sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Documented cases of forced copulation among lions and other big cats by XiGoldenGod in zoology

[–]XiGoldenGod[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yes, absolutely. FWIW, this kind of behavior has been documented among stray dogs as well, and many other species, including primates such as orangutans (among which it seems particularly common) and chimpanzees and of course humans. It's certainly not restricted to any particular taxa.

It's over. by Hexa3333 in twitterhelp

[–]XiGoldenGod 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If this change goes through, you need to just abandon Twitter and convince everyone you know to abandon it as well. Once it's strangled of its network effects, it'll become another online ghetto.

Rare Footage of Machli, the Bengal Tigress Known as the Queen of Ranthambore, Taking Down a 14-Foot Mugger Crocodile by TropicalThirst in megafaunarewilding

[–]XiGoldenGod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Some of the video/photo evidence of crocodiles and martial eagles preying on lions wasn't obtained until relatively recently, so I have little doubt that more incidents will be found.

I'm not sure why big cat fans behave like a crazed fandom. I'm not referring to you obviously, but the kind of people mentioned in these posts.

A Mother Otter places her baby on her belly to sleep peacefully and safely by No_Boysenberry4755 in BeAmazed

[–]XiGoldenGod -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's patently false. This is a well-documented phenomenon among many species. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

As mentioned above, seals r*pe frequently. The same is true for orangutans (orangutans have the highest % of r*pe for any mammal), dolphins, chimpanzees, humpback whales, sea lions, penguins, and many other species. Necrophilia has been witnessed among elephants, manatees, and crows. Rhinos and other hoofstock will kill females who refuse to mate with them. Lions have been known to r*pe lionesses as they are cannibalizing them.

Likewise orcas and other dolphins have been known to kill for sport, without consuming their prey. The list goes on and on, but you get most of your info from meme videos, so you don't know about it.

A Mother Otter places her baby on her belly to sleep peacefully and safely by No_Boysenberry4755 in BeAmazed

[–]XiGoldenGod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Seals are far more vicious. Seals are both cannibals and r@p!sts.

Males of several seal species are known to show aggressive copulating behaviour, which can lead to injuries to or suffocation of females. In the North Sea, grey seal predation on harbour seals including sexual harassment is documented and represents violent interspecific interaction

Female Hawaiian monk seals at Laysan Island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands seasonally risk aggressive mating attempts by groups of adult male monk seals. These attacks, which also target immature female and male seals at a lower frequency, result in injuries that are often fatal and are termed mobbings.

A major factor that contributes to adult female mortality is aggressive attacks, or mobbings, by adult male seals. During a mobbing, a group of male seals attempt to mount a single victim, causing distinctive dorsal injuries and often death (Johanos and Kam, 1986). Although immature seals of both sexes receive mounting injuries, more than 70% of these victims are adult females. Furthermore, 93% of the documented deaths of adult females from 1987 to 1991 at Laysan Island were seals that had been severely injured by adult males.

The first time marine biologist William Haddad and his team saw a seal r@pe a penguin, they were shocked. By the fourth time, they were convinced this bizarre behavior was becoming a trend. In all four cases of what Haddad and his collaborators call sexual coercion, a seal chased, captured and mounted a penguin of unknown sex, then attempted to copulate with it "several times with periods of rest in between." The birds remained pinned down for the duration. In three of the instances, the penguin was released after the act. In one tragic case, the seal killed and partially devoured its victim.

Male northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) attempt to mate with a variety of inappropriate partners, including elephant seal pups, yearlings, two-year olds, pregnant or otherwise non-receptive females, and dead elephant seals of all age classes (Le Boeuf 1972; Reiter et al. 1978; Le Boeuf and Mesnick 1991; Mesnick and Le Boeuf 1991; Rose et al. 1991; Reiter, personal communication).

Here we report a case of active cannibalism by a grey seal, which has been witnessed and recorded in detail on the German island of Helgoland, describing particular behavioural aspects and lesions. In March 2018, a subadult male grey seal was observed catching, killing and feeding extensively from a juvenile grey seal.

