Lec 12: Hunting and its effect on wildlife

Hunting

integral to human existence since early hominid began using weapons and transitioning to increasingly protein rich diet; marked by advancements in technology

early stages of Western civilization

relied on hunting to supplement supplies; led to the development of the N.A. model of wildlife conservation

conservation by consumption

began as a system of limited harvest to promote sustainable use; hunting does not cause extinction/extirpation

federal land management agencies

manage land-based resources (i.e. timber, vegetation, recreation)

US Fish and Wildlife Services

land management and wildlife management with respect to national wildlife refuges (how management plans are dictated and implemented)

States, provinces, and territories responsible for specific jurisdictions

determine wildlife management goals

first nation lands

indigenous tribal lands in which tribes prioritize management goals and dictate how management goals or implemented

managing animal abundance

hunting is the most effective logistical agents of actual population management

predator hunting

- predators can manage prey populations; an explosion of prey population might imply over-hunting of predators

- predator hunting should mainly be used for invasive species or meso-predators (i.e. racoons)

disproportionate harvest: age classes

aim for older age classes rather than younger age classes

disproportionate harvest: sexes

aim for one sex over the other (male deer for antlers)

genetic effects of hunting

selective harvest of game based on phenotypic characteristics may influence the evolutionary trajectory of populations

does hunting actually have genetic effects?

- data suggests most hunters are not overly selective (trophy hunting is a minority of hunters)

- hunting likely does no have major evolutionarily consequences for most populations

alternative view of hunting effects of genetics

trophy hunting permits more subdominant and smaller-horned rams to obtain copulations, and thus may increase the ratio of effective population size to census population size, thus increasing genetic diversity

funding N.A. model: agency infrastructure

creative ways to generate revenue for conservation through legal and policy pathways (lottery sources, special stamps, tax returns, license plate initiatives)

funding N.A. model: law enforcement

uphold significant legal restrictions of harvest

funding N.A. model: Population restoration

N.A. greatest large-scale success story globally

funding N.A. model: monitoring and management

- accumulating baseline trend data are the bases of well-informed, science-based decisions

- intense monitoring reserved for harvested species and species of concern

funding N.A. model: habitat management

- management and purchase of land by federal agencies

- also, private wildlife organizations

funding N.A. model: research

$57 million to state agencies from Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program in 2009 to fund >10,000 wildlife related research purchases

funding N.A. model: hunter education

reduce unlawful activity and provide regulation clarity

funding N.A. model: nongame and T/E species

- most hunter-generated funds go towards management of harvested species

- income tax check-offs, special stamps, independent grants, donations, lottery/gambling revenue, sales tax used to fund non-game management

advocacy

true success in wildlife management derived from incentives based on self-interest and personal ethics

advocacy: political support

hunters form organized groups with much influence

foundational change and trends

- hunter numbers declining

- decrease in people traveling for wildlife watching

- disconnect between modern society and wildlife

- transition to urban societies

- media role of hunter portrayal

support for hunting in the United States

75-81% of N.A. supports hunting; disconnect with how the model of conservation works. Hunter and anglers need continued involvement