Time To Boycott Norway?

[Dave]

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ernment-wwf-friends-earth-environment-protest
Norway plans to cull more than two-thirds of its wolf population

Norway is planning to cull more than two-thirds of its remaining wolves in a step that environmental groups say will be disastrous for the dwindling members of the species in the wild.
There are estimated to be about 68 wolves remaining in the wilderness areas of Norway, concentrated in the south-east of the country, but under controversial plans approved on Friday as many as 47 of these will be shot.
The government has justified this year’s planned cull – the biggest in more than a century – on the basis of harm done to sheep flocks by the predators. Environmental groups dispute this, saying the real damage is minimal and the response out of all proportion.

“Shooting 70% of the wolf population is not worthy of a nation claiming to be championing environmental causes. People all over the country, and outside its borders, are now reacting.”


Ok, the titles a bit clickbait-ish. But I feel pretty strongly about this. The Science seems to suggest that there is no real reason for it. Except politicians bowing to big agrobusiness.

 

[Fadcode]

Always struck me as funny that no one says anything when the sheep are culled every year

 

[Dave]

Elucidate me, whats the comparison youre trying to make?

I dont see it.

Are Cornwall planning on killing 70% of their sheep, for no reason?

Anyway, I just sent Woodlore an email, asking if Ray had any intention of speaking up on the Wolves behalf.

 

[satosato]

" on the basis of harm done to sheep flocks by the predators. Environmental groups dispute this, saying the real damage is minimal and the response out of all proportion."

Don't know enough about this case but the Enviroment group will oppose to any culling regardless of the numbers, may be the Enviroment group should try to listen to the sheep farmers, it's their livelihood.

 

[Dave]

Nina Jensen, chief executive of WWF in Norway, said: “This is mass slaughter. We have not seen anything like this in a hundred years, back when the policy was that all large carnivores were to be eradicated. She said the losses to farmers from wolves had been minimal, and pointed to settlements by the Norwegian parliament in 2004 and 2011 that stipulated populations of carnivores must be allowed to co-exist with livestock.

I dont see any reason to wipe out 70% of the wolf population. And I dont think she would be saying that, unless she could back it up.

 

[Fadcode]

The fact there are only 68 wolves in the wild could be the problem, if they haven't been culled for a 100 years, there should be a lot more than 68, weakened breeding usually means disease or lack of food, a lot would depend on the size of the packs,as these are based in an area, could be , over urbanisation,etc, Now I know this is not the fault of the wolves, but at one time or another most animals are culled and most times this helps with the breeding, making the animal stronger, etc, and we probably do cull our sheep by 70% a year, for none other reason than to eat or export them, even Cornwall has a limit on the number of sheep it will support due to most of it being moorland and granite rock. I think the situation needs more investigation before one can decide whether it is fair or not.of course you could always dress the wolves in sheeps clothing, but that would probably get them a bad name.

 

[KenThis]

The fact there are only 68 wolves in the wild could be the problem, if they haven't been culled for a 100 years, there should be a lot more than 68, weakened breeding usually means disease or lack of food, a lot would depend on the size of the packs,as these are based in an area, could be , over urbanisation,etc, Now I know this is not the fault of the wolves, but at one time or another most animals are culled and most times this helps with the breeding, making the animal stronger, etc, and we probably do cull our sheep by 70% a year, for none other reason than to eat or export them, even Cornwall has a limit on the number of sheep it will support due to most of it being moorland and granite rock. I think the situation needs more investigation before one can decide whether it is fair or not.of course you could always dress the wolves in sheeps clothing, but that would probably get them a bad name.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say but a 70% cull of 68 wolves will in no way improve the breeding stock.
68 animals is probably in reality too small a population already, with very little genetic diversity, reducing it by 70% is tantamount to making the species extinct in Norway.

Culling is generally done to large herds of prey animals when the natural predators are absent.
Due to the evolutionary arms race between predator and prey species, predators will tend to hunt and kill the 'weaker' individuals in a population. This in turn means that only the 'fittest' of both predators and prey survive and the populations remains healthy. (this is an overly simplified version of evolution).

Breeding sheep is completely different as the farmer chooses which individuals to breed from to ensure the traits that are most wanted/required are kept. Animals with unwanted traits are not bred from. This is basic selective breeding and the reason we have so many different types of sheep.

I tried to find out more information about these wolves in Norway but it all seems to be very biased one way or the other.

