Blue Herons
- Thread starter Acristickid
- Start date
Chaz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,466
open a season and only take the blue herons that have at least six points on their antlers. Seriously, though there were a lot of birds on the brink or near the brink, that if it were not for the ban on DDT would have headed into oblivion. Could you imaginea world without the eastern blue bird? There's no doubt in my mind that it's had a possitive impact on wild trout populations, though I've never seen any data on that.
AlwaysWading
Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2008
- Messages
- 200
No offence to conservation, but more times than not we end up conserving the wrong item. We had to protect hawks, and what happens, hawks all over the place, rabbit and pheasant population down. We have to protect the herons, and what happens, now you can find them along almost every native trout stream, plus the stocked ones when they have fish in them. Maybe its time to look at conservation from a different direction, that being protecting what we hunt and fish.
You seem to misunderstand the predator/prey dynamic in a key way. Predator populations are never very high relative to prey populations, and when prey species decline, predator populations respond VERY quickly with starvation, or predators seeking new ranges. If you're seeing a lot of predatory animals, its because there happens to be a great deal of prey in that area. The comment about hawks- most of our PA hawks survive off of non-game species, and of course you see more hawks certain times, of the year, its called MIGRATION. Do you have any evidence at all that game bird or rabbit populations are declining, or any evidence that it has anything at all to do with bird of prey populations?
Herons belong in our ecosystem. If there are a lot of herons that indicates an abundance of prey species, and suprisingly enough there is a lot more than trout in our streams for herons to eat. Seeing a heron on a trout stream doesn't mean it's eating trout. Herons are opportunistic, and dace, chubs, suckers, frogs, mice etc. are all fair game. Be happy we have healthy enough ecosystems to support our predatory birds.
Maybe you're right though, maybe we should "manage (read:kill)" predators off so there is more game. How well has that worked for the deer herd in PA? Oh yeah, we had one of the mostly grossly unbalanced deer herds in the nation that was quickly eating itself into starvation and destroying our understory. Sure glad we killed off all of its natural predators. The conservation you speak of is exactly what most of the nation's game laws were 50 or 60 years ago, why promote backsliding?
Herons belong in our ecosystem. If there are a lot of herons that indicates an abundance of prey species, and suprisingly enough there is a lot more than trout in our streams for herons to eat. Seeing a heron on a trout stream doesn't mean it's eating trout. Herons are opportunistic, and dace, chubs, suckers, frogs, mice etc. are all fair game. Be happy we have healthy enough ecosystems to support our predatory birds.
Maybe you're right though, maybe we should "manage (read:kill)" predators off so there is more game. How well has that worked for the deer herd in PA? Oh yeah, we had one of the mostly grossly unbalanced deer herds in the nation that was quickly eating itself into starvation and destroying our understory. Sure glad we killed off all of its natural predators. The conservation you speak of is exactly what most of the nation's game laws were 50 or 60 years ago, why promote backsliding?
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
Chaz, I agree media should be unbiased, but there is no such thing as completely unbiased. We are talking about something made by people, and judged by people, with varying backgrounds and opinions. Some stories are slanted to the left, others to the right, and biased people judge the bias of the organizations by how many of each category they run.
SonofZ3, your speaking about natural balance, which doesn't exist, due to natural variation. The classic predator-prey models are very simplistic as they don't take into account time of year variations, and other food sources. Of any species, the population is governed by the available food in the LEANEST times, as well as predation and pollution type stuff. You mentioned that deer are overabundant, so we'll use that example. In spring and summer, there's plenty of food available, if the whole year were like that then deer are underabundant. From a food perspective, its fall and winter that decides the population. Mast crop and, in farming country, corn, gives them enough fat to make it through the winter. If there's enough mast crop left they can eat all winter, provided the snow isn't too deep and crusted to get to it. Thus, the actual, biological carrying capacity in any location varies widely from year to year, based on the mast crop, farming practices, and snow depth (how long the snow stays deep is important too). The herd exceeds carrying capacities in years with a poor mast crop and/or a winter with snow cover for long periods, and we get winter kill. In milder winters or years with a strong mast crop, the actual deer herd doesn't even sniff the true carrying capacity of the forest.
