[HN Gopher] Wild mammals are making a comeback in Europe
___________________________________________________________________
Wild mammals are making a comeback in Europe
Author : gmays
Score : 186 points
Date : 2022-12-20 17:28 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ourworldindata.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (ourworldindata.org)
| freyfogle wrote:
| Here's a cool service (unfortunately I haven't yet been able to
| use it) to do a "European safari" and go see some of these wild
| animals. Good fun, but also important to provide an economic
| benefit to the local community
|
| https://www.rewildingeuropetravel.com/
| emblaegh wrote:
| My sister in law does the same in the cairngorms in Scotland.
| If you like slow paced nature exploration with beautiful
| landscapes, I highly recommend.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| Finally some good news.
|
| The world needs to draw up lines for wild life reserves in the
| vicinity of domestic areas.
|
| We must as humans become closer to nature accepting that its
| biodiversity and life is a major part of out own well being.
|
| It should be mandatory that each country puts up at least X% of
| land dedicated solely to being nature without any human
| interference.
|
| Amen
| jeff-davis wrote:
| The US seems to be about 2% national parks:
|
| "The total area protected by national parks is approximately
| 52.2 million acres (211,000 km2)" --
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_th...
|
| "Total area 3,796,742 sq mi (9,833,520 km2)" --
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
|
| (Just data; I'm not trying to make any particular point.)
| standardUser wrote:
| National Parks are just one type of designation. There's
| 20-plus different designations, and that's just at the
| federal level. Wikipedia says 13% of the land in the US is
| protected (which is about 10% of all protected land in the
| world), but I believe certain designations allow for some
| level of exploitation (hunting, mining etc).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_areas_of_the_United_.
| ..
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, just looking at National Parks grossly undercounts
| and, if anything, National Parks are generally more
| developed (though have more protections) than lot of other
| federal properties. Of course, it's somewhat uneven in
| terms of location. Federal land is disproportionately out
| west and in Alaska in terms of acreage.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Controversial take but I absolutely don't see the point of
| reintroductions. Ecosystems are dynamic equilibrium.
| Reintroductions are just a different kind of man-made arbitrary
| modification.
|
| Loss of biodiversity is a good indicator that something wrong
| is happening but biodiversity in and of itself is not a
| particularly interesting aim. The mechanism at play in nature
| will ensure a return to diversity if things are left to
| themselves.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| > The mechanism at play in nature will ensure a return to
| diversity if things are left to themselves.
|
| In the long run. But in the long run, we are all dead. And
| considering the amount of time it takes for a new species to
| evolve, not only are we all dead, but so are the next hundred
| thousand generations of our offspring. This is a personal
| view, but to me the return to diversity in a few million
| years is pretty meaningless.
|
| Biodiversity is a goal in itself, for several reasons.
|
| Most selfishly, the greater variety of life, the more raw
| genetic material there is for humanity to put to use, and the
| more survival strategies there are for us to learn about.
| Things like enhancing crop yields, nutrition, and disease
| resistance. Food, medicines and medical research are just the
| most obvious practical benefits.
|
| Again, a personal view, but to me diversity is also
| aesthetically pleasing. Diversity provides interest and a
| richness to life that combats monotony and boredom. I also
| find it pleasing to think I might leave a place more varied
| and interesting than I found it.
|
| Increasing the range of a species, increases its resilience
| to extinction. That has to be balanced against any negative
| effects on other parts of the ecosystem (everthing has gotta
| eat...). Introducing a species to somewhere new has a chance
| of being quite harmful, but reintroducing a species to
| somewhere it recently became extinct much less so. It may
| perturb the new equilibrium (if a few decades is enough time
| for an equilibrium to establish), but is pretty unlikely to
| be harmful to biodiversity. It is more likely to be helpful.
| The recovery of pine martens in Ireland has helped the
| recovery of red squirrels, for example (admittedly at the
| bloody expense of the invasive grey).
| nextaccountic wrote:
| It may take thousands of years for the ecosystem to recover
| by itself. Human destruction of habitats is a faster
| mechanism, and will always win if we do nothing to revert it.
| Also, biodiversity is a good thing in itself.
|
| There's nothing wrong with recovering ecosystem. The Amazon
| forest was man-made, for example. It doesn't make it any less
| important.
| geysersam wrote:
| > The Amazon forest was man-made
|
| Was it?
| Scarblac wrote:
| > The mechanism at play in nature will ensure a return to
| diversity if things are left to themselves
|
| Yes, but that takes hundreds of thousands of years, for
| mistakes we made on the order of a hundred years ago up to
| now.
|
| And we need working ecosystems _now_ or too many species will
| go extinct, then we are in danger too and it will become many
| millions of years before something similar is back.
| burkaman wrote:
| Maybe the most famous example:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign
|
| That is an extreme case, but sometimes the best way to
| correct a human-caused error is a human-caused solution.
| Nature will always find an equilibrium, but probably not an
| equilibrium that works well for us unless we nudge it.
| Reintroducing sparrows is clearly better than accepting the
| natural equilibrium of "locusts are everywhere and we can't
| grow food anymore".
