Remember this: Earth is a great big fish bowl with an unnumbered amount of smaller fish bowls within it. There is a complete ecosystem to consider at all times.
As always, this is merely an investigation in the spirit of taking a closer inspection of things. There are days depending on peoples attitudes that I wonder when I became the enemy?
(This is dated information)
Part One: The Introduction:
Let me introduce the character of Hunter Bob. Bob, in the beginning seemed to be interested in hunting. I was informed that he liked sado-masochistic sex, being bitten by a vampire, and goes back and forth with sexual innuendo to the point I finally tell him I have had people harass me before so please don't go there.
Excusing this bad behavior, I decided to give him a chance because he did hunt after all. Of course Hunter Bob has a girlfriend whom I do not know. Enter the character Huntress Christmas. In good conscience, I decided I was not about to home wreck her happy life with Hunter Bob. I am at least somewhat noble. At some point, I am not so sure that I am talking to Hunter Bob because the verbiage used is not the same. I am suspicious that its Christmas who is trying to lure me into a sexual conversation to use against me, or maybe its her that is interested? Or it could be a trap to sully my good name? Whatever girl!
I am sure in their communities they are perceived as upstanding citizens but that all changes when people log on to the internet.
In one conversation, the person tells me they are sipping brandy while getting enraged at shit I write; my suspicion is female? I could be wrong. I know there are many woman that hide behind the pages of their men doing naughty things but hurting people needlessly is their stick. Mind you, I have never met these people and my conversation initially is based around my interest in wildlife conservation, hunting, and topics around these themes. Usually I don't out people like this but I wanted the reader to have some kind of back story.
In this conversation, I was discussing with Hunter Bob his opinion on the problems of moose die-off in different areas. Seeing how (?he?) lived in Alaska.
Reminding myself what the definition of (die-off) is: die′-off` or die' off`, n.
a sudden decline in a natural population from causes other
than human intervention.
As I read on Hunter Bob commented, "There was no mass die off and no peritonitis, not sure where you are seeing that but if it is reference the Kenai Peninsula its bullshit" and "It is not just a matter of killing predators. That world help some but the reality is, because there has been little in the way of wildfires the carrying capacity is so low it probably doesn't make any difference."
Here I say is one of the times when its evident that there are hunters that do not give other females the respect of hunting, or knowledge themselves. Once again, I am not sure who Hunter Bob is.
This reminded me of a fish tank. You have a fish tank with two structures inside where you have a nice peaceful fish (much like a moose) but once you buy an aggressive beta fish (lets just use it as our antagonist) that literally worries the life out of the smaller one. The smaller fish hides in its home only zipping out from time to time to eat but eventually this wears on the little fish. He really has nowhere to go because the fish tank has boundaries. When the beta finds his hideout he moves to another spot to hide again. This could go on and on until the fish dies or the owner seeing the behavior puts the more aggressive fish in another tank, feeds to the cat, or flushes down the toilet. This is a matter of limited space under duress. My thoughts on this is there is not enough time or space between prey-predator interactions where the prey isn't constantly being threatened. There is no real area of relief to move to. If the moose are moving to the sides of roads or to towns this might be a consideration.
I also thought in terms of a haunted house. If you are a very skittish individual when the ghoulies jump out you will mow down anyone in your path or climb over their head racing for the exit.
I also thought in terms of a haunted house. If you are a very skittish individual when the ghoulies jump out you will mow down anyone in your path or climb over their head racing for the exit.
Again, think of the person who is stalked by an overzealous lover with no place to run.
Enter the Big Bad Wolf and the Bear In the Bush.
If the wolf is out on the trails eventually the wolf will come looking for the moose unless it finds another food source. When I read the predators were moving in town following the moose (I assume- which I should never do) that would indicate to me that there might be a problem with the environment they live in providing for them sufficiently. I am not discounting the fact stress induced predation isn't a reason for the migration out of normal habitat. I want to consider other options. I have read conflicts on different bear species squatting on other bears turf which forces them out to other places. This could cause an altercation to fight over food or area. Whoever the loser is has to take a hike.
I read that habitat was not a limiting factor but if you don't keep up with the area of the habitat, and the quality of the habitat to the ratio of the volume of animals living off of it then the habitat itself will not be able to sustain a certain quality or number of wildlife. If the habitat is not being monitored and utilized with the best interest of the quality of the soil, the water, the foliage, and the air in addition to the animals/fish but taking into consideration the needs for each species during rotation of seasons. This is going to be a problem especially if Mother Nature is being extremely cruel at times. Supplemental habitat initiatives should be considered. Its like building a house. Your foundation sucks the house is going to eventually fall to wrack and ruin or turn into a money pit.
