A guy at work (MD) says she has studied evolution and that the argument that hunting is a useful game management tool is fallacious as hunting takes healthy animals and over time will weaken the species. I tried to argue that if I tag the "alpha male" then the "second male" would live and grow stronger into the alpha male with equitable characteristics =no weakening of the species. Anyway the discussion went on for awhile-I even argued that hunting pressure from man would strengthen the species as over time they would adapt/grow smarter etc. He is not an anti-hunter but I am not educated enough in this area to be certain that I made a valid or correct argument and I am certain that there are people who can debate this better than me. Maybe I shouldn't even bother. Any wildlife bilogists out there who can help? IS hunting really an effective management tool? Thank you so much!
Hunting as wildlife management
- Thread starter Border
- Start date
- Status
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Anything can be done incorrectly, but hunting is indeed a management tool, according to publicity from every Fish/Wildlife agency of which I've read--and that's a lot of reading, over more than forty years of it.
For instance, the numbers of a deer herd would increase exponentially, in the absence of predation and limits on food. A healthy doe always has twin fawns, and the female fawn can be impregnated at age 1-1/2. There is a fertile period of some five years--so the math is left as an exercise for the student.
As the herd increases to the carrying population of the ecosystem, two things happen: First, the average size of the animals decreases; second, the resistance to winter kill is reduced. The Hill Country near Austin in Central Texas shows a prime example of this. 1963 was a drouth year. In Llano, Mason and Brady counties, the hunters' kill was 15,000 deer. Texas Parks & Wildlife biologists claimed the winter kill was 17,000. Yet, the area was still considered to be over-populated--and those are relatively small counties.
Because of the declining number of hunters in many areas, the bag limits have had to be increased. In Texas, it is becoming more common that, "Before you can shoot a buck, shoot a doe." And, you'll notice that in another thread here in the hunt forum, many have commented they are meat hunters, more interested in taking does.
I grant that the publicity goes to big bucks, but a large percentage of all hunters take does, considering the meat to be more tender.
While not always true, larger bucks are commonly taken late in the hunting season. That means they have already bred does, and passed on their genes to a next generation.
As a generality, where there is strong anti-hunting sentiment, large numbers of deer interact with cars and are commonly nuisances to residential flower beds. This is not the case where there is a more proper balance of populations and food supply, as numerous observations over the years have shown. Since there is a shortage of four-legged predators, we two-legged predators are all that's left to control the population.
Note that with one exception, no game animal in North America is in declining numbers. Certainly, none are endangered by hunting. The Bighorn Sheep is "blitzed" by both overgrazing (sage replaces their winter grass) and residential development in the winter range. (Hunters are spending vast amounts of money on bighorn restoration projects.) I note that some species of geese are in decline due to "subsistence" hunting in Alaska and western Canada.
This oughta get you started,
Art
For instance, the numbers of a deer herd would increase exponentially, in the absence of predation and limits on food. A healthy doe always has twin fawns, and the female fawn can be impregnated at age 1-1/2. There is a fertile period of some five years--so the math is left as an exercise for the student.
As the herd increases to the carrying population of the ecosystem, two things happen: First, the average size of the animals decreases; second, the resistance to winter kill is reduced. The Hill Country near Austin in Central Texas shows a prime example of this. 1963 was a drouth year. In Llano, Mason and Brady counties, the hunters' kill was 15,000 deer. Texas Parks & Wildlife biologists claimed the winter kill was 17,000. Yet, the area was still considered to be over-populated--and those are relatively small counties.
Because of the declining number of hunters in many areas, the bag limits have had to be increased. In Texas, it is becoming more common that, "Before you can shoot a buck, shoot a doe." And, you'll notice that in another thread here in the hunt forum, many have commented they are meat hunters, more interested in taking does.
I grant that the publicity goes to big bucks, but a large percentage of all hunters take does, considering the meat to be more tender.
While not always true, larger bucks are commonly taken late in the hunting season. That means they have already bred does, and passed on their genes to a next generation.
As a generality, where there is strong anti-hunting sentiment, large numbers of deer interact with cars and are commonly nuisances to residential flower beds. This is not the case where there is a more proper balance of populations and food supply, as numerous observations over the years have shown. Since there is a shortage of four-legged predators, we two-legged predators are all that's left to control the population.
Note that with one exception, no game animal in North America is in declining numbers. Certainly, none are endangered by hunting. The Bighorn Sheep is "blitzed" by both overgrazing (sage replaces their winter grass) and residential development in the winter range. (Hunters are spending vast amounts of money on bighorn restoration projects.) I note that some species of geese are in decline due to "subsistence" hunting in Alaska and western Canada.
This oughta get you started,
Art
critter
Member
Anti's have a lot of smoke and mirrors-and some of it is passed on as 'gospel' by even folks who should know better. Some lament the taking of 'trophy' animals as taking the 'biggest, strongest' from the herd and letting the 'lesser' fit animals do more of the breeding. What they conveniently overlook is that the smallest spike or button buck (as soon as he can breed) has the EXACT SAME gene characteristics as he would if let grow for 5-8 years and when he has a humongous 12 pt 180 class rack!
Keith
Member
It's the weakest and dumbest animals that get taken, not the strongest or smartest.
Your friend needs to speak with a wildlife biologist.
