Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo
Nope. If the quantified natural mortality is 35% then anything above that percentage would be additive mortality, not compensatory. Which makes your version of Facts, False. v v
More precisely, any human induced mortality can be both additive and compensatory - depending upon the conditions and context.
Not surprisingly, you neglected to mention that a 25 or 35% cull would stop the wolf numbers from growing, which is better than having an increase in the wolf population when management goals are to reduce the mortality rates on ungulates.
|
First comment is exactly as I said.
Second comment is well known and meaningless in this example because the discussion is about the consequences of a 25% cull.
Third comment would be true if it were additive to natural mortality and could be maintained indefinitely over the entire province. A normal population can maintain their numbers with normal pup survival which means an adequate prey base and ingress ion from neighboring areas which you would have even if you covered the entire province because the province is surrounded by wolves.
Have you ever wondered why the Smoky cull which has been intensive use of strychnine and aerial gunning for ten consecutive years with a 100% removal every year still results in the same number of wolves killed the following year? This is significant to most people. It's here in Alberta and happening now. Why can you not accept the dynamics of a wolf population? or the scientists who spoke on the CTV wolf documentary?
I have said before wolves are going to teach a bunch of people a hard lesson in the next few years unless mother nature steps in for some reason.