From: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>human animals, and want to save us from ourselves. And for what? Simply
to
>be administered, bred and culled on a scientifically managed game farm?
>Thank you, but I'm going to go have a beer with Joe Sixpack.
Unfortunately, there are no other alternatives. Once we overshot carrying
capacity we were left with only two choices:
#1. Be managed like farm animals.
#2. Dieoff like wild animals.
"Transgressing the carrying capacity for one period lowers the carrying
capacity thereafter, perhaps starting a downward spiral toward zero. David
Klein's classic study of the reindeer on St. Matthew Island illustrates the
point.26 In 1944 a population of 29 animals was moved to the island, without
the corrective feedback (negative feedback) of such predators as wolves and
human hunters. In 19 years the population swelled to 6,000 and then
"crashed" in 3 years to a total of 41 females and one male, all in miserable
condition. Klein estimates that the primeval carrying capacity of the island
was about 5 deer per square kilometer. At the population peak there were 18
per square kilometer. After the crash there were only 0.126 animals per
square kilometer and even this was probably too many once the island was
largely denuded of lichens. Recovery of lichens under zero population
conditions takes decades; with a continuing resident population of reindeer
it may never occur. Transgressing the carrying capacity of St. Matthew
Island reduced its carrying capacity by at least 97.5 percent. It is facts
like these -- repeated over and over again in game management experience --
that justify the ecolate game manager in viewing carrying capacity as
partaking of the sacred. I do not think it is going too far to assert and
defend the sanctity of the carry capacity. "
AN ECOLOATE VIEW OF THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT, G. Hardin; in McRostie, ed.
GLOBAL RESOURCES: Perspectives and Alternatives Baltimore: University Park
Press, 1980.
Think of the kids while you make up your minds.
Jay -- www.dieoff.com