I wanted to say to some degree this was a management of resources problem but I have known incidences where you can have two different management practices that seem to work but the one that you would think is the better choice fails miserably. My other thought was the numbers seemed to lie but if you have invasion of X amount of animals from a place they inhabit to a place of human inhabitance that is not their normal area of occupation I would wonder why? If the moose moves does every other predator follow? If so why? Is moose the only food source? If that is so what has happened to the small game animals or the medium sized ungulates? Where is the desperation coming from or going to? Or are the moose under limited habitat being unintentionally domesticated?
I would wonder if this is the natural tendency for moose to move from areas of high predation to low but when they move this becomes an issue of lack of good quality habitat because human populations have taken up that area. I am also considering predation at all times. I pondered on earlier readings of the lack of moose in Minnesota and how there seem to be a migration up into North Dakota. It could be possible Moose just moved on to 'better pastures and quieter times'. I considered the geography of Kenai especially in the area of Soldotna or even across this area to the pass that links the land mass to the bigger area someways from Anchorage.
Certainly by the comments at the bottom where the bears are noted to invade school areas people are of course not interested in sharing that space with them because you can't really control a bear. We could reference the article previously posted on my google page about the bear in Switzerland that was removed by death because it wasn't migrating back over to Italy fast enough to find a mate and bother people. Even as the article states in the beginning that the moose is dwindling and the predators are thriving the ultimate outcome is the predators will die eventually from lack of food unless they start snagging farm animals or people. Let's face it Kenai, Alaska is a limited area after that everything moves outward. If you sat down with a map of this place and figured out how much actual acreage you could use for food sources to animals, terrain that is for passage without food on the ground, and human habitation, how much space could the wildlife actually live on? Something to consider but we know that its the constant movement from place to place as the distribution and diversity matter. To many in one spot could trim it down like a herd of goats.
I looked over on this website under management:
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Wildlife/Wildlife_profiles/profile_moose.htm, as quoted, "Areas that provide large amounts of nutritious browse benefit moose. Forest fires induce significantly more nutritious re-growth than that produced by a chain saw. In the absence of fire, clear-cuts provide browse in abundance. Large clear cuts (more than 100 acres) don't benefit moose as much as smaller, dispersed cuts. Islands of uncut softwood and hardwood within large clear-cuts are utilized by moose in the winter. Moose use clear-cuts until the plants grow beyond their reach, in 10-30 years. They avoid dense re-growth that restricts their movement and visibility. Beaver flowages are used frequently by moose. Aspen or willow in a range of successional stages is valuable. A mosaic of upland mature mixed wood (primarily hardwoods with a softwood component), regenerating clear-cuts or burned areas, and wetlands offers good moose habitat."
Let's take into the consideration of habitat or even the landscape of the Kenai Peninsula.
It has been seven months since a typhoon which in this article 'radically-altered' the landscape of the Kenai peninsula. Could this be a factor in the food sources of the moose? I would think if foliage was damaged or destroyed this would be a consideration or at least something to consider. I live in a Hurricane Alley of sorts that goes up to Nags Head which frequently gets hit over and over ad nauseum. People generally tend to forget about such things and believe their lives go back to normal because their way of life continues but is it the same for wildlife? You have soil erosion, foliage and tree damage, water pollution, dead animals, debris, flooding etc. I would think time better served would have been toward the fact that if there was existing data on life on the Kenai before the typhoon then what is it like seven months later. Is it getting better, sustaining, or is there something terribly wrong that no one thought could happen. Are the people of Kenai in some way suffering still from a natural disaster? Can this be a consideration for the present state of the wildlife? In this article there is more concern with property damage than the long sustaining damage to the land. Natural disasters destroy a lot of the ecosystem variables or to a relative degree greatly displace them. This could be altering pollination patterns, destruction of wildlife food resources, wildlife death, and other factors to be considered.
What else in the way of environmental factors could be going on? Animals have a way of knowing weather conditions. Think Japan here. I found this:
I then thought what about that prescribed burning? I love refuges. Always have. Always will.
I found this:
This wildlife refuge is noted to be 1.92 million acres.
In the bottom right hand corner it is displayed as taken from the website, " Refuge management programs on Wilderness lands are generally limited to wildlife surveys, censuses, and monitoring. Non-wilderness areas have seen more active management, primarily through the use of prescribed fire and mechanical vegetation crushing to encourage the growth of more desirable browse for moose. The refuge is also actively involved in wildlife census and survey work through telemetry. Wolves, lynx, caribou and brown bear are species which are captured and radio-collared in order to track migration patterns, reveal locations of important food sources, and monitor to evaluate the potential impacts of human activities throughout the Kenai Peninsula, both on and off refuge lands. Refuge staff are also studying the vegetation history of the area in order to better understand the effects of both man-caused and natural impacts, including human development, natural fires and insect infestations. Perhaps the greatest challenge is management of human activities and their associated impacts in order to minimize disturbances to wildlife and their habitats."
I wanted to know about its geography so I went here:
I looked at the bottom map. There is two national parks, one wildlife refuge, and a state park.
Look long and hard at this land mass. Learn about it.
