Albania hunting ban takes aim at depopulation

Exposing the Big Game

 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/11/albania-hunting-ban-takes-aim-at-depopulation-2014111812148301986.html

Wildlife numbers falling rapidly, but a controversial new ban on hunting seeks to protect Albania’s animals.

Last updated: 22 Nov 2014

Tirana, Albania – Bujar Hyka and his friends headed out in their jeep west of Albania’s capital on a recent Sunday morning. Dressed in camouflage, the men navigated the vehicle through rough terrain with three restless English Setters eagerly waiting to jump out.

A year ago, this would have been a hunting trip. But under Albania’s new anti-hunting law, Hyka and his friends have been forbidden to kill animals and now simply hike weaponless through the country’s pristine wilderness.

“The government doesn’t understand that hunting is a sport; they are1907320_10152809923380861_1562740061849294556_n ruining our sport,” said Hyka, 59, head of one of Albania’s hunters and fishermen’s organisations. “It’s like someone taking a football away from footballers.”

Earlier this year, the Albanian government imposed a…

View original post 75 more words

Advertisements
Published in: on December 8, 2014 at 11:34 am  Comments (8)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://howlingforjustice.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/albania-hunting-ban-takes-aim-at-depopulation/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hunting isn’t a sport. unless you are killing for feeding yourself and/or family it is nothing but killing for the ‘fun’ of it!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Savages.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Just savages Albanians

    Like

  4. Oh hunting is a sport? I would laugh, but it is unkind to laugh at people with a mental illness.

    Like

  5. Hmmmm . . . Soccer balls are less lethal.
    From the description, it looks like the gun-crazed killers in camo so popular as folk in the USA/Canada, have overpopulated every non-asphalted area of Earth.
    (you know, in the mountain community of 3000 I lived in for 15 years, camo dressers were equated with the Kazcynski- and conspiracy-nuts. There was only ONE. But now that I all-too often visit communities of 30,000 I find that the urban places are FULL of them; and we see, unfortunately that the original associations were all-too correct)

    My car was hit by bullets the other morning – even though it was only about 80 feet from the road. It was a most interesting event, as I had not heard bullets whizz by me for a few years now. All were ejected by “sportsmen.”

    Have I mentioned the VITAL: NEED FOR YOU, YES, YOU, to write comments to
    http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FWS-R2-ES-2013-0056-879 Concerning Proposed Revision to the Regulations for the Nonessential Experimental Population of the Mexican Wolf?

    If you DON’T, expect to see the few Mexican Wolves die out during YOUR lifetime (Although Isle Royale population of C. lupus is smaller, the problems are similar, – too small a number, and too isolated.

    PLEASE GO THERE Here are just a FEW of my issues (I wrote 4 comments so far, but cannot address some human social problems, unless I get ok from some orgs, whose names I intended to use for support)
    Some basic issues which will extinguish the Mexican Wolf, UNLESS large change in recovery goals are made:

    Although option 3, the most environmentally preferred, has a few laudable goals, The extremely minimal recovery goal of 300-325 is profoundly insufficient for a number of reasons:
    1. All experience and information, along with indicators expressed by their respective wildlife agencies, suggests that New Mexico and Arizona will follow the lead of ID, MT, WY, WI, using lethal management to maintain the population total at or near that level, denying sufficient diversity through growth to develop greater heterozygosity, leading to species problems in reproduction and long-term persistence and survival.
    2. Demographic stochasticity will certainly result in dangerous fluctuations of that low population, making more likely decreases in individual fitness for survival and reproduction, and deadly increases in homozygosity. The necessary genetic rescue that must inevitably follow such benighted and unscientific recovery goal-setting, and worse, the actions of above mentioned and other states’ wildlife management agencies, will at some relatively near point require federal reestablishment of control, and costly greater attempts at further introduction, as well as stronger critical habitat corridors.
    3. The final recognition of insufficiency in Proposed ROD, is the failure to establish protected habitat corridors leading to the Kaibab Plateau and NF, and the San Juan Mountains and NF. Without sufficient gene flow through these most obvious and wild areas, where the wolf can avoid deadly human activity, Allee effects will take down the population over time.

    In short, extinction will result from this extremely poor choice of recovery goal numbers.
    Repeated studies have made this clear.

    1. D.H. Reed, et al.
    Estimates of minimum viable population sizes for vertebrates and factors influencing those estimates Biol. Conserv., 113 (2003), pp. 23–34
    Authors “used population viability analysis to estimate MVPs for 102 species. We define a minimum viable population size as one with a 99% probability of persistence for 40 generations. The models are comprehensive and include age-structure, catastrophes, demographic stochasticity, environmental stochasticity, and inbreeding depression. The mean and median estimates of MVP were 7316 and 5816 adults, respectively. . . the lack of long-term studies for endangered species leads to widespread underestimation of extinction risk. The results of our simulations suggest that conservation programs, for wild populations, need to be designed to conserve habitat capable of supporting approximately 7000 adult vertebrates in order to ensure long-term persistence.”

    2. L.W. Traill, et al.
    Minimum viable population size: a meta-analysis of 30 years of published estimates; Biol. Conserv, 139 (2007), pp. 159–166
    Authors: “we were able to derive a cross-species frequency distribution of MVP with a median of 4169 individuals (95% CI = 3577–5129). This standardized database provides a reference set of MVPs from which conservation practitioners can generalize the range expected for particular species (or surrogate taxa) of concern when demographic information is lacking. We provide a synthesis of MVP-related research over the past 30 years . . .[and] conclude that a species’ or population’s MVP is context-specific, and there are no simple short-cuts to its derivation. However, our findings are consistent with biological theory and MVPs derived from abundance time series in that the MVP for most species will exceed a few thousand individuals.”

    Science is in general agreement that monogamous species like the gray and Mexican Wolf, need somewhat larger populations than the norms expressed, in order to reach Minimum Viable Population sufficiency.

    As you see, please attempt to make your comments substantive – you can find Record of Decision and related material in the document.

    I also wish to establish the idea that USDA Wildlife Services, in arguing for D, no action due to insufficient funds – is the wrong choice. We need to
    1. Create increased nonlethal management option, perhaps through WS subcontracting with Mexican wolf sanctuaries and captive breeding facilities, to, instead of killing conflict wolves, recapturing and allowing them to live in the sanctuaries – the genetic problems to which I referred, makes EVERY wolf of vital importance (although I feel this is already so, due to my own cultural differences with this white killing culture)

    Like

  6. BAN THE EVIL HUNTING EVERYWHERE, ANIMALS HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO LIVE AS WE DO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  7. So I passed a bow hunter’s 4wd the other day at a major shopping centre in the middle of a highly populated area, around about 20 metres from a discount grocery store. Clearly the owner of the vehicle hunted to feed him/herself because there was no other options open to him/her.

    Like

    • “Clearly the owner of the vehicle hunted to feed him/herself because there was no other options open to him/her”
      Good catch John!

      For the wolves, For the wild ones,
      Nabeki

      Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: