Cop ''takes care'' of kittens

[piscator]

It's a pittance, and it doesn't even begin to pay for the thousands of skilled people it takes to keep the destruction in something resembling control.

It's amazing America wasn't a barren wasteland when the Europeans got here, what with millenia of uncontrolled destruction by wild ungulates. Good thing for the indians that thousands of skilled Europeans got here in time, eh?

Yeah. Look at how the prairie ecosystems evolved into housing developments and strip malls and megachurch parking lots. And while we're on that note, just think of how many prairie savages went to Hell before they got Christianized!

[piscator]

It's a pittance, and it doesn't even begin to pay for the thousands of skilled people it takes to keep the destruction in something resembling control.

It's amazing America wasn't a barren wasteland when the Europeans got here, what with millenia of uncontrolled destruction by wild ungulates. Good thing for the indians that thousands of skilled Europeans got here in time, eh?

Of course, if you believe in that evolution junk, prairie is actually adapted to being grazed on. I guess that's too far fetched an idea to bring up.

Yes, but, it's adapted to different species than domesticated cows.
Where they graze Bison, the prairie suffers far less than land grazed by cows. The difference is quite remarkable.
Apparently. I read that somewhere. Can't give a reference, but I definitely read it in a science publication.

"Although cattle and bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, so do the polar bear and black bear. Yet we would not suggest that these two bears can inhabit the same type of landscape or that they are ecological analogues of one another. Cattle evolved in moist Eurasian woodlands and are poorly adapted to arid regions. In comparison with bison, cattle use more water, spend more time in riparian areas, and are less mobile. They are poorly adapted to dry western rangelands-one reason why livestock grazing has been so detrimental to these ecosystems.

Bison feed in one place for a few days, then move on, whereas cattle tend to "camp out" in the same location for weeks, overgrazing the landscape in the process. Bison survive on available, native forage. Cattle require extra feed to survive northern winters, which typically means hay production and accompanying dewatering of streams. Cattle are poorly adapted to dealing with predators, being rather slow and unintelligent. Bison retain their wild instincts for avoiding and fending off wolves, grizzlies, and other carnivores.

Wild bison functioned within ecosystems in ways that livestock do not. Their bodies served as food for predators and were scavenged by ravens, coyotes, and magpies. What was left of their carcasses decomposed and was returned to the soil. Bison were a part of, and contributed to, a great diversity of life. Livestock, on the other hand, represent a large net loss of energy and biomass to an ecosystem, as their bodies are removed for human consumption elsewhere.

Despite the simplistic claim that cows merely replace bison, it's not just bison that have been replaced by this exotic, domesticated species. On most rangelands today, cattle are the only major herbivore. Yet in the days before livestock, an entire suite of species fed on the grassland plants, from grasshoppers and sage grouse to prairie dogs and pronghorn. Substituting a single species-with different dietary preferences-for this diverse group of herbivores results in overuse of some plant species and grants competitive advantage to others. These other plants are often invasive and less palatable to many native herbivores."


"Over much of the area that is now public land in the West, native plant communities evolved largely in the absence of grazing herd animals. Between the Sierra Nevada-Cascade crest and the Rocky Mountains lies the arid Intermountain West, composed of areas such as the Great Basin, the Palouse prairie, and the deserts of the Southwest, where bison were mostly absent and even herds of pronghorn antelope, bighorn sheep, elk, and other herbivores tended to be small and widely distributed. Consequently, the plant species of this region are not adapted to continual heavy grazing and trampling, as occurs with domestic livestock.

Yet some livestock proponents argue that although no large herds of grazing or browsing animals occurred in the Intermountain West in historic times, during the last Ice Age great numbers of wild horses, mastodons, giant sloths, and other herbivores roamed these lands. Thus, livestock advocates claim, cattle are merely filling a niche left empty since the extinction of these Pleistocene mammals. The problem, however, is that climatic conditions were very different during the Ice Age-precipitation was higher, for example-and plant communities were much different in composition, as well as generally more productive than today. Cattle are not filling some long-vacant ecological niche but are, in fact, exotic animals that have dramatically altered the native plant communities of the arid West.

