Rancho Loco
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,546
- Reaction score
- 3
Bill - you don't think pigs are damaging?
- Thread starter betelgeuse
- Start date
wmidbrook
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2001
- Messages
- 4,405
- Reaction score
- 3
Sure, pigs do damaging rooting where they are non-indigenious; nonetheless, the damage they do is good where they are indigenious. At least the Nature Conservancy does allow people to use their lands--I suppose some land baron could have closed off access to the public entirely had he purchased it rather than the NC....so, it's not all bad. I'd have preferred to have seen more of a MUM approach...maybe a quarter of the island fenced off as a hunting preserve or something to that effect.
Schoettgen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 0
Speckmisser is right on.
Schoettgen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 0
QUOTE (dirtpoor @ Aug 30 2007, 10:54 PM)
Go back and read the post from "WildlifeBranch". He is correct. On top of the neither the NPS nor the Nature Conservancy, has access to money generated from the puchase of pig tags. Is it that hard to understand?
QUOTE (dirtpoor @ Aug 30 2007, 10:54 PM)
QUOTE (Schoettgen @ Aug 31 2007, 04:40 PM)
Gee, you're so smart , I guess I must have been tired and didn't fully read every post, but thank you for pointing it out to me in your sarcastic manner.
Schoettgen
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 1,066
- Reaction score
- 0
I know personally a lot of very hard working Fish and Game personel and I get very tired of seeing the Department Slammed for things they have no control of. I was not being sarcastic, but if my post ticked you off so be it.
Sierra_Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
Well,
I put in for that Pig Hunt when DFG was involved and I would have gladly paid my own way there and back and even paid added fees, insurance. I think the 5 million could have been paid to DFG to either manage Hunters or DFG personnel to do the job.
However, I am willing to let bygones be bygones if I get to be First in line for the "fallow" deer on Pt. Reyes. ["NPS also plans to eliminate axis/fallow deer on Pt. Reyes Natl. Seashore. more to come on that."]
Don't we also pay the National Parks Services through both our federal income tax dollars and Pittman-Ross taxes? Who do we need to direct our emails to at NPS in order to enlighten them?
I put in for that Pig Hunt when DFG was involved and I would have gladly paid my own way there and back and even paid added fees, insurance. I think the 5 million could have been paid to DFG to either manage Hunters or DFG personnel to do the job.
However, I am willing to let bygones be bygones if I get to be First in line for the "fallow" deer on Pt. Reyes. ["NPS also plans to eliminate axis/fallow deer on Pt. Reyes Natl. Seashore. more to come on that."]
Don't we also pay the National Parks Services through both our federal income tax dollars and Pittman-Ross taxes? Who do we need to direct our emails to at NPS in order to enlighten them?
Sierra_Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
The way we have balanced wildlife and habitat in this country has been through the use of hunting, among other things, to control both native and "foreign" animals.
Is the NPS listening to Jane Goodall on Deer and now they are going to use contraceptives instead of hunting? Since when is a woman who does docu-dramas on monkeys and apes an expert on deer?
GonaCon?
"When it comes to deer, tests in Maryland showed that from day one it left one-third of does fertile. After a year, the fertile portion was up to half. By four years, deer reproductive switches are all back on.
At Point Reyes, this means that in order to stop a doe from reproducing during her typical 20-year lifespan, she needs to be constantly captured and re-injected. So do her 1,100-or-so cousins. It's important never to miss any animals, because unchecked their populations can double in three years. This doomed experiment will cost the park $210,000 per year. "
Shooting the deer, meanwhile, costs one-tenth that. And it works.
The capturing and injecting isn't exactly humane either: The Audubon Society denounced the contraception plan as unnecessarily stressful on the animals, saying they should all be shot.
"You have to capture them under drop nets or with net guns from helicopters, put a radio collar on them, and ear tags, and release them. That takes between 20 and 30 minutes per animal, and costs between $1,500 and $3,000 per animal. We don't know whether it works," said Gates.
Nonetheless, Machado, the Marin County dogcatcher instrumental in stopping the park from culling deer in 1994, is convinced contraceptives are the best option. "
[SF Weekly ]
This is what happens. Others like dog catchers from Marin and Ape-Photographers contact NPS or the papers and paint one story. We sit here and rant, but never contact the people actually in charge. Maybe we should start emailing the people involved?
