Deer Hunting and Population Control

[Pevisopolis]

Doubtlessly, y'all have heard the excuse Hunters have for deer hunting as "Culling the Herd" or "Population Control". Don't get me wrong, I'm not against hunting, but I have found quite a flaw in this logic.

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd. First of all, this is essentially cutting back the process of Natural Selection, by eliminating the strongest genes from the gene pool, crippling the Herd in the long run (and screwing over future generations of hunters). Secondly, if hunting were done for population control, shouldn't the most effective method be to kill off the Does, rather than the Bucks? Take this example:

There are two small groups of a species, ten members each. One group contains one male and nine females, the other, one female and nine males. Guess which group's population expands faster.

Interestingly, this came up during a discussion with my dad about an idea regarding population control by allowing Women to take multiple husbands. Somehow, I imagine that will be more of a discussion point in this topic than the deer... oh, well

[Rolling squid]

Your argument is flawed in that many hunters do not go after the largest ones in the herd for exactly your reason, plus the added reason that a younger doe tastes much better than an old buck.

[Brogavia]

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd.

I stopped reading after this. That is a common myth spouted by people like PETA.

That is a small minority of hunters. The majority of hunters will shoot any deer they legally can.

Have you ever gone deer hunting or talked to someone who has face to face?

[Flameswroth]

I like this clip. I think it's extremely relevant here.

By the by, they do issue doe tags as well, at least in Nevada. I don't think there are very many comparatively, and most people don't want them anyways for the reason you said. But they are there.

I think you're also not quite accounting for the nature of the hunters as well. As another person mentioned, some avoid the large ones purposely. Other shoot whatever they can. But also, the large ones did not get large by being stupid. Most often hunters simply cannot find them compared to the younger, less discrete bucks. I imagine the culling of the younger, lesser deer is far more prominent of an occurrence than getting the older, bigger ones. For that reason, I imagine hunting works more to benefit the selection process than to hinder it, despite hunters' intentions.

[Pevisopolis]

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd.

I stopped reading after this. That is a common myth spouted by people like PETA.

That is a small minority of hunters. The majority of hunters will shoot any deer they legally can.

Have you ever gone deer hunting or talked to someone who has face to face?

Gone? Not yet, but I have my license. Talked to? Absolutely. For one, there's my Dad. Keep in mind that I'm referring to a man with a deer skull in our living room.

Your argument is flawed in that many hunters do not go after the largest ones in the herd for exactly your reason, plus the added reason that a younger doe tastes much better than an old buck.

I never said it was for that reason alone, I referred to it as a factor, even some kind of a justification. In my mind, the justification is that you get damn good food, if that is your intention.

[Brogavia]

Gone? Not yet, but I have my license. Talked to? Absolutely. For one, there's my Dad. Keep in mind that I'm referring to a man with a deer skull in our living room.

I did not know that. The way you worded it, to me anyway, suggested that you were one of those suburban "I support animal rights because its rebellious" punks.

[Flameswroth]

Gone? Not yet, but I have my license. Talked to? Absolutely. For one, there's my Dad. Keep in mind that I'm referring to a man with a deer skull in our living room.

Just one? Man, my father has 3 mounted mule deer heads, head and neck, two pronghorn antelope similarly mounted, a california bighorn AND a full body mount cougar.

All in one room. It's kind of crazy, but I love it. All them glassy eyes can be unnerving to some people though

[Pevisopolis]

Gone? Not yet, but I have my license. Talked to? Absolutely. For one, there's my Dad. Keep in mind that I'm referring to a man with a deer skull in our living room.

Just one? Man, my father has 3 mounted mule deer heads, head and neck, two pronghorn antelope similarly mounted, a california bighorn AND a full body mount cougar.

All in one room. It's kind of crazy, but I love it. All them glassy eyes can be unnerving to some people though

Yeah, just one. Somewhere around medium size, upside-down for the luls, and just the skull/antlers.

Gone? Not yet, but I have my license. Talked to? Absolutely. For one, there's my Dad. Keep in mind that I'm referring to a man with a deer skull in our living room.

I did not know that. The way you worded it, to me anyway, suggested that you were one of those suburban "I support animal rights because its rebellious" punks.

I was afraid I'd give across that impression...

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Hunting for food is a completely different issue to me but on the subject of sport hunting:

Once I figure out how to mount .50 caliber rifles with motion-tracking target acquisition, recognition and computerized fire control to the back of a deer, I'll feel a whole lot better about the 'sport' of hunting.

[Flameswroth]

Once I figure out how to mount .50 caliber rifles with motion-tracking target acquisition, recognition and computerized fire control to the back of a deer, I'll feel a whole lot better about the 'sport' of hunting.

I've seen that sentiment a lot, myself. I think it must come primarily from seeing the 'hunting' shows that consist of a 'hunter' planting a field of winter wheat and a salt lick, letting the deer use it for 6 months, then hiding in a tree until one happens to walk by. No stealth beyond silence, no fitness beyond climbing rungs up a tree, and no skill beyond shooting a large animal from < 100 yards.

