What is it with yellow pine?

Page 3 of 5  
Charlie Self wrote:

Don't know what the current situation is but back 20 years or so when I was taking some classes at UCONN, there was a pretty little pond on the campus that had a resident flock of geese. The vicinity looked like the dog population of midtown Manhattan had been using it for a dog-walk, and the geese were known to chase students. The consensus was that there should be one big goose dinner for the student body, but the animal-rights twits and the Bambi Appreciation Society and the rest of the Politically Active Banana-Brains held rallies and raised consciousness and great clouds of Marijuana smoke every time it was proposed so nothing ever got done. I hope sanity won, but suspect that either (a) the geese are still there, or (b) they were captured and transported at great expense to some other locale, probably a reservoir, from which they no doubt promptly flew back.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

You can say that again. They're scary critters. I must see an average of five dead ones on every trip. At least. I don't envy the people who hit them, or the people who have to clean up their bloated carcasses either.

The way I hear it, trees were almost extinct in the state in '28 too. They seem to have bounced back pretty well also.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?
Gerry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:25:28 -0500, "G.E.R.R.Y."
That is how I think of it. Meat is a good thing.
Barbequed meat is even better. :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:

Damn right it is! Pass the cow.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Silvan wrote:

David
I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.
As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in decline.
Hunting more of these animals is not the answer--in Missouri the kills during deer season have risen steadily for years, but we still have "too many" (read this as "too many, too close to too many people"). The answer has more to do with other factors--urban sprawl, road construction, pressure on habitat of less adaptable species. Think of deer (geese/squirrel/oppossum/raccoon) "over-population" as a symptom--in a truely healthy environment they would be kept in check by competition; in an environment evermore skewed toward urban/industrial humans (you 'n' me) they are a kind of pre-cancerous growth--the "canary-in-the-mine".
This probably has something to do with woodworking, and with my op about yp, but I'm too tired to find it now <g>.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You would lose your money.
Bag the environmentalist cant (rant?) and think. Other than ungulates, what is there that can eat grass for a living? It's the neighborhood that counts. Where chow is abundant, the population expands to consume it. Same-o 'coons, geese and such. Until they reach the carrying capacity of the neighborhood, that is. Then they have to move or starve. Same thing for those predators the folks who preach more "humane" killing of livestock keep talking about. They'll expand to the chow available, when available, then move or crash.
To return, somewhat, to woodworking, one way of reducing the deer population is to allow climax forest to predominate. It's poor deer forage, which is why it can grow past their predations. Yes, he said "predations," because to a clump of brome an encounter with a deer can be a deadly experience. Other ways in current vogue are to allow the population to thin itself by disease - CWD, brainworm in moose, and so forth. Disease is rarely a problem in a small population - paths of infection make it difficult to build an epidemic, especially when the infectious agent which preys (there, he said it again) on the target causes death of the host before it can find another victim.
Your canary is singing the wrong song. He should sing a song of plenty, not of lack.
Oh yes, in spite of overpopulation, we still have only limited doe hunting here. Kill a buck - reduces the population by one. Kill a doe, usually by three. We could use some doe liberation.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We need open season on eco-kooks!

what
counts.
keep
population
(there,
find
not
by
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote: ...

...
Are you willing to pay higher prices for it is the key question...or buy from US producers who do over cheaper importers who don't? The answer to those questions has always been "yes" on the tongue, "no" from the pocketbook... :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most of the animals we kill and eat wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the industrial feed and slaughter operations.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Most of the animals we kill and eat would not exist if it were not for agricultural practises period!
Humans were a hunter-gatherer society to begin with until agricultural practises came along.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gte.net writes:

Can you articulate why you think this way? On what basis have you come to this conclusion?

