BSK
Well-Known Member
some state biolagist say in is no good some sy it is ok. just about all of the private land game biologist say it is very important to give your deer additionl feed for max herd helth,
That would not be an accurate statement. Any private land biologists worth their salt will have read the best research available and realize the dangers of supplemental feeding. There's a huge difference between feeding deer supplemental feed from a feeder and providing the best nutrition possible through improving the habitat. One is natural while the other is highly unnatural. Unnatural processes WILL come back to burn us. I guarantee it.
No offense to any state or private biologist, but there is a big difference between someone who has a degree in wildlife biology and those biologist that are involved in research. There were many, many biologist who believed Traditional Management was the best and only way to manage deer until research biologists recently proved them wrong.
The very best research not only shows the benefits that can be achieved through supplemental feeding, but also the very negative consequences of supplemental feeding. It's a double-edged sword. It can help AND hurt, and from my perspective it's the long-term "hurt" that is more important than the short-term "help."
...what do you think on global warming.
As I degreed Meteorologist and Earth Scientist I can tell you that the Earth's climate is always in a state of flux. It is either warming or cooling and rarely stays stable. The geologic history of our planet is one of continuous major swings in climate, all without the influence of the hand of man, and the planet has had about 3.9 billion years of history to prove that the system cannot "tip" too far either direction--eventually the system balances itself.
Is our climate warming? Might be, but the data isn't conclusive yet. However, it will certainly be warming or cooling over time. It rarely stays stable. Are we humans the cause of any major, long-term shifts in climate? Highly, highly unlikely. From what we know of the Earth's history, we do know that radical differences in atmospheric chemistry does significantly effect the climate. However, the term "radical" is critical. The changes we humans are making in atmospheric chemistry are very, very minor. In addition, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas", but it is actually a weak one. Water vapor and methane are much more powerful greenhouse gases. Besides, some of the theoretical changes that would occur in a "greenhouse effect" situation are not being observed. In essence, they aren't occurring.
However, what we do know about the climate is that ocean currents are a major driving force. Even minor, short-term changes in ocean currents and temperatures produce world-wide climate effects (see "El Nino"), and these ocean current induced climate changes occur in predictable patterns. The same cannot be said of atmospheric chemistry induced climate changes. Not a single global climate model has ever been correct from one year to the next, let alone predictions for decades or centuries into the future.
That would not be an accurate statement. Any private land biologists worth their salt will have read the best research available and realize the dangers of supplemental feeding. There's a huge difference between feeding deer supplemental feed from a feeder and providing the best nutrition possible through improving the habitat. One is natural while the other is highly unnatural. Unnatural processes WILL come back to burn us. I guarantee it.
No offense to any state or private biologist, but there is a big difference between someone who has a degree in wildlife biology and those biologist that are involved in research. There were many, many biologist who believed Traditional Management was the best and only way to manage deer until research biologists recently proved them wrong.
The very best research not only shows the benefits that can be achieved through supplemental feeding, but also the very negative consequences of supplemental feeding. It's a double-edged sword. It can help AND hurt, and from my perspective it's the long-term "hurt" that is more important than the short-term "help."
...what do you think on global warming.
As I degreed Meteorologist and Earth Scientist I can tell you that the Earth's climate is always in a state of flux. It is either warming or cooling and rarely stays stable. The geologic history of our planet is one of continuous major swings in climate, all without the influence of the hand of man, and the planet has had about 3.9 billion years of history to prove that the system cannot "tip" too far either direction--eventually the system balances itself.
Is our climate warming? Might be, but the data isn't conclusive yet. However, it will certainly be warming or cooling over time. It rarely stays stable. Are we humans the cause of any major, long-term shifts in climate? Highly, highly unlikely. From what we know of the Earth's history, we do know that radical differences in atmospheric chemistry does significantly effect the climate. However, the term "radical" is critical. The changes we humans are making in atmospheric chemistry are very, very minor. In addition, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas", but it is actually a weak one. Water vapor and methane are much more powerful greenhouse gases. Besides, some of the theoretical changes that would occur in a "greenhouse effect" situation are not being observed. In essence, they aren't occurring.
However, what we do know about the climate is that ocean currents are a major driving force. Even minor, short-term changes in ocean currents and temperatures produce world-wide climate effects (see "El Nino"), and these ocean current induced climate changes occur in predictable patterns. The same cannot be said of atmospheric chemistry induced climate changes. Not a single global climate model has ever been correct from one year to the next, let alone predictions for decades or centuries into the future.