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| Yes but that's just another manipulation of an ecosystem to
| suit human activity. Fundamentally I remain unconvinced by
| most of the answers which boil down we want to reintroduce
| these species because it suits us from an aesthetic point
| of view or it fosters our own desire for a return to a
| state we judge more pristine or authentic. It's basically
| the 19th century craze for zoo but adapted to modern taste.
| [deleted]
| mastersummoner wrote:
| This is mentioned in other responses, but keep in mind that
| frequently, it's urban sprawl which endangered these animals
| in the first place.
|
| We're not going to start closing up our cities to let animals
| come back. But we can take steps to make the environments
| around them more hospitable: bridges under highways, reserved
| areas for wildlife. Once these are in place, some
| reintroductions to kick-start the process makes more sense.
|
| A lot of the animals being reintroduced were key parts of the
| ecosystem before they were eliminated in areas, and their
| absence can lead to unexpected imbalances. Reintroductions
| makes sense in this context. Or at least, introducing another
| animal which fills a similar niche.
| constGard wrote:
| In some cases reintroduction can be positive because certain
| species were selectively hunted, the factors involved in
| habitat loss have been reversed, or the species might play an
| important role in habitat restoration.
| maria2 wrote:
| Wolf reintroductions to Yellowstone, for instance, totally
| changed the ecosystem for the better.
|
| Animals evolved to keep each other in check. If you remove
| one animal, but not its prey, then the prey can cause an even
| greater loss of biodiversity by excessive proliferation. In
| the case of Yellowstone's wolves, their absence allowed elk
| to proliferate. Elk then ate too much vegetarian, which
| prevented forests from developing. The lack of forest lead to
| a decline in song bird and beaver populations. The decline in
| beavers lead to a decline in dams, which removed key habitats
| for other animals.
|
| To flip your question on its head: the reintroduction of
| wolves was clearly beneficial for Yellowstone. What is the
| argument _against_ reintroducing the wolf, or reintroductions
| in general?
| swalling wrote:
| This is a good example in particular because state and
| federal agencies have been extremely judicious when it
| comes to doing reintroductions since then.
|
| In the rest of the West (CA, OR, WA, ID, MT) there have
| been basically zero wolf reintroductions recently. Wolf
| packs are spreading naturally back to their historical
| range, and agencies are instead focused on tracking
| populations and working with local communities to regulate
| hunting, protect the livelihoods of ranchers, etc.
| smm11 wrote:
| Having been very, very close to this issue when wolves were
| re-introduced to Yellowstone, the vocal opposition to this
| was that a handful of ranchers near Yellowstone who are
| very much Welfare Queens didn't want to loose cows to
| wolves that were on the other side of the fence.
| ticviking wrote:
| Not sure its fair to call them "welfare queens" but no
| one likes to see their livelihood threatened.
| pvaldes wrote:
| If I remember correctly wolves returning to Yellowstone
| generated 5 million dollars each year to the area only by
| the increase in tourists. Plus environmental benefits
| edgyquant wrote:
| This has nothing to do with the livelihood of the farmers
| sheusndudn wrote:
| nine_k wrote:
| Bad equilibria exist. If a better equilibrium that involved
| some currently gone animal us known to have existed and have
| been better, a reintroduction is an obvious step back to it.
| geysersam wrote:
| That takes a long time though... Not sure why we should wait
| for entirely new ecosystem pathways to develop over millions
| of years when we can just reintroduce key species extinct
| from the area.
| advantager wrote:
| Left to their own devices, wild mammals have to cross
| significant human barriers (roads, neighborhoods, fencing,
| etc.) to repopulate certain natural areas which they have
| been exterminated from.
