Predators

[Vell]

I saw an interesting documentary in chem a few weeks ago, and I just recalled when I was thinking 'what would be an interesting debate topic?' well, something that people shouldn't be all too fired up about - dont' want discussions getting heated!

So, at least in America, earlier in the 20th Century there was a large 'let's get rid of the predators' movement or something - and somehow one way or another, most wolves or bears or etcetera were eliminated from the places they naturally were, usually to suit human convenience.

So the benefit to humans was immediate - easier to handle crops and livestock without having to worry about a wolf raid, for example. But eliminating predators has harmed the natural environment. In Yellowstone, it was discovered that the river there was widening. and why? Well, it was theorized that with no wolves to hunt them, the deer(or whatever) had no reason to move from one place. So the grass there and other plants died, since the deer(or whatever) grazed freely.

This loosened the soil, which fell into the river, which widened...

From what I recall, they reintroduced wolves to Yellowstone, and it seemed to have done well in reducing that.

So, do you think major predators should be reintroduced to places they've been eliminated from?

[winkio]

Predators should not be dangerous to humans, by which I mean they should not be near human environments and should not have the opportunity to harm humans.  Besides that, I think that if it is advantageous to reintroduce them (to help control a river, for example), then they should be reintroduced.

[Vell]

Well, without 'apex' predators, the ecosystem in general got all out of whack. There's a balance - wolves hunt deer, deer flee, find new places to graze... take out the wolves, deer stay in one place, overgrow, overgraze... the same is seen everywhere. Withotu the apex predators, the herbivore life has no natural moderation.

[Subsonic_Noise]

I don't think we should alter ecosystems artificially all that much in general. There is natural balance, even though we might not see it since it can take alot of time.  Though balance is probably the wrong expression, since it's more like a pendulum that swings back and forth - alot of prey means alot of and easy food for the predators, which means they will devolop and become more, until maybe there isn't enough prey, and some of them will not have enough food. I suck at explaining, but I hope you get what I mean - an ecosystem does not need "artificial" help.

[Vell]

Exactly the point! Except, as stated before, the predators - wolves, etc. - were killed off.

[Subsonic_Noise]

Exactly the point! Except, as stated before, the predators - wolves, etc. - were killed off.

Then it will regulate itself in another way. The prey won't find any food anymore etc.

[Vell]

but that's exactly it - it's not. In Yellowstone, the deer overpopulated, and in other places trees died because their leaves were all eaten.

[Subsonic_Noise]

but that's exactly it - it's not. In Yellowstone, the deer overpopulated, and in other places trees died because their leaves were all eaten.

Give it time. Nature works in a different speed than humans.