Point Reyes National Seashore Supt. Don Neubacher
Point Reyes National Seashore
1 Bear Valley Rd.
Point Reyes Station, CA 94956
415-464-5100 x1
http://www.nps.gov/pore/contacts.htm
I am sending a letter today. Neither the hogs nor the deer destroyed the habitat, but the lack of managing those populations through licensed legal hunting did contribute to unnecessary problems. There are Tule Elk there and if you let them go unchecked over time they will increase until the habitat cannot support them, too. That's really Koyanaskatsi.
Is the NPS listening to Jane Goodall on Deer and now they are going to use contraceptives instead of hunting? Since when is a woman who does docu-dramas on monkeys and apes an expert on deer?
GonaCon?
"When it comes to deer, tests in Maryland showed that from day one it left one-third of does fertile. After a year, the fertile portion was up to half. By four years, deer reproductive switches are all back on.
At Point Reyes, this means that in order to stop a doe from reproducing during her typical 20-year lifespan, she needs to be constantly captured and re-injected. So do her 1,100-or-so cousins. It's important never to miss any animals, because unchecked their populations can double in three years. This doomed experiment will cost the park $210,000 per year. "
Shooting the deer, meanwhile, costs one-tenth that. And it works.
The capturing and injecting isn't exactly humane either: The Audubon Society denounced the contraception plan as unnecessarily stressful on the animals, saying they should all be shot.
"You have to capture them under drop nets or with net guns from helicopters, put a radio collar on them, and ear tags, and release them. That takes between 20 and 30 minutes per animal, and costs between $1,500 and $3,000 per animal. We don't know whether it works," said Gates.
Nonetheless, Machado, the Marin County dogcatcher instrumental in stopping the park from culling deer in 1994, is convinced contraceptives are the best option. "
[SF Weekly ]
This is what happens. Others like dog catchers from Marin and Ape-Photographers contact NPS or the papers and paint one story. We sit here and rant, but never contact the people actually in charge. Maybe we should start emailing the people involved?
Point Reyes National Seashore Supt. Don Neubacher
Point Reyes National Seashore
1 Bear Valley Rd.
Point Reyes Station, CA 94956
415-464-5100 x1
http://www.nps.gov/pore/contacts.htm
I am sending a letter today. Neither the hogs nor the deer destroyed the habitat, but the lack of managing those populations through licensed legal hunting did contribute to unnecessary problems. There are Tule Elk there and if you let them go unchecked over time they will increase until the habitat cannot support them, too. That's really Koyanaskatsi.
Rancho Loco
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,546
- Reaction score
- 3
The damage that introduced invasive species do to island ecosystems is well documented all over the world, and only trapping and dep hunting will control or eliminate the feral pig populations. Fair chase hunting won't even come close to doing it.
Sierra_Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey Rancho Loco,
I'm more interested in stopping the use of eradication and contrceptives as alternatives to legal hunting. Wild pigs are on many islands and are not destroying the islands, Hawaii, eg. I recall the issue on Santa Cruz stemmed from a little Fox. Hunting is used all over the U.S. to maintain populations of animals in balance with the available habitat.
That's part of keeping the balance of nature and why I believe we hunt. Not because we are trying to artificially control animals like in a zoo, but because we are part of nature, itself...it's where we fit in to the grand scheme of things. That should be the way to spend your tax dollars...because if this freak show of contraceptives and exterminators takes hold, hunting as you know it, will be a distant memory.
Sorry about the rant...it's just messed up. I wrote a letter just now to Don Neubacher.
I'm more interested in stopping the use of eradication and contrceptives as alternatives to legal hunting. Wild pigs are on many islands and are not destroying the islands, Hawaii, eg. I recall the issue on Santa Cruz stemmed from a little Fox. Hunting is used all over the U.S. to maintain populations of animals in balance with the available habitat.
That's part of keeping the balance of nature and why I believe we hunt. Not because we are trying to artificially control animals like in a zoo, but because we are part of nature, itself...it's where we fit in to the grand scheme of things. That should be the way to spend your tax dollars...because if this freak show of contraceptives and exterminators takes hold, hunting as you know it, will be a distant memory.
Sorry about the rant...it's just messed up. I wrote a letter just now to Don Neubacher.
Rancho Loco
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Messages
- 5,546
- Reaction score
- 3
Are we talking about the same feral pigs? Honestly - this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that wild pigs aren't destructive little monsters.
http://www.rarehawaii.org/overview/overview.htm
http://www.rarehawaii.org/overview/overview.htm
QUOTE (Rancho Loco @ Sep 3 2007, 06:41 PM)
Oh wait, you were talking about the 4 legged pigs...