|
| Where I live in Southern Arizona, re-population efforts for
| bighorn sheep have been successful in the mountain ranges
| near cities (Tucson). Access to these ranges from nearby
| "naturally" populated areas (50+ mile distances) requires
| crossing the interstate, fenced in train tracks, ranches, and
| extensive urban development. Since their extermination from
| certain areas, this has not happened naturally (and is
| arguably not possible). I think similar arguments could be
| made for the Mexican Wolf population in the southwest.
|
| I agree in principle that ecosystems will re-equilibrate on
| their own, but given the current state of human development
| certain areas would remain off-limits for various animals
| without human intervention, maybe leading to certain species
| or subspecies becoming extinct. I'm no wildlife biologist but
| would defer to one on this topic.
| justincormack wrote:
| Same with reintroduction of beavers to the UK, it is an
| island they won't get here (unlike some birds). We also
| need some predators for deer other than humans here.
| ajuc wrote:
| European motorways (at least new ones) are built with
| bridges for animals. Like this:
|
| https://www.crazynauka.pl/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/06/microso...
|
| And that's in a country with 120 people per square
| kilometer compared to 36 people per square kilometer in US.
|
| Matter of regulation.
| jeffbee wrote:
| America has those too, but they're enormous and expensive
| because we're dumb. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-
| news/animals-are-using-...
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| They agreed that 30% should be set aside at COP15 yesterday.
| They probably won't, but we are one step closer to having your
| wish.
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| > X% of land dedicated solely to being nature
|
| that happens on small scales in places: our neighborhood in
| Arizona reserves 33% of land in its natural Sonoran desert
| state, so houses are interspersed within that...this means
| bobcats (north american slang for the local lynx), puma,
| javelina, coyote, etc. are resident among us, and regularly
| seen (the pumas less regularly, but on trail cams regularly).
| mkoubaa wrote:
| I want to see herds of bison in north America that make the
| Serengeti seem quaint
| dustymcp wrote:
| A wolf was sadly run over today in Denmark, it has been
| eradicated since 1813, im not sure there is big enough places for
| it to stay without human contact tho, but it is exciting.
| INTPenis wrote:
| We got big packs of 11 wolves here in Southern Sweden now and
| immediately they're talking about hunting them.
|
| I understand, the sheep farmers are getting a lot of sheeps
| killed.
|
| We've had wolves for a while up in Varmland and those northern
| parts. So maybe it's not completely necessary for them to
| spread down here to be preserved.
|
| Once we're gone, they'll come back out and spread south.
| JimBlackwood wrote:
| Same here in NL. Just a few years ago there were reports of
| wolfs wandering around and I think last year the first wolves
| were born here again.
|
| Currently there's talking about using paintball guns to keep
| them away from farms.
| culi wrote:
| > 2 fatal wolf attacks in the past century in north america
|
| wolves are only really a threat to farmers. For which
| there's a million other solutions than driving them to
| extirpation
| blueblimp wrote:
| Past generations got rid of the wolves for a reason. Although
| it's nice for wildlife to exist somewhere, it doesn't belong
| in close contact with humans.
|
| The desire to bring wildlife to where people live reminds me
| of anti-vax in that it's giving up safety benefits we've
| gained out of a misguided desire to be more natural.
| culi wrote:
| The reason was partly a blind desire for "safety" despite
| wolf attacks being exceedingly rare (2 fatal wolf attacks
| in the past century in north america). But mostly it was
| due to commercial interests. It was to prop up an already
| unsustainable model of agricultural/textile production
|
| Wolves bring us biodiversity, keep diseases down, and even
| help rivers flow (by keeping graminivore populations down).
| We have way more to gain from them than to lose
|
| I feel like the anti-wolf side is much more akin to "anti-
| vax" than the pro-wolf side is. Either way its probably a
| bad comparison
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Past generations got rid of the wolves for a reason
|
| and the reason was ignorance
| pvaldes wrote:
| > it doesn't belong in close contact with humans
|
| You couldn't be more wrong
|
| People forgot this all the time. Wolves and dogs are in
| --the same-- species. They can interbreed and have fertile
| pups, so is by definition, the same species.
|
| This means that most extant alive wolves live inside
| --our-- homes. Think about it.
|
| No other species achieved such closer connection with human
| societies. Not even apes. If an animal deserves a place
| close to human societies for mutual benefit is this.
| slavik81 wrote:
| There are people living just about everywhere. Open up
| Google Maps, switch to satellite view, zoom out until the
| scale is 2 km / 1 mi and scroll until you no longer see
| farmers' fields. I had to go 500 km, and I only actually
| found the edge of human settlement because I live in Canada
| and went north until I hit ~55deg latitude.
|
| If wildlife is only allowed where there's no people, it's
| going to be confined to the most inhospitable places on
| Earth.
| slavik81 wrote:
| That said, I'd be more worried if they were reintroducing
| lions into Europe [1]. Those steadily died out between
| 1000 BC and 1000 AD.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Eu
| rope#His...
| citilife wrote:
| > I understand, the sheep farmers are getting a lot of sheep
| killed.