Even where large herds of bison, elk, and pronghorn were common, such as on the Great Plains, plants do not need to be grazed. Rather, many Great Plains grasses tolerate grazing by compensating for losses in leaf and stem materials through additional growth. However, when plants move carbohydrates up from their roots to produce new leaves, root growth may slow, and seed production may be inhibited. Only plants with unlimited access to water and nutrients and with no competition (conditions found only in a growth chamber) can withstand repeated cropping without harm. In nature, plants repeatedly munched by livestock suffer from diminished root mass-a potentially lethal situation for the plant during a drought. Of course, drought occurs commonly in the West, including the Great Plains."


http://www.publiclandsranching.org/book.htm

[Seth]

It's a pittance, and it doesn't even begin to pay for the thousands of skilled people it takes to keep the destruction in something resembling control.

It's amazing America wasn't a barren wasteland when the Europeans got here, what with millenia of uncontrolled destruction by wild ungulates. Good thing for the indians that thousands of skilled Europeans got here in time, eh?

Of course, if you believe in that evolution junk, prairie is actually adapted to being grazed on. I guess that's too far fetched an idea to bring up.

Yes, but, it's adapted to different species than domesticated cows.
Where they graze Bison, the prairie suffers far less than land grazed by cows. The difference is quite remarkable.
Apparently. I read that somewhere. Can't give a reference, but I definitely read it in a science publication.

Yes grazing patterns are different between cows and bison, no the difference is not substantial with proper range management. And the choice is not between bison and cows, it's between cows and nothing, and nothing is definitely more harmful than cows.

[piscator]

"Perhaps the biggest fallacy perpetrated by the livestock industry is the idea that if we would only reform or modify management practices, there would be room both for livestock and for fully functional ecosystems, native wildlife, clean water, and so on. Unfortunately, even to approach meaningful reform, more intensive management is needed, and such management adds considerably to the costs of operation. More fencing, more water development, more employees to ride the range: whatever the suggested solution, it always requires more money. Given the low productivity of the western landscape, the marginal nature of most western livestock operations, and the growing global competition in meat production, any increase in operational costs cannot be justified or absorbed. If the production of meat as a commodity is the goal, then an equal investment of money in a moister, more productive stock-growing region-such as the Midwest or the eastern United States-would produce far greater returns.

Even if mitigation were economically feasible, we would still be allotting a large percentage of our landscape and resources-including space, water, and forage-to livestock. If grass is going into the belly of a cow, there's that much less grass available to feed wild creatures, from grasshoppers to elk. If water is being drained from a river to grow hay, there's that much less water to support fish, snails, and a host of other life forms. The mere presence of livestock diminishes the native biodiversity of our public lands.

The choice is really between using the public lands to subsidize a private industry or devoting them to ecological protection and preserving the natural heritage of all Americans. On private lands, native species face an uncertain future. It would be a prudent and reasonable goal to make preservation of biological diversity and ecosystem function the primary goal on public lands. To suggest that we know how to conduct logging, livestock grazing, or other large-scale, resource-consumptive uses while sustaining native biodiversity is to perpetuate the greatest myth of all."

[Warren Dew]

"Although cattle and bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, so do the polar bear and black bear. Yet we would not suggest that these two bears can inhabit the same type of landscape or that they are ecological analogues of one another. Cattle evolved in moist Eurasian woodlands and are poorly adapted to arid regions."

Wow, a major factual error in the very first paragraph. Cattle did not evolve in woodland; no grazing species did, since trees block out the sunlight required for grass to grow. They evolved on the relatively arid steppe and taiga of Eurasia, or on the even more arid edge of the Thar desert. I guess your source is getting confused between aurochs, the ancestor of cattle, and the red deer that actually did inhabit woodlands.

