What if we consider ungulates co evolving with humans?

[horshur]

Reading a book I got for Christmas. Chapter 5 of "A hunter-gatherer's guide to the 21st century "
Depending on ungulates also means we manipulated conditions, we dealt with competitors, used fire, even domesticated some. So in the 21st century it seems we want to take a step back from all of that. Let nature take its course. But what if the many thousands of years the "Wild" ungulates we have coddled in some way by co evolving are not really up to the task, that our lives are entwined?
Topic for discussion.

[hawk-i]

Nature will sort that out rather quickly.

[Rob Chipman]

Reading a book I got for Christmas. Chapter 5 of "A hunter-gatherer's guide to the 21st century "
Depending on ungulates also means we manipulated conditions, we dealt with competitors, used fire, even domesticated some. So in the 21st century it seems we want to take a step back from all of that. Let nature take its course. But what if the many thousands of years the "Wild" ungulates we have coddled in some way by co evolving are not really up to the task, that our lives are entwined?
Topic for discussion.

It's a great thing to think about. I'm not sure we've "coddled" ungulates, but there's no question we all co-evolved. I mean, bios don't ask hunters to *not shoot* collared animals precisely because human caused hunting mortality has always been part of any animal's life experience, right?

Letting nature take it's course usually seems to me to be the response of people who don't understand what that looks like and who don't understand that humans have achieved apex predator status and have kind of (going out on a limb here, I know) created a global predator pit.

[Deer_Slayer]

Sounds like a book I would fall asleep after reading first page.:shock:

[horshur]

It is a easy read.

[Bustercluck]

My hunting partner has a theory. The animals are only here because we want them here. Many species like the Buffalo were on the brink of extinction until we did something about it. So we have to keep manipulating their habitat to keep them going. Unless we are willing to dedicate huge swaths of land for them to live in without logging, mining or other industry than they’re going to continue to need help.

All animals have definitely evolved around humans. It’s not hard to see when you drive through jasper park and the sheep and elk sit 10 yards from the edge of the ditch for tourists to take their photograph, but anywhere else they’d vanish into the wilderness.

I’m a bit more of a naturalist and Id love to see more land set aside for animal habitat, but I also understand the need for industry to support the lifestyle we’ve come accustomed too. Balance is the key and humans aren’t very good at that.

[MRP]

Some one needs to lay off the crack.

[longwalk]

The ancestral genotype is present in most domesticated animals. For some like pigs, rabbits, goats and horses it only takes a generation or two to go feral and revert to a wild phenotype.

[Bugle M In]

We may have co-evolved certainly.
But we have done a poor job of co-existing.

Creatures such as ungulates have lived in the same manner for as long as they have been around, only adapting to the
changes humans make.
We on the other hand, keep evolving, which generally means keep destroying thru the need to develop our habitat
further and further and will continue to do so, until the only habitat left are areas that very few ungulates can inhabit.

It we that have to change how we cohabitate with other creatures.
Otherwise we will continue to just conform the land that benefits us, and only if possible, give a little back in some altered
form for the other creatures to exist.

We are the big reason, the only reason that all the other creatures are declining.
So no, I don't think we have "co-evolved" in any manner that has offered balance to both sides of the fence.

[horshur]

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).

[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]

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8597&stc=1This 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.

[wideopenthrottle]

generally it is accepted that lynx populations follow hare populations so not exactly in balance...
this from the googs:
The lynx population decline follows the snowshoe hare population crash after a lag of one to two years. As hare numbers start to decline, lynx continue to eat well because they can easily catch the starving hares. When hares become scarce, lynx numbers also decline.

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.

[IronNoggin]

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.

You are attempting to employ logic on one that cannot understand it.

Nature has never "been in balance". Rather it is a constantly shifting swing from one extreme to another.
Always has been.
Always will - except for our interference to make "balance" occur for our own preferred species.

Nog

[Bugle M In]

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.
I guess the real question (as I agree with your statement) is, when do humans reach that "imbalance".
Sure, plagues and wars have had their effects.
But, we never seem to reach "maximum capacity".
And we see those effects daily now.

So, what's the end game for us?
Little drops here and there isn't going to be enough, considering we are still creating other species to go extinct.
Even if they don't go extinct, their numbers will never reach what they once were.
Boffola, salmon, are just some examples.
Sure, some species don't have much affect on us.
But others certainly will.

[adriaticum]

generally it is accepted that lynx populations follow hare populations
As hare numbers start to decline, lynx continue to eat well because they can easily catch the starving hares.
When hares become scarce, lynx numbers also decline.


That, exactly is balance. If there is such a thing.
Natural balance is a balance of predator and pray.
Animal and it's food.
As long as they are both there, it's balanced.
When one goes extinct, the balance is lost and it will destroy both species.

[horshur]

That, exactly is balance. If there is such a thing.
Natural balance is a balance of predator and pray.
Animal and it's food.
As long as they are both there, it's balanced.
When one goes extinct, the balance is lost and it will destroy both species.
Not a good example, hare populations are not balanced by lynx..they (hare) will go on regardless on the same cycle. Lynx may be dependent on hare but not vice versa.

