We're going through the same thing here in Wisconsin Melvin. And I do have quite a bit of first-hand experience with how predators and prey interact, as well as being a lifelong hunter living in an extremely hunting-oriented area.
This is true. This is why we have to accept the responsibility and keep a proper balance.
Ah, the "balance" idea, eh? Are you arguing for a "proper balance", or are you waiting for someone more responsible to do it? It doesn't sound like you want a balance at all. What would make up a "proper balance" for your area?
In the U.P. the wolf population has exploded to the point that I don't see anymore deer herds at 0345. Back in the day I had to slow down for the hooved rodents.
This sounds pretty normal, actually (and very similar to our situation here in WI). Most people have no real concept of how predation works. They speak of "balance", killing the weak and sick, etc... And the biologists often seem to speak in those terms as well, maybe so they can communicate with the masses? A long-term "balance" is probably unlikely. It's more likely to see swings up/down on both sides (predators/prey). With the large prey base available in northern WI and the UP, the wolves should have had it pretty easy, and would be expected to reproduce quickly due to the "unlimited" prey base. When that base dwindles, the wolves will starve and their numbers will drop, allowing the prey base to rebuild, so the process can start over again.
Of course, once the deer are gone the prey base won't be quite depleted yet... Still lots of horses, cows, dogs, cats, and garbage to feed on. That's when the real pinch will start. Wolves weren't "run off", and public safety wasn't any real concern either. The real determining factor to reducing the predator population is money. When the predators start eating our property, we thin them down. And obviously it doesn't need to be a predator eating a cow, it could be a deer or rabbit eating your corn or tomatoes. When herbivores do that we spend gobs of money and time on thinning them down too. We even see it as fun!
WE ARE THE PREDATORS.
Well, no, not so much. Most of us are far more likely to go to a "known" location where we're likely to find part of an animal that someone else killed, and then take it home to eat (fresh or frozen section at Walmart?). That's not really predation. It's not truly scavenging either, but closer to that than predation. And beyond that, we don't limit our diet enough to really be "predators". More like "omnivores" with some predatory tendencies.
Let the doggies and kitties live elsewhere.
Pure silliness there, lol! Where would you recommend? Maybe we give the animals the northern hemisphere, so they can keep a "proper balance" on their own? It sounds like you're recommending they be removed from your area, and shift the problem onto someone else?
EDIT: It's not like we're slashing and burning the habitat.
Eeks, that one's bad too. You don't seriously buy into that, do you? Are you really sheltered enough to believe that? YOUR area may still be fairly natural, but that doesn't mean "we" as a species aren't slashing and burning the habitat. Your very existence depends on it, ironically. And you pay for products that resulted from "burning and slashing" habitat somewhere else, condoning that behavior. Computer, car, house materials, refrigerator, books, bed, etc... You're part of the habitat depletion worldwide, and just happen to be fortunate enough to live in a rural area (as am I). As a result though, your habitat isn't really what it once was.
Another thing. We are overrun with wild turkeys. They are excellent predator food, but they also stomp on partridge nests.
The balance is getting lopsided towards the hippy animals. This is bad.
Yup, I agree with this, unfortunately. Our animals are managed by people who want to keep their jobs, and have lots of people to please. Their bosses want to be re-elected by those people who want to be pleased.
EDIT2: Of course, you dorks could try to tell me otherwise, without any first-hand knowledge of course.
That, sadly is the argument too many hunters use. They fail to realize that this is a poor argument that's almost guaranteed to fail. It's confrontational and "shuts off" their listeners. It also makes them look ignorant. Poor strategy to convince those who need convincing in order for the hunter to get what they want. Hunter's can be their worst enemies at times.
What first-hand knowledge do you have? How much intimate knowledge of the U.P's 16,000+ square miles do you have? I only ask because most of the hunters I've met didn't have the tools or knowledge to be able to make anything beyond basic assumptions when it comes to habitat and wildlife, let alone get into predator/prey dynamics. Their knowledge is generally limited to what they see, based on what they remember (correctly or incorrectly) about what they saw at some time in the past.
I don't doubt that you have far fewer (and far more predator-savvy) deer now than you did in the past. We do too, here in WI.
