Do human hunters appreciably help balance wildlife populations?
February 12, 2016 8:28 PM Subscribe
I was recently told by an acquaintance that he goes "varmint hunting" because he believes this helps keep down the numbers of animal types he feels are overpopulated. Is this legit? Any research that says yay or nay? Does it depend on locale?
My impression of him is that he's a jerk who enjoys killing (he even laughed about it) and rationalizes it after the fact, and thus I plan to have nothing further to do with him, but I'm also interested in whether or to what extent his rationalizations have truth in them.
My late father was an environmentalist and I distinctly recall being told by him that in general, animal populations weren't much effected by human hunting because more young of the target animals would just survive to adulthood. I know there are obviously exceptions to this because I've read about, for example, passenger pigeons being hunted to extinction. I'm wondering whether the specific examples my acquaintance gave are legit.
He lives in Texas and works seasonally as a guide in Alaska. Some of the varmints he mentioned included: raccoons, jackrabbits, nutria, opossums, coyote, and wolves. In particular he seemed concerned about the impact of predators where he lives in Texas on the deer population, as they were "taking too many fauns". He also insisted that predators like bear and wolves were responsible for declines in the ungulate population in Alaska and that hunters were helping the balance by killing the predators.
Quick Googling offers a range of opinions, most of which refer to research being on their side but which don't actually cite any research.
Smart and knowledgeable mefites, what say ye?
My late father was an environmentalist and I distinctly recall being told by him that in general, animal populations weren't much effected by human hunting because more young of the target animals would just survive to adulthood. I know there are obviously exceptions to this because I've read about, for example, passenger pigeons being hunted to extinction. I'm wondering whether the specific examples my acquaintance gave are legit.
He lives in Texas and works seasonally as a guide in Alaska. Some of the varmints he mentioned included: raccoons, jackrabbits, nutria, opossums, coyote, and wolves. In particular he seemed concerned about the impact of predators where he lives in Texas on the deer population, as they were "taking too many fauns". He also insisted that predators like bear and wolves were responsible for declines in the ungulate population in Alaska and that hunters were helping the balance by killing the predators.
Quick Googling offers a range of opinions, most of which refer to research being on their side but which don't actually cite any research.
Smart and knowledgeable mefites, what say ye?
That's one of the main purposes of a state's Fish & Game department, isn't it? When it's "deer season", for example, you can buy tags for how many deer you're allowed to shoot, and that number is determined by how many deer need to be culled (since without the native wolf population, deer are basically pests that overrun the environment). That's my understanding from talking with my hunter uncle, who's also an intense environmentalist.
Then there's also this New Yorker article, about mammal hunting (including cats) in New Zealand, since they're killing off all the native birds.
posted by losvedir at 9:15 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Then there's also this New Yorker article, about mammal hunting (including cats) in New Zealand, since they're killing off all the native birds.
posted by losvedir at 9:15 PM on February 12, 2016 [3 favorites]
Best answer: I think your instincts are generally correct - this is largely bullshit. Of course, these are very complex systems and it may well be that human influence in one area (say increased development reducing ungulate habitat) might be balanced by hunting (reducing predator pressure), but I'd say that is much rarer than many people claim.
Unfortunately, we have a long history of claiming that we are hunting for the greater good (and in most cases honestly believing it) only to later find out we made things much worse. Wolves are a prime example of this, but even then there is much debate about how these systems actually work. The history of wolves in Yellowstone is a commonly cited example, but it still isn't a subject that people agree on.
If anything, utter confidence that hunting is helping in so many cases is a pretty clear sign that this is BS, because no one should be that confident based on the evidence we have and our past experience.
posted by ssg at 9:32 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Unfortunately, we have a long history of claiming that we are hunting for the greater good (and in most cases honestly believing it) only to later find out we made things much worse. Wolves are a prime example of this, but even then there is much debate about how these systems actually work. The history of wolves in Yellowstone is a commonly cited example, but it still isn't a subject that people agree on.