[adriaticum]

Not a good example, hare populations are not balanced by lynx..they (hare) will go on regardless on the same cycle. Lynx may be dependent on hare but not vice versa.


Have you ever had rabbits in a confined space?
They eat themselves out of existence.
If there were no lynx, rabbits would multiply fast and destroy their environment pretty quickly which would lead to a die off.
In fact lynx create the rabbit cycles.

I think you have just given the anti hunters their strongest argument.

[horshur]

Wonder how hare in UK keep going on? Look up sun spots and hare on google.

[Rob Chipman]

Balance is a funny concept. What timeline are we talking about, for example? What time *period*? Now, or 200, 500, 1,000, 1,000,000 years ago? What kind of disruption in the ecosystem?

Is a predator pit a balance or a system on it's way to a balance (ie, wildlife desert?).

It's a useful concept only when we agree on what we mean and then move on. Arguing about what it is? Kinda pointless.

[bearvalley]

Balance doesn’t occur on its own with wildlife other than in the eyes of the fang & claw protectors.
Landscape management is the key term …where, what & how many.

[adriaticum]

Balance is a funny concept. What timeline are we talking about, for example? What time *period*? Now, or 200, 500, 1,000, 1,000,000 years ago? What kind of disruption in the ecosystem?

Is a predator pit a balance or a system on it's way to a balance (ie, wildlife desert?).

It's a useful concept only when we agree on what we mean and then move on. Arguing about what it is? Kinda pointless.
its a human concept, its what we agree on really

[horshur]

Adriaticum, your sorta agreeing in a way with my initial point, I probably should have noticed earlier. If wildlife co evolved with humans..maybe they cannot exist without us either?
The premise of many is that the world would be a whole lot better off without us..but maybe not? Us trying to remove ourselves from the responsibility may be a even bigger error? It is so insistent. The world used to be a paradise..people came along..ate some fruit and became conscious of self. And it has all been downhill since.

[brian]

If wildlife co evolved with humans..maybe they cannot exist without us either? look into the wildlife resurgence after Chernobyl. It’s very clear, wildlife generally thrives without us. For the most part humanity puts tremendous evolutionary pressure on wildlife, usually in the form of habitat loss. However some species coexist and thrive in the presence of humanity. Nature is not in a state of balance… that implies it can be toppled if brought out of balance. Nature will naturally seek equilibrium. If nature were perfectly balanced, then evolution would cease. But there is always pressure being exerted on the equilibrium that allows for the condition of evolution.

[adriaticum]

Adriaticum, your sorta agreeing in a way with my initial point, I probably should have noticed earlier. If wildlife co evolved with humans..maybe they cannot exist without us either?
The premise of many is that the world would be a whole lot better off without us..but maybe not? Us trying to remove ourselves from the responsibility may be a even bigger error? It is so insistent. The world used to be a paradise..people came along..ate some fruit and became conscious of self. And it has all been downhill since.

yes more or less.
They can exist without us, as long as there are other predators who take care of them.
There must be a balance between food and what eats it.
Predators and prey.
Nature's design is to have grass, grass eaters and meat eaters.
This is balance. IMO. Too many of any of those and the whole planet suffers.
Too few of any of those and the result is the same.
We are not the only predators on the planet. Yet. But it's going that way.
Earth existed millions of years before we became what we are today.

We could exist on earth in much smaller numbers without negatively affecting the planet's ecosystems.
IMO, Earth doesn't care if we exist or not, as long as we exist in numbers that are small enough and sustainable and don't cause catastrophic ecological events.

But like any problem animals, we have become a burden.

Animal biologists often try to calculate carrying capacity of the land for their specific species and ecosystems.
But nobody seems to have a number for carrying capacity of humans.

From the history I know, deforestation of Europe was a major event that triggered mass migrations, lack of resources and triggered migrations and discoveries (North America)
There we several other things.
Anasazi in the Chaco canyon cut down the last tree and were forced to move from the land they lived for a long time.
Buffalo destruction in the prairies.
India has lived in squalor since the time of Buddha.
Those are ecosystem destroying events caused by humans by over using a resource.

If I had to put my number on it, I'd say that the planet could sustain anywhere between 500M and 1B people without major impact.
And we could live like we live today in North America. Basically comfortably.
But during my lifetime human population doubled.
If we don't figure out how to control our growth, nature will.
The only thing we can do for the planet, that is beneficial, is reduce our numbers to pre 1800.
Otherwise, the more we grow, the less freedom we will have. The need to control our behaviour will be greater.
Governments will have to come up with scams to keeps us under control.
We will be like those dogs in cages before they go to Chinese and Korean kitchens.

[Bugle M In]

If we are talking Co -"Evolved", then I dont know if that is a great description.
When evolution is talked about, It is spoken in terms of thousands, if not millions of years.
Evolution of say Homo sapiens taking over Neanderthal or say millions of years in regards to Dinosaur evolution.
But, really we have only been here a short time (homosapiens) and yet have we have upended everything in a very short time.
Our populations are huge, we inhabit every continent, we take over the most prime areas in the habitat.
I just dont see how the creatures have co-evolved with us in it.
Unless you talk about that MD buck in your backyard eating your tomato plants that it only realized in a generation or 2 that
they can eat them.