From a purely genetic/evolution point of view 68 individuals is already a ridiculously low number of wolves for a country as big as Norway.
I can only guess at how much damage 68 wolves can do to sheep farms but I have to imagine there has to be a better way to deal with an apex predator than cull 70%.

Especially since there are growing calls for reintroducing long extinct wolves from our own shores.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33017511

Obviously I'm biased as I'm a huge fan of biodiversity but I think as a species we should be willing to do more to share the planet we live on.

 

[dewi]

Personally I think 70% is a ridiculous number... now 100%, that is a nice round number I can get behind.

You have this obsession with wolves Dave... I appreciate they have a certain mythology surrounding them, but when you look at them for what they are... wild dogs... they become a pest. If a wild pack of dogs were wandering around Birmingham, they'd be rounded up and eliminated as a public nuisance... so what is the difference?

I'd forgive you for thinking Dave, knowing my sense of humour, that I'm joking in some way. Unfortunately not. There are huge areas of the earth that wolves can roam free unhindered and they undoubtedly contribute to the natural order of things, but as we learned in Scotland, wolves and people don't mix very well.

As for the argument that culling 70% is tantamount to making the species extinct in Norway, I would agree. I fail to see why that is a problem. Obviously it will have a knock on effect to the eco-system in Norway, and the Norwegians will have to deal with the consequences, but rather than use the argument of culling sheep... what about the culling or elimination of rats?

Rats have just as much a right to live as any other creature, yet we eliminate them as a disease-spreading pest. A proven disease-ridden pest as well. But wolves are proven predatory killers. Mistaking the Siberian wolf (in origin at least) with the wolves of Northern America, you might think these are timid creatures. They are not, as a German town found out quite recently when a pack of wolves came to visit.

Will the culling of 48 wolves decimate the population of wolves worldwide? Probably not. Will it ensure the safety of people/livestock in Norway? Probably not. But wolves and human populations, not a great mix, so rather than 3/4 measures, eliminate the predatory pests... then deal with the inevitable consequences.

 

[santaman2000]

.....Culling is generally done to large herds of prey animals when the natural predators are absent.
Due to the evolutionary arms race between predator and prey species, predators will tend to hunt and kill the 'weaker' individuals in a population. This in turn means that only the 'fittest' of both predators and prey survive and the populations remains healthy. (this is an overly simplified version of evolution)......

Actually in wild populations the predators are culled by larger predators farther up the food chain. Not as food per se, but to eliminate competition; it's a territorial thing. Here, wolves displace (cull) coyotes, coyotes displace foxes, etc. Cougars displace bobcats, bobcats prey on house cats.

All that said, I agree that a population of only 68 wolves doesn't seem to indicate a stable enough population to begin a harvest.

 

[KenThis]

Actually in wild populations the predators are culled by larger predators farther up the food chain. Not as food per se, but to eliminate competition; it's a territorial thing. Here, wolves displace (cull) coyotes, coyotes displace foxes, etc. Cougars displace bobcats, bobcats prey on house cats.

All that said, I agree that a population of only 68 wolves doesn't seem to indicate a stable enough population to begin a harvest.

I don't particularly want to get into an in depth discussion of predator / prey dynamics or of ecosystem interactions.
But I did say I was making an over simplification of what is usually an incredibly complex system.

Very simply when looking at predator / prey numbers over time you see a self regulating pattern. If prey numbers increase then predator numbers will then tend to increase. Over predation will in turn lead to lower numbers of prey and subsequently with fewer prey, predator numbers will decline.
Obviously these interactions are complicated in real life due to the other species in an ecosystem but it is a simple example of what I think was meant by breeding fitness.
The least fit prey tend to be the ones they get eaten. The least fit predators tend to be the ones that starve.
In reality things are far more complex, with random mutation, genetic drift, etc etc.

I don't want to argue about your Florida ecosystem (I don't know enough about specifics) but in general within a single ecosystem different predator species are rarely if ever in direct competition.
It's logical really, if two species tend to eat the same food then the species that is best at eating the food will survive. That is the numbers will go up, and the species that is worse will go extinct, because their numbers will go down. Obviously this is over evolutionary time.
That is why in general, evolution means that there is a species for every ecological niche.

Obviously this is true in natural environments without external pressure. In any ecosystem if there are changes to the numbers or composition of predator/prey species then it may mean in the short term there is inter-species conflict between predators. It will then often depend on how adaptable the predator species are to see which does best.
Again I don't know enough about your Florida ecosystem, but I have studied this and in general what I've said is true.

