Deer Hunting and Population Control

[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.

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.

I replied to a completely ignorant statement presented as fact that the poster should learn something about a topic he appears, despite claims to the contray, to know othing about, by asking him to learn something about it before makiong further coments.

If, to take an example you might understand better, a poster came on here and claimed that "Anarchist almost always want a violent "Mad Max" society.", would you not take umbrage at their ignorant claims of fact?

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.

Maybe the oft seen example I gave above regarding anarchism is more appropriate and understandable to you.

If someone made such a claim, would you not ask them to go forth and actually learn about the topic?

And as far as assuming intent behind what was said, that opens up a nasty can of worms I think we'd all be better off leaving closed. If bases his argument on the claim above, then most of the people reading it will understand that he indeed intended the argument to be "almost all hunters", not a few who go for the high Boone and Crockett scores.


I'll also note that hunter organizations do just as much to protect against habitat loss, the real danger to wildlife loss, as other environmental organizations. In some cases they are leading organizations in the fight to preserve habitat - see Ducks Unlimited.

[The_pantless_hero]

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

You don't have to use anecdotes. Hunting and fishing magazines and scientists have been reporting for a year or two that the method of taking the biggest buck or largest fish is decreasing the average size of game fish and trophy bucks.

Your argument is flawed

Except it isn't.

[The_pantless_hero]

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.

He is inadvertently right, and you are wrong. Go do your own research.

[Daistallia 2104]

You don't have to use anecdotes. Hunting and fishing magazines and scientists have been reporting for a year or two that the method of taking the biggest buck or largest fish is decreasing the average size of game fish and trophy bucks.

Source. The vast majority of hunters I know are in it for the meat, not the trophy. The only "trophy" in any of my families hunting households back home that I know of is a silly spike buck skull my dad thought was a doe due to the miniscual antlers.

Your argument is flawed

Except it isn't.

Being based on an unfounded argument, it is.

[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.

He is inadvertently right, and you are wrong. Go do your own research.

I've been associated with deer hunting for nearly 30 years. I've done the reasearch.

[The_pantless_hero]

You don't have to use anecdotes. Hunting and fishing magazines and scientists have been reporting for a year or two that the method of taking the biggest buck or largest fish is decreasing the average size of game fish and trophy bucks.

Source. The vast majority of hunters I know are in it for the meat, not the trophy. The only "trophy" in any of my families hunting households back home that I know of is a silly spike buck skull my dad thought was a doe due to the miniscual antlers.

Riiiight. The main point of hunting in season is trophy hunting. People want to bag the biggest animal they can find. And the same goes for fish either way - the bigger the fish, the more meat.

[Soratsin]

Except hunting and fishing are not like video games, most of the hunters I know will take any deer they can get, they don't the entire season trying to find the biggest buck in the area.

Fishing is even more random, there's almost no way to accurately pick out larger fish from smaller ones and intentionally hook the larger ones.

Would most hunters/anglers prefer a larger animal? Sure. But that doesn't mean they always kill the large animals.

[The_pantless_hero]

Except hunting and fishing are not like video games, most of the hunters I know will take any deer they can get, they don't the entire season trying to find the biggest buck in the area.

Fishing is even more random, there's almost no way to accurately pick out larger fish from smaller ones and intentionally hook the larger ones.

But once hooked, fish can be released. And there are size restrictions on what you can bag and keep

[Natapoc]

Except hunting and fishing are not like video games, most of the hunters I know will take any deer they can get, they don't the entire season trying to find the biggest buck in the area.

Fishing is even more random, there's almost no way to accurately pick out larger fish from smaller ones and intentionally hook the larger ones.

Would most hunters/anglers prefer a larger animal? Sure. But that doesn't mean they always kill the large animals.

Even if hunters were as you claim targeting animals at random (I have met some who seem to do that...) it would still result in unnatural evolutionary pressure. Predator animals do not tend to attack randomly. The fact that (As you seem to admit) this "randomness" has a bias to the larger and stronger then it would put even greater unnatural selection criteria on the animals. The effects of this have been observed and documented.

Although you can argue against the OPs overly broad brush you cannot effectively argue that human predation is the same as non human predation in its biological consequences.

edit: also most fishing is commercial fishing which often uses nets or other means.

With fishing you can accurately pick out the larger fish. To do this simply use the appropriate hook/lure and fish at the right depth for your target.

[Daistallia 2104]

You don't have to use anecdotes. Hunting and fishing magazines and scientists have been reporting for a year or two that the method of taking the biggest buck or largest fish is decreasing the average size of game fish and trophy bucks.

Source. The vast majority of hunters I know are in it for the meat, not the trophy. The only "trophy" in any of my families hunting households back home that I know of is a silly spike buck skull my dad thought was a doe due to the miniscual antlers.

Riiiight. The main point of hunting in season is trophy hunting. People want to bag the biggest animal they can find. And the same goes for fish either way - the bigger the fish, the more meat.

Trophy hunting =/= meat hunting. Trophies are your 10+ point bucks. Those are adamantly NOT good eating. Yes, every doe I took, every doe that ever passed thru my little bro's, dad's, uncle's and cousins' freezers was a trophy buck. That mini spike buck adroning my dad's den is a trophy buck. Big=/=better, as more hunters know than you give credit for.

And again, SYFEC!