I guess I was talking about all the damage the 2 legged variety has done to the island THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF UNDOING.
All the pig rooting they could do for the next hundred years would not move the amount of dirt moved when the 15 or so roads were cut on that island using heavy equipment.
This was not about returning the habitat to its original state. The island foxes survived for nearly 100 years while that island had all kinds of man inflicted damage in the form of pigs and exotics, orchards and what all put on it. This was about using a theory "pigs are tearing the place up and killing the native flora and fauna" to get hunters and their prey to leave.
Well they are gone.
And the damage still remains. And it always will. There was an agenda, anyone who doesn't want to see it, has a vested interest in it, or is blind.
I applaud their use of an extermination company to carry out their agenda, it was the only way to really get rid of them correctly...but with an island that screwed up, and no intention of fixing it, why get rid of them in the first place? I can think of a few million pheasant hunters who think having that exotic in their fields is a good thing.
The bald eagles are back, they mainly eat fish, but wouldn't it be interesting if some of them acquired a taste for island fox?
If you liked this episode, just wait, Santa Rosa is next, and all the MUM animals are going to be eliminated as well. I wonder what they are going to save on that island with the eradication of another hunting area...endangered dirt?
I have no problem with what they are trying to do, if they do it all the way. Remove all the unnatrual influences on those islands, not just fishermen, not just hunters, ALL OF IT. Do that and I will be satisfied, until that time, this is hypocrisy, plain and simple. I can have my airstrip on the island, but you cannot have your pigs. I call BS.
They sure are destructive...2 naval installations, 2 navy sites, the smuggler's cove orchard and ranch, the del norte camp, the 2 additional navy sites, the main ranch on south ridge, the chapel of the holy cross, the UC reserve field station, the Centenella sign area, the Frazier point monument, the air strip, the water tank on North ridge, the improved landing dock on prisoner's harbor, the white building behind it and the various camps and trails cut all over that island...
Oh wait, you were talking about the 4 legged pigs...
I guess I was talking about all the damage the 2 legged variety has done to the island THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF UNDOING.
All the pig rooting they could do for the next hundred years would not move the amount of dirt moved when the 15 or so roads were cut on that island using heavy equipment.
This was not about returning the habitat to its original state. The island foxes survived for nearly 100 years while that island had all kinds of man inflicted damage in the form of pigs and exotics, orchards and what all put on it. This was about using a theory "pigs are tearing the place up and killing the native flora and fauna" to get hunters and their prey to leave.
Well they are gone.
And the damage still remains. And it always will. There was an agenda, anyone who doesn't want to see it, has a vested interest in it, or is blind.
I applaud their use of an extermination company to carry out their agenda, it was the only way to really get rid of them correctly...but with an island that screwed up, and no intention of fixing it, why get rid of them in the first place? I can think of a few million pheasant hunters who think having that exotic in their fields is a good thing.
The bald eagles are back, they mainly eat fish, but wouldn't it be interesting if some of them acquired a taste for island fox?
If you liked this episode, just wait, Santa Rosa is next, and all the MUM animals are going to be eliminated as well. I wonder what they are going to save on that island with the eradication of another hunting area...endangered dirt?
I have no problem with what they are trying to do, if they do it all the way. Remove all the unnatrual influences on those islands, not just fishermen, not just hunters, ALL OF IT. Do that and I will be satisfied, until that time, this is hypocrisy, plain and simple. I can have my airstrip on the island, but you cannot have your pigs. I call BS.
bayedsolid
Forever Hunting
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 964
- Reaction score
- 0
Ooja----
Well said!
WildlifeBranch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 56
Ooja-- following your example, there may not be any national parks & I like my national parks.
Point is there is no perfection/complete effort in ecosystems that humans have influenced, but conservation efforts do the best they can, and hopefully will continue to do so.
Point is there is no perfection/complete effort in ecosystems that humans have influenced, but conservation efforts do the best they can, and hopefully will continue to do so.
QUOTE (WildlifeBranch @ Sep 7 2007, 06:52 PM)
The preservationist wants to return things to as close as natural state as possible, then completely isolate and leave what is left alone so it is preserved.
What we have here are people with an agenda. They pretend to be preservationists, reverse the damage, isolate and preserve. Then they remove the pigs, and their hunters, and do nothing else.
