Where are the animals and plants going?

Discussion in 'The Great Outdoors' started by hillsidedigger, Oct 19, 2006.

  1. hillsidedigger

    hillsidedigger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    NC/Blue Ridge foothills
    They say the U.S.A. now has 300 million people and the world 6.5+ billion.

    There's room for more, no doubt, and there's going to be more, many more, at least temporarily

    but at the loss of what?

    "A majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a "mass extinction" of plants and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are only dimly aware of the problem, a poll says.

    The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer..."


    http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html



    People that even mention such problems as 'biodiversity loss' are called 'envirowhackos', 'tree-huggers' or as one poster pegged it in another thread recently 'enviroweenie'.

    I would imgaine, many of the readers here in the Great Outdoors category, feel the wild world is merely to be harvested and not necassarily nurtured and maintained, true conservatives (also termed 'cornucopians', those that feel there are no limits to the bounty supplied by this created world) which seems to include a lot of outdoor sports people, feel the public land should be privitized for private plunder purposes and to allow motorized access most everywhere,

    wilderness and wildness are obstacles to overcome and to subdue

    but will your grandchildren have any outdoor sporting opportunities remaining when they are older?

    Does it matter? Do we even care?

    It would be a poorer world when your only neighbors are people.

    :cool:
     
  2. bob clark

    bob clark A man's man

    Messages:
    1,523
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    southern Iowa
    makes sence, but I dont see it here in Iowa. we have far more wild game now than in the past 100 years and that game is more diverse. it is mainly due to the DNR thinking they own everything. sorry, it must just be too soon for me to get riled up about loosing game
     

  3. big rockpile

    big rockpile If I need a Shelter

    Messages:
    20,074
    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2003
    Got to agree with Bob.Heard something the other day.If you feel a species is becoming Endangerd,put a Season on it.Sportsmen will figure out how to have more. :shrug:

    big rockpile
     
  4. hillsidedigger

    hillsidedigger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    NC/Blue Ridge foothills
    Here in western North Carolina there are now more deer and turkeys than 50 years ago

    and many more people

    so many that the remaining black bears run into trouble at every turn.

    Very notable, the chestnut trees died out a good while back, now dogwoods and hemlocks are about gone, not likey to return.

    I wonder whats next? There's talk that the oaks and maples have some new threat.
     
  5. moonwolf

    moonwolf Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,576
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Location:
    Canada
    In the arboreal northland, it's becoming less likely to see white or paper birch like it used to be. The warming climate has disturbed the ecology for this species, and many types of different birds are adapting to the North, such as Robins in the arctic that never were before. This is an occurance within the last decade only, and advancing. We have invading foreign insect species that adapt now where they could not before, and decimating vast tracts of pine (pine beetles, etc.). The great lakes are seeing displacement of species by foreign species invasion like the zebra mussel, and clearing waters making it more habitable for smallmouth bass, but less so for walleye. The list goes on.
    Most seem to be result of habitat change or destruction, and some from climate change. Deer are most plentiful here over the past decade, but if 2 successive 'normal cold' winters ensue, they would plummet to where it's nearly impossible to find them. Human habitation into our wildlands, from what I am seeing, has interesting effects. It depends on the mentality and sensibilities of those who impose certain changes that might not be conducusive to wildlife management practices that might disallow harvest if species become too prevelant, like it has occurred in a large city nearby where deer were in such large numbers that they were destroying the city parks and starving. Finally some controlled harvest hunting was allowed, but at the screaming of city folk living that did not want seeing them killed for food.

    Having said that, it is dismaying to see such huge human population growth that impacts the environment and species. Some of this is more readily documented in Africa where hippo decimation for 'bush meat' to help feed more and more people is rampant, as is the war zone in Rwanda before that nearly made lowland gorillas extinct. On and on this goes. The solution is more education about reasonable choices people can make to increase the population or not, and also to do as much as possible to save as much wild land as possible for some plantetary sanctuary.
     
  6. bgak47

    bgak47 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    936
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    I think that the majority of hunters are very interested in wildlife & wilderness conservation. Hunting fees & taxes on ammunition & hunting equipment provide most of the funds to preserve wildlife & wilderness areas.
     
  7. JJ Grandits

    JJ Grandits Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Location:
    New york
    I think there is a big difference between a "tree hugger" and a conservationist. Tree huggers talk much and produce less. I'm very fortunate to live near several wildlife refuges, federal and state. The tree huggers will pick up garbage along a trail and then pose for a photo shoot, conservationists will quietly raise tens of thousands of dollars to restore a wetland and then spend huge amounts of time with hip boots and a shovel. THere are serious environmental problems and there have been some seroius environmental sucesses. Here in NY, the 5th most populated state we now have over 60% forest cover. THe number of bald eagles are increasing dramatically. Last winter while driving I saw a river otter. Something that would not have happened 25 years ago. I think that we should work on solving solvable problems. Instead of sending $100.00 to a group headed by a movie star or lawyer to fight global warming send four $25.00 donations to groups who want to save a piece of forest that's run by local bird watchers/ sportsman/ hikers/ etc. Environmentally you'll have a much larger impact.
     
  8. hillsidedigger

    hillsidedigger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,565
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    Location:
    NC/Blue Ridge foothills
    While there are and have been some positive environmental trends in America and also Europe

    the same can't be said for much of the rest of the world.

    The predicted extinctions will be most apparent in equatorial regions, places like India and China and also the water bodies around the world.
     
  9. bob clark

    bob clark A man's man

    Messages:
    1,523
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    southern Iowa

    this I must agree wit. they are too busy feeding themselves to worry about the environment.
     
  10. Haggis

    Haggis MacCurmudgeon

    Messages:
    2,246
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2004
    Location:
    Northeastern Minnesota
    It is not fair or correct to lump all tree huggers, all conservationists, or all hunters into tidy little groups.

    Some tree huggers are hunters, and users of the wild environment, others are not.

    Some conservationists also use the environment for their own profit, while others would never pluck a leaf.

    While hunters/fishermen, run from the vilest poacher to the most gentlemanly trophy hunter to catch and release no barb fisherman.

    And yet others of us, as legally as possible, hunt for meat, fish for food, trap furs for capital, and cut trees to heat our homes. I tell people all the time, "I am not a sportsman. I hunt, fish, and trap for a living." Licenses, fees, excise taxes, and all the add-ons to hunting, fishing, trapping, are burdens for me to bear in order to pursue my living, and a living for my family. That being said, I never cut a tree unless I use the wood, nor do I kill a beast for a photo-op or wall mount.