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/wolf-kills-nine-year-critically-
| inj...
|
| https://a-z-animals.com/blog/meet-the-worlds-deadliest-
| wolf-...
|
| https://wolf.org/headlines/the-child-eating-wolves-of-
| turku-...
|
| There are likely many more wolf attacks than ever known,
| because the wolves will take away their pray and devour
| almost all of it rather quickly. What's left will be
| scavenged within a day or so by vultures / what have you.
| Further, we used to regularly hunt wolves and keep dogs
| (Wolfhounds). As they make more human contact, they'll
| definitely be a lot more deaths.
|
| That said, I think it's good / healthy to keep them around,
| but it's often not just the sheep that farmers are concerned
| about.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| In Massachusetts (US), the wild Turkey is making a comeback.
|
| They shit all over the place.
|
| But it's so cool seeing them prance all over the place that I'll
| put up with a little poo on the ground. When they do their mating
| dance, they look like peacocks.
| pfdietz wrote:
| In upstate NY, we seen them in our backyard. I'm planning to
| plant American hazel (Corylus americana), a native species, to
| try to attract/feed more of them (and other wildlife). They eat
| this plant's mast (fallen nuts).
| pneumic wrote:
| So are coyotes, beavers, hawks, and even bears.
|
| This is probably a function of human development, but I am only
| saying this out of instinct. These mammals have probably
| adapted to us and are following where we go.
| rr808 wrote:
| If we're talking about coyotes in the NE they were never
| native, they're new. Deer are a huge pest now, they're
| missing the wolves and foxes that kept them under control.
| neuronic wrote:
| And as a German I get really infuriated about _von der Leyen_
| torpedoing these efforts over a personal vendetta, like the
| conservative she is:
|
| https://www.euractiv.com/section/agriculture-food/news/wolf-...
|
| > The German region of Hannover has issued an official shooting
| permit for a wolf that killed one of the ponies of European
| Commission president Ursula von der Leyen, who said earlier that
| the EU executive will reevaluate wolves' protected status.
|
| A wolf is doing wolf things but the president of the European
| Commission cant have that and wants to change the wolves'
| protected status. I hate this woman so much and I am sorry we
| inflicted her upon Europe.
| zwieback wrote:
| She should recuse herself and stay out of it. Wolf/farmer
| conflict isn't black and white, though, I have sympathy for
| keepers of livestock as well. Here in the US it flares up all
| the time and simplistic romanticized arguments on either side
| are not helpful.
| tpm wrote:
| Here in Europe farmers get generous reparations from the
| state when wolves or bears kill their livestock. Many wolves
| (and also eagles and hawks) are illegally killed anyway,
| probably because hunters and farmers consider them enemies.
| gytoru wrote:
| Farmers only get reparations for proven wolf kills, meaning
| you need to find the leftovers, and have them DNA-tested.
| That seems to work out for (as I've heard) less than half
| of the cases where lifestock is killed, usually no body is
| found.
|
| There are also cases of a herd getting paniced, trampling
| down a fence, falling off a cliff, or ending up on a
| highway. In those cases proving wolf or bear involvement is
| even less likely.
| pvaldes wrote:
| > Farmers only get reparations for proven wolf kills,
| meaning you need to find the leftovers, and have them
| DNA-tested.
|
| Of course. And this is done by two solid reasons.
|
| 1) Because farmers unavoidably will try to game the
| system to optimize the money obtained, until sucking your
| reserves dry.
|
| Europe could tell you about thousands of cases of
| corruption in this subsides. We could write a book with
| the tricks and plots.
|
| 2) Because a surprisingly large amount of those "wolf
| kills" are in fact killed by dogs.
|
| Feral and also domestic dogs. How do we know it? doing
| DNA tests.
|
| If your dog kills a cow, why should I be blackmailed to
| pay for it? Is your responsibility, not mine. Feed your
| f*ng dog, don't let it roam around at night, pay
| insurance, and keep it lashed when close to my animals.
|
| Even more, do you know who are the owners of those dogs
| in thousands of cases?, the same farmers that cry wolf.
