quote:

Originally posted by Jim White:

quote:

What do you think the ducks and geese that nest on the tundra in northern Canada and Alaska eat?

Well I'm just tickled that the ducks and geese have lots of mosquitos to eat up North. I'm quite sure that if there were some sort of world wide calamity and every mosquito on the face of the earth became extinct, I would be extremely happy and the ducks and geese could find something else to dine on. I'm sure they eat mosquitos but thats not the mainstay of their diet. Death to all mosquitos!

Mosquitos are a mainstay for many waterfowl species, particularly young in life but also for nesting hens. How important depends on the species. Some eat only the larval form of insects, others both the larval form and the adult. The bottom line is that the birds wouldn't find something else to eat. There would just be less birds.

You said mosquitos are useless, so I pointed out a use. They're an important part of the food chain. Whenever we wipe out anything because we consider it useless there are always harmful effects that we didn't anticipate.

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/ifwis/birds/american-black-duck.html

quote:

Comments on food habits:
Juvenile: Young feed themselves soon after hatching; feed primarily on insects at first then switch to a predominantly plant food diet

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/swans.php

quote:

Young cygnets grow rapidly and require a high protein diet of aquatic invertebrates during the first few weeks. Gradually they shift to a vegetable diet similar to that of adults.

quote:

Originally posted by China Fleet Sailor:

quote:

Originally posted by Jim White:

quote:

What do you think the ducks and geese that nest on the tundra in northern Canada and Alaska eat?

Well I'm just tickled that the ducks and geese have lots of mosquitos to eat up North. I'm quite sure that if there were some sort of world wide calamity and every mosquito on the face of the earth became extinct, I would be extremely happy and the ducks and geese could find something else to dine on. I'm sure they eat mosquitos but thats not the mainstay of their diet. Death to all mosquitos!

Mosquitos are a mainstay for many waterfowl species, particularly young in life but also for nesting hens. How important depends on the species. Some eat only the larval form of insects, others both the larval form and the adult. The bottom line is that the birds wouldn't find something else to eat. There would just be less birds.

You said mosquitos are useless, so I pointed out a use. They're an important part of the food chain. Whenever we wipe out anything because we consider it useless there are always harmful effects that we didn't anticipate.

http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/ifwis/birds/american-black-duck.html

quote:

Comments on food habits:
Juvenile: Young feed themselves soon after hatching; feed primarily on insects at first then switch to a predominantly plant food diet

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/bird/swans.php

quote:

Young cygnets grow rapidly and require a high protein diet of aquatic invertebrates during the first few weeks. Gradually they shift to a vegetable diet similar to that of adults.

Good post pointing out that every part of nature has its purpose. Wolves have there place too.

Were we put here to dominate nature or enjoy/participate in it? This is a fundamental question that everyones personal answer seems to indicate thier position on this issue.

All states should allow/encourage hunting wolves where numbers allow. Extinction is forever. My personal view is that just because we have the ability to make the wolf extinct doesn't mean should. At least that my opinion.

On a side note, our beloved companion dogs are the same species as wolves. Through selective breeding over millennia we have just made them bigger/smaller/smarter/dumber/meaner/nicer from the original genetic material.

Wes

This has bee somewhat of an interesting thread, and I've finally decided to line up for being flamed at the stake. As I have said in the past, predators help make the wild, "wild". Africa would not be the same without lions, leopards, hyenas, crocs, cheetahs, Cape hunting dogs, and a myriad of other predators - not to mention deadly "non-predators" such as rhinos, elephants, and hippos. Alaska would not be the same without bears or wolves. Why is it that we can't deal with predators in the lower 48? Are we inept and stupid? I for one would rather die by getting eaten by a bear than killed in flaming car wreck or shot by some low life with a crack addiction. I also think that the only way these predators will "earn their keep" is by the way of controlled hunting. I will be carrying a wolf tag when I go to Alaska this fall. Just because I may kill a wolve, and I've got two nice bobcats and three coyotes to my name, in no way means I want them exterminated. I, instaead want them protected as game animals, so that some other poor guy can have a wolve pelt also. As a biologist (as the natives before me), I also know that wolves have a place in the managment of ungulate populations, and also know that place needs to be closely monitored. I have know idea how the vast numbers of game persisted on the NA American Continent prior to "white game managers" arrived with all the predators (four-legged and two-legged) roaming around. Or how caribou and moose in Alaska survived for so many years with the wolves and grizzlies hanging around - their decline in some areas wouldn't have anything to do with the advent of snowmachines, ATVs, and high "subsistence" harvests now would they.

