Wildlife Control - Hunting (714 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 1 on 4 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Martes pennanti <fisher.at.go.com> (View user info) at 2002-07-02 00:02:48 EDT
I guess I'm just conducting a pro/con review for hunting here. I know there is a wide spectrum of views on this subject and I'm looking forward to seeing them all. For those of you who find applied sciences (fisheries and wildlife management, ecology, forestry, and conservation biology) boring may want to skip to the last paragraph.
For those of you that do like reading about other areas of study, I'm going to explain the three types of controls in wildlife research and management. Then I'll explain the methods of control in dealing with population densities.
Two of the meanings of control has to deal with manipulating animal numbers, the third has to do with experimentation. The first type is used in the sense of a management action designed to restore an errant system to its previous stable state by reducing animal numbers. Controlling the outbreak of gypsy moths in an oak/hickory/beech forest would be an example. The action is temporary.
The second type has to do with moving a system away from its stable state to one that is more desirable. The density of animals is reduced and the new density is enforced by continuous control operations. This is not to say that the system would have caused harm and this control is a regulator, but that in some cases the orginal system may be more stable than the one created by the control operations.
The third type has to do with experimental design. For those of you who have taken a science class higher than basic biology and chemistry should understand this. The control operation is the treatement and the control is the absence of control. For example, if I was to collect wet deposition from scarlet oak, sourwood, red maple, and chestnut oak I would put one collection device underneath each tree. When it rains, it will collect the water hitting the canopy. You would then take the sample and analyze it for certain nutrient loss due to rain. Your control for the experiment would be a sample device you placed on top of a building with no surrounding canopy to collected "pure" rainwater to measure its nutrient content. By comparing the following samples to your control you could then get a measurement of nutrient loss in these following species by rain.
The type of control that I'm asking for opinions on is, of course, our wildlife control methods. The last one listed seems to be our most debatable, and yet, most effective form of control. Although the more radical evironmental groups think otherwise.
One is to control populations by manipulating fertility. Manipulating fecudinty has several advantages over killing animals, but it is not without it disadvantages. It is used against insects, not vertebrates. Flooding a population with sterile males is dependent on the females mating only once. A common behavior for insects who live for one year, but rare among vertebrates. Also, the effect of a contraceptive or sterilizing agent upon the population's dynamics depends on the breeding system of the species and the form of dominance.
Two is to control by indirect methods such as exclusion of wildlife from a certain area. Use of sonic deterrents and habitat manipulation, both are self-explanatory.
Lastly, control by manipulating mortality. This is the most widely used and controversial of management practices. Control by increasing mortality may be direct, as in poisoning, trapping, or shooting. It may be indirect as in biological control through pathogens. The latter is used on insects and plants.
The situation that arises is that hunting is one of the methods of manipulating mortality and many people don't support it. It is a very valuable tool to FWS because The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 enacted an excise tax on sporting firearms and ammunition and earmark the proceeds for distribution to the States for wildlife restoration. The legislation, known as the Pittman-Robertson Act, called for the States to share in the cost of conservation projects, using funds from thier hunting license fees. The results have been phenomenal. Hunters account between 80% to 90% of the money being spent on wildlife restoration and protection. In otherwords, they pay the bills for game and nongame species. Fisherman can be thrown in with hunters, they have a levy on their equipment and license fees.
Why should we oppose an activity that is the reason why we have the funds to do what we do. Sure, some of them are concerned about game species only but their involvement has an umbrella effect on nongame species. Also, their kills offer lots of data for biologists to collect and know about population dynamics and their impacts on habitat. In a way, it is a very symbiotic relationship. It's not to say FWS and hunters are best friends and don't butt heads because they don't on a lot of issues.
I've gone on too long. Hope this was interesting to some. Peace.
User Reviews
Submitted by poodz (user info) at 2002-07-18 11:26:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
there should be a trade-off... ppl hunting for a reason, thats ok, but ppl hunting for fun should have to take part in a 'running man' type game. they survive they can shoot a deer or whatever. if they die... hey its all sport isnt it, huntings natural, huntings fun etc.
let them die by their own sword
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2002-07-18 10:12:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I got a response on this one. Thanks, Razor.
I'm supporter of hunting, but some of these gun-tooting yahoos really piss me off. Especially with hunting dogs. Not so much rabbit hunters, because they tend to be a different breed. It's the bear hunters that I have a hard time with. When I worked in West Virginia my sophmore year as a biotech on a small mammal research assistant I got a good dose of these idiots and I'm getting the same dose here. In WV, they would lock the dogs up and starve them because they hunt better hungry. Who would have thought, then they fucking brand them like cattle. They run them year round, so the bears never get a rest. They can't hibernate if they could, cubs get killed, it's mess.
Here the fucking hunters turn their dogs loss after hunting season, so you have these feral dogs running around. Some actually breed in the wild for a couple of generations. If they get them back the following season, it's a bonus. As far as their concerned, it saves money to let them loss after hunting season. So now, when you set leg-holds to trap wolves, coyotes, and foxes you catch feral dogs. And you don't want them in traps. Wild canines are scared and you know they'll try to bite. Domestic dogs may look friendly until you try to let them loss, then they bite you. It's not the dogs fault, but... they shouldn't be treated like that.
Not all bear hunters are like this, but these are the yahoos that drive up and down roads in pick-ups blasting everything they see because they're bored.
On the other hand, I can't stand animal rights advocates. None of them work in the wildlife field, so they bring nothing to the table except emotional baggage. I take that back, some find themselves here, object, and then get a cozy job at an environmental consultant firm. Not that that's bad, stuff needs to be done in the court room, but that's how things get screwed up there.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2002-07-03 23:22:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I approve of hunting as a method of population control for the following reasons:
A. It's an outlet for the bloodthirsty instinct of humans
B. It helps to replace the deaths that would have been naturally occuring in the population if not for the fact that we wiped out the predators.
C. It provides food.
I really feel strongly that hunted animals should be eaten, otherwise it's fairly cruel.
Submitted by Fisher (user info) at 2002-07-02 00:05:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I meant to say that FWS and hunters do butt heads on a lot of issues.