Thoughts on the anti-hunting movement

[Ben Lamb]

Of course I agree that anecdotes aren't science, but when viewed objectively, there can be lessons learned from them. Isn't part of habitat conservation managing the pressure on that habitat? In working with biologists down here, our population objectives were in line with what the habitat could support in a bad year, and it was quite difficult to do because of the ebbs and flows of which you speak, so I understand that for sure.

I also understand the problems with predator control you describe, especially with population dependent breeders like coyotes, it's efficacy is questionable for sure, but in the case of severely depressed game populations, where things get out of balance, isn't some form of control necessary?

If you haven't read "Coyote Man" by Ray Alcorn, I highly recommend it.

I'll check out the book. THanks for the recommendation!

Here's where I get lost on the issue of killing predators to increase game populations (again, beyond the ethics and economics of it) - I don't think the math actually works out. If we don't have enough game to share with our four-legged hunting compatriots, perhaps we shouldn't be hunting in those areas for a while. Humans cause more loss of game than any toothy critter. We are the ones who can control what we kill & how. Wolves, bears, lions, etc, are just making a living.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Humans cause more loss of game than any toothy critter. We are the ones who can control what we kill & how. Wolves, bears, lions, etc, are just making a living.

I like the idea... but the problem is where the rubber meets the road, i.e. nature isn't natural anymore. For instance in CO NR elk tags basically fund the our wildlife agency. Colorado voters passed TABOR in 1992, without getting into the weeds the amendment basically makes it so that the only way Colorado Parks and Wildlife can fun itself is through license sales. The agency can't take tax dollars from the general fund, it can't have a license plate tax, outdoor gear tax, etc etc.

So in order to have wildlife law enforcement, habitat work, game studies, basically all of the work the agency does we have to have a robust elk herd and NR participation.

For this reason and this reason alone I think it's imperative that we manage predators and that wildlife and ranching groups vociferously oppose wolf re-introduction.

TABOR has been attacked for a whole host of reasons by lots of different groups but it's not going away, so because I'm a pragmatist and value wildlife I have to be pro predator management.

Every state and situation is going to be different, this is just the reality here.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I like the idea... but the problem is where the rubber meats the road, i.e. nature isn't natural anymore. For instance in CO NR elk tags basically fund the our wildlife agency. Colorado voters passed TABOR in 1992, without getting into the weeds the amendment basically makes it so that the only way Colorado Parks and Wildlife can fun itself is through license sales. The agency can't take tax dollars from the general fund, it can't have a license plate tax, outdoor gear tax, etc etc.

So in order to have wildlife law enforcement, habitat work, game studies, basically all of the work the agency does we have to have a robust elk herd and NR participation.

For this reason and this reason alone I think it's imperative that we manage predators and that wildlife and ranching groups vociferously oppose wolf re-introduction.

TABOR has been attacked for a whole host of reasons by lots of different groups but it's not going away, so because I'm a pragmatist and value wildlife I have to be pro predator management.

Laws are changeable. That's the entire reason we have a legislative branch of government.

And CO has the largest elk population of any state. Yet your problems come from HUMAN recreation, according to the science.

And again, there is no credible science that says predator management for increased game populations is a sustainable or economically viable route to increase populations. So, you may think that you're being "pro-management" but what you're really supporting is socialized killing for limited to no benefit.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Laws are changeable. That's the entire reason we have a legislative branch of government.

And CO has the largest elk population of any state. Yet your problems come from HUMAN recreation, according to the science.

And again, there is no credible science that says predator management for increased game populations is a sustainable or economically viable route to increase populations. So, you may think that you're being "pro-management" but what you're really supporting is socialized killing for limited to no benefit.

Laws are changeable, but if they aren't changed does it matter? Point being the law won't be changed, so you have to live with that reality. TABOR screwing with predator prey relationships is on no one's radar.

CO does have the largest elk population, and humans have created a situation where if it doesn't stay that way a whole host of other species suffer. Human recreation is definitely a factor, it's the main factor harming the herd where I grew up. It's not the only factor, predators do play a big role in some herds. Predators are the easiest factor for wildlife managers to control however.

Colorado is studying targeted predator management at critical times of the year, i.e., calving season to reduce ungulate mortality.

Adding a further source of ungulate mortality with wolves would certainly have a discrete effect on CPAW's budget.

