Time To Boycott Norway?

[boatman]

Shepherds may of course protect their flocks. Helps a lot if they are actually with their sheep with their dogs which will discourage wolves. If it is not economically viable for this then the seep herding is probably not worth it and maintaining the flocks, in some areas is more for social and environmental reasons. If this is so then
a tithe of sheep for the wolves doesn't seem unreasonable as the whole enterprise of sheep is subsidies supported.

 

[santaman2000]

......Also obviously the actual system is dynamic and can become infinitely more complex.
In the short term there can be fluctuations in numbers at particular levels that will have knock on effects on other levels. But because the system is stable these are only fluctuations and the system will end up becoming balanced once again.

What I've said can be taken as true for ecosystems in general. Unfortunately in real life things are often complicated by the actions of man.
Man can end up arbitrarily changing the numbers of different species or the ecosystem itself which can cause the system to be unbalanced or even fail.....

You're starting to touch on reality. We tend to think of nature as a "balance" that maintains itself (or in some cases we think of it as something we need to step in and maintain) However The "dynamic" aspect you mentioned is that evolution is not static but is continuing as we speak. The displacement I spoke of is real (and by the way, it's the way general ecology is taught here, not just a personal observation or a locality specific concept) is that continuing evolution. Man doesn't arbitrarily change the balance; man IS part of the evolutionary process (we evolved fro nature and are still part of it) The system isn't becoming "unbalanced" and "failing." It is evolving around us. You or I or anybody can celebrate that or lament it, but it is reality.

 

[KenThis]

You're starting to touch on reality. We tend to think of nature as a "balance" that maintains itself (or in some cases we think of it as something we need to step in and maintain) However The "dynamic" aspect you mentioned is that evolution is not static but is continuing as we speak. The displacement I spoke of is real (and by the way, it's the way general ecology is taught here, not just a personal observation or a locality specific concept) is that continuing evolution. Man doesn't arbitrarily change the balance; man IS part of the evolutionary process (we evolved fro nature and are still part of it) The system isn't becoming "unbalanced" and "failing." It is evolving around us. You or I or anybody can celebrate that or lament it, but it is reality.

I'm sorry but I'm clearly either not explaining myself clearly or you're right and they do teach what you're saying in the US.
I however cannot agree with your statements.
Displacement as you describe it does not occur in any books I have read. I have never seen an example where two different species are in direct competition that wasn't caused through the action of man, or a temporary result of any other external agency.

In some ways this would actually be the holy grail in speciation/evolution research. When we study speciation we want to find what it is that allows a single population to split into two or more separate species, in two or more different ecological niches. Usually this involves a geographical component and evolutionary time. This is because if two populations had the same ecological niche then over time one would force the other to go extinct. Therefore their ecological niches would have to differ so that they could maintain separate populations.
A classic example is Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands.
To see a situation where two different species directly compete for the same ecological niche would basically test the theory of natural selection through survival of the fittest.

Over evolutionary time it may be true that one species will 'displace' another, in fact it is likely in many situations however it cannot be observed in real time. Therefore when I say that one observes stability and balance in ecosystems this is because this is actually what you see.
I agree evolution and speciation are dynamic processes but they take so long that it is impossible to view directly, so for all intents and purposes over time scales that we can observe we seldom if ever are able to view them.
Obviously ecosystems are also dynamic, but usually either only temporarily (which may indirectly cause this 'displacement' you talk about) or over such long periods that again we can not observe changes in ecosystem make up and different species being 'displaced' as you describe.

Therefore when you talk about high level predators 'displacing' lower level predators, this does not happen on any time scale that you could actually observe. In fact one cannot even predict in what way an ecosystem could change ie. what species will eventually thrive or die out. It may be that wolves currently dominate coyotes but that over time it is coyotes that will end up 'winning' in evolutionary terms
Someone may see a specific example of a higher predator attack and kill a lower predator. If this happens it is either going to be the natural part of balancing of an ecosystem or far more likely caused through external pressures to the ecosytem (including man) or the fact that the one species occassionally eats the other.
For someone to observe a predator killing another predator and then state that they did it because the first species is displacing the second is quite frankly some sort of 'just so' story. Impossible to verify and actually contrary to recognised processes of evolution.