|
| Everybody knows it in the village, nobody will talk
| because... hey! I have a very ill sheep and the vet bills
| would be expensive, can I borrow your mastiff? the morons
| in the city will gave us free gold!
| splistud wrote:
| As a rancher in Texas, I have more problems with Cougars than
| wolves. Neither or an issue really. Wild pigs and coyotes are
| a problem and must be managed. Water and air quality (much
| improved since I was a child 40 years ago) and the
| depredations of apex predators (moronic politicians guided by
| ignorant electorate) are the real killers.
|
| That said, there are places in N America where the
| reintroduction of wolves can be an issue if the numbers
| introduced are too zealous (too many for their natural food
| source).
| goethes_kind wrote:
| As a German for once I agree with her. Sorry but people
| introducing wolves and in such densely populated areas is just
| stupid. The wolf is already preying of domestic livestock. How
| is that not a problem? I understand the appeal for rewilding,
| but we just do not have the land for it and the people behind
| these programs do not seem to give two shits about the impact
| it has on the actual people living nearby.
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| We should really be encouraging wolves in areas with too many
| bureaucrats, rather than areas with ponies. I appreciate most
| of these areas are urban but foxes do fine there, so why not
| wolf packs?
| culi wrote:
| In North America there have been 2 wolf fatalities in the
| past century. Sorry but I don't think wolves are a solution
| to keeping the bureaucrat population down
| someweirdperson wrote:
| With a bit of genetic engineering though...
| pvaldes wrote:
| Straw man fallacy. Nobody is asking to reintroduce packs of
| wild wolves in a big city.
| ejb999 wrote:
| This is certainly good news, but have a hard time reconciling it
| with the frequent posters here on HN that propose that vacant
| land be taxed so high it in effect forces it be developed (i.e.
| the taxes are so high, nobody can afford to keep land in its
| undeveloped state). Without large tracts of undeveloped land,
| animals will disappear - and then so will we as a species.
|
| Cannot for the life of me understand what the 'we need to
| punitively tax all undeveloped land' people are smoking.
| civopsec wrote:
| And on today's episode of connecting two different things which
| have no connection...
|
| No one wants to tax wildlife reserves.
| nicbou wrote:
| You can do both according to what makes the most sense.
| chudi wrote:
| You can always get the federal state as a last term buyer if
| nobody wants the land.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Vacant and underused land taxes in incorporated cities save
| wild and farm land.
| sebow wrote:
| The comeback has been happening for at least a decade, depending
| on the region you might aswell say 2 or even 3.
|
| Sadly enough only alarmist messages hit the news these days,
| which really should be the headline here.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| This is great to see but, at the same time, how many kinds of
| fish and insects etc are we still losing every year?
| mmckelvy wrote:
| Phenomenal news. Hope to see more of it across the globe.
| mml wrote:
| read an interesting take that North American bison are (were) an
| invasive species from europe that wound up in NA by crossing some
| land-bridge at some point in prehistory.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Yes, roughly -
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bison#Evolution_and_genetic_hi...
|
| Though "invasive" is usually not used when they showed up
| ~150,000 years ago, and appear to have evolved through a couple
| distinct species since then.
| culi wrote:
| To continue this tangent with an assortment of fun facts:
|
| Earthworms were mostly extinct through most of North America.
| They do a tremendous service to soil health, but in NA most of
| the vegetation has evolved to work with harder to access
| nutrients and the introduction and rapid spread of earthworms
| has mostly helped invasive plants take over as they're better
| adapted to take advantage of the nutrients earthworms make
| available
|
| Mustangs (wild horses) are an introduced species, but NA had
| its own wild horse that went extinct about 10k years ago. Texas
| may have 2-5k wild tigers today due to lack of pet regulation
| and people not realizing how difficult it is to take care of a
| fucking tiger. Part of me wonders if introduced wild cat
| species can play the same role Smilodon and other native wild
| cats played before their extinction
|
| Bison population reached over 60 million in pre-colonial turtle
| island, but this likely only happened due to humans
| successfully driving out other megafauna that might've hunted
| them. The famous grasslands of turtle island are only possible
| because of bison however. Without them, they would be overgrown
| by woodland ecosystems. Elephants often play a similar role in
| ecosystems
| culi wrote:
| This data is interesting, but comparing two data points, 1965 and
| 2016, is much less helpful than some trend lines would be
|
| WW2 ended in 1945. I'd imagine that was probably an absolute low
| point for most mammals in Europe
| 10g1k wrote:
| Awesome! It's just embarrasing and shameful how completely
| moronic and careless the Europeans have been over recent
| centuries.