So what I'm saying is I'm supporting CPAW doing what it can with the resources available. We lost our spring bear and trapping seasons, which makes things increasingly complicated.

I'm not saying that predator management is the best solution, but it's kinda the only realistic one right now for the agency, and how much management they can do is very limited.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Re: my "PR" list - I have engaged in at least half of the things on this list and have no shame about it. There is good conservation and science behind most of it. My point in listing these things (I forgot to add baiting) is that some non hunters have emotional objections to them and we continue to hunt at their mercy, so it's always worthwhile to consider the science of an activity as well as public perception towards it.

Re: catch and release. Not all species and method of take are equal. Some cases does not harm fish but other conditions have very high mortality especially fishing very deep, but also temps, time of year, and some species are vulnerable.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Laws are changeable, but if they aren't changed does it matter? Point being the law won't be changed, so you have to live with that reality. TABOR screwing with predator prey relationships is on no one's radar.

CO does have the largest elk population, and humans have created a situation where if it doesn't stay that way a whole host of other species suffer. Human recreation is definitely a factor, it's the main factor harming the herd where I grew up. It's not the only factor, predators do play a big role in some herds. Predators are the easiest factor for wildlife managers to control however.

Colorado is studying targeted predator management at critical times of the year, i.e., calving season to reduce ungulate mortality.

Adding a further source of ungulate mortality with wolves would certainly have a discrete effect on CPAW's budget.

So what I'm saying is I'm supporting CPAW doing what it can with the resources available. We lost our spring bear and trapping seasons, which makes things increasingly complicated.

I'm not saying that predator management is the best solution, but it's kinda the only realistic one right now for the agency, and how much management they can do is very limited.

This level of thinking is why we're going to lose populations in the next hundred years. We try to apply bandaids to gaping wounds.

 

[RockinU]

Re: my "PR" list - I have engaged in at least half of the things on this list and have no shame about it. There is good conservation and science behind most of it. My point in listing these things (I forgot to add baiting) is that some non hunters have emotional objections to them and we continue to hunt at their mercy, so it's always worthwhile to consider the science of an activity as well as public perception towards it.

Re: catch and release. Not all species and method of take are equal. Some cases does not harm fish but other conditions have very high mortality especially fishing very deep, but also temps, time of year, and some species are vulnerable.

Might not a better solution be to do a better job of education and "PR" instead of abandoning things that make science based sense from a management perspective. Some of the things in your list would be harmful to the resources in the long run.

 

[RockinU]

This level of thinking is why we're going to lose populations in the next hundred years. We try to apply bandaids to gaping wounds.

Expand on that please, as I'm not sure I follow exactly.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

This level of thinking is why we're going to lose populations in the next hundred years. We try to apply bandaids to gaping wounds.

True. Society tends to suck as systemic changes.

 

[onpoint]

"Colorado is studying targeted predator management at critical times of the year, i.e., calving season to reduce ungulate mortality".

Is that the same Colorado which purposely stocked Whirling Disease infected hatchery fish into CO's rivers for years because "Whirling was already there anyways"????????

 

[Ben Lamb]

Expand on that please, as I'm not sure I follow exactly.

In 1970, the population of the United States was roughly 205 million people. The 2010 census found 308 million. Extrapolating a 10% growth in population (which seems to be about what we grwo each census), we can look at 330-350 million people living in this nation. WOrldwide, the population has gone from 3.7 billion to 7.5 billion now. That's double what it was.

All of those people take up resources: Oil & Gas, Coal, timber, land for housing, monoculture farming, etc. We're using up what land we have while trashing what's left through climate change, etc. We're destroying the places we used to protect for wildlife, because someone wants to make some cash quickly. We're fighting for a piece of a declining pie, rather than trying to bake a bigger pie.

Killing predators to try and increase ungulates is treating the symptom of the disease, and ignoring the root cause. We're using up our wildlife habitat and we're doing next to nothing to replace or replenish it. We celebrate the opening of the last few wildlife refuges for hunting opportunity without questioning why we have less opportunity elsewhere. We push for more outdoor recreation without thinking about how it affects the migration and holding patterns of wildlife.

We encourage oil and gas development on prime wildlife habitat while gleefully popping off about reducing regulations that hindered profits.

But if we just kill off the wolves, bears and lions, then it'll be ok, because there will be a buck or bull that I may be able to shoot before we lose it all.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

"Colorado is studying targeted predator management at critical times of the year, i.e., calving season to reduce ungulate mortality".