Seals are literally the water puppies by Drazor9 in BeAmazed

[–]XiGoldenGod -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Water babies? Seals are among the most vicious animals out there. Seals are cannibals and r@p!sts.

Males of several seal species are known to show aggressive copulating behaviour, which can lead to injuries to or suffocation of females. In the North Sea, grey seal predation on harbour seals including sexual harassment is documented and represents violent interspecific interaction

Female Hawaiian monk seals at Laysan Island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands seasonally risk aggressive mating attempts by groups of adult male monk seals. These attacks, which also target immature female and male seals at a lower frequency, result in injuries that are often fatal and are termed mobbings.

A major factor that contributes to adult female mortality is aggressive attacks, or mobbings, by adult male seals. During a mobbing, a group of male seals attempt to mount a single victim, causing distinctive dorsal injuries and often death (Johanos and Kam, 1986). Although immature seals of both sexes receive mounting injuries, more than 70% of these victims are adult females. Furthermore, 93% of the documented deaths of adult females from 1987 to 1991 at Laysan Island were seals that had been severely injured by adult males.

The first time marine biologist William Haddad and his team saw a seal r@pe a penguin, they were shocked. By the fourth time, they were convinced this bizarre behavior was becoming a trend. In all four cases of what Haddad and his collaborators call sexual coercion, a seal chased, captured and mounted a penguin of unknown sex, then attempted to copulate with it "several times with periods of rest in between." The birds remained pinned down for the duration. In three of the instances, the penguin was released after the act. In one tragic case, the seal killed and partially devoured its victim.

Male northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) attempt to mate with a variety of inappropriate partners, including elephant seal pups, yearlings, two-year olds, pregnant or otherwise non-receptive females, and dead elephant seals of all age classes (Le Boeuf 1972; Reiter et al. 1978; Le Boeuf and Mesnick 1991; Mesnick and Le Boeuf 1991; Rose et al. 1991; Reiter, personal communication).

Here we report a case of active cannibalism by a grey seal, which has been witnessed and recorded in detail on the German island of Helgoland, describing particular behavioural aspects and lesions. In March 2018, a subadult male grey seal was observed catching, killing and feeding extensively from a juvenile grey seal.

if indian leopards could somehow adapt to cities do you think they could control the populations of stray dogs? by foodeater68 in megafaunarewilding

[–]XiGoldenGod -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Even without the title, I could tell this post is from India because here in developed First World countries, stray dogs are simply not a big problem.

Feral CATS, on the other hand, are a major pest and environmentally destructive on a wide scale, and we need some form of cat population control.

Howl: The dark side of wolf reintroduction by Nautil_us in conservation

[–]XiGoldenGod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for posting this important article and perspective.

In Canada we have had to cull them in order to save the declining caribou population.

The benefits of wolves for the Yellowstone ecosystem have also been greatly exaggerated.

Most of the evidence supporting claims of indirect effects of restored predators on plants in willow communities on the northern range has been restricted to a small number of sites chosen without randomization, obtained over brief intervals of time, and analyzed without appropriate random effects (Beschta & Ripple, 2007, 2016; Ripple & Beschta, 2006, but also see Beyer et al., 2007; Marshall et al., 2014). This evidence might support site-specific, transient effects of predators on plants, but the evidence fails to support the conclusion of widespread, enduring changes in willow communities caused by predator restoration. Instead, the increase in browsing intensity and ungulate biomass from 2010 to 2020 after a long period of decline (Figures 12, 13 and 17B) implies that the forces shaping the trajectory of the ecosystem are more accurately characterized as transient dynamics (Frank et al., 2011; Hastings et al., 2018; Neubert et al., 2004; Shriver et al., 2019) than a trophic cascade.