In most ecosystems there tends to be a few prey species at the bottom, a number species that are both predator and sometimes prey in their own right and a top or apex predator.
Although top predators will take other predators they don't usually evolve to only take other predators. Apex predators become top predators because they can and will usually eat whatever comes their way. Therefore it is usually easier and safer to go after prey species than other predators.

Also please don't confuse this with the inevitable fighting over carcasses and kills that invariably occur. Most predators are hardwired to fight members of their own species or in fact another species for a 'free' meal and in general the largest (or the most aggressive) will win. Again I say fight but usually there's a lot of posturing before the weakest/ smallest backs down.

Again I can only theorise about what you've seen by wolves displacing coyotes and coyotes displacing foxes etc. But I think probably what is more likely is that what you've witnessed is a recovery in numbers of top predators. I imagine previously the numbers of wolves and coyotes were heavily reduced through targeted hunting. This allowed predators lower down the food chain to increase in numbers due to the increased amount of food available. I imagine more recently with less pressure on wolf and coyote numbers they are returning to the 'natural' levels and with the subsequent drop in prey numbers you're seeing the numbers of foxes decline.
Again I can only really guess at this as I'm not that familiar with Florida.

Sorry if I haven't explained this properly (it's 4am here and I can't sleep) maybe best to pm me if you want more information.

 

[KenThis]

Personally I think there is room for some wolves even if they are a 'predatory pest' and humans. Making any population extinct would fill me with revulsion, but it's especially horrifying if the reason is because it's easier/cheaper in the short term.

As 'bushcrafters' isn't part of what we want, to get back to 'nature', to spend time away from the urban jungle and commune with our more natural environment. Personally I like the idea of the wild, of wolves, of wild wolves in the wild. Properly managed I see no reason why it would not be possible to have a small population of wild wolves in Norway, or the UK for that matter. The emphasis there is properly managed.

Why would anyone want to see particular wildlife go extinct in a particular environment?

 

[Dave]

Personally I think there is room for some wolves even if they are a 'predatory pest' and humans. Making any population extinct would fill me with revulsion, but it's especially horrifying if the reason is because it's easier/cheaper in the short term.

As 'bushcrafters' isn't part of what we want, to get back to 'nature', to spend time away from the urban jungle and commune with our more natural environment. Personally I like the idea of the wild, of wolves, of wild wolves in the wild. Properly managed I see no reason why it would not be possible to have a small population of wild wolves in Norway, or the UK for that matter. The emphasis there is properly managed.

Why would anyone want to see particular wildlife go extinct in a particular environment?

Yeh, I cannot really be arsed getting into it, the conversations been had before and Ive posted loads of stuff. I cannot understand people who want to see them become extinct either. They have as much right to exist as you or I.

This is a good little ditty on the complexities of an eco system and the wolves natural place in it below. I mean isnt it blatantly obvious that its human beings taking wild animals natural habitat, and persecuting them mercilessly thats the problem? And what for? A few extra pennies? A bit of profit? Or just plain superstition, and misplaced prejudice. Its sick really.

And if you apply the old grey matter, there would be other solutions. In Russia, and other places they breed massive sheperd dogs which spend their lives protecting flocks of sheep for instance.

Im not anti-hunting either, just of the firm belief that you should eat what you kill. [Although I understand the pest control issue. If youve got a plague of rats in your barn eating your seed, or feral pigeons attacking your pea crop. Yeh, theres a need for control. But I personally wouldnt want to do that.]

As stewards of this planet were doing a 5hit job. And its only going to get a lot worse. Which just makes the planet that much poorer.

[video=youtube;ysa5OBhXz-Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q[/video]

I do have an affinity for wolves, how can you not? Beautiful intelligent creatures IMO.

 

[Leshy]

100% agreed with Dave .
Humans really are doing a 5hit job of looking after this planet .

Our kids and grandkids are going to inherit debt , pollution and all the inevitable consequences of our stupidity and greed.

An old Indian proverb comes to mind:

"Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children." - Tribe Unknown


Going back to the OP , I believe , like it's been said already, that this is a flagrant case of government bowing down to agro business.

No matter how you dress it or paint it, this is disgusting and im really disappointed.

A beautiful country so close to us, yet so different ..it has reindeer, moose , bears , wolves ... I really admire not just their climate, landscape and wildlife , but also their culture and heritage and the love and respect that they, themselves hold for these values.

I never looked at their environmental policy but I presumed it was a sensible one , if a country in Europe was to have this sort of fauna...
It's a real shame if they go ahead with this cull.