I'm sure the rest of your source is equally misinformed.

[Seth]

"Although cattle and bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, so do the polar bear and black bear. Yet we would not suggest that these two bears can inhabit the same type of landscape or that they are ecological analogues of one another. Cattle evolved in moist Eurasian woodlands and are poorly adapted to arid regions."

Wow, a major factual error in the very first paragraph. Cattle did not evolve in woodland; no grazing species did, since trees block out the sunlight required for grass to grow. They evolved on the relatively arid steppe and taiga of Eurasia, or on the even more arid edge of the Thar desert. I guess your source is getting confused between aurochs, the ancestor of cattle, and the red deer that actually did inhabit woodlands.

I'm sure the rest of your source is equally misinformed.

Yes, it's mindless cut and paste from the eco-zealot idiot anti-cattle faction that has no basis at all in reality, as real range science proves.

[Gallstones]

Aurochs
Habitat, speculated on from morphology of the jaw

DNA reveals that cows were almost impossible to domesticate

[piscator]

"Although cattle and bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, so do the polar bear and black bear. Yet we would not suggest that these two bears can inhabit the same type of landscape or that they are ecological analogues of one another. Cattle evolved in moist Eurasian woodlands and are poorly adapted to arid regions."

Wow, a major factual error in the very first paragraph. Cattle did not evolve in woodland; no grazing species did, since trees block out the sunlight required for grass to grow. They evolved on the relatively arid steppe and taiga of Eurasia, or on the even more arid edge of the Thar desert. I guess your source is getting confused between aurochs, the ancestor of cattle, and the red deer that actually did inhabit woodlands.

Being no stranger to gross error yourself, I think it's probably more likely, Warren, that you are merely confused about what woodlands are, and perhaps even foggier on the nature of taiga. This is not to mention the wide variety in climate of the Eurasian Late Pleistocene and how many areas bore little superficial resemblance to the "arid steppe and taiga" of the same localities in modern Eurasia, particularly with respect to precipitation amounts and hence, ground cover.



"Hi! I'm a wood bison, chillin' in my natural habitat, the boreal forest (taiga) of Wood Bison National Park, Alberta. I evolved here. Sup?"

[Gallstones]

There have been ungulates on the grasslands; millions of them, big ones, cousins to your wood bison.
The environment supported them for many millenia, yes?

The numbers of these large native ungulates has been significantly reduced in a few hundred years, yes?
Replaced with domestic cattle.
It isn't the placing of cattle that caused ecological disaster to the prairies, it was the plowing for crops did it.
People can't eat grass.

Why does your source imply that there are only two kinds of habitat, woodland and arid?

If you read the Cattle DNA link you will find that domestication produced two lines, one of those the zebu line suited to arid conditions. This happened some 10K's of years ago.

[Warren Dew]

"Although cattle and bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, so do the polar bear and black bear. Yet we would not suggest that these two bears can inhabit the same type of landscape or that they are ecological analogues of one another. Cattle evolved in moist Eurasian woodlands and are poorly adapted to arid regions."

Wow, a major factual error in the very first paragraph. Cattle did not evolve in woodland; no grazing species did, since trees block out the sunlight required for grass to grow. They evolved on the relatively arid steppe and taiga of Eurasia, or on the even more arid edge of the Thar desert. I guess your source is getting confused between aurochs, the ancestor of cattle, and the red deer that actually did inhabit woodlands.

Being no stranger to gross error yourself, I think it's probably more likely, Warren, that you are merely confused about what woodlands are, and perhaps even foggier on the nature of taiga. This is not to mention the wide variety in climate of the Eurasian Late Pleistocene and how many areas bore little superficial resemblance to the "arid steppe and taiga" of the same localities in modern Eurasia, particularly with respect to precipitation amounts and hence, ground cover.

