching on the endangered Cormorant chicks, I don't have a problem with that either. I doubt the consumption of the eagles will endanger us.

You think this shit is independent? Again, you don't understand ecologies.