As for your claim that man does not change the balance but that man is part of the evolutionary process. This is both correct and complete nonsense.
Obviously man evolved on the planet and as such what he does is a part of the 'natural' order of evolution.
However man is unique amongst all species ever to have evolved on the planet in that they can and do 'directly' change the environment and ecosystems around the world.
To excuse the actions of mankind by simply saying 'we evolved through nature so anything we do is natural' is the most ridiculous of statements.
The changes we see in the world are not on an evolutionary timescale. They are far more like a mass extinction event. I read relatively recently that we are now in the Anthropocene era - "relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been been the dominant influence on climate and the environment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
Please don't try to tell me that what we are doing to the planet is natural. You only have to look at the difference between how the majority of aboriginal cultures view nature compared to the vast majority of humanity.
We may have once been part of the natural order but no longer.

Now I've tried to explain clearly and politely a few times why I dispute what you said.
You keep telling me I'm wrong without I feel adequately explaining why you think that is.
Therefore I think it's probably best if I let you have the last word on the subject and we just agree to disagree on this.

 

[santaman2000]

.......As for your claim that man does not change the balance but that man is part of the evolutionary process. This is both correct and complete nonsense.
Obviously man evolved on the planet and as such what he does is a part of the 'natural' order of evolution.
However man is unique amongst all species ever to have evolved on the planet in that they can and do 'directly' change the environment and ecosystems around the world.
To excuse the actions of mankind by simply saying 'we evolved through nature so anything we do is natural' is the most ridiculous of statements.
The changes we see in the world are not on an evolutionary timescale. They are far more like a mass extinction event. I read relatively recently that we are now in the Anthropocene era - "relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been been the dominant influence on climate and the environment."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
Please don't try to tell me that what we are doing to the planet is natural. You only have to look at the difference between how the majority of aboriginal cultures view nature compared to the vast majority of humanity.
We may have once been part of the natural order but no longer.

Now I've tried to explain clearly and politely a few times why I dispute what you said.
You keep telling me I'm wrong without I feel adequately explaining why you think that is.
Therefore I think it's probably best if I let you have the last word on the subject and we just agree to disagree on this.

I never said man doesn't change things (or perhaps I chose my wording poorly) What I said was that those changes are a part of nature. That's simply because, advanced as we may be, we are what we've evolved to be. Aboriginals don't do it? You haven't seen how they hunted here pre Columbus. Setting fire to a forest or prairie to drive game will change an awful lot of the habitat. But that argument's irrelevant anyway. The evolution of man must by definition include the evolution of technology and culture that makes the current impact possible.

But mostly you're missing my biggest point about any man influenced changes not being a failure. Even if all life on Earth vanishes, it's still not a failure; it just is what it is. We can give it relevance, but that relevance would be man centered so that brings us back to the thinking that we're more important so it must be Ok for us to shape the world to fit our needs. We can't have it both ways.

 

[santaman2000]

I'm sorry but I'm clearly either not explaining myself clearly or you're right and they do teach what you're saying in the US.
I however cannot agree with your statements.
Displacement as you describe it does not occur in any books I have read. I have never seen an example where two different species are in direct competition that wasn't caused through the action of man, or a temporary result of any other external agency.

In some ways this would actually be the holy grail in speciation/evolution research. When we study speciation we want to find what it is that allows a single population to split into two or more separate species, in two or more different ecological niches. Usually this involves a geographical component and evolutionary time. This is because if two populations had the same ecological niche then over time one would force the other to go extinct. Therefore their ecological niches would have to differ so that they could maintain separate populations.
A classic example is Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands.
To see a situation where two different species directly compete for the same ecological niche would basically test the theory of natural selection through survival of the fittest.

Over evolutionary time it may be true that one species will 'displace' another, in fact it is likely in many situations however it cannot be observed in real time.....

Direct competition isn't necessary for them to compete. The examples I gave you were specific. They included "overlapping" competition. As for being able to see the displacement in real time, we've seen the coyotes displace foxes east of the Mississippi River in just decades. Until the 1960s there were no coyotes at all east of the River. Now we're inundated with them and foxes have all but disappeared as a result.

Perhaps you're reading the wrong books. That's not meant as a slight towards you or the books. Many authors still think of evolution in the original Darwinian approach. More recent studies have shifted a bit from the slow concept seeking answers to sudden shifts. The meteor theory is one of the better known but that was on a planetary scale. Normal species migration or expansion patterns account for more sudden changes even without man influencing introductions.

