|
Post by hikerjer on May 17, 2016 16:08:41 GMT -8
Most species that have survived the processes of natural selection produce more offspring than can possibly survive. Human beings, of course, being one of the notable exceptions - for better or worse.
|
|
|
Post by immadman on May 17, 2016 16:42:43 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on May 17, 2016 18:15:58 GMT -8
mother nature is a lot more resilient that we give her credit for. Barring humans managing to actually blow the planet apart, it will recover from anything we can do to it but humans won't be around to see it.
|
|
Ed
Trail Wise!
Philmont Advisor and FOM (Fat Old Man)
Posts: 125
|
Post by Ed on May 18, 2016 5:55:31 GMT -8
"What I don't understand is why some attempt wasn't made to consider fostering the calf, although obviously the rangers shouldn't be taking it out to a herd and trying to link it up with another female bison. But I think more could have been done to save the calf instead of euthanizing it. That wouldn't happen to a human baby. "
It was explained on another site that Yellowstone would have to quarantine the calf for at least a month before it could be moved elsewhere. There are no such quarantine facilities available at Yellowstone. (short version)
|
|
daveb
Trail Wise!
Posts: 589
|
Post by daveb on May 18, 2016 6:55:41 GMT -8
Me thinks "euthanizing it" is being confused with Memorial Day bar-b-que at the ranger station.
|
|
Woodsie
Trail Wise!
Colorado
Posts: 272
|
Post by Woodsie on May 20, 2016 15:09:29 GMT -8
It's a common ending with deer fawns that people think are abandoned when the mother goes away to feed. They are not abandoned until the mother returns to find a fawn smelling of humans. That is when it abandons its own offspring. Not entirely true. I spent three spring seasons helping capture and put radio collars on elk calves in the coast range of Oregon. We never had a calf abandoned because of our handling it. I will say we did not catch newborn calves (if they still had a wet umbilical cord we left them alone); we caught them when they were 3-6 days old. Much older than that, they could out run us. We did observe a few calves that were abandoned to due sheep grazing in the area. Cattle grazing never seemed to bother the elk, but sheep grazing did. I am sure it's the same way with deer fawns.
|
|
johnnyray
Trail Wise!
Argle-Bargle, Jiggery-Pokery, and Applesauce
Posts: 2,050
|
Post by johnnyray on May 20, 2016 17:45:44 GMT -8
I think it's time to banish humans from Yellowstone. It would be interesting to let a large area like that, one that is capable of supporting a diverse population of large animals, go truly wild for an extended period.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2016 19:19:51 GMT -8
It's a common ending with deer fawns that people think are abandoned when the mother goes away to feed. They are not abandoned until the mother returns to find a fawn smelling of humans. That is when it abandons its own offspring. Not entirely true. I spent three spring seasons helping capture and put radio collars on elk calves in the coast range of Oregon. We never had a calf abandoned because of our handling it. I will say we did not catch newborn calves (if they still had a wet umbilical cord we left them alone); we caught them when they were 3-6 days old. Much older than that, they could out run us. We did observe a few calves that were abandoned to due sheep grazing in the area. Cattle grazing never seemed to bother the elk, but sheep grazing did. I am sure it's the same way with deer fawns. Edit: Okay, I can see now how what I wrote might be confusing. I left off a little two-letter word that seemed to be implied, but perhaps not the way you read it. What is "common" is that people see fawns without the mother and think the fawns are abandoned or orphaned. Game and fish departments across the country get numerous calls this time of year from people who don't understand and think someone needs to do something for the fawn. Many of those people have interfered and in effect "kidnapped" a fawn from it's mother, who was away feeding. IF a doe "abandons" its fawn it is because humans have interfered. Only then does the fawn become an orphan. And that human interference has been a common problem and resulted in game agencies across the country advising people to leave the fawns alone. The doe may take the fawn back IF the fawn is returned to the same place it was taken. But human scent creates some problems for the mother and the fawn. Numerous sources say that the human scent on the fawn attracts preditors. They also say that the doe may avoid returning to an area smelling of humans. IF the doe is able to find the fawn again, and IF humans have left the area, and IF predators have not discovered the fawn because of the scent and other evidence of humans, THEN the doe may retrieve the fawn, lick the human scent off it, and move it as far away as possible. But IF the fawn has been with humans long enough to become imprinted upon them, then the doe may find it difficult to reclaim her fawn. Notice that this is the first time we have heard of someone taking a bison calf, and the spokesman for Yellowstone are saying that the mother and herd rejected the return of the calf afterward — even though it was returned to the same area. The reasons given are that the calf harbored human scent and had become imprinted upon people near the roads. Note that what you did under the auspices of game management and a legitimate game and fish department is an entirely different matter than the advice for the general public — which is "leave them alone." Without details about the activities you talk about being involved in many years ago, it's difficult to arrive at generalizations. You say the problem never came up with elk calves, but in this incident, we see that it happened the very first time with a bison calf. That makes me a bit skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by hikerjer on May 20, 2016 19:48:04 GMT -8
I think it's time to banish humans from Yellowstone. It would be interesting to let a large area like that, one that is capable of supporting a diverse population of large animals, go truly wild for an extended period. Ya, try telling that to the people in the gateway communities whose whole living depends on the tourist travel to the park. Not that I disagree with you, but it hasn't got a chance in Hell which I'm sure you realize. Nice try though.
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on May 21, 2016 4:12:57 GMT -8
It would be interesting to let a large area like that, one that is capable of supporting a diverse population of large animals, go truly wild for an extended period. It's called "Alaska"....
|
|