I just want it seen for what it is. The animals lived with conservationist hunting and management for nearly a century. Now the pigs are a problem must be removed...so people said "Yeah, clean up the island, make it safe for native species, sure I can get behind that"
But that is not what was done. The hunters and the prey were removed, nothing else implied will ever be accomplished.
I don't see what this has to do with national parks. National parks don't allow hunting, never have, they are examples of a preservationist system, and it works.
This is not conservation, this is not preservation. This is eliminating hunters and their prey and nothing more IMHO.
And I still fish that island, and it is more developed now than ever before. I see it. I watch the construction, season to season. It is what it is, and I have seen it with my own eyes, throughout my lifetime.
Point is I am a conservationist, I live with the damage that man has done, and through conservation efforts (hunting among others) we keep and maintain what we have left.
The preservationist wants to return things to as close as natural state as possible, then completely isolate and leave what is left alone so it is preserved.
What we have here are people with an agenda. They pretend to be preservationists, reverse the damage, isolate and preserve. Then they remove the pigs, and their hunters, and do nothing else.
I just want it seen for what it is. The animals lived with conservationist hunting and management for nearly a century. Now the pigs are a problem must be removed...so people said "Yeah, clean up the island, make it safe for native species, sure I can get behind that"
But that is not what was done. The hunters and the prey were removed, nothing else implied will ever be accomplished.
I don't see what this has to do with national parks. National parks don't allow hunting, never have, they are examples of a preservationist system, and it works.
This is not conservation, this is not preservation. This is eliminating hunters and their prey and nothing more IMHO.
And I still fish that island, and it is more developed now than ever before. I see it. I watch the construction, season to season. It is what it is, and I have seen it with my own eyes, throughout my lifetime.
WildlifeBranch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
- Messages
- 608
- Reaction score
- 56
I get your point Ooja--
Part of Santa Cruz Island (eastern 1/4 or so I thought) is in Channel Islands National Park so it fits they would want to remove them.
Part of Santa Cruz Island (eastern 1/4 or so I thought) is in Channel Islands National Park so it fits they would want to remove them.
Sierra_Dave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2007
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi Eric,
I have a couple of questions about the "strategy" used for wildlife population control(s).
1.)When "Prohunt" killed wild boars and left them to rot in the fields was that a violation of California Fish & Game rules and regulations?
2.) In the American River fish and amphibians are dramatically affected by estrogen from "birth control" pills taken by women in the greater Sacramento area that cannot be removed from waste water at the local treatment plant. How can anyone account for short/long term affects of the introduction of chemicals like "GonaCon"? The compound will likely leach into the local streams and rivers surrounding Pt. Reyes National Park. BTW, "No fertility control agents have been approved by the FDA for non-investigational use on wildlife populations in the United States. "
The unintended consequence of introduction of chemicals to chemically castrate wildlife may be the castration/mutation of non-target species.
3.) We presently set hunting and fishing hours based on a number of considerations. Is it possible to set hunting for times and places in areas to allay the public's concern over the witnessing of actual harvest of wildlife?
The goal is controlling wildlife to enhance and preserve the natural habitat, right? What can we do as hunters and fishermen to help you advance the strategies to protect habitat through legal hunting, right now?
Sorry if that's too many questions...or slightly off topic.
Thanks,
Dave
I have a couple of questions about the "strategy" used for wildlife population control(s).
1.)When "Prohunt" killed wild boars and left them to rot in the fields was that a violation of California Fish & Game rules and regulations?
2.) In the American River fish and amphibians are dramatically affected by estrogen from "birth control" pills taken by women in the greater Sacramento area that cannot be removed from waste water at the local treatment plant. How can anyone account for short/long term affects of the introduction of chemicals like "GonaCon"? The compound will likely leach into the local streams and rivers surrounding Pt. Reyes National Park. BTW, "No fertility control agents have been approved by the FDA for non-investigational use on wildlife populations in the United States. "
The unintended consequence of introduction of chemicals to chemically castrate wildlife may be the castration/mutation of non-target species.
3.) We presently set hunting and fishing hours based on a number of considerations. Is it possible to set hunting for times and places in areas to allay the public's concern over the witnessing of actual harvest of wildlife?
The goal is controlling wildlife to enhance and preserve the natural habitat, right? What can we do as hunters and fishermen to help you advance the strategies to protect habitat through legal hunting, right now?
Sorry if that's too many questions...or slightly off topic.
Thanks,
Dave
