Hacker News Reader

The concept of "building for wildlife" doesn't mean picking and choosing the cutest animals - it means trying to understand that balance and maintain it. The people who study ecosystems understand a lot of these second order effects well, and we're always learning more. The concept here is to start listening to those people.

The wildlife evolved to operate in an ecosystem with other wildlife that building alone makes impossible.

I don't buy into the idea that they can just 'balance' it without many of the species.

You can't tell deer to stop eating what they like, or raccoons to stop breeding / living in denser populations in suburban areas.

We're already messing up the balance massively by existing.

The point here is to reduce the harm we are already doing.

i live in an area with lots of deer. They don't shoot the cougars that come into town, they tranq them and relocate them. So there are no predators for the deer. What's the answer?

The cougars don't just eat the deer, they also change the behavior of the deer (as one would if they were constantly worried about killers hiding in the bushes). The only way to restore balance is to bring back the keystone species.

I know. I used to be able to walk right up to the deer when I moved here. I've chased them off the property enough times though now that as soon as they hear the front door, they run, and they actually go quicker through the yard then they used to.

The only thing needed? People shouldn't interfere with nature so much. Let it all balance naturally and optimality by doing: nothing. No research needed, no plans, no guidance, just let the earth do it's thing and Paradise returns quickly.

That's a lot of Lyme disease, deer in your windshield and 10ft tall garden fencing whilst waiting for evolution to turn bobcats into deer eaters. I prefer to turn back the clock and just restore what was removed.

shoot the deer

But, but, but... Bambi!1!!

How dare you?

We're not allowed to on city limits, but it's the obvious answer. If you going to relocate the predators, relocate the prey too.

Sounds like your area doesn't have a deer problem. It has a wolf problem. In other words there aren't any.

You might like this essay on this very topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking_like_a_mountain

https://www.ecotoneinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/aldo-l...

I live in one of these areas (Texas). Wolves were taken out by 1970. I do wish we would introduce them, but I'm not certain that my neighbors would be so happy about it.

In my area, we have city deer. These are deer that live in the green belts and navigate through the city. I wonder what would happen if wolves were reintroduced. Wolves normally keep to the outskirts of human civilization, but would they drive more deer into the city. Or would smart wolves head to the city for the easy pickings.

Demonstrative example in practice of re-introduction of predators is the wolves in Yellowstone[0][1]. There are also studies which say that this instead destabilizes the ecosystem[2]. For what it's worth, I think more data from investigation is needed in more diverse ecosystems and including different scopes of time. [0]https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wildlife/wolf-r... [1]https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolf-restoration.htm [2]https://phys.org/news/2019-04-effects-reintroducing-predator...

This really seems to be a problem of suburbanization (which also drives of natural predators). If cities had strong urban growth boundaries we could avoid a lot of this sort of human/animal conflict.

If there was no sub-urbanization ... there would be same issues on the edge of urbanization.

It's a development thing, not a category I don't think.

This is a weird idea I’ve had but… would it be possible to e.g. breed domestic dogs who will eat the deer but won’t be aggressive to humans? I have a pitbull who is really nice to people, other dogs and even cats but absolutely goes crazy when it sees one of these city rats coming out of a bush. I raised her obviously she wasn’t a wild animal.

Just a thought

Would be interesting just to breed dogs to chase them ... a lot. Sounds like a lot of work, but interesting idea.

Some studies have found that just "scaring" some prey animals reduces their breeding and encourages them to move around more.

Lol, you don't really need to selectively breed dogs to chase animals. All dogs have what's called a "prey drive," to an extent, which is essentially their inborn desire to hunt other animals. It's left over from when they were wolves. Different breeds have higher or lower prey drives, so it's not at all uniform from breed to breed or dog to dog.

I'm thinking breed them to chase them... I'm thinking in a manageable way.

Any dog will chase them, and then the dog will also run out into the road. We don't want dogs doing that ;)

You're talking about training, not breeding. Training is what makes a herding animal herd rather than run off in the woods and chase deer. :)

Valid point. Although I'll be picky and say that breeding plays into that .... but admit I don't want to bread a whole new dog for this imaginary and possibly unproductive job ;)

Breeding is a factor with pretty much anything when it comes to dogs. Hypothetically, you'd want a dog fast enough to at least sort of keep up with the deer, sturdy enough that Bambi isn't going to beat him up too badly if he gets too close, and smart enough to know that Bambi can be pretty mean if he has to be. This, of course, is on top of having enough of a prey drive to actually want to chase after Bambi, and trainable enough to learn how to do it so Bambi doesn't kick the crap out of him.

Putting all that into the Dog-O-Matic(TM) Computer....

... WORKING...

... beep boop Beep beep ker-chunk boop boop

... DING!

THE MOST SUITABLE DOG FOR YOUR REQUIREMENTS IS: the Scottish Deerhound[0].

====================

Of course, there are other dogs that would do just as well, like the Norwegian Elkhound[1], the Karelian Bear Dog[2,3], the Bluetick Coonhound[4, 5], or, even that well-known gentle giant, the Great Dane [6]. Believe it or not, Great Danes can run really, really fast. Their top speed is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 mph[7]! Even Bambi might not be able to outrun that.

Whichever breed you choose, get your dog from a reputable breeder of working line dogs. Working dogs, show dogs, and pet dogs all tend to have different temperaments, and you'll have an easier time if you pick a dog from a line that's suited to his role. Frequently, the different lines will even have different physical characteristics[8, 9].