Any evolution of ungulates sure has not presented itself in such a way that i think we can measure at this point, if at all.
Any evolution for them might be dependent on changes in temps etc.
Example, polar bear and grizzlies now beginning to intersect in territory, thus a new evolution in the bear species.
I jut don't see how humans cause them to evolve, other than altering their environment, ie: global warming.
In that case, I can see a co-evolution occurring.
But, probably not for the best.

[adriaticum]

Bugle, one example of co-evolution of deer, elk, bison with humans would be any and all adaptations they made as a result of humans modifying their habitat by logging, resource extraction and development.

We build fences around highways dividing ecosystems permanently.
surely animals have had to adapt.

[j270wsm]

^^^^^^my opinion, I would consider what your saying as adaptation not evolving.

[adriaticum]

^^^^^^my opinion, I would consider what your saying as adaptation not evolving.
Adaptation is evolution.
Just add time.

[Bugle M In]

Adaption or Evolution, I am pretty sure it isn't the way Darwin analyzed how we all got here.
Even the elk have evolved, as we used to have an elk that was huge (forget the name), or elephants where some were mammoths
etc.
Maybe the grizzlies now mating with polar bears might bring back the great cave bears??
IF the ungulates want to really co-evolve with humans, they better start to grow fingers with opposing thumbs if they want
to keep up:lol:

[IronNoggin]

Hunting and evolution: theory, evidence, and unknowns
Marco Festa-Bianchet, Atle Mysterud

Abstract Intense selective harvest of large mammals who carry the largest weapons may lead to an evolutionary shrinkage of those weapons. Currently, evidence suggesting evolutionary effects of harvest is limited to a few species of Bovidae and only 1 study has obtained data indicating a genetic effect.

To have an evolutionary impact, harvest must be intense, persistent over time, similar over a large area without an effective source of unselected immigrants, and remove large individuals before they have a chance to breed. Many current harvest schemes do not fulfill all of these requirements, and they are unlikely to cause evolution.

Before changes in weapon size over time are attributed to evolution, potential environmental sources of change, mainly density and climate, must be considered. We suggest that the role of weapon size in determining reproductive success, especially in interaction with male age, will determine whether or not intensive selective harvests may have evolutionary consequences.

Age at harvest is a very important variable to consider. Changes in age structure over time may reveal underlying changes in harvest pressure or selectivity. A lack of data hampers our ability to assess the potential evolutionary effects of selective hunting. We provide a list of research hypotheses required to advance our ability to assess the evolutionary sustainability of current management practices."

https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/99/6/1281/5168534?fbclid=IwAR3jTa-7PovkcvXhAW4Ukp67MDKSEyuptzYyeVXS7b93G3X1_8T39wTBR Ak

[Bugle M In]

^^^^okay, I just finished shoveling a Strata Complex.
Need a shower and a scotch (maybe a few) before I consider reading and contemplating that:neutral:

[j270wsm]

Adaptation is evolution.
Just add time.

They aren’t the same.
Evolution is a biological change where as living among humans is an adaptation.

[Walking Buffalo]

Hunting and evolution: theory, evidence, and unknowns


Marco Festa-Bianchet, Atle Mysterud

Abstract

Intense selective harvest of large mammals who carry the largest weapons may lead to an evolutionary shrinkage of those weapons. Currently, evidence suggesting evolutionary effects of harvest is limited to a few species of Bovidae and only 1 study has obtained data indicating a genetic effect.

To have an evolutionary impact, harvest must be intense, persistent over time, similar over a large area without an effective source of unselected immigrants, and remove large individuals before they have a chance to breed. Many current harvest schemes do not fulfill all of these requirements, and they are unlikely to cause evolution.

Before changes in weapon size over time are attributed to evolution, potential environmental sources of change, mainly density and climate, must be considered. We suggest that the role of weapon size in determining reproductive success, especially in interaction with male age, will determine whether or not intensive selective harvests may have evolutionary consequences.

Age at harvest is a very important variable to consider. Changes in age structure over time may reveal underlying changes in harvest pressure or selectivity. A lack of data hampers our ability to assess the potential evolutionary effects of selective hunting. We provide a list of research hypotheses required to advance our ability to assess the evolutionary sustainability of current management practices."

https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/99/6/1281/5168534?fbclid=IwAR3jTa-7PovkcvXhAW4Ukp67MDKSEyuptzYyeVXS7b93G3X1_8T39wTBR Ak


We spent years and a huge amount of time, effort and money fighting this hunting induced genetic harm gang.
They were adamant that Alberta sheep were facing dire negative genetic effects due exclusively to our hunting regulations.

He seems to have softened his song.

I will never trust his "science".

[adriaticum]

They aren’t the same.
Evolution is a biological change where as living among humans is an adaptation.
Yes they are the same.
Similar.