I leave that for your own curiosity and spirit of exploration into what is going on in them there hills?
Other links you might be interested in are:
Conversation One: Discussion between a Man and a Woman.
Hunter Bob: You can't wait to see these moose, you have to go find
them, they are more prolific than one might imagine.
February
22 at 10:47pm
Huntress: I was sitting here debating whether this is not
really an albino or its like a grey variation (like grey horses that look white)
or its some weird trick of DNA where in the womb its information is misread
like a hiccup but filled in to make it patchy or everything was
really white or grey if it crawled out the sea?
February
22 at 10:49pm
Huntress : I have moose overload right now. :)
February
22 at 10:50pm
Hunter Bob: These animals are not true albinos (if they were they
would never survive in the wild) and they occur in many different forms. Often
times referred to as "piebalds" there are variations of this anomaly
in most game animals.
February
22 at 10:52pm
Hunter Bob: But no matter what you call them, they are gorgeous and a
real delight to see when you least expect it.
February
22 at 10:53pm
Huntress: I can tell by this picture the skin is grey looking
underneath. We have a lot of pied deer her and they tell them to kill them
before the others. BTW, howse the moose population in Alaska these days?
February
22 at 10:53pm
Hunter Bob: Depends on where you are. On the Kenai Peninsula it sucks
because wildfires are continually suppressed (the most important aspect to moose
proliferation in this environment) and the fact that bears are eating well over
50% of calf production and wolves are eating the adults with unchecked abandon.
And then there is he moose-vehicle collisions that account for nearly as many
as the predators.
February
22 at 11:13pm
Hunter Bob: Funny that they want to kill those deer. Here types of
moose here are basically considered inviolate.
February
22 at 11:14pm
Huntress: I was reading a paper on moose calves dying but I
want to say it was back in 2010? It was from peritonitis.
February
22 at 11:32pm
Huntress: Oops...I did see read the part about predators,
drowning, and the female moose abandoning the calves after being scared off by
the biologist.
February
22 at 11:33pm
Hunter Bob: That was frankly, an unnecessary study. Everyone already
knew what the results would say and in the process a bunch of calves were
killed that should not have been. The problem with science is they refuse to
believe the "lying eyes" of people who are actually out there and have
a clue what the fuck is really going on.
February
22 at 11:36pm
Huntress: It was done as stated because of a mass die off.
Lying eyes can't tell you straight off what causes peritonitis Steve but then
again I doubt they would start dosing them with meds. lmao. What did they
decide to do about that then? Shoot the predators to thin them out or what?
February
22 at 11:38pm
Huntress: What is your theory on the Missouri Moose
disappearing? lmao.
February
22 at 11:39pm
Hunter Bob: There was no mass die off and no peritonitis, not sue
where you are seeing that but if it is reference the Kenai Peninsula its
bullshit.
February
22 at 11:40pm
Hunter Bob: It is not just a matter of killing predators. That would
help some but the reality is, because there has been little in the way of
wildfires the carrying capacity is so low it probably doesn't make any
difference.
February
22 at 11:42pm
Huntress: Hold on one second. I didn't say it was in Kenai. But
I was looking at a scientific paper done on behalf of Alaska Fish and Game but
hold on I copy pasted it. Let me go look.
February
22 at 11:43pm
Huntress: Aye Dios. I didn't copy that one but it was under
Moose Calf Mortality in Alaska.
February
22 at 11:46pm
Hunter Bob: Okay, as to the Missouri moose I have not looked at that.
I have enough trouble keeping up with Alaska stuff. But my fist guess would be
with the deer. They carry a brain parasite that does not effect them but will
infect moose populations in close proximity and can cause die-offs. This is one
reason why the two do not do well together.
February
22 at 11:57pm
Huntress: brainworm...lmao.
February
22 at 11:58pm When you consider all of these things there might be something a little more involved in the problem than killing off the predators. Consider more than one option, parameter or Sherlockian clue. Truly asking why creatures are acting a certain way and really investigating the problem might be time well spent. You could be suffering from a previous event?
If its for a hunting season for tourism all I can say is its your area. Suffer the consequences. If it turns out that killing off predators is going to get you a short term solution you better be figuring a long term one out while you're pulling the trigger.
If the goal is to completely irradicate the predators and supplant humans in their wake to decide who lives and dies in a herd as a surrogate for the natural cycles of the world I am sure we can fall back on the idea that now we can clone an extinct frog. No biggie. If you are willing and able to live with being the Hatchet Man more power to you but regret is a hard thing to live with.
On the idea of women hunters, do not undervalue them or disrespect them. It may come back to bite you in the ass.
As always in the spirt of the hunt but also investigation.
~Courtesy of the AOFH~
On the idea of women hunters, do not undervalue them or disrespect them. It may come back to bite you in the ass.
As always in the spirt of the hunt but also investigation.
~Courtesy of the AOFH~