That kind of hunting is more butchery than anything, and while I have no moral objection to it, I see no true 'sport' in it.

Now Nevada hunting, climbing miles over mountains and into ravines, trying to get to where the deer are, only to have the wind shift on you and have to chase them over another hill, all while staying hidden and stealthy, only to get a shot between 200-300 yards away after practicing and sighting the gun...now then you've really earned it.

To be fair, I know of no place where it is legal to shoot a deer and leave the corpse. Entrails yes, but shooting solely for the trophy and leaving the meat is, as far as I know, illegal. The trophy hunters I know, including my father, always give away the meat to families that want/need it at the very least, if not keeping it for himself.

Besides, deer already have camouflaged fur, can far more readily traverse the terrain, and a heightened sense of smell. They have all the tools they need to survive, even against humans IMHO. That said, a deer chasing fellows around with an automated turret is kind of funny to think about.

[Rolling squid]

I've seen that sentiment a lot, myself. I think it must come primarily from seeing the 'hunting' shows that consist of a 'hunter' planting a field of winter wheat and a salt lick, letting the deer use it for 6 months, then hiding in a tree until one happens to walk by. No stealth beyond silence, no fitness beyond climbing rungs up a tree, and no skill beyond shooting a large animal from < 100 yards.

That's like playing baseball with a large superball.

[Gun Manufacturers]

IIRC, the last deer my brother in law got was a 5 pointer, dressed out at 150 lbs. Not exactly a trophy kill, even for a Connecticut deer.

[Natapoc]

Doubtlessly, y'all have heard the excuse Hunters have for deer hunting as "Culling the Herd" or "Population Control". Don't get me wrong, I'm not against hunting, but I have found quite a flaw in this logic.

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd. First of all, this is essentially cutting back the process of Natural Selection, by eliminating the strongest genes from the gene pool, crippling the Herd in the long run (and screwing over future generations of hunters). Secondly, if hunting were done for population control, shouldn't the most effective method be to kill off the Does, rather than the Bucks? Take this example:

There are two small groups of a species, ten members each. One group contains one male and nine females, the other, one female and nine males. Guess which group's population expands faster.

Interestingly, this came up during a discussion with my dad about an idea regarding population control by allowing Women to take multiple husbands. Somehow, I imagine that will be more of a discussion point in this topic than the deer... oh, well

This is exactly the problem with human prediction of animal species. It actually influences the evolution of the species in ways that are very unnatural.

The way to solve any deer overpopulation is to reintroduce the natural predator species which, in most cases, were hunted to extinction by humans in many areas.

The solution posed by the hunters is exactly the cause of the alleged problem to begin with.

[Natapoc]

Hunting for food is a completely different issue to me but on the subject of sport hunting:

Once I figure out how to mount .50 caliber rifles with motion-tracking target acquisition, recognition and computerized fire control to the back of a deer, I'll feel a whole lot better about the 'sport' of hunting.

LG, you are brillient. This reminds me of cows with guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQjdShBFQ1M

How can I invest in your research?

[Saint Jade IV]

Doubtlessly, y'all have heard the excuse Hunters have for deer hunting as "Culling the Herd" or "Population Control". Don't get me wrong, I'm not against hunting, but I have found quite a flaw in this logic.

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd. First of all, this is essentially cutting back the process of Natural Selection, by eliminating the strongest genes from the gene pool, crippling the Herd in the long run (and screwing over future generations of hunters). Secondly, if hunting were done for population control, shouldn't the most effective method be to kill off the Does, rather than the Bucks? Take this example:

There are two small groups of a species, ten members each. One group contains one male and nine females, the other, one female and nine males. Guess which group's population expands faster.

Interestingly, this came up during a discussion with my dad about an idea regarding population control by allowing Women to take multiple husbands. Somehow, I imagine that will be more of a discussion point in this topic than the deer... oh, well

This is exactly the problem with human prediction of animal species. It actually influences the evolution of the species in ways that are very unnatural.

The way to solve any deer overpopulation is to reintroduce the natural predator species which, in most cases, were hunted to extinction by humans in many areas.

The solution posed by the hunters is exactly the cause of the alleged problem to begin with.

In Australia, we have huge problems with the kangaroo and wallaby populations. Culling is the most effective means of population control, since they don't have natural predators in sufficient numbers to keep their numbers down.

[Katganistan]

I guess I come at it from the point of view of, "I have no issue withh hunting if you're going to eat the meat." I know folks for whom their hunting quota is pretty much their meat for the year.

[Joannalandia]

As a hunter, I tend to hunt primarily for does. There's usually a bit more meat, and its of higher quality, but I'll take whatever I can get. (The land I hunt on doesn't have a particularly good selection to choose from.) Then again, I'm what you'd consider a "meat" hunter. I know there are some who go hunting for antlers or trophies, and could care less how many meals they get out of the deer. Also, there are many years that I'll go out hunting and never even see a deer or a turkey.