[Flameswroth]

That mini spike buck adroning[sic] my dad's den is a trophy buck.

Your dad hung a spike buck as a trophy? Tee hee!

Gotta at least be a 4x4 man. Otherwise you get lol'd at.

[Daistallia 2104]

That mini spike buck adroning[sic] my dad's den is a trophy buck.

Your dad hung a spike buck as a trophy? Tee hee!

Gotta at least be a 4x4 man. Otherwise you get lol'd at.

That was the whole point. It wasn't even a good spike - less than an inch. Irony FTW.

[Natapoc]

Here is an interesting NY times article on the effects of human predation on native populations which claims animals are starting to reproduce younger due to hunting policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10humans.html

Among other observations (read the article) it claims:

Researchers have long known that bacteria evolve to evade antibiotics, and that parasites, like those that cause malaria, adapt to drugs used against the disease. More recently, researchers have reported that cod, overfished for decades off New England and the Canadian Maritime Provinces, have begun reproducing at younger ages and smaller sizes. Other scientists have reported similar changes in species as diverse as bighorn sheep, caribou and ginseng plants.

The shift improves the chances of reproducing before being killed. But at least as far as the fish are concerned, the change is harmful in the long run, according to Paul Paquet, an environmental scientist at the University of Calgary. The spawn of younger fish do not seem to be as robust as the spawn of older fish.

“It’s forced evolution,” he said. “It is not working to their advantage.”

It does not matter if people who hunt intend to cause these problems or not. What matters is that the problems occur and how to prevent any harmful impact we may have on our environment. (btw we must also include commercial hunting which may be a primary cause for some of these species)

[Gun Manufacturers]

Except hunting and fishing are not like video games, most of the hunters I know will take any deer they can get, they don't the entire season trying to find the biggest buck in the area.

Fishing is even more random, there's almost no way to accurately pick out larger fish from smaller ones and intentionally hook the larger ones.

But once hooked, fish can be released. And there are size restrictions on what you can bag and keep

Those are minimum size requirements. In CT, a striped bass has to be a minimum of 28", otherwise it must be thrown back. OTOH, there is no minimum size for Bluefish in CT.

[JarVik]

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).

While I don't hunt deer myself, I'm going to have to say you don't really know much about what your talking about. For starters hunting deer in most jurisdictions isn't a free for all. You have to apply for "deer tags" which effectively is putting your name in a lottery to see whether you can take a either a antler deer (buck) or an antlerless deer (doe or young) for the jurisdiction you are going to hunt in (you may get nothing too). Depending upon the assessment of the deer population people may be more likely to get one or the other based on the what the local wildlife management group has decided is a healthy number of each group. It is common for a party of hunters to maybe only have one Buck tag among them depending on circumstances.

So hunters will go after what their deer tag permits, and as you might spend several days out in the cold before a deer gets within accurate range they tend not to say oh its only a ten pointer, I'll hold out a few more days for a 14 pointer.

http://publicdocs.mnr.gov.on.ca/View.asp?Document_ID=10691&Attachment_ID=20514 See pg 57.

You probably won't believe this but most aspects of animal population management and conservation was done on the behest of hunter groups who lobbied the government in the early 20th century to manage the resource so that it didn't suffer from the tragedy of the commons. This was in the wake of population crashes such as the passenger pigeon. Hunters wanted things to be managed sensibly so that their children etc could also hunt too. I might add they tend to put their money where their mouth is too, and not try to renege on arrangements 4 years latter the way municipal governments do on their "green plans".

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.

Read the above link, the ratio of doe and buck tags and total number for a region is geared towards what the wildlife staff think is appropriate for the population. So you're tripping over your lack of knowledge before you start. Secondly no deer population as small as you desribed would be up for hunting, but lets say for arguments say that you have 100 males and 900 females, guess which tags will be much more frequent in the deer tag lottery? Wildflife management units have spent more than a night or two talking about how to manage a deer population so unsurprisingly they've figured this out long ago. Did you know there are such things as degrees in wildlife management, and more than a bit of math and population survey work is involved?

On a different note, regarding duck hunting that is. The average weight and size of a duck population was surveyed via mist nets and compared to what the hunters were managing to take. The ones the hunter's managed to bag were smaller and lighter than the population average, i.e. the hunters were bagging the weak and slow just like natural predators.

[Neesika]

Bad hunters are bad, m'kay?

[Cameroi]

smart people who live in the woods, do tend to stay indoors for the first week or two of hunting season.
by then the hunters will have killed enough of each other off for them to cautiously, wearing bright colors and carying large signs saying i am not a deer, venture out again.

[Cubic kms]

Hunting is fun... I like to shoot animals because I'm human and therefore i have the power

Animals move around and react so it's more fun than a target or clay pigeons

I think god makes natural disasters because of the same reasons... tho only thing we have are guns

[Natapoc]

smart people who live in the woods, do tend to stay indoors for the first week or two of hunting season.
by then the hunters will have killed enough of each other off for them to cautiously, wearing bright colors and carying large signs saying i am not a deer, venture out again.

This is very true. I live in a very rural area and I always see the hunters coming from the city in their big SUVs and pickup trucks in mass. Everyone who lives in or near the forests has to stay inside. It feels like an invading army.

I've seen horses shot by hunters.

[Gimmadonis]

Yeah, but on the other hand, this means that smarter deer pass on their genes.

See how that works?