I had a chance to watch a really interesting nature show last night about the future prospects for the wild African lion. Because of the encroachment of Africa's human population, the show suggested that the prospects for the lion are pretty dim. They are increaingly being isolated in ever smaller pockets of land and they are losing their genetic diversity. I am sure that it is hard for someone outside Africa to understand but it was really, really sad to see the Masai killing or poisoning the lions to save their cattle. So many cattle and so few lions. Just like what we do to the wolf but it seems even more tragic. If we lose the magnificent wild lion, we will have really lost something. As a species, humans are breeding every other species into extinction.

I agree that the lion situation is very concerning. In Kenya if they were sport hunting and bringing revenue back to the natives I think they may look at lions as a more valuable commodity. As far wolves here go what are you pointing to exactly. I agree that initially it is too bad that there wasn't a better approach to their removal with more of an eye toward conservation. That said what is happening now is laughable, reintroducing wolves to areas that are no longer remote enough to support them. Then due to people with a lack of understanding of production agriculture, wolves cannot be eliminated if they are a cattle killer without moving mountains. Contrary to what I read other people claim, ranchers are not compensated effectively for the lost animals and decreased weight gain of cattle not killed but harrassed or mauled by the wolves. As the largest group of private land owners in the US, turning ranchers even more against wolf reintroduction is the worst thing that can be done for the future of the wolf. Now if wolves were a commodity that had value like deer or bear on ranches they might be more accepted.

Seven:

I gues what I was thinking is that we nearly exterminated the wolf in the USA in the early part of the 20th century. Reintroduction brough back a healthy wolf population again. I don't have any problem with the bison or wolves that are killed on private land by ranchers. What I do have a problem with is killing wolves or bison if they wander out of a park like Yellowstone on to GOVERMENT LAND LEASED TO RANCHERS. We don't have any shortage of cattle and I am all for a guy making a living by raising cattle. I just don't think we should shoot bison or wolves on land owned by the taxpayers because they are a threat to cattle grazing on that same land. If the rancher leasing the land can't live with that, he or she can give up the lease. If the Park Service wants to make some animals available for hunting to curtail the numbers to keep a sustainable population, I am down with that.

Now, back to the lions....

What rubbed me the wrong way was, the way they cried and whinned about huntings role in the problem.

Never mind 95% of the show was shot in Kenya and there has been no sport hunting for decades.

Thunder Head, tell your better half, AIDS is working on that item.

The problem is the same whether it's here or there. You cannot reason with people that do not understand logic or think any further ahead than this evening. Kenya is a perfect example of emotions in action w/o any real thought as to what the consequences will be. Get rid of the evil hunters and everything will be just fine. NOT when you add people that reproduce in numbers they can't feed and care for! Same as here!
The plight of lions is tragic, but it's not going to change w/ the present worldwide philosophy and mindset that refuses to accept that actions have consequences.
As for wolves, I don't look at this country the same w/o them. I know they kill-that's the way God made them! They are are a symbol of the wild and I hope that I don't die w/o hearing them howl. Just like every other animal, their numbers need to be controlled by people like us who do look beyond tomorrow and hope that the wilds of America continue to offer our offspring what it has so richly given us.

If a Wolf was worth as much as a Lion, the ranchers would put up with them.

Hard to get that much $ for a wolf .... not enough to tolerate them.

The one I shot didn't. Sorry, couldn't resist.


Dutch

Unlikely in the long term because people just don't like living near them. And there just are more and more people.

Maybe they need to be reintroduced to there historic range, including europe. It wasn't all that long ago that they wandered those lands (1000 years maybe).

Of course that is the problem isn't it. Everyone wants someone else to put up with them.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnHunt:
Of course that is the problem isn't it. Everyone wants someone else to put up with them.

Or more correctly put: "Everyone volunteers someone else to put up with them."

I think Wendell is 100% right it is just economics. I think a lion's wellbeing is more of a concern in Tanzania where someone can realize a return from the health of the species then in Kenya where as camera fodder there value is not as easy to pinpoint. I don't want to hijack the thread so any further comment after this post I will put in the American Hunting forum. That said, conservation amongst people and animals becomes even more tricky when dealing with large predators. As a member of a state cattlemans association advisory board on natural resource and wildlife mgmt. I assure you that the typical rancher who deals with public allotments is a partner with the government as a steward for that portion of the taxpayers land. Whether it is fencing riparian areas or not grazing nesting areas used by sage grouse, ranchers are on the front line of conservation. I think policy like the wolf reintroduction where such a hard line is taken and the stewards and alot of times, owners of the land are left out of the loop is very dangerous and not sound policy in the longrun. with the "checkerboard" breakup up deeded and public lands on many ranches through the west, entire operations are affected by heavy handed implementation of things such as this wolf reintroduction. While some may think there are "plenty of cattle" an active pack that has switched from deer to yearlings or a herd of brucellosis infected buffalo is devastating to a family operation.Now if we could integrate intelligent control of these species and eliminate problem animals (a PAC hunt?) or move infected animals from common range, then we can have some true cooperation. Even a government payment for lost animals that is timely and comprehensive is a step the right direction, that would assuage some of the anguish for someone 1000 miles away dropping wolves in your backyard because they used to be there 100 years ago. I need to point out that preservation and reintroduction are different concepts all together. I like the idea of there being wolves here in the west, same as I like the idea of there being bears or coyotes, I think we need to be reasonable with how we integrate them. Is the grossly overstocked Yellowstone that has to feed haylines to its elk herd in the winter because they can't support the numbers a reasonable approach? Of course not, and telling land owners they need to be thankful for a bleedover wolf problem is not reasonable also. This is just one more example of how enviros don't understand who is really maintaining the open land they love so much. Keep making it harder and harder for us that make a living out here and raise the best, safest and cheapest food in the world for the American consumer and we will see what happens. Even more vast open space will be sold off by ranch families that either can't or won't fight these issues anymore and then the land will be carved up into 40 acre home sites and everyone will lose.

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:


Or more correctly put: "Everyone volunteers someone else to put up with them."

+1