Looduskalender

In Mongolia Steppe Eagles (Aquila nipalensis) are used for hunting.

alice44 wrote:I think here one successful way of keeping wolves away from the animals is to keep trained dogs with the animals. Of course I think they use large dogs, not hunting dogs for this task.

Report in Swedish newspapers today:
A wolf has killed a roe deer in what counts as a Stockholm suburb. Police recommend that dogs be kept on leash ... The wolf is however thought to be looking for territory and a mate, and will probably soon move on.
But there are photos of a wolf crossing the Västerbron bridge, really in Stockholm city, in 2011.

How deep does the wolf nature of a wolf go? An unknown risk is probably that wolves might change their behaviour, as bears have in some areas (the thrashbin bears), after frequent meetings with humans, dogs, settlements.

One lone wolf traveled from north eastern Oregon all the way across Oregon into California -- he is looking for territory and a mate, but as far as we know there are no wolves in these regions.

The wolf, known as OR-7, left the Imnaha pack in northeastern Oregon in September, shortly before the state put a death warrant on his father and a sibling for killing cattle. ... His travels took him down the Cascade Range and across the border into California in December, making him the first wolf in California in more than 80 years, according to the department.

There is a photo of him

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/1 ... 07704.html




It is amazing and sad. I hope he makes it. I hope your wolf moves on and finds a suitable family too.

Alice, OR7 makes me think of our Tõnn.

You are right, it is amazing, and a little sad.

This Swedish wolf has not so very far to go, in kilometres, to a probable existing territory. He might not be welcome in the flock, but the environment at least is suitable for wolves. But the way there must be bewildering, unless he has got used to houses, people, cars.

I wonder how a wolf "sees" a modern suburb? It was said in the old days that the smell of iron (steel) scared them.

About wolves and The Wolf Nature Night at Rahvusraamatukogu on Monday, Jan 7th, 6 pm Tallinn time,
Internet webcam: go HERE, click on "ÜLEKANNET NÄED SIIT"; will also be recorded. All in Estonian, but photos, music universal

One of the people who will be there, Ilmar Rootsi, has written a thesis (282 pages) and a book (457 p) about wolves, economy, the wolf as killer, killing wolves, wolf folklore
He was born in Padise in Harjumaa ( as in black stork Padis!), has been an outstanding athlete (mid- and long distance running; participated in European championships), worked in ornithology from 1980, later forestry and hunting, loves and respects wolves – and talks to them.
His thesis, presented at Tartu university in October 2011: About the history of wolves in Estonia - Relationship between wolf and man in Estonia from the mid-18th century to the end of 19th century. Tartu, 2011, 282 p; in Estonian, English summary on pages 265-275.

A few odd & ends from it:
- Solon in Athens, about 600 BC, issued the first known & documented reward for killing a wolf.
- In 1874-1877 about 2840 domestic animals per year were killed by wolves in Livonia and Estonia; 8 animals per day.
- An elderly woman bitten by a rabies-infected wolf died in 1980 as the last (latest?) human wolf victim in Estonia; the last human killed by a healthy wolf was a child slain in September 1873.
- At Whitsun 1766 a little girl was taken by a wolf, was injured but saved by people who intervened, then one month later killed by another – or the same - wolf.

Ilmar Rootsi believes that the present number of wolves, about 200-250, is roughly reasonable for Estonia. In the 19th century they were 2000 ...

Not sure if this is the right place but i just read a article that there are plans to kill 3500 wolfs in the russian republic Yakutia

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130106/17860 ... lves_.html

Please will members take the time to read this announcement.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=539

Ricky wrote:An article on the LK main page revives this discussion about hunting, and the need to ban lead as ammunition.

http://www.looduskalender.ee/en/node/3615

Yes, that is a much discussed theme.
Basically I´m not against using lead-free ammunition but there´s a real problem that is not solved yet: Lead-free ammunition does not kill the animals as fast as lead ammunition - after the shot the animals often run hundrets of metres until they die. Until then they have to suffer. And often it also takes too long to find the dead animal and it can´t be used as food anymore. It doesn´t make sense to let thousands of animals suffer to save the life of a some eagles (although I love eagles very much!). That´s the reason why I don´t use lead-free ammunition (as long as better ones are invented). To prevent eagles and other birds of prey from getting the lead into their bodies I never leave the intestines (where a lot of the lead is in) lying around.

