Germany's Wolf Population on the Rise
dw.com
dw.com
I have read an amazing report on how wolves changed the ecological system of yellowstone national park for the better (not quite sure which article specifically , believe it was https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduc...) which makes me even more enthusiastic.
It is amazing because of the ripple implications: deer are scared of wolves therefore they don't eat on forests where they can be easily ambushed therefore trees have a better chance of growing therefore they make more shade on the river banks therefore trouts have better places to lay eggs.
In the end: wolves bring more trouts. Who would have thought of that.
Perhaps a more useful study would have been to compare elkfeeding behavior pre-1995 to post wolf introduction. By 2007 maybe the Elk had just got the hang of living around wolves. Maybe their behavior had already changed?
Which one of the explanations is the truth, I can't possibly tell. Both sound plausible to a layman, and neither can be proven definitively.
seriously, what are these terrible consequences?
It's plain stupid to forget that wolves are predators.
- cars
and if you worry about animals
- dogs (which are wolves, bread for insanity and not fearing humans, and sometimes trained to attack people) - chicken (salmonella probably kills a few kids a year)
If you happen to walk into a wolf, it's probably gonna bite you and then leave you alone when you run away.
Stray dogs are a bigger threat. Rabid bats or foxes are a bigger threat. Ticks are a MUCH bigger threat. And if you drive a car - you're much more likely to kill a human being than all the wolves in the world combined.
50 years, whole world - over 211 deaths. ~5 per year.
> In the half-century up to 2002, there were eight fatal attacks in Europe and Russia, three in North America, and more than 200 in south Asia. [1]
For comparison, just in one year, just in USA - around 20-30.
> At least 4.5–4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs every year and, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 20 to 30 of these result in death [2]
Wolves avoid people.
There's something irrational in people's reaction to wolves.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_Unite...
I guess you can always argue that the ecosystem used to have wolves (and elks) in Germany. So the restauration is I think a good thing. The only issue I found with this wish is that consequently, probably lions should be brought back to southern europe, etc.
When wolves return, we're not going to get some romantic version of fairy tale wild nature back - Germany doesn't have large enough preservation areas for that to happen[1]. Anyone who claims to be able to predict the future of wolf in Germany is just full of it - both sides of the debate.
[1]The Dutch Oostvaardersplassen is one example of what can happen when you naively try to turn tiny areas into a "natural wilderness habitat".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oostvaardersplassen#Natural_pr...
In the absence of natural predators the rangers shoot animals that are unlikely to survive. It is quite common for 30 to 60 per cent of the population to be killed in this way. After a cull, the vegetation has a chance to recover and this will get the first natural afforestation of the area under way.
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/16/oreg...
Wolves are vilified because of their threat to livestock. Farmers kill wolves to protect their animals.
The return of wolves is good news for people living in forested areas overpopulated by deer. Without wolves, the deer population grows unchecked. The deer overgraze which hurts plant growth.
But, because you know that my statement is correct, that the majority of people in rural areas don't like having wolfpack-neighbors, you've seem to feel obliged to make ridicule of their fears.
Its clearly an overreaction. An impulse I just can guess what triggered it.
Is it maybe that I pointed out, that the romanticization of things ('yay!') is usually done by people who don't have to live with the outcomes of it? And precisely because they don't have to live with that are usually much more powerful and likely to get their romanticized ideals poured into legislation (e.g. wealth redistribution vs. not being dependent on entry level jobs, social housing projects vs. not living in them, promoting preditors vs. living in gentrified urban areas etc.)?
Is it maybe that at the core of the romaticizer's actions is the aim for Deutungshoheit (narrative control) via claiming "pureness", which is most hurt by showing its very basic inconsistencies?
Is it because applying a 80s-moustache statement glass wearing Hipster face to "Yay! Wolfes are back" lays bare the author's arrogance?
It's not as simple as "keep the woods overpopulated". For starters, you tend to want to keep a good bloodline going. So hunters will cull off the deer of weaker bloodlines.
You also don't want excessive competition, because you don't want malnourished deer. So there is incentive to keep the numbers at a manageable level.
Lastly, there is actually a legal minimum number of deer that hunters need to shoot a year. They are required to harvest a certain number of animals.
(excuse the German links please, I don't have any references in English for the following)
Not only a minimum number, but an exact number: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abschussplan
In some jurisdictions, hunters are required by law to keep trophies as proof.
Going over or under is a misdemeanour, and can result in severe fines in some cases: http://www.jagdrecht-bayern.de/jagd-4/abschussregelung/absch... http://www.jawina.de/abschussplan-nicht-erfuellt-19-000-euro...
It really seems to me that a predator is a missing piece in the eco system at the moment. Hunting and quotas is a bit like introducing a quick hack you need to maintain over the years, that requires introducing more hacks over time to keep the system alive.