"Karl Kleinpaste" wrote in message
FarmI writes:
The wildlife do not have the luxury of 'deciding' where to live. They
were born there.

There is no "who was here first" argument to be made.

I never made any such statement so your comment is irrelevant.

Animal populations migrate -- they do indeed decide where to live.

Some wild animal populations do migrate - eg Caribou, Wildebeest and many
bird species.

Most wild animal populations live within a defined range and roam within
that range.

In terms of your comments about them making a 'decision' about where they
live, then non-migratory animals certainly do no such thing in the same way
that humans can and do. Wild animals follow food, shelter and in some
cases, seasonal conditions.

They cannot sell and relocate for the sake of convenience and nor do they
move to Florida for the winter in the same way that humans can.

You seem to think that just because you see a lot of biodiversity that
it will always be there. It won't and you would know that if you took
an interest in either history or environmental issues.

Oh, I take an /interest/ in them, all right. I just don't buy the lie
that everything is dying.

Read what I wrote and respond to that rather than invent something I didn't
write.

The fact that I make these observations about my "tiddling place" does
not restrict their validity to only these few small acres of my
"tiddling place." I make my observations so as to provide a context in
which to be able to make a reasonable claim that there is an
(over)abundance of wildlife all around me (e.g. the state game lands a
few miles away are chock full of critters), throughout the whole area of
western Pennsylvania outside the cities, not /just/ on my "tiddling
place," and that there is precious little actual risk to the whole.

If you had understood what I wrote about 'history" and the fact that it
(meaning wildlife around your tiddling place and even the whole of the US
and the world) will not always be there, you would not make this statement.

The earth is not made up of infinite resources and that applies to wildlife
as it does to every other single commodity.

There is no current risk of impending doom *at all* to Pennsylvania's
wildlife, least of all to deer.

I repeat, read what I wrote. I did not comment about "current" risk. I
wrote about future risk. And regardless of how much wildlife you or the
whole of the US currently has, it will not stay that way.

You (and Ann) have mere local effects.

Since Ann and I live on different continents and I made no statement
whatsoever about the wildlife in my area, you can make no meaningful
statement about whether I have local effects or not.