 

[Dave]

Bottom line.....just dont kill em Norgys!

 

[boatman]

Sheep ate men in the early period of the modernisation of English agriculture and later in Scotland. Over the same periods wolves became extinct. Profit from sheep was the alpha predator.

 

[Dave]

Sheep ate men in the early period of the modernisation of English agriculture

Now, Ive never heard that one before!

 

[boatman]

Look up sheep hath eaten men

 

[andybysea]

Dewi, your last response to my post was pretty lame, or was it meant as some sort of fun? Or intellectual superiority? I have no idea? You know my point was man kills for money not necessity(in the western world at least) and world over for stupid beliefs. But hey ho.

 

[dewi]

Dewi, your last response to my post was pretty lame, or was it meant as some sort of fun? Or intellectual superiority? I have no idea? You know my point was man kills for money not necessity(in the western world at least) and world over for stupid beliefs. But hey ho.

No, I genuinely believe that if an animal takes part in any activity on camera it should be financially rewarded. They deserve equal pay for equal work don't they?

In all honesty, I'm extracting the urine... simply because this debate has been sidelined in the usual cheese-parring manner I've come to expect. You've got Ken with his Lotka-Volterra model arguing things as absolutes (which flies in the face of anything scientific), a number of others telling us all how evil and money-grabbing the human race is and to top it all off, the ongoing hypocritical argument that we're okay killing one species off but not another depending on what the person favours as a valued animal.

Frankly its all rather depressing and pointless. The original question (which was tongue in cheek) was should we boycott Norway because they're culling some wolves they view as a damaging group, but other than my wolf bbq idea, I've yet to see any productive suggestions... just whinging and whining, which eventually stops being annoying and becomes amusing. The only valid response in the end becomes the absurd or it needs someone to break cover and mention the Nazis.

To be clear, no intellectual superiority (I'd have to have half a brain to pull that one off), not really some sort of fun... just an absurd response to a subject that has gone so far from its original question that it may as well be sitting poolside in a half-built hotel in Egypt for all the good its doing.

 

[boatman]

Whingeing perhaps? Wrong anyway. Perhaps you have never heard of discussion and debate online but it can exist. Drop out if it is too much for you.

 

[Andy BB]

Displacement theory/alpha predator is too simplistic. Take Southern Africa for example. You have lions, panthers, hyena, cheetah, wild dogs etc all in the same general environment. Sure, the lion would - and does on occasion- kill all of the other species given the opportunity. But not to the extent of displacing one or more of it's competition entirely.

And why have whales all of a sudden become persona non grata? Not one comment on Norwegians hunting for sport probably the, or one of the, most intelligent species on earth (barring homo sapiens of course)?! Shame on you

 

[dewi]

Whingeing perhaps? Wrong anyway. Perhaps you have never heard of discussion and debate online but it can exist. Drop out if it is too much for you.

I'm all for a good debate, but when it descends into some sort of doomsday prophecy and man is to blame for everything, it becomes rather boring and a bit pointless.

Ironically your opinion is I'm wrong about my opinion? And you're asking me if I've heard of discussion and debate online? You do make me laugh Boatman... my comments about whinging and whining wasn't actually directed at you, I thought the sheep as predators was one of the high points in the whole discussion... but as for dropping out, I was asked to respond to someone. Prior to that, you'll notice I had dropped out.

 

[Leshy]

Displacement theory/alpha predator is too simplistic. Take Southern Africa for example. You have lions, panthers, hyena, cheetah, wild dogs etc all in the same general environment. Sure, the lion would - and does on occasion- kill all of the other species given the opportunity. But not to the extent of displacing one or more of it's competition entirely.

And why have whales all of a sudden become persona non grata? Not one comment on Norwegians hunting for sport probably the, or one of the, most intelligent species on earth (barring homo sapiens of course)?! Shame on you

I agree with AndyBB on this too, it's a real shame that cetaceans are still treated in this way.

Hunting a highly intelligent creature like this , simply for pleasure or sport is cruel , regardless if it's Norway , Japan or anyone else.

Couping them I'm little pools for amusement isn't acceptable either...



I must admit that I'm very surprised and sad with some of the views on this thread.