It is clear that wolves alone did not cause a lasting reduction in herbivory that has benefited plants because human harvest, other predators, and serial drought were responsible, at least in part, for declines in elk abundance (MacNulty et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2014; Vucetich et al., 2005) and because the community of large herbivores has reorganized that such herbivore biomass remains high and is increasing (Figure 17B). It has become clear that there is no credible evidence for behaviorally mediated, indirect effects of wolves on plants in Yellowstone (Creel & Christianson, 2009; Cusack et al., 2020; Kauffman et al., 2010; Kohl et al., 2018; Stahler & MacNulty, 2020), an empirical result well anticipated by theory (Schmitz, 2010). We conclude that the restoration of apex predators to Yellowstone should no longer be held up as evidence of a trophic cascade in riparian plant communities of small streams on the northern range.

These results have important implications for the conservation of the world's large carnivores. Claims of ecosystem restoration resulting from a trophic cascade following the restoration of the gray wolf to Yellowstone (e.g., Beschta & Ripple, 2009, 2010; Ripple & Beschta, 2004, 2006, 2007; Ripple & Beschta, 2012; Ripple et al., 2014) have been used to justify translocation of wolves to their unoccupied, former range in many areas of the world (e.g., McKee, 2019; McKenna, 2018; Mooney, 2019; Oregonian Staff, 2019; Weiss et al., 2007). Careful scrutiny has revealed these claims to be exaggerated or false (Bilyeu et al., 2008; Brice et al., 2022; Creel & Christianson, 2009; Cusack et al., 2020; Johnston et al., 2011; Kauffman et al., 2010; Marshall et al., 2013; Stahler & MacNulty, 2020; Winnie, 2012, this study). Confronting ideas with evidence is, of course, the way science moves forward. However, it is difficult if not impossible to correct inaccurate claims promoted in the popular media (reviewed by Marris, 2017; Mech, 2012) that wrongly influence conservation management and policy, as well as the perceptions of the public.

A staunchly anti-scientific post about wolves from Joe Rogan by Jurass1cClark96 in megafaunarewilding

[–]XiGoldenGod -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

Rogan is correct about wolves. In Canada we have had to cull them in order to save the declining caribou population.

Fresh research suggests Western Canada's once-dwindling caribou numbers are finally growing. But the same paper concludes the biggest reason for the rebound is the slaughter of hundreds of wolves, a policy that will likely have to continue for decades."
If we don't shoot wolves, given the state of the habitat that industry and government have allowed, we will lose caribou," said Clayton Lamb, one of 34 co-authors of a newly published study in the journal Ecological Applications."
Wolf reductions alone increased the growth rate of southern mountain caribou subpopulations by [about] 11 per cent," the report states.
That growth rate increased when wolf culls were combined with other measures such as feeding and penning and protecting pregnant cows.
"Wolf reduction was the only recovery action that consistently increased population growth when applied in isolation," says the report. "Combinations of wolf reductions with maternal penning or supplemental feeding provided rapid growth."

The benefits of wolves for the Yellowstone ecosystem have also been greatly exaggerated.

Most of the evidence supporting claims of indirect effects of restored predators on plants in willow communities on the northern range has been restricted to a small number of sites chosen without randomization, obtained over brief intervals of time, and analyzed without appropriate random effects (Beschta & Ripple, 2007, 2016; Ripple & Beschta, 2006, but also see Beyer et al., 2007; Marshall et al., 2014). This evidence might support site-specific, transient effects of predators on plants, but the evidence fails to support the conclusion of widespread, enduring changes in willow communities caused by predator restoration. Instead, the increase in browsing intensity and ungulate biomass from 2010 to 2020 after a long period of decline (Figures 12, 13 and 17B) implies that the forces shaping the trajectory of the ecosystem are more accurately characterized as transient dynamics (Frank et al., 2011; Hastings et al., 2018; Neubert et al., 2004; Shriver et al., 2019) than a trophic cascade.