If anything, utter confidence that hunting is helping in so many cases is a pretty clear sign that this is BS, because no one should be that confident based on the evidence we have and our past experience.
posted by ssg at 9:32 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Don't hunt what you won't eat. Predators taste terrible, which is our human clue that we shouldn't kill them. They have a huge impact on the ecosystem compared to their prey.
posted by kamikazegopher at 10:34 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by kamikazegopher at 10:34 PM on February 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I agree that what your friend's saying seems a bit fishy on the whole, but he is absolutely right about population control being a reason to hunt nutria. Nutria are a hugely damaging invasive species that destroy wetland habitat and several states have programs to control or completely eradicate them. According to the Louisiana Department of wildlife, its nutria bounty program has been effective at reducing the population.
posted by phoenixy at 12:07 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by phoenixy at 12:07 AM on February 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
Well, what I can say to this is my grandpa runs a "homestead" type place up in the north Minnesota hinterlands, and he certainly hunts, but he regards it as a chore. The deer WILL get into your gardens and fields, and the bears come in the garage and if you don't at least shoot at them now and again. The wolves are smart enough not to come right up to the house, presumably because someone else lobbed a few bullets at them. I've been up there and seen it. And venison is for breakfast, that's right, unless YOU want to pay for the gas to drive all the way into town for bacon, plus they might not even be open today. Quit whinin' I still have snowmobiles to fix today.
That's very different from my dad's friend. They used to pile in the F350 with six packs and brand new Orange Gear and go kill 'em some deer now how do we clean this thing again? Hey kid you ever shoot a 12 gauge? At a tree? At close range?
There's a difference between doing it for fun and doing it because all the other options are really convoluted and difficult.
posted by saysthis at 12:49 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
That's very different from my dad's friend. They used to pile in the F350 with six packs and brand new Orange Gear and go kill 'em some deer now how do we clean this thing again? Hey kid you ever shoot a 12 gauge? At a tree? At close range?
There's a difference between doing it for fun and doing it because all the other options are really convoluted and difficult.
posted by saysthis at 12:49 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Best answer: In the case of deer near where my parents live, it's absolutely true. Humans drove out or murdered their predators (wolves) in that area long ago, and nothing keeps them in check except for disease and starvation (if they overpopulate) which are generally seen as nastier ways to go than a bullet to the head. Not killing them has been tried, and the results were not good for the humans or the deer. Short of reintroducing wolves to the area (which farmers and homesteaders will probably not take kindly) I do honestly (and somberly, not laughingly) believe this to be the best solution.
posted by gloriouslyincandescent at 1:04 AM on February 13, 2016
posted by gloriouslyincandescent at 1:04 AM on February 13, 2016
Best answer: Yeah, nutria definitely. Asian carp, which you are allowed to kill at any time in any stupid way you prefer as long as you are killing them, they are devastating local waterways and forcing local fish into extinction.
Deer, around here, is a big one. Their natural predators have been driven out by human development and the herds grow so large that in the winter they die horrible deaths of starvation (and also, desperately hungry, get hit by cars a lot as they make desperate dashes across busy roads for marginal habitat ... which can kill humans as well). In downstate Illinois there are enough hunters to keep up with the population, more or less, but in Cook County the Department of Natural Resources has to cull deer populations every year because there aren't as many hunters, and too many forest preserve areas are closed to hunting because they're too close to schools.
Hunting's not my fave as hobbies go but they are paying for permits to control the deer population and rules are widely obeyed and most hunters around here are environmentally active because they want habitat preserved and wildlife populations healthy. The alternative is paying for DNR to do all the culling and all the meat going to waste, while preventing half the wildlife area users from visiting parks. Income + engagent with wilderness areas + getting state functions done cheap = win/win/win.
It's a pretty local decision. Some of what he lists are not varmints around here and neither animal control nor DNR would bother with them if you called for help, nor would they be very happy with you for shooting raccoons rather than hiring a trapper to relocate them, but what counts as a varmint varies considerably locally. A lot of localities have an actual list of varmints you can kill without permission or repercussion. (Where I live, a city along a river, its rats rats rats, who come up from the river to the houses all full of property destruction and disease and the city would like them dead all the time and you may use any method of death you prefer, even very stupid ones. I think also possums if they are living in a structure but if they're just hanging out you're supposed to leave them alone. Most people hire varmint control, though, rather than hunting their own possums. Mice, obviously, and structure-dwelling bats, but not free bats. I'm sure there are a couple I'm not thinking of.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:20 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Deer, around here, is a big one. Their natural predators have been driven out by human development and the herds grow so large that in the winter they die horrible deaths of starvation (and also, desperately hungry, get hit by cars a lot as they make desperate dashes across busy roads for marginal habitat ... which can kill humans as well). In downstate Illinois there are enough hunters to keep up with the population, more or less, but in Cook County the Department of Natural Resources has to cull deer populations every year because there aren't as many hunters, and too many forest preserve areas are closed to hunting because they're too close to schools.