Howdy,

I need to overthrow those understandings, as they don't have any base of truth. The scientifically conducted studies on none toxic ammunition in comparison to lead ammunition have not found a difference as Ricky has stated before. Also studies with hunters assessing non toxic ammunition show that the practical, in field experience is not different.
The only negative side compared to lead is the expense, as non toxic options are bit more costly but in countries, where lead has been banned, they have noticed that there is less ammunition spent on the same amount of killed animals, so the accuracy and efficiency has risen. Also lead bullets fragment and lose about 50% of their weight to fragmentation and those fragments can contaminate 45 cm from the wound channel so there is a lot of meat what is dangerous to you and others who eat it (half of the deer). But the health side is the most important as newer literature states that no lead is the best for your health. Lead will have health effects even in really small (permitted) concentrations. Therefore the cost should not be so an issue as i think the only thing to do with the lead contaminated meat is to take it to the hazardous substances collection site, like we do with our batteries and other lead containing things. Lead will also contaminate soil and water as it oxidizes in the environment.
I do not understand hunters who are ignorant to this issue, as there is so so much data availible, just open your mind to it!!!
I have worked on lot of eagles who are the victims of that kind of thinking, and the solution is there, ready to use - non toxic ammunition! I don't have anything against hunting, its an important way of collecting food and controlling populations, but the lead ammunition is the problem!

Thank you, Dr. Madis for your clear and competent words! That was what I was waiting for a long time! Thank you!

GM74 wrote:Not sure if this is the right place but i just read a article that there are plans to kill 3500 wolfs in the russian republic Yakutia

More than 16 000 reindeer and almost 400 horses have torn it since winter: wolves that find nearly ideal conditions in the Russian Republic of Yakutia.

in german only

Flex wrote: More than 16 000 reindeer and almost 400 horses have torn it since winter: wolves that find nearly ideal conditions in the Russian Republic of Yakutia.

in german only

If these figures are really true…

A wolf scientist once reported that the stomach contents of a wolf consist up to 90 % of mice… (I think this was in Canada)

The author of this article writes, that in tundra and taiga, wolves normally eat jack rabbits and squirrels. But their population has dramatically decreased due to alarming digging methods (gold and diamonds).
Now the wolves shall pay with their life that they have no more their natural food and are forced to attack reindeer...

And the projection: if one wolf is shot, there will be 20 next year, is just stupid and wrong.

the human thinks very often too short

Wolves in Germany –
some months ago, a „hunter“ shot a wolf, had to pay now € 3500 fine and lost his hunting license.
http://www.nabu.de/aktionenundprojekte/ ... 15457.html (in German)

Madis wrote: Howdy,

I need to overthrow those understandings, as they don't have any base of truth. The scientifically conducted studies on none toxic ammunition in comparison to lead ammunition have not found a difference as Ricky has stated before. Also studies with hunters assessing non toxic ammunition show that the practical, in field experience is not different.
The only negative side compared to lead is the expense, as non toxic options are bit more costly but in countries, where lead has been banned, they have noticed that there is less ammunition spent on the same amount of killed animals, so the accuracy and efficiency has risen. Also lead bullets fragment and lose about 50% of their weight to fragmentation and those fragments can contaminate 45 cm from the wound channel so there is a lot of meat what is dangerous to you and others who eat it (half of the deer). But the health side is the most important as newer literature states that no lead is the best for your health. Lead will have health effects even in really small (permitted) concentrations. Therefore the cost should not be so an issue as i think the only thing to do with the lead contaminated meat is to take it to the hazardous substances collection site, like we do with our batteries and other lead containing things. Lead will also contaminate soil and water as it oxidizes in the environment.
I do not understand hunters who are ignorant to this issue, as there is so so much data availible, just open your mind to it!!!
I have worked on lot of eagles who are the victims of that kind of thinking, and the solution is there, ready to use - non toxic ammunition! I don't have anything against hunting, its an important way of collecting food and controlling populations, but the lead ammunition is the problem!

Thank you SO MUCH, Madis, for your reply on this subject. Lead is a bad metal and is killing so many raptors that feed off carcasses that are found, or the intestines left behind. And you know this lead has to be in the food we eat if we are eating deer shot with lead bullets or even ducks and geese. I wish these hunters would straighten up and pay attention to what they are doing to the environment.

Madis wrote: I need to overthrow those understandings, as they don't have any base of truth. The scientifically conducted studies on none toxic ammunition in comparison to lead ammunition have not found a difference as Ricky has stated before. Also studies with hunters assessing non toxic ammunition show that the practical, in field experience is not different.
The only negative side compared to lead is the expense, as non toxic options are bit more costly but in countries, where lead has been banned, they have noticed that there is less ammunition spent on the same amount of killed animals, so the accuracy and efficiency has risen.

