Wolves change rivers

Found this to be very interesting and thought it worth sharing. Good lesson on what happens with the balance of nature is messed with.

 

That's great! Thank you for sharing it. The general population tends to be a good mix of apathetic and ignorant towards the far-reaching impact our selfishness has. Would be interesting to know what that 'little' plot of land we call Yellowstone would look like had we never killed off all of the wolves in that area to begin with...

 

That's also a prime example of what happens when deer are allowed to get out of control as they have in many rural areas.

It should never get to the point where one needs a "deer depredation permit!" due to the amount of damage and destruction those deer cause.

 

Excellent share! Thank you.

 

All due respect, but you're looking at it the wrong way; that's the symptom, not the sickness. Deer overpopulation isn't an issue presented by the deer, it's a problem both created and defined by humans. They are part of nature and the destruction you reference is based on row crops and other unnatural occurrences in the environment. We disrupted the natural world; odds are we either reduced their natural habitat with "progress" or we killed off their natural predators because those predators also happen to have been preying upon our livestock . . . which we put in place and further reduced the natural habitat of the deer.

It's kind of like when some dumbass hiker wants to get a closer look at a bear - which subsequently gets agitated and attacks them - and then we kill the bear for attacking the human. It's all messed up.

 

Guess I have to go back to Yellowstone and have a look see now that everything is different!

 

In Maine, the state regulates the kill numbers. They want to keep the herd large enough to keep the profitable hunting business stable. So, each year they count the registered kills, punish those who don't follow rules, and set aside areas that there is no hunting, or what kind and when there can be a hunt. That hunt contributes heavily to our tourism and economy. The problem is that is also sets the level high enough so there are many encounters on the roads with cars. It is hard to find anyone who has never hit a deer. On the flip side, the farmers spend a lot of money keeping them out of their crops. Maine has tried several times to introduce elk, but every time that populations dies off. For years, hunting moose was illegal. Now it is done in very limited numbers by some sort of drawing. Another big money maker. Right or wrong, agree or disagree, it is the way it is around here. What would things be like if Wolves were back here. Who knows, but that story told in Yellow Stone is very revealing about a natural balance and what happens when it is disturbed.

 

I find it very interesting, but I saw pretty much the same type of documentary, only it was crediting the beaver and their re-appearance into Yellowstone! And if you think about it, the beaver is far more capable of changing the terrain than the wolf. It all boils down to whatever you are trying to prove or justify, I guess.

We have wolves in the U.P.
We used to have a lot of deer in the U.P.
Moose in the U.P. are barely hanging on.
I realize that nature has it "cycles" in regards to terrain and wildlife.

Not intending to start a squirting contest about wolves, but they sure are what you would call a "threatened species" up here!

 

I understand this perspective, and for the most part agree with it, but here's a thought. Humans are part of nature too, and our natural behavior is to manipulate our environment to suit ourself, so why is human "progress" considered unnatural or destructive to the natural world? Worldwide human agriculture is probably the worst environmental disaster in existence. I'm not saying human existence should be selfish and turn a blind eye to its effects on the environment. Humans are probably the only species with the cognitive power to "understand" their own existence. You can bet that bear doesn't consider the effects of its attack on the hiker or give two chits about the hiker, totally natural.

 

Okay, but you're bumping up against questions of what terms like "nature" and "natural" mean. If we take humans and their works to be part of nature, then everything that exists is natural, and the word becomes fairly useless. It might make sense insofar as it acknowledges modern scientific understandings of evolution and the fact that people are animals, but humans are uniquely powerful in their ability to change long-established patterns in the environment. Maybe calling such change "unnatural" is meaningless, but in many situations, "destructive" doesn't seem like much of a stretch. This is also why concepts like sustainability and stewardship become useful.

 

DaveGunter & Jon1270 - These are very good thoughts and make for meaningful conversation. I'm sure it isn't hard to figure out I personally lean more on the environmentalist side of the discussion, but the whole idea revolving around the fact that humans are animals like all the rest of nature and thus you could say whatever we do is of the natural world and/or part of evolution has always troubled me. I want to believe one way (humans suck), but my logic makes me at least consider both sides.

Someone mentioned beavers above. Beavers are a great example of how we may or may not define "destruction". MANY people believe that beavers are destructive to their surroundings, so much so that in a state park near where I grew up the park management wanted to cull the beaver population around one of their lakes. We're talking about a place that exists for purpose of conserving nature albeit for the appreciation and recreation of the state's residents. They didn't end up killing or relocating any of the beavers because the park Naturalist proposed the question, "This is a state park. If the beavers aren't safe and welcomed here, then what are we doing?" But I say there are two things to consider...

First, beavers' manipulation of their surroundings is physical, and the earth is good at reversing physical changes with time after the perpetrator has died or moved on. Humans followed the same physical path (think early civilizations) and then thanks to our highly developed brains we stepped WAY over the line and started to manipulate our surrounds chemically. We could 'adjust' the landscape much quicker with dynamite. We could make things better and faster with plastics. No other animal has ever knowingly and intentionally created unnatural items that when discarded and left for the earth would last for millennia.

Second, going back to the trickle-down thoughts that started this thread, I'm guessing one could argue that beavers' "destruction" is heavier in more centralized locations now than it was farther back in history due to a drastic reduction of their natural habitat due to human activity.

Anyways, beavers were just a good example of how to look at things. I'm of the strong opinion that it's not logical to consider all activities of human beings to be natural or part of nature because we've simply gone too far and we're now creating and using unnatural materials and approaches to advancement.

Yes, humans very likely are the only species with the cognitive power to understand their existence . . . which makes what we're doing even worse and even more selfish...

 

People adjust the natural world to suit them better, it's what we've always done.
I'm not about to hate on humanity as a whole for using our brains to better ourselves. That's self-loathing and I can see it every day on the tv or on the news.
This is more an emotional argument than anything else. The natural world doesn't know what or why it's happening and doesn't care.

 

Your plan almost worked - I typed up a retort to your 'opinion'. Then I realized you're just trolling and attempting to turn this into a fight instead of a conversation. Posts like that do not provide any value or insight to the thread, and furthermore I do not believe they align with the principles, ethics, and rules of this site.

 

Disagree with you on Chris F intentions.
His opinion doesn't align with yours, that's all. I don't think he meant to offend you and you shouldn't take any.
Again, I think the most change regarding the terrain is due to beavers, not whether an animal continues to graze openly or not. Thats just a theory on their part, no?

 

He didn't offend me, he made me laugh. He essentially said humans can do what they want and nature doesn't care. That's not an opinion. That's trolling.

 

Sorry, almost forgot your question. Yes, it is just a theory - especially considering how it was presented in the video. Most anything like that is a theory until or unless the presentation of actual data. Although I agree beavers can have a very large impact on the 'world' around them, I'm only guessing here in that that may not have contributed to the narrowing of a river. Of course, if the beavers took measures upstream to divert some of the flow, than yes, they absolutely could have been responsible for the narrowing. We would need a lot longer video to know the truth!

 

Fine, you're the boss.