As for predation, we'll use coyotes as an example. They take a pretty good number of fawns during a short time period in the late spring, when the fawns are vulnerable. Because its such a short time period of riches, and not the leanest one for coyotes, the availability of fawns has little effect on coyote populations. Coyotes don't count on deer for survival, but they'll take them when they can. Thus, they'll take about the same number each year. With a large deer herd, coyotes don't make much difference, there's just too many fawns for them to make a dent in that short of a time period. With a smaller deer herd, the same number of fawns taken by coyotes is suddenly a much larger percentage of the total, and it has a bigger effect on deer populations. There is no balance, but there is cause and effect. The effect of coyotes on deer population is greater when the deer population is smaller, the exact opposite of classic predator-prey models.
Back to herons. DDT may be playing a big part. But if its food availability, herons will do much better in low water situations, so their population is probably governed by the food available in the spring, when the waters are the highest and food will be leanest. The problem is that this is the exact moment when we feed them by the bucket full out of big white trucks, and since some of those fish can be hard to catch, we also stick hooks in their gills and release them to die for the herons to clean up.
SonofZ3, your speaking about natural balance, which doesn't exist, due to natural variation. The classic predator-prey models are very simplistic as they don't take into account time of year variations, and other food sources. Of any species, the population is governed by the available food in the LEANEST times, as well as predation and pollution type stuff. You mentioned that deer are overabundant, so we'll use that example. In spring and summer, there's plenty of food available, if the whole year were like that then deer are underabundant. From a food perspective, its fall and winter that decides the population. Mast crop and, in farming country, corn, gives them enough fat to make it through the winter. If there's enough mast crop left they can eat all winter, provided the snow isn't too deep and crusted to get to it. Thus, the actual, biological carrying capacity in any location varies widely from year to year, based on the mast crop, farming practices, and snow depth (how long the snow stays deep is important too). The herd exceeds carrying capacities in years with a poor mast crop and/or a winter with snow cover for long periods, and we get winter kill. In milder winters or years with a strong mast crop, the actual deer herd doesn't even sniff the true carrying capacity of the forest.
As for predation, we'll use coyotes as an example. They take a pretty good number of fawns during a short time period in the late spring, when the fawns are vulnerable. Because its such a short time period of riches, and not the leanest one for coyotes, the availability of fawns has little effect on coyote populations. Coyotes don't count on deer for survival, but they'll take them when they can. Thus, they'll take about the same number each year. With a large deer herd, coyotes don't make much difference, there's just too many fawns for them to make a dent in that short of a time period. With a smaller deer herd, the same number of fawns taken by coyotes is suddenly a much larger percentage of the total, and it has a bigger effect on deer populations. There is no balance, but there is cause and effect. The effect of coyotes on deer population is greater when the deer population is smaller, the exact opposite of classic predator-prey models.
Back to herons. DDT may be playing a big part. But if its food availability, herons will do much better in low water situations, so their population is probably governed by the food available in the spring, when the waters are the highest and food will be leanest. The problem is that this is the exact moment when we feed them by the bucket full out of big white trucks, and since some of those fish can be hard to catch, we also stick hooks in their gills and release them to die for the herons to clean up.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
pcray,
Spot on!
Spot on!
fly_doggie
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 57
It is unfortunate that some people's idea of wildlife management is to manage a particular species for man's own peculiar benefit (deer, trout, etc.). If there's anything we've learned over the last 40 years is that nature can be very resilient if given a chance but it is an ecosystem. It takes all the critters big & small together to achieve this. The herons (and other species) are just following their biological imperative. I will stop and watch a heron stalk a fish or an osprey dive for a fish. I don't begrudge them a thing. I'm thankful we can still enjoy it. It just isn't the fishing or the hunting, it's the experience.
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
fly_doggie, I'll admit that people are a little short-sited in determining what is best for mankind's own benefit, and people need to be more educated about wildlife management. But whose benefit should we manage wildflife for? Any management decision you make helps some species and hurts others, so for the benefit of "nature" is not an appropriate response. And while this may not be true everywhere in the world, our ecosystem here in PA has been changed enough by man that it is no longer anything resembling its innate natural self, i.e. it is already, for all intents and purposes, irreversably man-made.
So I ask again, whose benefit should we manage wildlife for?
So I ask again, whose benefit should we manage wildlife for?
