The Nature Conservancy's blog covers wildlife, conservation science, and ecology, with stories on animal behavior, habitats, and species under pressure.
HN commenters share it for odd animal stories, especially the Australian firehawks that spread fires and the bowerbirds' ornate structures, plus posts on native bees and bison.
"more common situation is that a crop is GMd to not need pesticides"
Is that based on research you've done, or are you just going with your gut?
This[0] article explains how "Roundup-ready corn and soybeans"(roundup is an herbicide) has caused the near disappearance of milkweed and because of that the near disappearance of Monarch Butterflies which need the milkweed to survive. What does "roundup ready" mean? It means the corn and soybeans can tolerate the herbicide, so the fields are coated with it indiscriminately.
I'd wager that acres of corn and soybeans planted exceeds acres of papaya by a fair bit.
This[1] well-sourced[2] article describes "Herbicide and Insecticide Use on GMO Crops" as "Skyrocketing."
This[3] article describes how corn crops that are gm'd to be resistant to pests have actually become susceptible to pests because "nature will find a way." This has resulted in even more use and need of pesticides for these crops, a vicious cycle.
By the way the crops that are modified to "not need pesticides," still actually need and use pesticides. The pesticides are just incorporated at the gene level, instead of after they've already been planted.
For example, the use of systemic insecticides, which coat GMO corn and soy seeds and are incorporated and expressed inside the entire plant, has skyrocketed in the last ten years. This includes use of neonicotinoids (neonics) which are extremely powerful neurotoxins that contaminate our food and water and destroy…
Okay, the half-life of methane is 7-9 years. Not the lifetime.
The 34x potential I gave is for methane over a hundred years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
It's incredibly potent stuff, so much that despite the relatively quick breakdown, an initial mass of methane will have a warming effect that is 20-35x that of an equivalent mass of carbon dioxide over a century. GWP numbers take the brief half-life of methane into account when calculated. You're making the mistake of looking at the absolute quantity of methane and short half-life, and thinking that it couldn't possibly have much of an effect. Well, people have already run the numbers, and it can have a huge effect.
Current rates of methane leaks from mining natural gas could very well offset the benefits of moving away from coal: http://blog.nature.org/science/2016/06/24/natural-gas-coal-leak-rate-energy-climate/
Methane's very bad news, even in small quantities.
The issue with deer is that there are too few natural predators for them in many places on the east coast. The booming population has detrimental effects on the forests. Deer consume only certain plants so they end up causing lower diversity of eastern forests. When the decision is either cull them now or let the population starve until it gets back to a comfortable capacity, it's much better to cull them. This not only helps the surrounding ecosystem but also gives some people the chance to get large quantities of meat for almost no cost. Some people in the US really do still live off the land to an extent, meat is much cheaper when you kill and clean the animal yourself.
https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/
Correct my anecdote is an anecdote.
The dramatic growth of deer and rodent population, as well as ticks, is well studied however.
Since you seem interested in this topic here are a few relevant links:
http://www.ct.gov/caes/lib/caes/documents/publications/fact_sheets/entomology/deer_&_ticks_fact_sheet.pdf
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs141p2_017804.pdf
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/6835501/ns/us_news-environment/t/deer-eating-away-forests-nationwide/
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/03/06/518219485/forbidding-forecast-for-lyme-disease-in-the-northeast
https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/
Without natural predators like wolves, bears, or bobcats, the deer population in certain areas of the United States has exploded(1). This negatively impacts overall biodiversity(2). I doubt deer like being eaten, but that's the process of life, and its vital to maintain the existing biodiversity we enjoy today.
So why would you feel guilt for the cycle of nature? Without deer, buffalo, or other herbivores in suburbia or urban environments, there has to be something to check plant growth.
(1)https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/
(2)https://sciencing.com/purpose-deer-ecosystem-8659608.html
You couldn't be more wrong. Wolf attacks are extremely rare. They're not a significant threat to humans.
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2011/dec/16/oregon-department-fish-and-wildlife/department-fish-and-wildlife-says-there-have-been-/
Wolves are vilified because of their threat to livestock. Farmers kill wolves to protect their animals.
The return of wolves is good news for people living in forested areas overpopulated by deer. Without wolves, the deer population grows unchecked. The deer overgraze which hurts plant growth.
https://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/