Are Animals Losing Their Habitat? Is The Problem Getting Better Or Worse?

I thought I'd start this thread off by quoting the post that led me to think about it, and, since that post was made in a thread specific to mountain lions, I figured I'd start a new thread to not take that one off-topic since this isn't going to be just about mountain lions. See how that's done, everyone?

We learn in school about how wild animals are losing their habitat to human encroachment, and I have no doubt that's true, at least for the most part. However, we're led to believe that the problem gets worse every year, and, while that may be true for some animals, it is not true on a general basis.

As I've mentioned in other threads, for the past year or so, I have been reading memoirs and stories that people have written in the late 1800s and early 1900s, mostly.

These have included novels and purportedly true stories from the early days of the Boy Scouts, in the first couple of decades of the 20th century, as well as memoirs written by members of families who settled in the Western United States, as well as stories like the Little House books, which may include fictionalized content.

In the Eastern United States, these stories and memoirs assume that bears, deer, moose, mountain lions, other wildcats, and other such creatures were all but extinct by the first decades of the 20th century. Story after story tells of the animals that used to be in the woods, but are no longer there.

Yet, here we are, a century and a quarter later, and, just yesterday, we had to stop the car while a herd of well over fifty whitetail deer crossed the road, and I have often had to stop for moose, and neither of these animals is particularly scarce, not only here but in neighboring states. My brother tells me that whitetail deer and bears are far more numerous in the UP of Michigan now than they used to be.

Driving around the East Coast, and during our trip to Michigan and back last summer, deer were not at all uncommon.

So, it seems to me that yes, wildlife habitat was adversely affected by overhunting during the 1700s and 1899s, but most - or at least many - of them have rebounded, not waned.

More later, but I am being called to supper.

 

I once read that the encroachment of Man actually created habitat for deer. It appears that they thrive where woodland meets fields, so the more edge that get created by development, the more habitat gets created. This is why they are such a nuisance in suburbia. Other than that, I'd guess that the effect of our presence is local/regional, just as any other animal might crowd out others. Beaver have a horrific impact on their areas.

And I wonder about game departments saving populations by putting limits on annual kills. I think hunting continues to fall out of favor. I read the annual harvest data for critters in Virginia, but there's never a reconciliation of Budgeted Kills versus Actual Kills. In fact, I've never seen the numbers for Budgeted (or Optimal) Kills. I've also read where populations ebb & flow depending on weather and food supplies, but I don't know if Budget Kills are increased/decreased because of this factor.

 

For the most part, the food grows at the edges of the forest or in clearings, because there isn't much to eat in a forest so thick that the sun can't get through and new plants can't get a foothold.

Twenty years ago, Maine wildlife people were denying that we had lynx here in Maine, and now there's no denying that, and mountain lions have shown up on game cameras, but the official word is that we don't have them here. Then, of course, wolves are being re-introduced to places they've been absent for a long while.

Moose and elk populations are affected by natural climate changes. There used to be elk in Maine, but we no longer have them here, although they are in Canada. That has more to do with climate changes than human encroachments, however.

 

We, too, have our "large cats that do not exist" in the minds of government, yet are captured on game cams. You'd swear people were reporting Bigfoot sightings. Elk (a native species) were reintroduced here between 2012 and 2014. An initial herd of 71 elk and 4 calves grew to over 250 by 2020, spreading to surrounding counties. There are a small number of tags raffled off each year.

Regarding the general subject: the climate cannot be locked in at what we are accustomed to in our short time on this planet (and variances during that short tenure are lied about), nor can it be locked into at any state, nor can we rationally demand stasis over the flora and fauna. Heck, horses are not a native species, but you have groups trying to "protect" them, and who claim they are "endangered," so exactly where is the logic? What are the standards?

 

I trust the history of wildlife on the planet has been one of change. As the climate fluctuates, and other events occur, species move on, while others take their place. While one species declines, others flourish. Human beings have been instruments of decline, and we've been the instruments of ascent.

 

I've never believed in "adaptation," but I believe in "survival of the fittest." The classic example is that of short-necked giraffes, which were the dominant species. Apparently long-necks were recessive traits (if I recall correctly.) When populations overwhelmed food sources, only the long-necks could reach the higher leaves on the trees, and the short necks died out. The short necks did not "adapt," per se...they did not spontaneously grow long necks. It's that the long neck variation was better fitted for that environment. Diversity saves [some] lives.

