Link has an extra space or %20 appended to it, can anybody fix that?
Top carnivores increase their kill rates as a response to human-induced fear
11–16 of 16 posts
Re: Top carnivores increase their kill rates as a response to human-induced fear
#12tldr: Pumas that are scared off their food by humans are still hungry and go and kill another deer, which might not be so good for the pumas and might help scavengers. Isn't this somewhat obvious?
Re: Top carnivores increase their kill rates as a response to human-induced fear
#13tldr: Pumas that are scared off their food by humans are still hungry and go and kill another deer, which might not be so good for the pumas and might help scavengers. Isn't this somewhat obvious?
Re: Top carnivores increase their kill rates as a response to human-induced fear
#14It's all our fault.
Re: Top carnivores increase their kill rates as a response to human-induced fear
#15tldr: Pumas that are scared off their food by humans are still hungry and go and kill another deer, which might not be so good for the pumas and might help scavengers. Isn't this somewhat obvious?
It is something that needs saying and probably repeating at frequent intervals too as it raises the issue of whether there should be no-go areas for humans. This in turn might be problematic in areas where the economic value of large carnivores is defined by the truckloads of tourists chasing them.
The truly destructive thing is roads and habitat pressure due to proximity of urban environments (noise, smells, food sources) that alter daily pattern. Large prey (deer, etc...) are creatures of habit driven by day/night patterns, wind, and their belief that everyone is out to get them. Seems to me They would be much more likely to alter their routine due to human pressure but the paper doesn't speak to that (if it does I missed it). And where the food goes, the predators go.
This is just my experience gained from being an avid outdoorsman for many years.
Re: Top carnivores increase their kill rates as a response to human-induced fear
#16Ironically cullings where first aimed at stopping the "unsufferable increasing in the number of wolf damages" claimed by stockbreeders. The obtained was just the opposite. More damages by wolves and also by dogs.
Researchers showed later that in a lot of cases shepherd dogs, or just the harsh wheather where the real culprits, but, as the death by wolves where assisted by government and the death by a common disease or a blizzard where of course not paid, all deaths were charged to the scavenging wolves and paid by government.