Ah. 4-legs good, 2-legs bad.
scott
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Not so, Scott. I did not say (with what must be Homer Simpson's voice) "four legs good. . . ." Nor do I believe this rediculous reductionism.
At least George (above) presents logical argument, but I think his points only support my thesis: we have a deer (sub. any critter here) so-called "overpopulation" because of human urban practices (not the least of which is our failure to see the bigger picture).
Deer do not eat just grass--around here they are quite fond of corn, the occasional acorn, tender tree branches, lots of things that grow in the margins. As humans alter the environment, urbanizing what were once "rural" areas, we create more margins, "find" more deer, and experience more human/deer encounters. This is not a good or a bad thing itself. It does illustrate the ways we are changing the world. George's reasoning leaves out the other factors in population dynamics, food availability being only one. True, deer ('coon, 'possum) seem to have found abundant forage in urbanizing areas; other critters do not fair so well.
nospam seems to think (?) the answer to the problem is "shoot first", or "shoot the messenger". My point is that our acknowledged "deer trouble" isn't specific to deer. It bespeaks a bigger problem, and focusing on just one aspect of it (deer populations/hunting) is myopic and stupid. I would certainly welcome more climax forests, as this would no doubt address these bigger-picture issues.
Yes, my canary is singing, George, but not the song you think I've heard. It isn't singing about "lack"--that isn't part of my argument. It is singing about the price of certain kinds of "abundance".
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Statements like "the overall livability of our world is in decline" and "our failure to see the bigger picture" followed by "focusing on just one aspect of it ... is myopic and stupid" really get under my skin.
It is in itself arrogant, and to use your word.... myopic. The U.S. has 2.3 billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska. The land area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres. To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103 million acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20 million acres.Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization, only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3 percent of the land area in the U.S.
Rural Residential Land-This category comprises nearly all sprawl and subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The total acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44 million acres are lots of 10 or more acres.
Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1 percent of total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant until you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder corn and another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are consumed by livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect more of the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural residential, highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and golf courses combined.
Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops -- feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61 million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.
The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3 million acres.
Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S. excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3 states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are forested lands that are grazed.
Forest Land- Forest lands comprise 747 million acres. Of these lands, some 501 million acres are primarily forest (minus lands used for grazed forest and other special categories).
The USDA report concludes that urbanization and rural residences (subdivisions) "do not threaten the U.S. cropland base or the level of agricultural production." This does not mean sprawl doesn't have impacts where it occurs. But the notion that sprawl is the greatest threat to biodiversity is absolutely false.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

is
(61
3
Which is why my garden is so attractive that I have to have that electrified fence around it.
Yep, crop and grazing improvements make good deer grub, though, strangely, they didn't graze the Sudan grass on the north forty much at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mel: I did not say "sprawl is the greatest threat to biodiversity. . . ." I did say, relative to the perceived deer population "explosion", it is indicative of the consequences of human/urban development. No great leap to conclusions here.
For that matter, to take up your well-enumerated points, our industrial farming is hardly a boon to biodiversity. Given that so many more acres of land are devoted to this kind of urbanized development (and modern industial agriculture is not a "rural" enterprise in anything other than location) I would say your logic only reinforces my argument.
In that regard, practices on the mechanized, mega-acre food factories are more responsible for the "urbanization" of the countryside than is development sprawl. We just see the effects on the edges of our towns and cities--i.e. deer as pests. (Urban hunters are only asking to also regard them as a protein source, thus killing the "proverbial" two birds.) Either way, we are consuming diversity at an increasing rate (killing, in the process, the "literal" two birds). I know of no reason to consider this is a good trend.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P`` ` end
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mel wrote: ...

But there's no doubt (simply check the game commission statistics for almost any state) that the total numbers of deer are up---well up in many places, owing for at least a major extent, to the combination of ready food supply and no or very limited predatory pressures. Some areas <are> literally "run over" even well inside very well developed areas.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Once again Duane it's a matter of perspective. Game commission statistics are gathered from known numbers of "harvested" deer. It's physically impossible to actually count the deer. These statistics are skewed based on a limited amount of information. Taking into account the increasing popularity of the sport, surely you can see how an increased "harvest" can be misconstrued as an increase in overall population. Furthermore, game management for the sole purpose of increasing deer population by land owners who depend on the income from deer leases can also contribute to this.
However, we are not simply discussing an increase in the overall population of game. Intentional or unintentional. We are discussing the plausibility of an "explosion" of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline in the livability of our world. In essence.... a plague of deer.
You can argue this from whatever perspective you wish. You can say an increase in the deer population means we are doing something wrong.... or you can say the increase means we are doing something right. Until I see the browse lines in all the wooded areas at 6 feet I don't intend to be too concerned.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mel: read my posts again--I do not posit an "actual" explosion in deer populations due to
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.