BrookieBuster101
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 590
fly_doggie
Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2009
- Messages
- 57
While I agree we cannot restore nature back to pre-European settlement condition we are smart enough to know single threaded management for a species is not valid. That's why fisheries conservation has turned to watershed conservation instead of just stream improvement projects. Management of land animals has also turned to ecosystem management instead of providing some food plots. Riparian zones and open space amount to habitat. With the habitat you provide not only for your target game species but also thousands of other critters benefit as well predator and prey. If we provide space and conditions, nature can manage better than we can. The ecosystem can actually thrive given a chance. We are an arrogant species. We tend to believe we can do better than nature. We can't. If we allow nature a chance we will be able to fish & hunt w/o worrying about managing and jacking up wildlife populations.
So our environment in PA is irreversebly changed. So if a stream is already somewhat polluted we shouldn't try to restore it? In the 1970's you couldn't catch a striper or anything else anywhere near Philly. The Delaware River around Philly was an ecologically dead zone. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and other legislation today you can catch stripers all the up to the falls at Trenton - and other fish and aquatic species have benefitted immensely.
To answer your question, we all benefit (man and wildlife) from a healthier environment. The broader the approch the better.
So our environment in PA is irreversebly changed. So if a stream is already somewhat polluted we shouldn't try to restore it? In the 1970's you couldn't catch a striper or anything else anywhere near Philly. The Delaware River around Philly was an ecologically dead zone. Thanks to the Clean Water Act and other legislation today you can catch stripers all the up to the falls at Trenton - and other fish and aquatic species have benefitted immensely.
To answer your question, we all benefit (man and wildlife) from a healthier environment. The broader the approch the better.
pcray1231
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
- Messages
- 13,244
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Lebanon, PA
Well, I agree with a broader approach, and that we have been a little too narrow minded in the past (and still are, but not as much as before). I would argue that this is just man figuring out a better way to do what they've been trying to do all along. The reasons haven't changed, it was, and still is, for the betterment of humans. What has changed is the methods, and they continue to evolve.
Consider that our definition of a healthy habitat is created by humans, based on what we think is best for our own long-term interests. Nature could really care less whether there's 10 mayfly species in a stream or over 100.
There are a lot of contradictory statements in your philosophy. You talk about creating and restoring habitat, and then argue that nature does better than man. It's man thats creating and restoring (actually, improving, not restoring) that habitat. Nature has no "preferred state", it is based on what would happen with the current status quo if man were not to intercede. You also argue that we could hunt and fish without worrying about jacking up wildlife populations. Generally, fishing and especially hunting regulations are designed to do the exact opposite, to prevent overpopulation.
When we "restore" a watershed, we are not restoring it to its former self, too much has changed to do that. Our forests are different, the animal species are different. It is quite certain that it would never return to its former self even in thousands of years, much less on a time scale we can observe. We are attempting to improve the habitat from its current self from the point of view of mankind, not restore it to a former self. More often than not, when we percieve an improvement, it is due to human intervention, not nature "fixing" itself, because nature doesn't see itself as broken.
As for preventative actions, like the Clean Water Act, they are efforts to change the manner of man's impact so that our resources are more beneficial to man. Typically that impact is just put onto something else, for instance containing, transporting, and storing waste rather than putting it into a stream has its own detrimental impacts. If we deem the new situation better, then the effort succeeded.
Consider that our definition of a healthy habitat is created by humans, based on what we think is best for our own long-term interests. Nature could really care less whether there's 10 mayfly species in a stream or over 100.
There are a lot of contradictory statements in your philosophy. You talk about creating and restoring habitat, and then argue that nature does better than man. It's man thats creating and restoring (actually, improving, not restoring) that habitat. Nature has no "preferred state", it is based on what would happen with the current status quo if man were not to intercede. You also argue that we could hunt and fish without worrying about jacking up wildlife populations. Generally, fishing and especially hunting regulations are designed to do the exact opposite, to prevent overpopulation.
When we "restore" a watershed, we are not restoring it to its former self, too much has changed to do that. Our forests are different, the animal species are different. It is quite certain that it would never return to its former self even in thousands of years, much less on a time scale we can observe. We are attempting to improve the habitat from its current self from the point of view of mankind, not restore it to a former self. More often than not, when we percieve an improvement, it is due to human intervention, not nature "fixing" itself, because nature doesn't see itself as broken.
As for preventative actions, like the Clean Water Act, they are efforts to change the manner of man's impact so that our resources are more beneficial to man. Typically that impact is just put onto something else, for instance containing, transporting, and storing waste rather than putting it into a stream has its own detrimental impacts. If we deem the new situation better, then the effort succeeded.