| r00fus wrote:
| I do remember seeing tons of insects in more wild areas last time
| I visited France. I have a strong suspicion that insect biomass
| is critical to the existence of the animal foodchain & ecosystem.
| grammers wrote:
| It's good to read good news every once in a while. Thanks for
| sharing!
| pcardoso wrote:
| Where I live in Portugal, close to the Aveiro lagoon, there are
| now lots of storks, flamingoes, wild ducks and other marine
| birds. I don't remember all this variety and quantity when I was
| a kid.
|
| Every time I marvel at a flock of these birds I keep thinking
| that perhaps the conservation efforts paid off.
| mig39 wrote:
| That lagoon seems so custom-made for birds! Especially with the
| tide coming in and out.
|
| I've often driven up from the south, and am amazed that
| sometimes there's hardly any water at all, and then sometimes
| it's a deep lake.
| dmead wrote:
| is this because more tropical birds are moving north? in
| pennsylvania we're getting a ton of birds in the spring/summer
| that never make it this far north. it's because their native
| habitats in the carolinas and georgia are too hot.
|
| sorry to be a downer.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Note the caveat at the end:
|
| > There are more than 250 European mammal species, so the ones
| that we covered here represent just 10% of the continent's
| mammals. The fact that these species are doing well does not mean
| that all species are.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| Glad to see how much we are deindustrializing here. They will
| have much more room when the coming farming regulations starve
| several million again.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| a stark contrast to the findings and urgent recommendations of
| the COP15 Biodiversity Summit held just yesterday
| bitL wrote:
| Aren't those mammals making comeback mainly in Carpathian
| mountains (arc from Slovakia to Romania), leading to bears openly
| attacking population, but almost nothing is happening in the
| Alps?
| kuroguro wrote:
| Was passing trough Transfagarian when a downhill bicycle race
| was happening. Some police officers were revving their
| motorbikes and throwing rocks at a bear to keep it away from
| the contestants. Lots of bear cubs along the way too. Everyone
| just keeps feeding them...
|
| Not sure what to make of the situation. The bears didn't seem
| hostile and none of the locals were too scared of them.
| nottorp wrote:
| > The bears didn't seem hostile and none of the locals were
| too scared of them.
|
| There are no locals on the Transfagarasan, just tourists :)
|
| No local in our mountain area is happy that bears come from
| the forest to eat from the trash cans, believe me. And I mean
| even in cities, not remote villages. If you ask me, we have a
| bear overpopulation problem now.
| kuroguro wrote:
| > There are no locals on the Transfagarasan, just tourists
| :)
|
| Ah, that makes sense
|
| > No local in our mountain area is happy that bears come
|
| Yeah, I was afraid to exit the car. Just a weird experience
| seeing others feeding the bears or having a race right next
| to them.
| culi wrote:
| Interesting. There are some towns in Minnesota where the
| locals have really good relationships with the local (black)
| bears. They feed them, play with them, introduce their kids
| to them, post videos of them putting their hands in their
| mouths, etc. Basically all the things they tell you not to
| do. There's probably a big difference between black bears and
| Eurasian brown bears, but I wonder how much potential their
| is to achieve cohabitation through cultural change alone
|
| Historically humans have hunted other predators because of
| simple competition. But nowadays, bears hunting elk is not a
| threat to our food source
| Toomin wrote:
| I was born and lived most of my life in Minnesota, and got
| into outdoor activities pretty heavily in 2020. I've never
| heard of what you describe and it would be a terrible idea.
| I've only come across one bear in the wild and it bolted
| away upon noticing me. Bears that aren't afraid of humans
| are pretty bad news.
| username_my1 wrote:
| Look at the chart at the bottom of the post before writing such
| a comment.
|
| Brown bear population has only recovered 44% . Almost lowest
| out of 10s of mammals
|
| You can always try to just enjoy some good news
| bitL wrote:
| The point was that we see a huge increase in Carpathians but
| almost none in Alps, so on average there is an EU-wide
| increase, which leads to dangerous (to humans) numbers in one
| part of EU and near-extinct levels in other parts.
| timeon wrote:
| > (arc from Slovakia to Romania)
|
| Technically from Austria, since Hundsheimer Berge are part of
| Little Carpathians.
| yrgulation wrote:
| marmetio wrote:
| > leading to bears openly attacking population
|
| Were they doing it more secretly before?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-20 23:00 UTC)