If there is no objective reason for hunters not to use lead-free ammunition, and not even the financial aspect is an argument as documented by Dr.Leivits – what can be the subjective reason?
Or is it just stubbornness, ignorance and arrogance?

GM74 wrote:Not sure if this is the right place but i just read a article that there are plans to kill 3500 wolfs in the russian republic Yakutia

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20130106/17860 ... lves_.html

Yakutia may be just the tip of the iceberg.

A person who is supposed to know, Director of Department of State Policy and Regulation in Hunting Management and Animal Resources at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation, says in the November 2012 issue of Russki Okhotnichi Zhurnal (Russian Hunting Magazine) that the wolf population in Russia is estimated at 50-60 thousand. He thinks that their numbers should be reduced to 15-20 thousand by killing 15-20 thousand a year instead of 7-10 thousand a year killed currently.

Source: http://huntandfish.ru/magazine/2012/11_ ... anits_net/ (in Russian)

Should those figures be true, wolf density would drop roughly from 0.29-0.35 to 0.09-0.12 per 100 sq. km in Russia as a whole. Ironically, if there really are 3,500 (quoted figures vary from 3,000 to 4,000) wolves in Yakutia then their density is - already - about 0.12 per 100 sq. km.

the truth is that little money is € 3,500 for killing a wolf, here in Spain to € 6,000 for hunting stealth finches in closed season and without the necessary documentation

Eden wrote: I need to overthrow those understandings, as they don't have any base of truth. The scientifically conducted studies on none toxic ammunition in comparison to lead ammunition have not found a difference as Ricky has stated before. Also studies with hunters assessing non toxic ammunition show that the practical, in field experience is not different.
The only negative side compared to lead is the expense, as non toxic options are bit more costly but in countries, where lead has been banned, they have noticed that there is less ammunition spent on the same amount of killed animals, so the accuracy and efficiency has risen.
If there is no objective reason for hunters not to use lead-free ammunition, and not even the financial aspect is an argument as documented by Dr.Leivits – what can be the subjective reason?
Or is it just stubbornness, ignorance and arrogance?

Old habits are hard to change or as an old Estonian saying is "can't teach new tricks to an old bear". Anyways, lots of people will say that our ancestors have lived with that before so there is no problem, but where all those environmental factors will have impact is the age what a person lives healthy (without health issues) and also the overall age. And studies have shown that stricter lead regulations in every field will have positive impacts beside health. Example a study on children studied blood lead levels and IQ correlation. Results showed that children in less contact with lead (stricter regulations) have 2.2-4.7 points higher IQ and every IQ point means 1.76-2.3% higher work efficiency (Grosse, Scott D., et al., 2002. a.). So if we do the less contaminated children are 3.87-10,81% more efficient. So i could speculate that using non toxic ammunition will make your children income bigger, therefore they can help you more when you are old and need care.
Anyways, I'm sold on the proof what scientist have gathers (and there is lot of it) and i'm doing all that i can to get it to the hunters and policy makers in Estonia... in the next Estonian Hunter magazine, i have a article on this topic, and so far, who have read it before release, have started to worry

Hmmm .... as interesting as these results concerning lead exposure in human beings may also be ..... I wouldn´t like to reduce children (all people!) to the hight of their IQ and the possible results .... like higher work efficiency or so ... there are so much more factors that make a human life worth living and living happy!
And if grown up children will be willing to take care for their old parents also depends on much more factors then only living long or being "intelligent" ....

I hope my English is good enough to make clear what I mean ....???

Please don´t understand me wrong - I condemn lead munition as all of you - but these reasons are not so meaningful to me .... there are surely better ones .... even if these are scientific they seem to me very "theoretic" ....

A different aspect of environmental lead.

Reports have linked higher crime rates of the past to higher crime rates. At first I figured maybe there is just a correlation, but not causation, but crime rates decreased faster in areas where the lead (I think largely from gasoline) was cleaned up most rapidly.

Studies Show Lead Linked to Violent Crime Trends
http://www.eji.org/node/731

Lead Poisoning Linked With Higher Crime Rates, Lower Test Scores
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynne-pee ... 40256.html

The lead maps also appear to predict differences in academic achievement, even after ruling out poverty and other related factors. Mielke's finding is just one piece a growing body of evidence that links low-level lead exposures to poor school performance. A new study out of Wisconsin this week, for example, has found that fourth graders who tested positive for lead exposure scored worse than their classmates on the state's standardized tests.

As Bea says our current society needs people with as much intelligence as possible. When we damage wildlife with lead we almost unavoidably hurt ourselves.