Hunting's not my fave as hobbies go but they are paying for permits to control the deer population and rules are widely obeyed and most hunters around here are environmentally active because they want habitat preserved and wildlife populations healthy. The alternative is paying for DNR to do all the culling and all the meat going to waste, while preventing half the wildlife area users from visiting parks. Income + engagent with wilderness areas + getting state functions done cheap = win/win/win.
It's a pretty local decision. Some of what he lists are not varmints around here and neither animal control nor DNR would bother with them if you called for help, nor would they be very happy with you for shooting raccoons rather than hiring a trapper to relocate them, but what counts as a varmint varies considerably locally. A lot of localities have an actual list of varmints you can kill without permission or repercussion. (Where I live, a city along a river, its rats rats rats, who come up from the river to the houses all full of property destruction and disease and the city would like them dead all the time and you may use any method of death you prefer, even very stupid ones. I think also possums if they are living in a structure but if they're just hanging out you're supposed to leave them alone. Most people hire varmint control, though, rather than hunting their own possums. Mice, obviously, and structure-dwelling bats, but not free bats. I'm sure there are a couple I'm not thinking of.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:20 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Do human hunters appreciably help balance wildlife populations?
Yes, definitely. Maybe not in the way your acquaintance is applying population control but yes. Just as one example, my family has a house on an island. The deer population exploded one year. Nothing will change your mind about the merits of culling a herd for population control faster than literally starving, desperate wildlife. The island has no resident hunters so Wildlife and Game came out and selectively shot a section of the adult herd.
My friend lives on an island in Maine that does have a hunting population, so some years they release permits for extra bucks for the same reason. Very rarely, like when a herd has been cut by disease, they release no permits at all.
My grandparents also shot deer to control population on a ranch in Texas, which was not an island and did have natural predators (though sometimes not enough.) It's part of land management on large acreage.
An environment can only support what it can support. Woodlands and beaches are not magically going to spontaneously produce more foraging to support a sudden population boom.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:31 AM on February 13, 2016
Yes, definitely. Maybe not in the way your acquaintance is applying population control but yes. Just as one example, my family has a house on an island. The deer population exploded one year. Nothing will change your mind about the merits of culling a herd for population control faster than literally starving, desperate wildlife. The island has no resident hunters so Wildlife and Game came out and selectively shot a section of the adult herd.
My friend lives on an island in Maine that does have a hunting population, so some years they release permits for extra bucks for the same reason. Very rarely, like when a herd has been cut by disease, they release no permits at all.
My grandparents also shot deer to control population on a ranch in Texas, which was not an island and did have natural predators (though sometimes not enough.) It's part of land management on large acreage.
An environment can only support what it can support. Woodlands and beaches are not magically going to spontaneously produce more foraging to support a sudden population boom.
posted by DarlingBri at 3:31 AM on February 13, 2016
Best answer: Folks above have done a great job addressing most of your question. A few further comments.
In particular he seemed concerned about the impact of predators where he lives in Texas on the deer population, as they were "taking too many fauns".
The predators in Texas are not doing that well, and the deer in Texas are still over populated. If he wants to help the balance in Texas, he should be hunting deer, not predators.
He also insisted that predators like bear and wolves were responsible for declines in the ungulate population in Alaska and that hunters were helping the balance by killing the predators.
The balance between predators and prey naturally regulates itself when people don't mess it up. In most of Alaska (with the possible exception of human-habitated islands, as noted above), that balance is fine, and no human intervention is needed. The only justification for what he is saying would be if he personally would rather hunt ungulates, so he wants their populations to boom (like deer have in the contiguous US in the absence of wolves and cougars).
One other note:
Coyotes have spread far outside of their historical range in the contiguous US. It seems related to the elimination of other predators and enough time passing for them to migrate everywhere. This is new and different to many of us, and it's going to take some getting used to. But it's certainly only going to help with the overpopulation of deer and smaller animals that many areas have experienced over the past century in the absence of the native predators.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:13 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
In particular he seemed concerned about the impact of predators where he lives in Texas on the deer population, as they were "taking too many fauns".
The predators in Texas are not doing that well, and the deer in Texas are still over populated. If he wants to help the balance in Texas, he should be hunting deer, not predators.
He also insisted that predators like bear and wolves were responsible for declines in the ungulate population in Alaska and that hunters were helping the balance by killing the predators.