And before I get jumped on by the dog hunters, my wife and I have 4 dogs - Lab, English setter, rat terrier, and a Maltese (no prizes for guessing who the Maltese belongs to), and my wife is a veterinarian. So I'm fond of dogs. That said, what I gather from the initial post is that Mr. Richards, and other houndsmen, is no longer going to be allowed to release TWO packs to roam around unsupervised or vigorously followed by their ARMED handlers. How is it that houndsmen of the past, Ben Lilly springs to mind, managed to keep packs together without them being decimated by predators? I believe they stayed up with the pack and were at least present and armed if something started going awry. Mr. Richards turned and RAN - the exact opposite of what you're told to do when confronted with wolves. Wolves especially, and bears, are trigged to attack when something runs. Mr. Richards brought a bad stick and pocket knife to a gun fight. Sticking with one pack of dogs and carrying a .357 mag would have settled this episode much sooner and with much less loss of dogs.

Dog owners everywhere must be ever vigilant, and not just where wolves roam. On the Gulf Coast (where I hunted in one of the most alligator invested lakes in Texas), most hunters won't take retreivers with them early in the waterfowl season because of the threat of alligators. Quail hunters in Texas and the rest of the SW must deal with rattlesnakes. All of this and more dogs probably die of being struck by cars and heat stroke than all other hunting related "accidents".

Please flame away.

I hope you don't catch any flack for that assessment redlander, as I agree with you. How is it that when someone enters a wild environment with large predators that we believe that no risk should be involved? If wolves are in the area, then there is always a chance that someone or their dogs could be hurt, and yet I see no one talking of wiping out crocodiles or lions from Africa even though they not only kill pets and livestock, but people.

I believe that these wolves, as with all other animals that we SHARE the land with need to be managed, not made extinct, how someone could say that they would like every wolf off the face of the earth is beyond me.

vol 226 #9 paige 26 new sports afield has interesting article on this subject

Well here's a little heat for ya......I can't understand how some of you wolf proponents figure having wolves will make the country "wild" ? Face it , the lower 48 is never going to be "wild" again , unless you know a way to clear out alot of the 300 million humans , and there is no place in the lower 48 more than about 20 miles from a road , including our so-called "wilderness" areas.

What the wolves will do make a serious problem for those of us who do make our living on the land (stockmen), and greatly reduce your hunting opportunities for our remaining large game .

And I get a chuckle when some one is worried about wolves being exterminated........there are tens of thousands of them in Alaska , Canada , and they are in absolutely no danger of running out of wolves in those places.

I was asked by a friend of mine who is a biologist for the USFWS what I thought of wolves in Colorado. I told him no thanks we are happy with our overpopulation of elk. Some wolves are ok in Canada and Ak, with maybe a few in Montana and Idaho, but they are competitors with humans for ungulates (elk, deer, caribou, etc). That's the way it is. They aren't dogs, they don't act like dogs. They leave me along, I'll leave them alone. They mess with me or my dogs, I'll shoot the bastards and to hell with the FWS (and I like bio's in general - but the average FWS bio has changed from a duck/deer hunter to tree hugger). It used to be deer/ducks and bunnies - now its all about endangered species! About the wild shit, I hunt in an area known to have lion. I walked out one night covered in elk blood. I'll tell you I grew eyes in the back of my head and my hair was standing on end by the time I got down to camp. You can keep your damn lions and wolves out of my hunting area. That's why we killed them down to low population levels in the first place. By a biologist!