What if we consider ungulates co evolving with humans?

[Avalanche123]

There are a few places left where animals have had very little human contact....compared to other locations where wildlife evolves around regular human contact...a balance IMO is required when we humans [put value] on something. High demand from various sectors or interest groups have pushed the paradigm too far that perhaps the end result is extinction....an animal can only evolve so fast....

[Bugle M In]

Why would there need to be balance? who values balance? Nature or man? Anthropomorphic projection?
What animals get to thrive? Ones we value. Even those we have rendered completely useless ( lap dogs).

"What animals get to thrive" brings up an interesting comment.
Watching the Costner starred series Yellowstone, there is an episode where Vegans are basically protesting Cattle Ranching.
At one point, Costners asks them, "at what point do you chose one animals life over another"?
Meaning, to be a Vegan, still requires animals to be lost thru agriculture, like salamanders or mice etc.

I don't think its about what creatures are more important.
I think protecting some creatures allows protection to others.
Balance is needed.
Best example is with our logging.
We can afford to cut down all old growth, because certain species only exist in those environments.
We have to remember that.

[tylerduce]

This is a really interesting book that I read a few years ago that touches on some fascinating questions....how much damage (or not) does human activity have on other species, what makes biodiversity thrive, what is natural, etc. The book does not focus on hunting but a conservation/ecologically minded outdoorsman will gain much from reading it.

Inheritors of the Earth - Chris D Thomas

[Treed]

I don't think its about what creatures are more important.
I think protecting some creatures allows protection to others.
Balance is needed.
Best example is with our logging.
We can afford to cut down all old growth, because certain species only exist in those environments.
We have to remember that.

Those species are called keystone species, the theory being that protecting them protects myriad other species. As for old growth logging, we do that for money and because forestry has been badly managed in this province. A lot of that goes back to the original philosophy in BC, which was to liquidate decadent old forest in favour of thrifty second growth stands. We put ourselves, with the help of beetles and fires, in the proverbial rock and a hard space.

There is no such the thing as balance in nature. It is a constant change in reaction to abiotic and biotic changes. The idea of balance is a nice story we tell our kids so they feel like the morrow will be like today.

[Walking Buffalo]

Those species are called keystone species, the theory being that protecting them protects myriad other species. As for old growth logging, we do that for money and because forestry has been badly managed in this province. A lot of that goes back to the original philosophy in BC, which was to liquidate decadent old forest in favour of thrifty second growth stands. We put ourselves, with the help of beetles and fires, in the proverbial rock and a hard space.

There is no such the thing as balance in nature. It is a constant change in reaction to abiotic and biotic changes.



The idea of balance is a nice story we tell our kids so they feel like the morrow will be like today.

This is such an important fact.

In the realm of ecosystem management, the misinformation described as "balance in nature" is among the most insidious and damaging.

[adriaticum]

nothing on earth happens anymore without human at least knowing about it. we definitely modify every micro ecosystem almost and definitely the global one.

[adriaticum]

This is such an important fact.

In the realm of ecosystem management, the misinformation described as "balance in nature" is among the most insidious and damaging.

It's not true.
In a sense.

Balance exists and it's whatever we make it.
It's a human concept.
Change, evolution and balance are not mutually exclusive.

Balance exists in a sense that both the rabbit and the lynx exists in a landscape.
Not that there is a equal number of rabbits and lynx on the landscape.
The rabbit and the lynx evolve together and in response to each other.
As long as they both exist their world is balanced.

[Bugle M In]

Humans have an answer for everything.
Mother Nature is the one the carries the Ultimate Solution in her hands however.

One day she will let Us (humans) know we were an experiment that went wrong and no longer belongs.

Creatures have had to co-exist with us, at their expense, and in small ways co-evolved thru need, not will, but they
have not changed.
They have stuck to the plan but pay the price.

Nature balances all problems in the end.
She will do the dame to us.

[Walking Buffalo]

It's not true.
In a sense.

Balance exists and it's whatever we make it.
It's a human concept.
Change, evolution and balance are not mutually exclusive.

Balance exists in a sense that both the rabbit and the lynx exists in a landscape.
Not that there is a equal number of rabbits and lynx on the landscape.
The rabbit and the lynx evolve together and in response to each other.
As long as they both exist their world is balanced.

In a literal sense, You are making up new definitions in an attempt to validate your reasoning.

Nature is Never in balance. Never has been, never will be.

It is not supposed to be, Nature is designed for Imbalance.

[adriaticum]

In a literal sense, You are making up new definitions in an attempt to validate your reasoning.

Nature is Never in balance. Never has been, never will be.

It is not supposed to be, Nature is designed for Imbalance.

well yes, but you have define what balance is to make the claim that nature is not in balance. like i defined what balance is as it relates to the rabbit and the lynx.