The balance between predators and prey naturally regulates itself when people don't mess it up. In most of Alaska (with the possible exception of human-habitated islands, as noted above), that balance is fine, and no human intervention is needed. The only justification for what he is saying would be if he personally would rather hunt ungulates, so he wants their populations to boom (like deer have in the contiguous US in the absence of wolves and cougars).
One other note:
Coyotes have spread far outside of their historical range in the contiguous US. It seems related to the elimination of other predators and enough time passing for them to migrate everywhere. This is new and different to many of us, and it's going to take some getting used to. But it's certainly only going to help with the overpopulation of deer and smaller animals that many areas have experienced over the past century in the absence of the native predators.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:13 AM on February 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Best answer: predators like bear and wolves were responsible for declines in the ungulate population in Alaska and that hunters were helping the balance by killing the predators
At least in places like the lower 48 national parks, there is constant conflict about predator numbers--not only from ranchers who fear livestock predation, but from hunters who think that predators will eat "too many" game animals such as elk or deer. Many people believe that the past 60 - 70 years of elk and deer population numbers have been artificially inflated because of the dearth of predators, and we are still trying to figure out what the "natural" range of population should be. We are still trying to figure out what the "natural" amount of vegetation is, for example, and the natural amount of other species who are no longer competing with vast deer herds.
We know that wolf reintroduction changes the ecosystem: we have Yellowstone as a case study. (Did you know that the return of the wolf to Yellowstone has meant an increase in the beaver population?) Here's an overview from the Yellowstone website. And here are some Google Scholar results if you want to look over published science papers.
posted by Hypatia at 6:43 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
At least in places like the lower 48 national parks, there is constant conflict about predator numbers--not only from ranchers who fear livestock predation, but from hunters who think that predators will eat "too many" game animals such as elk or deer. Many people believe that the past 60 - 70 years of elk and deer population numbers have been artificially inflated because of the dearth of predators, and we are still trying to figure out what the "natural" range of population should be. We are still trying to figure out what the "natural" amount of vegetation is, for example, and the natural amount of other species who are no longer competing with vast deer herds.
We know that wolf reintroduction changes the ecosystem: we have Yellowstone as a case study. (Did you know that the return of the wolf to Yellowstone has meant an increase in the beaver population?) Here's an overview from the Yellowstone website. And here are some Google Scholar results if you want to look over published science papers.
posted by Hypatia at 6:43 AM on February 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Best answer: I just wanted to point out that hunters typically seek out strong and healthy members of the species they are hunting. Presumably if recreational hunting were primarily about preventing animals from succumbing to slow, painful deaths by starvation or disease, strong, healthy members of a species would be the last targets.
I also wanted to point out that any time a farmer kills predator animals to protect domestic animals, he or she is most likely serving the desires of humans, not the environment.
posted by Gymnopedist at 8:44 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I also wanted to point out that any time a farmer kills predator animals to protect domestic animals, he or she is most likely serving the desires of humans, not the environment.
posted by Gymnopedist at 8:44 AM on February 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. OP, this isn't a debate space or a place for you to elaborate about your acquaintance or your own views on hunting. Just mark the answers that are most useful and ignore the rest. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:42 AM on February 13, 2016
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:42 AM on February 13, 2016
Certain deer populations densities have been successfully managed by hunting. Researchers at SUNY ESF did a lot of work in the Huntington Forest from the 60’s through the 80’s studying deer pop. densities and their effects on the forest. An excerpt is below:
-----
Following reduction in deer densities the vegetation response was dramatic. Areas that had been in raspberry (Rubus spp.) for years immediately began to return to forest cover. Stands of heavily browsed maple responded rapidly and had outgrown deer influence in 30 ha in size (Behrend et al. 1970; Kelty & Nyland 1981, 1983)
A second public hunt was conducted during 1978 through 1983 to maintain current deer densities and prohibit a rapid increase in numbers. The use of primitive weapons hunters (archery and muzzleloader), without the requirement for special permits to harvest female deer proved equally effective in preventing rapid growth in deer numbers beyond the “targeted” population density (5.2 deer/km2).
from: Windows of opportunity: white-tailed deer and the dynamics of northern hardwood forests of the northeastern US
Richard Sage - William Porter - H. Underwood - Journal for Nature Conservation – 2003
-----
There is a huge body of research surrounding the work at Huntington Forest.