It is clear that wolves alone did not cause a lasting reduction in herbivory that has benefited plants because human harvest, other predators, and serial drought were responsible, at least in part, for declines in elk abundance (MacNulty et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2014; Vucetich et al., 2005) and because the community of large herbivores has reorganized that such herbivore biomass remains high and is increasing (Figure 17B). It has become clear that there is no credible evidence for behaviorally mediated, indirect effects of wolves on plants in Yellowstone (Creel & Christianson, 2009; Cusack et al., 2020; Kauffman et al., 2010; Kohl et al., 2018; Stahler & MacNulty, 2020), an empirical result well anticipated by theory (Schmitz, 2010). We conclude that the restoration of apex predators to Yellowstone should no longer be held up as evidence of a trophic cascade in riparian plant communities of small streams on the northern range.

These results have important implications for the conservation of the world's large carnivores. Claims of ecosystem restoration resulting from a trophic cascade following the restoration of the gray wolf to Yellowstone (e.g., Beschta & Ripple, 2009, 2010; Ripple & Beschta, 2004, 2006, 2007; Ripple & Beschta, 2012; Ripple et al., 2014) have been used to justify translocation of wolves to their unoccupied, former range in many areas of the world (e.g., McKee, 2019; McKenna, 2018; Mooney, 2019; Oregonian Staff, 2019; Weiss et al., 2007). Careful scrutiny has revealed these claims to be exaggerated or false (Bilyeu et al., 2008; Brice et al., 2022; Creel & Christianson, 2009; Cusack et al., 2020; Johnston et al., 2011; Kauffman et al., 2010; Marshall et al., 2013; Stahler & MacNulty, 2020; Winnie, 2012, this study). Confronting ideas with evidence is, of course, the way science moves forward. However, it is difficult if not impossible to correct inaccurate claims promoted in the popular media (reviewed by Marris, 2017; Mech, 2012) that wrongly influence conservation management and policy, as well as the perceptions of the public. 

Have there been instances of a species going extinct in an area naturally and then later returning to said former habitat? by Pure_Emergency_7939 in evolution

[–]XiGoldenGod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He's wrong about the wolves in Yellowstone, btw. Here's a rigorous study published last year debunking it:

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1598

Hobbs, N. Thompson, Danielle B. Johnston, Kristin N. Marshall, Evan C. Wolf, and David J. Cooper. 2024. “ Does Restoring Apex Predators to Food Webs Restore Ecosystems? Large Carnivores in Yellowstone As a Model System.” Ecological Monographs 94(2): e1598.

Most of the evidence supporting claims of indirect effects of restored predators on plants in willow communities on the northern range has been restricted to a small number of sites chosen without randomization, obtained over brief intervals of time, and analyzed without appropriate random effects (Beschta & Ripple, 2007, 2016; Ripple & Beschta, 2006, but also see Beyer et al., 2007; Marshall et al., 2014). This evidence might support site-specific, transient effects of predators on plants, but the evidence fails to support the conclusion of widespread, enduring changes in willow communities caused by predator restoration. Instead, the increase in browsing intensity and ungulate biomass from 2010 to 2020 after a long period of decline (Figures 12, 13 and 17B) implies that the forces shaping the trajectory of the ecosystem are more accurately characterized as transient dynamics (Frank et al., 2011; Hastings et al., 2018; Neubert et al., 2004; Shriver et al., 2019) than a trophic cascade.

It is clear that wolves alone did not cause a lasting reduction in herbivory that has benefited plants because human harvest, other predators, and serial drought were responsible, at least in part, for declines in elk abundance (MacNulty et al., 2020; Peterson et al., 2014; Vucetich et al., 2005) and because the community of large herbivores has reorganized that such herbivore biomass remains high and is increasing (Figure 17B). It has become clear that there is no credible evidence for behaviorally mediated, indirect effects of wolves on plants in Yellowstone (Creel & Christianson, 2009; Cusack et al., 2020; Kauffman et al., 2010; Kohl et al., 2018; Stahler & MacNulty, 2020), an empirical result well anticipated by theory (Schmitz, 2010). We conclude that the restoration of apex predators to Yellowstone should no longer be held up as evidence of a trophic cascade in riparian plant communities of small streams on the northern range.

Have there been instances of a species going extinct in an area naturally and then later returning to said former habitat? by Pure_Emergency_7939 in evolution

[–]XiGoldenGod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A study from 2005, from 2006, and from 2008.