Focusing on the problem doesn't solve anything.


So for a solution...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Ellis_(wolf_researcher)


Just bear with me as its a simple solution to a complex problem, and so it's difficult to convey.



Shaun Ellis is an English animal researcher who is notable for living among wolves, and for adopting a pack of abandoned North American timber wolf pups.
He is the founder of Wolf Pack Management and is involved in a number of research projects in Poland and at Yellowstone National Park in the United States.

Ellis first trained to be a gamekeeper, but left the job when the Head gamekeeper found out that Ellis was feeding rather than culling foxes.
He then joined and served with the Royal Marines.

After he left the Marines he contacted a Native American biologist, Levi Holt, and from their meeting he was able to spend several months living at the Wolf Education and Research Center on Nez Perce tribal lands in northern Idaho, United States as a volunteer in a project studying wolves at the foot of the Rocky Mountains.
They taught him how to observe wolves,and he was able to get into a pack of wolves and live among them.

He recorded wild wolf howls and gradually learned to identify individual pack members and began to realise that wolves are highly intelligent and instinctive individuals that show trust and balance within their pack's social structure.



...
his expertise brought him to the attention of a Polish farmer, whose livestock had suffered wolf attacks. Since wolves are a protected species in Poland the farmer hoped that Ellis might be able to find some non-violent way to deter the marauding pack. Ellis travelled to Poland to study the local pack, bringing with him audio recordings of wolf howls.

Ellis believed that if the local wolves heard howls coming from the farm they would believe another pack had already claimed it as their territory, and keep clear to avoid a conflict. In order for this to work Ellis had to determine the size of the pack and play back recordings of a similar-sized pack. Initial results were encouraging and in the first few weeks after the farmer began playing the recordings THE FARM SUFFERED NO FURTHER ATTACKS.



I can't find the documentary I watched about this SUCCESSFUL experiment , so feel free to add a link of you find it

But this shows a simple solution to a complex problem....

It also shows that, more often than not, human ego and brutality gets in the way of nature's beauty and complexity.

... sometimes we just don't see "the wood for the trees" so to speak as we are to enthralled in our own perception and fail to acknowledge other species intelligence and idiosyncratic behaviour.

So could this man and his ideas not be used to help stop this cull?

In this particular case if all of the affected farmers played Shaun's recordings , it would force the wild wolves out into the wilderness , away from the farms and give them no choice but to hunt wild reindeer , rabbits and other prey .

As Dave said, using the old grey matter...

Yeh, I cannot really be arsed getting into it, the conversations been had before and Ive posted loads of stuff. I cannot understand people who want to see them become extinct either. They have as much right to exist as you or I.

This is a good little ditty on the complexities of an eco system and the wolves natural place in it. I mean isnt it blatantly obvious that its human beings taking wild animals natural habitat, and persecuting them mercilessly thats the problem? And what for? A few extra pennies? A bit of profit? Or just plain superstition, and misplaced prejudice. Its sick really.

And if you apply the old grey matter, there would be other solutions. In Russia, and other places they breed massive sheperd dogs which spend their lives protecting flocks of sheep for instance.

Im not anti-hunting either, just of the firm belief that you should eat what you kill. [Although I understand the pest control issue. If youve got a plague of rats in your barn eating your seed, or feral pigeons attacking your pea crop. Yeh, theres a need for control. But I personally wouldnt want to do that.]

As stewards of this planet were doing a 5hit job. And its only going to get a lot worse. Which just makes the planet that much poorer.

[video=youtube;ysa5OBhXz-Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q[/video]

I do have an affinity for wolves, how can you not? Beautiful intelligent creatures IMO.

 

[Tengu]

Dewi is right, they are just dogs and so vermin.

(Never mind that wild dogs are fascinating creatures in their own right, -but so are rats.)

No one said a word a couple of years ago when the reindeer on S Georgia were eliminated (not merely thinned out)

Reindeer are USEFUL animals. Wolves serve no particular purpose (but to cull reindeer) except of course they are big game.

 

[Leshy]

Dewi is right, they are just dogs and so vermin.

(Never mind that wild dogs are fascinating creatures in their own right, -but so are rats.)

No one said a word a couple of years ago when the reindeer on S Georgia were eliminated (not merely thinned out)

Reindeer are USEFUL animals. Wolves serve no particular purpose (but to cull reindeer) except of course they are big game.

In that case , and in your line of thinking , what purpose do we serve?
As mammals on this planet...
Time for a cull?