As a forester who managed a forest with deer population problems for three years, my impression is that hunting can be used effectively as a tool if done correctly, but low public acceptability limits its use on public lands near cities, and conflict with large landowners’ objectives limits its use on private lands. Also my impression: one guy with a rifle out in the woods is not doing population management in a meaningful way.
These articles are available online for further reading:
Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer herd reductions:
Is recovery limited by legacy effects?
Test of Localized Management for Reducing Deer Browsing in Forest Regeneration Areas
Localized management of white-tailed deer in the central Adirondack Mountains, NY
posted by release the hardwoods! at 10:54 AM on February 13, 2016
-----
Following reduction in deer densities the vegetation response was dramatic. Areas that had been in raspberry (Rubus spp.) for years immediately began to return to forest cover. Stands of heavily browsed maple responded rapidly and had outgrown deer influence in 30 ha in size (Behrend et al. 1970; Kelty & Nyland 1981, 1983)
A second public hunt was conducted during 1978 through 1983 to maintain current deer densities and prohibit a rapid increase in numbers. The use of primitive weapons hunters (archery and muzzleloader), without the requirement for special permits to harvest female deer proved equally effective in preventing rapid growth in deer numbers beyond the “targeted” population density (5.2 deer/km2).
from: Windows of opportunity: white-tailed deer and the dynamics of northern hardwood forests of the northeastern US
Richard Sage - William Porter - H. Underwood - Journal for Nature Conservation – 2003
-----
There is a huge body of research surrounding the work at Huntington Forest.
As a forester who managed a forest with deer population problems for three years, my impression is that hunting can be used effectively as a tool if done correctly, but low public acceptability limits its use on public lands near cities, and conflict with large landowners’ objectives limits its use on private lands. Also my impression: one guy with a rifle out in the woods is not doing population management in a meaningful way.
These articles are available online for further reading:
Restoring forest herb communities through landscape-level deer herd reductions:
Is recovery limited by legacy effects?
Test of Localized Management for Reducing Deer Browsing in Forest Regeneration Areas
Localized management of white-tailed deer in the central Adirondack Mountains, NY
posted by release the hardwoods! at 10:54 AM on February 13, 2016
In many countries with world-class evidence-based conservation departments, culling and/or hunting is used for ecological purposes. In some places this has been taken to heroic extremes.
This is not necessarily the same as an independent hunter culling what (s)he understands is ecologically useful - the extent to which the hunter is correct will obviously vary by hunter.
However the basic principle is true, especially in cases with introduced species that lack natural predation in the ecosystem, or in damaged ecosystems where overpopulation happens more easily and/or has knock-on effects impacting other species.
In many places, conservation departments were spending a lot of their precious budget paying professionals to cull, to maintain ecosystems. I think that pretty firmly demonstrates that the basic concept isn't just self-serving hunter BS, even if some hunters might misapply it.
However there is a strong financial (and recreational) argument to be made that having hunters paying money to a conversation department for the right to hunt the species that the department was otherwise paying to cull, is just so much better for every party involved that it's often worth the extra red tape and relative sloppiness of using recreational hunters instead of trained professionals.
posted by anonymisc at 11:10 AM on February 13, 2016
This is not necessarily the same as an independent hunter culling what (s)he understands is ecologically useful - the extent to which the hunter is correct will obviously vary by hunter.
However the basic principle is true, especially in cases with introduced species that lack natural predation in the ecosystem, or in damaged ecosystems where overpopulation happens more easily and/or has knock-on effects impacting other species.
In many places, conservation departments were spending a lot of their precious budget paying professionals to cull, to maintain ecosystems. I think that pretty firmly demonstrates that the basic concept isn't just self-serving hunter BS, even if some hunters might misapply it.
However there is a strong financial (and recreational) argument to be made that having hunters paying money to a conversation department for the right to hunt the species that the department was otherwise paying to cull, is just so much better for every party involved that it's often worth the extra red tape and relative sloppiness of using recreational hunters instead of trained professionals.
posted by anonymisc at 11:10 AM on February 13, 2016
Yeah. State departments of hunting and fisheries employ ecologists to calculate how much hunting humans need to do each year to keep the population stable so they can adjust the hunting season dates, permits issued, permit prices, etc. for various species accordingly.
posted by Jacqueline at 6:19 AM on February 14, 2016
posted by Jacqueline at 6:19 AM on February 14, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by sagc at 8:53 PM on February 12, 2016