Thread: new Science investigations about Moa diet and their influence on the NZ Forests

Seems like a pretty long bow to draw, to compare Moa and deer and come to the conclusion they had a similar impact on the bush.
They might have a similar browse height but the crucial thing when comparing the two is population density and range. Just because they may have browsed similar things and to a similar height doesn't mean the impact they have is the same.
Im no expert but id say comparing the impact that todays extremely high deer numbers have on the bush, with a species that was hunted to EXTINCTION using primitive weapons and skills is comparing apples with oranges. For Moa as a species to be hunted to extinction there is just no way they could have been as widespread and established as deer are today.

Originally Posted by kbrebs

Seems like a pretty long bow to draw, to compare Moa and deer and come to the conclusion they had a similar impact on the bush.
They might have a similar browse height but the crucial thing when comparing the two is population density and range. Just because they may have browsed similar things and to a similar height doesn't mean the impact they have is the same.
Im no expert but id say comparing the impact that todays extremely high deer numbers have on the bush, with a species that was hunted to EXTINCTION using primitive weapons and skills is comparing apples with oranges. For Moa as a species to be hunted to extinction there is just no way they could have been as widespread and established as deer are today.

I hear what you say and agree with you in the most part... deer definitely would seem to be in larger numbers these days than Moa were otherwise why would they be extinct... but do we know for sure that this was always the case? What if, 600 years ago, there were millions of Moa and the different species ranged from the coast to the tops? Maybe they all got a corona virus and were decimated by that instead, with the last few killed off by maori? Certainly nature looks after herself in that regard and balance is achieved without human intervention by disease and famine or abundance and a lack of predators. Who knows. Not me anyhow.

The point I was making is that to some extent there has always been something to eat the forest greenery. This idea that deer are new to the country and are bad because they browse trees to a couple of metres is BS... they have just replaced a species that are now extinct.

Originally Posted by planenutz

I hear what you say and agree with you in the most part... deer definitely would seem to be in larger numbers these days than Moa were otherwise why would they be extinct... but do we know for sure that this was always the case? What if, 600 years ago, there were millions of Moa and the different species ranged from the coast to the tops? Maybe they all got a corona virus and were decimated by that instead, with the last few killed off by maori? Certainly nature looks after herself in that regard and balance is achieved without human intervention by disease and famine or abundance and a lack of predators. Who knows. Not me anyhow.

The point I was making is that to some extent there has always been something to eat the forest greenery. This idea that deer are new to the country and are bad because they browse trees to a couple of metres is BS... they have just replaced a species that are now extinct.

Yup and thats the big hole in my argument, there could have been plenty of other factors that led to Moa's extinction, Ill never know the whole story thats for sure.
I just think it discredits hunters when they choose to jump on claims like this to try and justify the damage that deer do to the bush in NZ when left unchecked. There is definitely an equilibrium where both deer and the bush can be healthy and thrive but its probably far lower densities than the modern hunter who is used to high numbers would prefer.

Originally Posted by kbrebs

Yup and thats the big hole in my argument, there could have been plenty of other factors that led to Moa's extinction, Ill never know the whole story thats for sure.
I just think it discredits hunters when they choose to jump on claims like this to try and justify the damage that deer do to the bush in NZ when left unchecked. There is definitely an equilibrium where both deer and the bush can be healthy and thrive but its probably far lower densities than the modern hunter who is used to high numbers would prefer.

If you join the greens, that hole in your argument would be filled in 5 mins?