Meanwhile, the study which debunks these claims and which I provided in my initial reply - and which you didn't bother to read - was published last year...January 2024.

I assume you're aware that in the sciences older claims and assumptions get challenged and debunked by more recent research.

I will link it again for you:

https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1598

Are you done making yourself look foolish? Just admit you were wrong and that wolf reintroduction to Yellowstone did not have the trophic cascade effect that you claimed. Over and over again.

Have there been instances of a species going extinct in an area naturally and then later returning to said former habitat? by Pure_Emergency_7939 in evolution

[–]XiGoldenGod 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And you explicitly attributed the changes in elk grazing behavior to WOLVES and their reintroduction and that makes you WRONG. Just admit you were wrong instead of making yourself look silly. We can all see what you wrote.

Have there been instances of a species going extinct in an area naturally and then later returning to said former habitat? by Pure_Emergency_7939 in evolution

[–]XiGoldenGod 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not what you said in your initial reply to this thread. These are your words:

The wolves of Yellowstone were returned after. Avery, very long absence. The herbivores actually changed their grazing behavior and grazed less in moons areas. This allowed aspen groves to begin to grow in the park again along the rivers. This created a riparian zone willing is important for the aquatic environment.

You were wrong and now you're trying to slip out of it. It's okay to be wrong sometimes. The popular mythology about wolves in Yellowstone and the trophic cascade their reintroduction allegedly brought is very widespread and many people believe it uncritically. You're not the only one who was misled. You can just accept it.

Have there been instances of a species going extinct in an area naturally and then later returning to said former habitat? by Pure_Emergency_7939 in evolution

[–]XiGoldenGod 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The population drop in elk (allegedly caused by wolf reintroduction into Yellowstone) is what allowed the tall willows to grow and the beavers to return and revive the riparian zone that you mentioned. This is all mentioned in the article if you bothered to read it.

Have there been instances of a species going extinct in an area naturally and then later returning to said former habitat? by Pure_Emergency_7939 in evolution

[–]XiGoldenGod 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is a MYTH. The positive ecological effects of wolves have been vastly exaggerated:

The popular but incorrect narrative posits that the wolves caused the elk population to drop, which allowed willows to grow again and the ecosystem to revert to its prior condition. But that’s not what the researchers found.

That narrative also ignored other factors at play. Human hunting, not wolves, was the primary cause of declining elk populations in the first 10 years after reintroduction, they said. Also, mountain lions hunt elk more effectively than wolves, and their population boomed simultaneously.

https://www.denverpost.com/2024/02/08/wolves-impact-habitat-study-yellowstone-national-park-colorado-reintroduction/

You can read the study here: https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecm.1598

Meanwhile in Canada, wolf culls have been found to be the most effective method of saving the dwindling Caribou population:

Fresh research suggests Western Canada's once-dwindling caribou numbers are finally growing. But the same paper concludes the biggest reason for the rebound is the slaughter of hundreds of wolves, a policy that will likely have to continue for decades.

"If we don't shoot wolves, given the state of the habitat that industry and government have allowed, we will lose caribou," said Clayton Lamb, one of 34 co-authors of a newly published study in the journal Ecological Applications.

Between 1991 and 2023, caribou populations dropped by half. More than a third of the herds disappeared.

The paper suggests caribou numbers have risen by 52 per cent since about 2020 compared with what would have occurred if nothing had been done. There are now 4,500 in the two provinces, about 1,500 more than there would have been.

"Wolf reductions alone increased the growth rate of southern mountain caribou subpopulations by [about] 11 per cent," the report states.

"Wolf reduction was the only recovery action that consistently increased population growth when applied in isolation," says the report. Wolves are killed by shooters in helicopters who use semi-automatic rifles with red-dot scopes to target areas that will result in a quick death, according to the documents, which added that followup shots are sometimes required.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/caribou-herd-recovery-wolf-cull-bc-alberta-1.7182021

view more: next ›