 

[KenThis]

You're right Dewi.
I do have far too much faith/belief in my ideas on evolution/speciation.
It comes from having studied it in one form or another for a long time in my youth. I guess some ideas do become too ingrained and I need to learn to always keep an open mind. It is also a failing of mine that I argue too much and have to be right.

You're clearly also very familiar with the scientific theories behind the ideas I was trying to explain. It would therefore be helpful to discuss this with you by private mail (you're right it's not really appropriate to this thread). In particular it'd be nice to know where I've been over zealous in my use of 'absolutes' or any other mistakes or fallacies I made in my arguments.

 

[dewi]

Displacement theory/alpha predator is too simplistic. Take Southern Africa for example. You have lions, panthers, hyena, cheetah, wild dogs etc all in the same general environment. Sure, the lion would - and does on occasion- kill all of the other species given the opportunity. But not to the extent of displacing one or more of it's competition entirely.

And why have whales all of a sudden become persona non grata? Not one comment on Norwegians hunting for sport probably the, or one of the, most intelligent species on earth (barring homo sapiens of course)?! Shame on you

Wholeheartedly agree... had this discussion a year or so back and it descended rather quickly into differential equations, moving swiftly from Lokta-Volterra through to a stochastic variant. Its a great debate for academics and an ongoing one as far as I'm aware, but it doesn't make interesting reading for everyone else.

Technically the whales aren't being hunted for sport as the whale meat is consumed, just not by humans. The argument at the minute is whether it should be permitted to hunt whales, only for the meat to end up as pet food or the like... but then if it isn't whale meat, it'll be meat from another animal. Can't remember the specific whale they're catching, but the counter argument seems to be there is a large enough population to support hunting, so why not?

Arguing based on intelligence is a dangerous route to travel because you could argue I should replace bacon in the morning barm based solely on intellect.

 

[dewi]

You're right Dewi.
I do have far too much faith/belief in my ideas on evolution/speciation.
It comes from having studied it in one form or another for a long time in my youth. I guess some ideas do become too ingrained and I need to learn to always keep an open mind. It is also a failing of mine that I argue too much and have to be right.

You're clearly also very familiar with the scientific theories behind the ideas I was trying to explain. It would therefore be helpful to discuss this with you by private mail (you're right it's not really appropriate to this thread). In particular it'd be nice to know where I've been over zealous in my use of 'absolutes' or any other mistakes or fallacies I made in my arguments.

That is the thing though Ken, from an academic view I'm neither right or wrong. I'm more than happy to admit when I'm wrong when its proven, or even when its probable, but discussing evolution to the level you're going to is a complex debate and to me you were basing what you were saying on quite a simple model. I could be wrong, I might be right... but its a never-ending discussion and becomes pointless if everyone remains in their fixed positions (which happens a lot, especially with marine biologists... they're some of the most clever and at the same time stubborn individuals on the planet)

The absolutes came from your initial statement that 'this does not happen on any time scale that you could actually observe'. That may be true for some species, but not all. And the whole Anthropocene era stuff... a premature decision when the climate change debate should still be going on with vigor. Especially considering the (again simplistic) models used to determine it have been proven wrong again and again. There was more I read into, but frankly I'm boring myself aside from anyone else... its one of those discussions best suited around a campfire with a good bottle of something alcoholic.

A briefer version is probably that science isn't always right, and that is what is so interesting about it. A continual debate, bringing in new evidence or challenging existing theories, is healthy science... this almost consensus based science, ie the majority of scientists think this so it must be right, is doing us no favours. I've no doubt, just like the generations before us, we'll look back at our current thinking about evolution, the big bang and particularly climate change with a chuckle at how naive we're being. With the technological advancements we're experiencing at the moment, I hope I live long enough to see the complex ancestor simulations that are being discussed.. I'd be fascinated to see an engine based on Holling's theories.

 

[boatman]

My apologies Dewi.

 

[Klenchblaize]

May we move on to discussing suitable rifle calibres for wolf please?

I'm backing the .22 Hornet, loaded with a 35g V-Max for any sized night howler out to 129 yards. Zero pelt damage all but guaranteed which is just the ticket if hoping to customise any outer garment with a hood as may be purchased from the Woodlore Store.

I would say "I'll get my coat" but it's still far too warm here for my liking!

K