Is that the same Colorado which purposely stocked Whirling Disease infected hatchery fish into CO's rivers for years because "Whirling was already there anyways"????????

I can't speak to whirling disease, before my time... and/or outside of the scope of my knowledge.

Here are materials on the predator study.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Colorado Parks and Wildlife is a nationally recognized leader in conservation, outdoor recreation and wildlife management. The agency manages 42 state parks, all of Colorado's wildlife, more than 300 state wildlife areas and a host of recreational programs. CPW issues hunting and fishing...

cpw.state.co.us

The study has been heavily litigated. To tie it back to the thread, certainly it's important to thing about if our political capital should be spent on this topic.

Assuming they piss the name number of people off should hunter's be advocating for predator management or closing down winter range access to the public. Are we looking at what is more effective and or feasible.

 

[onpoint]

"I can't speak to whirling disease, before my time... and/or outside of the scope of my knowledge".

I thought a man with your attention to detail could get context......................

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

But if we just kill off the wolves, bears and lions, then it'll be ok, because there will be a buck or bull that I may be able to shoot before we lose it all.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

"I can't speak to whirling disease, before my time... and/or outside of the scope of my knowledge".

I thought a man with your attention to detail could get context......................

I understand the allusion. I just am not very knowledgeable about fishing, I spew a ton of BS... that subject would blow my cover completely

 

[Ben Lamb]

I never pegged you as a blonde.

Huh.

 

[onpoint]

I understand the allusion. I just am not very knowledgeable about fishing, I spew a ton of BS... that subject would blow my cover completely

I tend to forget it IS all about reaction scores

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I never pegged you as a blonde.

Huh.

I try not to let my devastating good looks, take away from my towering intellect.

 

[RockinU]

In 1970, the population of the United States was roughly 205 million people. The 2010 census found 308 million. Extrapolating a 10% growth in population (which seems to be about what we grwo each census), we can look at 330-350 million people living in this nation. WOrldwide, the population has gone from 3.7 billion to 7.5 billion now. That's double what it was.

All of those people take up resources: Oil & Gas, Coal, timber, land for housing, monoculture farming, etc. We're using up what land we have while trashing what's left through climate change, etc. We're destroying the places we used to protect for wildlife, because someone wants to make some cash quickly. We're fighting for a piece of a declining pie, rather than trying to bake a bigger pie.

Killing predators to try and increase ungulates is treating the symptom of the disease, and ignoring the root cause. We're using up our wildlife habitat and we're doing next to nothing to replace or replenish it. We celebrate the opening of the last few wildlife refuges for hunting opportunity without questioning why we have less opportunity elsewhere. We push for more outdoor recreation without thinking about how it affects the migration and holding patterns of wildlife.

We encourage oil and gas development on prime wildlife habitat while gleefully popping off about reducing regulations that hindered profits.

But if we just kill off the wolves, bears and lions, then it'll be ok, because there will be a buck or bull that I may be able to shoot before we lose it all.

We're getting into scales that I'm not sure how to address, how to curb population growth is beyond me, as is how to provide for the food, shelter, and energy needs of that increased population without encroaching further into our wild lands, other than to find ways to increase the efficiency of our current production methods (everyone hates factory farming, but maybe we need it).

As for treating symptoms instead of the disease, I'm not sure it's ignoring the root cause, as it is not having a way to arrest population growth. I don't know what the best solution is regarding the predators, but suspect it's somewhere between doing nothing and "killing off the wolves, bears and lions". At least I hope it is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The middle ground here is conserving wildlife habitat and increasing the productivity of marginal habitats on public and private lands. It's in adopting policies that don't further stress our ecological systems, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels & increase our ability to generate power without increasing land use to do so (looking at you, industrial scale solar & wind as well as O&G). Protecting what's left is vital to ensuring that there will be a starting point when we get through this extinction level event we're just getting started on.

As for human population growth, you can mitigate and reduce that through education, increased income levels, free contraceptives & better sex ed programs worldwide.

Or, we could go with the easy route & invoke Thanos' solution.

In the past, we'd have the plague come in and help us out. Like any organism that reaches beyond carrying capacity, disease levels the playing field. So maybe I should thank the anti-vaccers & support the GOP's ice floe medical plan.