As the case of Yellowstone shows , wolves do indeed serve various purposes.
And in that case it was to help reestablishing the natural balance of the landscape, as there was too much elk and moose and not enough vegetation , as a result of the extermination of the wolves years before....

 

[Dave]

I remember a program Leshy, where Steve Leonard the vet travelled to a remote inuit village plagued by polar bears, and introduced the same idea, they used audio recordings of a large male polar bear, everytime a bear got close to the village. The local policemen, were very impressed with it, as the other polar bears which were getting too close to the village boundaries legged it, as soon as they played it. Before that, they had to shoot them. Or drug them and drag them away.

Anyway, this wasnt the type of behaviour I would have associated with Norway, very dissapointing.

 

[Leshy]

I remember a program Leshy, where Steve Leonard the vet travelled to a remote inuit village plagued by polar bears, and introduced the same idea, they used audio recordings of a large male polar bear, everytime a bear got close to the village. The local policemen, were very impressed with it, as the other polar bears which were getting too close to the village boundaries legged it, as soon as they played it. Before that, they had to shoot them. Or drug them and drag them away.

Anyway, this wasnt the type of behaviour I would have associated with Norway, very dissapointing.

Oh, OK so Shaun's method has been used successfully before ?!
I didn't even realise that...

Surely this is a better solution..

 

[Tengu]

Our purpose, as a small defenceless creature, is to be naturaly wary of things with big teeth.

(Or to find our way around such hazards)

 

[dewi]

I remember a program Leshy, where Steve Leonard the vet travelled to a remote inuit village plagued by polar bears, and introduced the same idea, they used audio recordings of a large male polar bear, everytime a bear got close to the village. The local policemen, were very impressed with it, as the other polar bears which were getting too close to the village boundaries legged it, as soon as they played it. Before that, they had to shoot them. Or drug them and drag them away.

Anyway, this wasnt the type of behaviour I would have associated with Norway, very dissapointing.

You see again, despite what you hear about the poor old polar bear sitting on an ice cube, the polar bear population has been thriving for the past 40 years, and frankly could do with a thinning of the herd. Eventually the bears will realise the villagers are tricking it, then it'll use one of the villagers as a play toy in much the same way they play with seals before they eat them.

Nature isn't always nice, and whilst I'm not advocating the extinction of any species, clearing an area of that species is no different to killing pigeons or rats for eating your grain. It's hypocritical to say you'd be happy to see those species exterminated, but because you like the look of wolves, they mustn't be touched.

That is the problem when you go down this meddling route... we've already meddled, so we meddle some more supposedly to put it right, then we get it wrong, so we meddle some more.

As has been pointed out, there is a large wolf population in Russia that lives relatively unhindered... primarily because they live in underpopulated areas. When they come into settlements and towns, they are killed, no messing about. Once a pack gets used to scavenging in a populated area, there is going to be problems further down the line.

Getting a bit tired of this argument that we're just mammals, therefore would it be okay for us to be killed off or treated like animals.... well no. And if you have to ask why, think about what you're typing on. It wasn't made by a bloody reindeer was it! That chair you're sat on, where is that from then, Wolves-R-Us? I'm sure when Alan Turing was reading the memoirs of Babbage and postulating about the future of the technology he was helping to develop, rather than use a conventional bathroom, he was probably urinating over all his equipment to mark his territory.

We may be classified as mammals, but we manipulate the world round us with our opposable thumbs. We think and build, develop rather than just surviving. As a species, we've mastered the art of obtaining food without having to hunt or farm individually. So much so, that some of choose to play in the woods for fun or sit in front of electronic boxes and argue the internet equivalent of 'Can't we all just think of the children!'

Enjoying and protecting our wildlife and countrysides in one thing, but allowing a pack (or two) of wolves to roam about? Nope... we've had this discussion before when Chris Peckhead or whatever the idiots name is suggested we reintroduce wolves to the UK. And if you're not happy about them wandering the UK, bit hypocritical to suggest how the Norwegians deal with wolves eh?

 

[Dave]

Dewi, you just did advocate the extinction of the wolf in Norway, and I didnt advocate the extinction of rats and pigeons. :togo:

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Unless were in the pub, and its your'e round. You freakin loony.

[Oh, and answer your bloody phone when people call you! ]

Best, Dave.

And P.S tell the Mrs you're coming to the September meet.

PPS. Dewi and I disagree on a lot of stuff, if thats not obvious to everyone else. ....