The other Darwin observation that has merit is "punctuated equilibrium." Again, pulling from memory, the idea is that the ecology settles into a long-term stasis until there is a catastrophic event (floods, asteroids, volcanic eruption) where entire species are wiped out and those that survive flourish during a period of equilibrium...until the next catastrophe.

Sorta back to the topic: I guess it's been observed that man is one of the few creatures who adapts the environment to his needs. This is done on a mass scale by relatively few of us for the benefit of others...it's how they put food on the table. Perhaps this is unique in the animal kingdom...other than maybe the specialization of labor among bees & ants.

 

And beavers.

 

When I bought this place, I looked at a property that was 96 acres. A huge chunk of it was swamp...because of beavers. I had a few on this property when I first moved in. There were the point stumps of small evergreens as evidence, but I never saw them or their lodges.

Yeh, they're the original "greedy developers." And they're very territorial, if you've come up on them while in a boat. I've never paddled so hard in my life.

 

In some places, the animals are deliberately moving into the cities and towns. I remember reading that coyotes are a problem where they have moved into town, because there is not much the city can do to eliminate them once they are there.
They can’t shoot a coyote on a busy street, and the coyotes do eat the rats and other rodent pests that are also living in towns.
The coyotes have easy access to lots of food, and no natural predators there, so they happily multiply, and have learned not to be afraid of humans, since no one shoots them there.

Even animals like deer, elk and moose are starting to move into towns now. In north Idaho, the government released more wolves into the wild, and the wolf packs attack the deer and elk herds, so they come into town where they can forage on lawns and be safe.
It is not that there are not enough areas where they could live and be away from humans and developed areas in north idaho, it is that the animals have deliberately decided to be in the towns.

 

That's a very interesting point, @Yvonne Smith. I guess Man does not "destroy environments," we merely replace them with something else.

The critters are not being chased out of their environs...they are being attracted to the buffets we've created.

 

Another interesting thing that is also happening in some areas, is that once domestic animals are now becoming feral. Places like Detroit, where jobs ended and people moved away, sometimes leaving their pets behind, have now become infested with packs of dogs who are feral. Unlike coyotes, and animals who come in from the wild, these dogs have no fear of people because they have never been hunted and killed, and that cannot happen very easily to animals who live in a city because of the danger of shooting them.
We have an old thread about that , too.

http://www.seniorsonly.club/threads...of-feral-animals-everywhere.5786/#post-140705

 

We can expect animals to find their way to places where they aren't hunted, such as wooded areas in cities and towns, state and national parks, and other conservation areas. Those animals, such as bears, who have the potential for being dangerous, become more so after generations of living in places where they aren't hunted. I think that a part of the reason why black bears are not particularly dangerous to people is that the bears we have today are the result of generations of bears who have come to fear human beings, not because we're bigger, stronger, or faster than the bears, but because we have guns. Most black bear attacks occur in state and national parks, where generations of bears have learned that people are not to be feared.

That said, I have no doubt that human beings had a lot to do with the near demise of much of the North American wildlife, up until perhaps the mid-20th century, as a large number of people depended upon them for food, and there were no defined or enforced hunting seasons or laws. Even as pioneer settlers moved West, during their own lifetimes, edible wildlife was decimated.

Today, I think we have more of a balance, and the advantage might even be swinging in favor of wildlife. At one time, alligators were thought to be nearly extinct in South Texas, but that's no longer the case. Without even getting out of the car, I've seen several alligators in the Rio Grande Valley, as they were moving onto the resacas in the area.

 

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but raccoons can now be categorized as urban raccoons and rural raccoons, as there are generations of raccoons who even avoid wooded areas within a city, much as city people are afraid of forests. Urban raccoons make their living from people's trash cans and other food that they can find in people's yards, behind grocery stores and restaurants, and elsewhere within the city, while rural raccoons thrive on their own in the forest. A game warden in Maine told me once that when people capture and relocate a raccoon from one of Maine's larger cities to a forest, the animal may not be equipped with the skills to survive.