Help me beat the anti's
hound_hunter
3/18/09 8:51pm
To say I spend a considerable amount of time reading articles relating to hunting, hunters rights, animal populations, and current/historical events relevant to all such categories is... erroneous at least. It's pretty much all I do in my spare time, haha. Honestly. Anyways, I often try to take points that anti-hunters make and I prove to myself how or why their comments are not valid, or (and in some rare cases I do find this to be true) if they are somewhat legitimate. And no I don't even consider the points I usually come across that are so far out that you can tell it's a very uneducated and biased individual pulling lines out of who knows where for mere... well I don't know what for come to think of it. Anyways, I do this most importantly for my general knowledge, but a close second because I think it's something that's quite imperative for all hunters to know so when we're approached (usually very un-tactfully) by anti-hunters we're able to considerately make logical statements concerning our practices and use credible sources to educate them on how much science really goes in to every controlled environment we hunt, how much money we produce from our activities, how our practices of killing animals really can be (and is) used as a strong and effective means of conservation and how many species we have saved from our forms of management, and lastly that we're not all just a bunch of drunk rednecks raging out of control for fresh blood. All this being said, I'd like to say that there's quite a few people on this site that seem to be pretty knowledgeable about most aspects of hunting and humane in the way they present thereselves and all the rest of us as hunters. Kudos to Brett for attracting a great crew for this site :thumb
ANYWAYS, what I intended to type, haha. I came across a statement today that I've never really considered much or researched at all yet. Believe me I intend to do so but for some reason I felt like I might get some good input from some of you members on here who are much wiser and more experienced than some young half retired hound dogger.
A wildlife biologist from Oxford University said "hunting can upset the balance in animal groups because dominant males are often the prime target of trophy takers". I haven't thought about this too deeply yet but I was thinking this seems like a pretty accurate statement; majority of us are out there after the biggest, nastiest, tough old pine buck that we can find. Well, I decided maybe this isn't an issue at all in some places (such as the Utah general season deer hunt where every pick-up is proudly sportin' their forked horns, if they even have that much on them) but what about guide and outfitting industries? Week after week they target the "most dominant males" and have great success in doing so. I mostly just wanted some input on this, what are some of your opinions on this? Does this have an impact at all? Maybe in some areas it does and in other areas it doesn't? Has this hindered the quality of animals in areas from previous years or do quotas stay low enough that it is not an impact?
Try to keep in mind that I'm mostly trying to stay on the level of big outfitters and what not. Africa, B.C., old Mexico, wherever it may be... Thanks for the input (and sorry this got so long)
ANYWAYS, what I intended to type, haha. I came across a statement today that I've never really considered much or researched at all yet. Believe me I intend to do so but for some reason I felt like I might get some good input from some of you members on here who are much wiser and more experienced than some young half retired hound dogger.
A wildlife biologist from Oxford University said "hunting can upset the balance in animal groups because dominant males are often the prime target of trophy takers". I haven't thought about this too deeply yet but I was thinking this seems like a pretty accurate statement; majority of us are out there after the biggest, nastiest, tough old pine buck that we can find. Well, I decided maybe this isn't an issue at all in some places (such as the Utah general season deer hunt where every pick-up is proudly sportin' their forked horns, if they even have that much on them) but what about guide and outfitting industries? Week after week they target the "most dominant males" and have great success in doing so. I mostly just wanted some input on this, what are some of your opinions on this? Does this have an impact at all? Maybe in some areas it does and in other areas it doesn't? Has this hindered the quality of animals in areas from previous years or do quotas stay low enough that it is not an impact?
Try to keep in mind that I'm mostly trying to stay on the level of big outfitters and what not. Africa, B.C., old Mexico, wherever it may be... Thanks for the input (and sorry this got so long)
4,510
Now, on the other hand, in a small, controlled environment I could see this being an issue...perhaps. In the wild I just don't see it. What happens when the big boy dies of natural causes, in an accident or gets injured in a fight and eventually falls to a predator? Does the herd/group fall apart and forget how to survive? I'm fairly certain they go on about their lives as they had before.
Oh, and remember who leads a herd of elk. Hint, it's not the dominant bull. And deer do not stay in a herd/group year round. The bucks and does split off for part of the year and do their own thing.
My thoughts on the subject are that by the time they attain the the status of biggest, nastiest, tough old pine buck that we can find, his genes are firmly established in the breeding population and I think that would hold true for elk also, providing the game dept manages the harvest to allow bucks and bulls to become mature adults with some age behind them. The Utah example is what happens when you manage for maximun numbers of hunters in the field. The biologists have a tough job trying to manage for quality and quanity and they do a good job.But what do I know? Although I did stay in a Holiday Express last night!
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\My Documents\Paul's Blacktail\NDOW - Employee News.mht
Thanks to everyone for the input. I hope you don't feel like I was pickin on you Abert (or any of you for that matter) My intentions really are just to figure this out for myself. Keep at me until you prove me wrong please (and that wasn't a challenge saying you couldn't, I do think you guys will come up with something to make me realise I'm wrong, and that's what I want :thumb ) Keep with the good posts, I knew I could find some answers here.
Although I am not a biologist or anything like that, I would agree with Malloy. (hound_hunter, you were asking about what Malloy posted) Genetics are inherent to that particular animal and it's bloodline. A forkie with good genetics does not develop better genetics as it gets older. Conversly, a buck with bad genetics will have bad genetics regardless of how long he lives.
Of course, things like diet, pressure, environment, etc will all play a roll in the overall health of the animal in question. However, without proper genetics that small forkie will never reach B&C size.
I could go into genes, alleles, etc or proper buck/doe ratios, proper harvest numbers, ingestion of new blood into a particular population or metapopulations but I think the above will suffice without getting into a disertation. Hope this all helps.
Quoting the above: [A wildlife biologist from Oxford University said "hunting can upset the balance in animal groups because dominant males are often the prime target of trophy takers".]
Obviously an anti with some clout...How did he make the perception?...Probably from actions he has witnessed....
A true wildlife biologist would simply state.."Both sexes and all age classes must be harvested in order to maintain a healthy herd...Hunting is one tool that helps us maintain healthy wildlife populations."....
We must remember that hunting is a heritage and hobby...It is not by any means a competition and the day that it is recognized as that by the majority public then its doom will be imminent....
The emphasis put on some for the trophy with "score" is shedding poor light on our sport....The television commercials claiming we are drawing all the deer off our neighbors land....And using the terms Team Wisconsin, Team Illinois and so forth are really nothing but fuel for antis....
I believe that all hunters enjoy or dream of shooting a big trophy animal but in reality most are happy with the experience and adventure and are not obsessed with the trophy...For instance several years back in WI, I believe 410,000 deer were killed...Of these 410,000 deer 41 made the B&C book....that is one in 10,000 deer....Most hunters will not see 10,000 deer in a lifetime of hunting seasons...And most of the hunters who scored on these book trophies did not even know they were in their area.....
We all work hard looking for our dream animal but we must not become so obsessed in our search that we lose the vision of our fore fathers and the heritage that has brought us this far....It is up to all of us show those people "riding the fence" that we love our hobby for what
it is and for what it does for the proper natural management of wildlife...Remember that man has always been part of the balance of nature....Let us be proud of what we harvest but do not let our egos become our portrait....
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) recently put out a long article against hound hunting, however this small paragraph was in the article pertaining to baiting bears. "Sometimes hunters bait animals with piles of doughnuts, rotting meat or garbage. This practice poses significant risks to the public because bears become habituated to human food sources, making them more likely to raid campgrounds and break into cars or cabins."