Originally Posted by
NeoNeanderthal
... Are you saying that apex predators are not beneficial to ecological systems? No, I am not. They, just like everything, have a place and are beneficial to SOME ecosystems. However, saying that their interactions with humans is neither good nor bad is again, just plain wrong. Again, in an ecosystem where humans and agriculture are not present apex predators ARE beneficial. In the ecosystem that we live in they are not beneficial UNLESS their numbers are controlled. Pick up a peer reviewed journal once in a while, Done that. A lot actually.which is filled with studies conducted by scientists. Not liberal eco-hippies or conservative gun forum commenters. The above two classifications of people have nothing to do with me, my views, or my first hand experience with ecosystems nor the interaction of people and predators and how it effects their/my livelyhood. You'll see what i mean. Thinking that removing most predators from the world benefits humans long term, is inaccurate and short sighted. I did not say we should remove them from the world but I also should have clarified my views in my first post. My fault.
My opinion on the matter isn't really an opinion at all, it is just a regurgitation of the overall consensus of the entire life science (biology, envi science ecology ext) community. No disrespect to the scientific community, as their studies and knowledge is invaluable to conservation and the way we live, but, give their bottom line an invese relationship to the density of predators in their ecosystems and their views would change. I didn't come up with it, i'm not a scientist. I am not even qualified to determine what the deer population needs but I base my opinion on the scientific consensus. Not what my friends or relatives believe.My friends and relatives have about as much influence on my opinions as the eco-hippies or conservative gun forum commenters above.
I understand that ranchers or farmers disagree with most scientists, because in their experience apex predators are harmful. The key here is "in their experience" which can also be expressed in this context as "their ecosystem". In the farmers "ecosystem" apex predators are not only bad, they can be devistating. That doesn't mean that they are overall harmful to the entire country/system/whatever. Is less money in the bank because they are paying more for meat they eat harmful? With the exception of those who do not eat meat I would think so. Policy should be (and to some extent is) based on what benefits the most people. In that sense, the loss of income by some farmers/ranchers when wolves are around is minor. It is only minor if you aren't the farmer depending on that income from those lost cattle, sheep, goats, or and/or pigs to feed his family. It is considered, but this factor doesn't effect that many people. Only the people who provide you with the food you eat, the ones on the "sharp end" of the agricultural spear. But who cares about them right? Especially since large scale operations have the ability to better cope with predation. It might suck to hear, but its the truth.