Indeed, for most of the pleistocene while aurochs were evolving, the global climate was colder and drier, the exact opposite of what it would have to be to support your argument that cattle require too much water for the American west.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -07-02.jpg
"Hi! I'm a wood bison, chillin' in my natural habitat, the boreal forest (taiga) of Wood Bison National Park, Alberta. I evolved here. Sup?"

It's from the same species and gene pool as the bison that once roamed the great plains in herds of thousands. Thanks for proving that bison evolved in exactly the same mix of habitats as cattle, thus indicating that cattle are perfectly well adapted for the American west.

[piscator]

There have been ungulates on the grasslands; millions of them, big ones, cousins to your wood bison.
The environment supported them for many millenia, yes?

Do you think they were fenced in, or did they have freedom to roam the Great Plains like buffaloes?

[piscator]

"Although cattle and bison have a common evolutionary ancestor, so do the polar bear and black bear. Yet we would not suggest that these two bears can inhabit the same type of landscape or that they are ecological analogues of one another. Cattle evolved in moist Eurasian woodlands and are poorly adapted to arid regions."

Wow, a major factual error in the very first paragraph. Cattle did not evolve in woodland; no grazing species did, since trees block out the sunlight required for grass to grow. They evolved on the relatively arid steppe and taiga of Eurasia, or on the even more arid edge of the Thar desert. I guess your source is getting confused between aurochs, the ancestor of cattle, and the red deer that actually did inhabit woodlands.

Being no stranger to gross error yourself, I think it's probably more likely, Warren, that you are merely confused about what woodlands are, and perhaps even foggier on the nature of taiga. This is not to mention the wide variety in climate of the Eurasian Late Pleistocene and how many areas bore little superficial resemblance to the "arid steppe and taiga" of the same localities in modern Eurasia, particularly with respect to precipitation amounts and hence, ground cover.

Indeed, for most of the pleistocene while aurochs were evolving, the global climate was colder and drier, the exact opposite of what it would have to be to support your argument that cattle require too much water for the American west.

You should probably check that again.
Nevermind. You're probably just counting ice ages, which is good enough for you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... -07-02.jpg
"Hi! I'm a wood bison, chillin' in my natural habitat, the boreal forest (taiga) of Wood Bison National Park, Alberta. I evolved here. Sup?"

It's from the same species and gene pool as the bison that once roamed the great plains in herds of thousands. Thanks for proving that bison evolved in exactly the same mix of habitats as cattle, thus indicating that cattle are perfectly well adapted for the American west.[/quote]


So now it's a "mix of habitats", huh?


Jesus Warren, just give it up. Kill some rats or something.

[Seth]

There have been ungulates on the grasslands; millions of them, big ones, cousins to your wood bison.
The environment supported them for many millenia, yes?

Do you think they were fenced in, or did they have freedom to roam the Great Plains like buffaloes?

Pettifoggery. As I said, the grazing patterns of cattle can easily be adjusted to mimic the grazing patterns of large herds of buffalo quite well, from the plant perspective.

[piscator]

There have been ungulates on the grasslands; millions of them, big ones, cousins to your wood bison.
The environment supported them for many millenia, yes?

Do you think they were fenced in, or did they have freedom to roam the Great Plains like buffaloes?

Pettifoggery. As I said, the grazing patterns of cattle can easily be adjusted to mimic the grazing patterns of large herds of buffalo quite well, from the plant perspective.

All you have to do is take down the fences in the Great Plains, keep all the cows moving constantly for a couple hundred years, and leave them to rot where they die so the carcasses will feed the wolves, coyotes, and buzzards on the way to becoming fertilizer.
The Intermountain West would be a little different: You'd have to take about 95% of the cows off the land entirely.

Happy trails! I'm sure you'll make up that lost income killing rats back East for ten cents a tail while relieving the taxpayer of the obligation of supporting your welfare lifestyle.