Also, I'd like to put forth that the act of hunting doesn't necessarily aid the deer population in any significant way other than keeping the population size small enough to prevent it from overfeeding and starving itself. The REAL positive impact of hunting (or legal hunting, at least) is that income from the sale of hunting licenses provides vital funds for wildlife management areas, national parks, and other environmental efforts. Not to mention, organizations like the National Wild Turkey Federation raise funds for similar efforts through donations, charity auctions, etc. In the end, hunters do a lot more to help the environment than they do to hurt it.

[Daistallia 2104]

Doubtlessly, y'all have heard the excuse Hunters have for deer hunting as "Culling the Herd" or "Population Control". Don't get me wrong, I'm not against hunting, but I have found quite a flaw in this logic.

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd.

Stop right there. Go get some education on hunting. Come back when you actually know what you're on about.

[NERVUN]

I don't mind it. I have friends who hunt and a step-father who did hunt (He's got two deer skulls on his wall, and the hide), and all of them pretty much went after what they could find. Of course, I too am from Nevada and excepting the critters that come down to graze in my parents' backyard, they're a bit hard to find.

[Natapoc]

Doubtlessly, y'all have heard the excuse Hunters have for deer hunting as "Culling the Herd" or "Population Control". Don't get me wrong, I'm not against hunting, but I have found quite a flaw in this logic.

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd.

Stop right there. Go get some education on hunting. Come back when you actually know what you're on about.

Pevisopolis has the right to his opinion. Telling him to go get some education and "come back when you actually know what you're on about." Does not do anything to contribute to the discussion.

There are different views on this issue and some (including myself) would consider you at least as wrong as you consider him to be.

Here is a short paper on the impacts of hunting on animal populations. As you can see this is an issue of controversy even among people who study ecology. http://www.uleth.ca/bio/envs3000/nm.pdf

edit: this paper is not one I agree with. It is simply an example of conflicting views in the "educated" community.

[Natapoc]

This article in livescience illustrates the problem of human trophy hunting behavior influencing the evolution of a species in what it calls: "unnatural selection."

http://www.livescience.com/animals/0901 ... ution.html

consider the following claims in the article:

Biologist Marco Festa-Bianchet of the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec found a 25 percent decline in the size of horns on bighorn sheep over the past 30 years, and both male and female bodies are getting smaller.

They go on to say:

The logic goes like this: Bigger males with bigger horns tend to father bigger offspring, causing the average size of a species to increase over time. With hunters targeting these trophies, smaller males are more successful at mating, so their genes are spread through the population more effectively and the average size shrinks.

So no the idea posited by the OP is not radical, nor is it uninformed. It is fact: at least for some species. For others it is unknown.

[Borinata]

"It's not the strongest of the species that survive but those most able to adapt"- Charles Darwin.

You assume in the OP that the strongest, biggest and most impressive deer are also the most likely to survive in the wild. Smaller (though not necessarily weaker) deer are more nimble and can subsist on less food during the winter months. At this point in time, humans are the only real predators of many deer populations and thus, those that are best able to avoid human predation (being shot) and live long enough to reproduce are the fittest. In this case, we probably are causing selection for smaller deer, assuming everyone hunts only the big ones.

Furthermore, a 1995 study in Ecological Research found that does in good condition generally produce males while females in poor condition produce females. If hunters are preferentially culling big, strong females, they are reducing the number of males in the next generation. Voila! population control.

[Tubbsalot]

Doubtlessly, y'all have heard the excuse Hunters have for deer hunting as "Culling the Herd" or "Population Control". Don't get me wrong, I'm not against hunting, but I have found quite a flaw in this logic.

Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd.

Stop right there. Go get some education on hunting. Come back when you actually know what you're on about.

Pevisopolis has the right to his opinion. Telling him to go get some education and "come back when you actually know what you're on about." Does not do anything to contribute to the discussion.

It's not about his opinion. I've helpfully bolded the problem - you'll note that it is in fact wrong, which is in fact what Dai was pointing out.

[Brogavia]

Pevisopolis has the right to his opinion. Telling him to go get some education and "come back when you actually know what you're on about." Does not do anything to contribute to the discussion.

That is not an opinion. Thats a completely biased bullshit claim. Its like saying that gay people almost always try to rape straight men. Its a completely falsehood commonly spouted by people who have never left suburbia.

[Natapoc]

Pevisopolis has the right to his opinion. Telling him to go get some education and "come back when you actually know what you're on about." Does not do anything to contribute to the discussion.

That is not an opinion. Thats a completely biased bullshit claim. Its like saying that gay people almost always try to rape straight men. Its a completely falsehood commonly spouted by people who have never left suburbia.

I don't see the comparison you are making. Your problem is that he said hunters "Hunters almost always go after the largest, strongest, and most impressive of the herd" right?

Well it is not an entirely false statement. The last source I gave above demonstrates that a sufficient number of hunters DO seek out such traits that it is having an evolutionary effect.

Yes the word "always" should typically be avoided (he did preface it with the word almost) and while the statement may be an overly broad brush with which the paint all "hunters" it still contains truth.

To avoid being offended just assume he is only talking about hunters who act in this way.