Global wildlife population declined 58% between 1970 and 2012 as a result of human activity, report finds. abcn.ws/2fljy1M
I don’t particularly doubt this. But in some places, it is not true at all. It’s not true where I live, by a long way. When I was a kid, there were no minks that I ever saw. Certainly no river otters. No eagles. Few deer, fewer wild turkeys, few coyotes, virtually no armadillos. So few hawks and owls you could let your chickens roam freely. No beavers at all. No bears. No razorbacks. Certainly no mountain lions.
Now, there are many, many of those things. You can’t let chickens roam freely anymore because there are so many predators. There are so many wild trout that the state wildlife people don’t even stock the streams anymore.
The difference, I believe, is because few people do crop farming anymore. It’s all cattle, so there is less environmental disturbance. And too, people don’t just shoot at everything anymore like they once did. People who own land are more solicitous of wildlife than they once were. And, interestingly, there are more people per square mile in the countryside than there were when I was a kid.
I suspect most of the wildlife loss is in the third world, where people farm questionable places and kill anything that walks for food.
Also, the ocean is something to consider. It covers most of the earth, and who knows what types of vitriol and refuse are being dumped into its depths. It deeply saddens me…
But yes, it does seem to be something that is extremely hard to measure.
I doubt this seriously. There are more white tail deer in America than ever before. Ecosystems change all the time. They did before humans were around.
At the turn of the century in Missouri white tail deer were down to just a few thousand because of bad hunt, forestry, and agro practices. Now we harvest over a 100,000 a season and they are still overpopulated. You cant look at population over a short time and conclude everything is going to hell in a hand basket. Like global warming alarmists taking a one short period of history out of eons and claiming the world is coming to an end.
There are more trees now than ever before because we put out forest fires. Before modern times they just burned out.
This sounds alarmist to me.
I live in Missouri as well; in the Ozarks of S.W. Mo. I agree that deer are absolutely everywhere, and there are far more of them than when I was a kid.
As I mentioned before, wildlife is far more prevalent here than it was years ago, and a lot more varied in species. But I think what the article is probably talking about is wildlife in the third world. When people kill monkeys and rats to eat (which they do in some of those places) you know it’s largely about a lack of food.
Allow me to respectfully dissent in part from one thing you said. I am not a believer in just letting forests do what they might. Over perhaps centuries, forests will self-cure. But in the shorter run, I like to take out the non-native and short-lived species in favor of the “ancient native” trees. I also like to preserve short “understory” trees like wild plum, persimmon and dogwood, so the wildlife can reach them for food. I also like to favor black walnut for the squirrels (and me) and basswood for the wild bees. Better to have wild grapes growing on understory trees because the deer can reach them if they’re lower.
An unmanaged “second growth” forest floor is a desert where there’s nothing for wildlife to eat other than acorns, and then only for a short while. I live near the Mark Twain National Forest, and it’s largely unattended and largely a desert.
Where we live there are thousands more geese than there were when I was a kid, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. We also have a very sizable increase in deer, coyotes, eagles, wetland birds (like herons and bitterns), and turkey . We are even seeing a small but notable return of mountain lion and black bear. Good management practices can be utilized to benefit the wise use of our natural resources as well providing suitable habitat for wildlife. Basically, “build it, and they will come”.
There has been a die back - but the animal kingdom seems to be making a comeback.
Considering that we have never known the 'global wildlife population ’ I highly doubt we can specify a percentage of loss or gain.
The article didn’t provide a link to the report, nor bother to give the name for googling.
I don’t trust the ethics of such articles and their underlying research.
Please keep in mind that in defiance of all the climate models, Greenland cooled by 1.5Cº during the period: 1940 - 1995 as human Carbon Dioxide emissions rates rose 600%.
Please keep in mind that 87.5% of all statistics are made up … and that is directly from Saul Alinsiky.