Not only that, but you'll want to make sure you pick a good breeder, and choose the dogs that will be most likely able to succeed at running down Bambi. For hunting dog breeds, at minimum, this means the dog's parents should have passed breed standard hunting trials, or the equivalent. The ultimate would be a pup whose parents are both field champions, or champions in some other doggie sport[11]. You want a star canine athlete, not a bench warmer.

Anyway...

TL;DR: Yes, breeding matters. No, you wouldn't have to create an entirely new dog breed to chase Bambi around. Pick a good breeder. Choose a dog based on his parents. You're looking for an athlete, not a pet.

---

[0]: https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/scottish-deerhound/

[1]: https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/norwegian-elkhound/

[2]: That sounds made up, doesn't it? Seriously, it sounds like something straight out of Star Trek.

[3]: https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/karelian-bear-dog/

[4]: Watch out when talking about your Coonhound in polite company. These dogs live to chase and corner raccoons ("coons") up in trees, barking at them from the base of the tree while the hunter shoots at them.

Why be careful? Unfortunately, "coon" is an extremely offensive racial slur against Black people in the US. You really want to avoid that type of association with dogs, Black people, and trees, if you know what I mean.

See https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/coon/

[5]: https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/bluetick-coonhound/

[6]: https://www.akc.org/dog-breeds/great-dane/

[7]: https://highlandcanine.com/the-fastest-dog-breeds-in-the-wor...

[8]: https://www.allshepherd.com/working-lines-german-shepherd-vs...

[9]: https://www.allshepherd.com/german-shepherd-sloping-back-vs-...

[10]: https://www.akcchf.org/canine-health/canine-athlete-performa...

[11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzhund

Sounds like my hounds. One of our dogs has an arrangement with a deer who got hit by a car a couple years ago, she and her fawns can hang out under the dog's favorite oak tree, but any other deer gets chased off with much noise.

However, I can't say we've noticed any reduction in the deer fecundity here because they get chased around. They simply learned to tolerate the occasional chase as a cost of living in our valley, which is evidently not too burdensome on them.

I think chasing them is a better, and easier, idea.

The animals that traditionally hunt the deer aren't aggressive to humans. It's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Most apex predators are hunted out of existence to protect the marginal amounts of cattle they kill. See the great wolf slaughter happening in Montana currently. After they kill off all the wolves, the negative externalities of that action will become apparent, yet again, and the federal government will spend millions rehabbing the wolf populations until some populist conservative decides to decimate the population again. Rinse, repeat.

I have often wondered if it wouldn't be cheaper for the government to pay for the occasional lost cattle instead of costly rehabilitation. Of course there would need to be safeguards in place to prevent abuse of the mechanism, and to prevent predators from getting used to easy preys.

I've proposed this many times, but the idea gets no traction. I don't really know why. I bet paying for a cow now and then would be even cheaper than paying government hunters to use helicopters, etc., to hunt the wolves.

It's an appropriate use of tax money.

https://www.mda.state.mn.us/business-dev-loans-grants/wolf-d...: “the 1977 Minnesota Legislature authorized the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) to reimburse livestock owners for losses caused by wolves”

Reading https://www.minnpost.com/environment/2020/02/heres-how-much-..., that gets around 100 claims per year, for a payout of about $100,000.

The EU has a similar program (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46153727)

Sounds like a good program.

In Washington State, the newspaper articles on it always present it as one of:

1. the state sends out the helicopters and gunmen

2. the rancher eats the cost of the dead cows

And yet, there’s https://wdfw.wa.gov/species-habitats/at-risk/species-recover....

I wouldn’t know whether that compensation is fair or how bureaucratic the procedure is.

I wonder how vulnerable that is to the Cobra Effect.

Any and all government payment programs are vulnerable to that.

Me too. Compared to all the other subsidies agriculture receives worldwide this would probably be pretty small.

One problem with cattle is that they are being held in one place, can’t escape which makes them easy and reliable prey . So once a predator has figured that out they will come back more often. I have read about people having good success with dogs that are trained to confront predators like mountain lions and bears so they won’t come back.

Or, and this is just a personal opinion, but the world could stand to lose some meat production. We could give them a stipend for moving away from ranching to protein production through plants or other goods. I know this is controversial, but meat does require orders of magnitude more water and resources and doesn’t seem reflective in the revenue realized.

Edit-but definitely start by paying them for whatever wolves eat.

The wide ranging public pasture ranchers aren't where the biggest ethical problems are in meat production, and wolves aren't generally an issue with factory farming.

Let's pump the brakes on torture box meat before we start trying to solve something many people don't even consider a problem (I believe ranching and free range meat are an almost unmitigated good. )

Generally speaking, ecosystems should be managed for ‘focal’ species, those with the largest requirements and pivotal role. In this case, deers natural predators. a re-introduction or deer culling may be paired with this approach.

> I like this idea, but once you build something with some given wildlife in mind... what happens to the rest of the wildlife?

You don't build for a particular species in mind. You build for biodiversity.

By it's nature you can only be so diverse when you've decided to build.

The system is wonky to begin with, the opportunity to put wolves in my area is ... pretty much 0.

I'm not sure what you are saying. You plant a wide range of pollinator and native trees designed to offer roosting and nesting space for birds, bats and insects. etc. Wy jump straight to wolves?

Chilling thought: Deer:Underbrush::Humans:Earth