Keith
Your friend needs to speak with a wildlife biologist.
Keith
Joe Demko
Member
Weakest and dumbest would be closer to the truth if dealing strictly with predators other than human. Given that we tend to use projectile weapons with great range, we select out the animals that allow themselves to be seen. If a puma sees a deer at 300 yards, the deer isn't in any immediate danger. If a human w/ a rifle sees a deer at 300 yards, the deer is in mortal peril. IOW, we are selecting for animals that move about at night or otherwise avoid human sight. You can construe that as being "smart" but I wouldn't necessarily consider that valid.
Keith
Member
Most hunters never take a trophy animal in their entire life. They take the first legal deer they see, or the first "decent" buck they see. The ones they see are the least wary - the least successful at survival. There was a thread here not long ago where almost every hunter stated that they were looking for younger deer or does, because those are the best eating. There are very few actual "trophy" hunters.
You don't see the really great old bucks with the best pedigree very often. They've learned to stay in the deepest cover and have become almost entirely nocturnal. 99% of hunters never get more than a half mile from the road. They aren't even in the neighborhood where these big bucks are, and they certainly aren't hunting at night when these guys are moving.
As for wild predators, it's true that the old and sick get taken first, but honestly, how many old or sick game animals do you see? The typical kill of wolves or big cats is in fact the younger and least wary prey animals - the same ones hunters take.
And you have to remember that when one of these really great trophy animals does finally get taken, they are generally from six to eight years of age (or they wouldn't be trophy animals). They've passed on their genes hundreds of times by then and are nearing the end of their natural life anyway. When they get taken it's likely because age has dimmed their senses and they wouldn't be around (or breeding) much longer anyway.
Keith
You don't see the really great old bucks with the best pedigree very often. They've learned to stay in the deepest cover and have become almost entirely nocturnal. 99% of hunters never get more than a half mile from the road. They aren't even in the neighborhood where these big bucks are, and they certainly aren't hunting at night when these guys are moving.
As for wild predators, it's true that the old and sick get taken first, but honestly, how many old or sick game animals do you see? The typical kill of wolves or big cats is in fact the younger and least wary prey animals - the same ones hunters take.
And you have to remember that when one of these really great trophy animals does finally get taken, they are generally from six to eight years of age (or they wouldn't be trophy animals). They've passed on their genes hundreds of times by then and are nearing the end of their natural life anyway. When they get taken it's likely because age has dimmed their senses and they wouldn't be around (or breeding) much longer anyway.
Keith
C.R.Sam
Moderator Emeritus
Much good in previous posts.
My condensed version...
Hunt them to reduce herd size or
They will multiply and displace other species,
And then starve.
Meanwhile wreaking havoc on the flora and fauna of the area.
Sam
My condensed version...
Hunt them to reduce herd size or
They will multiply and displace other species,
And then starve.
Meanwhile wreaking havoc on the flora and fauna of the area.
Sam
grampster
Member
Michigan DNR planted turkeys a few years ago in northern Michigan. We have two hunting seasons, fall and spring. The turkey population has increased every year and they can be found throughout most of the state now. I see large schools of them almost every day. Interestingly, I never see any turkey road kill. They run in mobs mostly and I thought I saw the lead turkey wearing a AAA saftey patrol belt.
grampster
grampster
C.R.Sam
Moderator Emeritus
Much good in previous posts.
My condensed version...
Hunt them to reduce herd size or
They will multiply and displace other species,
And then starve.
Meanwhile wreaking havoc on the flora and fauna of the area.
Sam
My condensed version...
Hunt them to reduce herd size or
They will multiply and displace other species,
And then starve.
Meanwhile wreaking havoc on the flora and fauna of the area.
Sam
ARperson
Member
I must confess I am no stranger to gun boards, but this has to be the most articulate and intelligent board I've ever frequented.
I have a B.S. degree in biology, concentration on ecology, and an M.S.E.S. (Masters of science in Environemental Science), concentration on ecology and wildlife management. I also interned and worked with the Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, in the Wildlife Management Division and the Divison of State Parks and Reservoirs.
I haven't read one wild supposition in this thread...other than the one referenced in the leading post.
Hunting as a management tool is generally used only when necessary to control herd size. Herd size is controlled (reduced) when the current size results in some detrimental effect(s). Art said it right in his explanation. In fact, I'll go farther and say that humans, via hunting for management, are improving the natural condition by restoring a key component: predator.
I have a B.S. degree in biology, concentration on ecology, and an M.S.E.S. (Masters of science in Environemental Science), concentration on ecology and wildlife management. I also interned and worked with the Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, in the Wildlife Management Division and the Divison of State Parks and Reservoirs.
I haven't read one wild supposition in this thread...other than the one referenced in the leading post.
Hunting as a management tool is generally used only when necessary to control herd size. Herd size is controlled (reduced) when the current size results in some detrimental effect(s). Art said it right in his explanation. In fact, I'll go farther and say that humans, via hunting for management, are improving the natural condition by restoring a key component: predator.
Keith
Member
It's true. We are an impressive bunch. And when we get out of line, Art's Grandmaw wakes up and raises hell!
Keith
C.R.Sam
Moderator Emeritus
Grits n chili on keyboard.
Sam
Sam
- Status
