BrentD
Well-known member
Interesting, what you describe makes a good case for NOT hunting the monument.
Transferring public lands and shrinking the NPS for the good of hunting.
- Thread starter MTGomer
- Start date
Why’s that?
BrentD
Well-known member
Lots of productive wildlife harvest methods incorporate a "hands off" area that then provides a steady supply of immigrants to surrounding habitat where they can be harvested. They tend to be fairly stable units as a result.
There are lots of examples at lots of scales, from Marine systems that are in hundreds of miles to quite small wildlife refuges (esp. waterfowl, here in Iowa) that are only hundreds of acres. Whether this works with sheep in southern AZ, I cannot say, but it would not surprise me if it was such a functional system.
You could even think of Yellowstone elk and bison as being somewhat similar in this regard. And of course, anyone that has ever set up on the boundary of an unhuntable park or refuge, waiting for those especially big bucks to venture out, has seen this in a microcosm.
Anyway, just speculating out loud. It would be interesting to test this, but, alas, we are running out of USFWS and Park biologists of all stripes.
it definitely works with Elk and bison in YNP.
Sheep populations swing much more due to drought and predation. They’re hunted so conservatively in AZ, which is a good thing, I think.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'm just not sure, and it's always been a mystery to me, why it is if there is a population of animals people feel they MUST be hunted.
Antelope Island in Utah a classic example.
Why is it a bad thing to have a population of animals here and there that aren't hunted?
Antelope Island in Utah a classic example.
Why is it a bad thing to have a population of animals here and there that aren't hunted?
BrentD
Well-known member
$$$ and me, me, me....
If you have ever heard of source-sink population dynamics and regulation (one of my favorite topics), that can also figure into a given situation. So many possibilities, so little time, money, and people to figure it out.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I don’t think they MUST be hunted but if it’s suitable for tens of thousands of tourists, foreign criminals and law enforcement to all do their things in, why shouldn’t hunters, which would number a few dozen at most, if deer were hunted, be able to hunt there?
Antelope island is so small, I know they call it “free range” and call it “hunting” but is it?
Where does this question end? Does every single population of critters on the landscape need hunted?
If there’s not a biological reason they shouldn’t be, why shouldn’t they be?
Hunters love to talk about how hunting is professionally managed, science based, beneficial for reasons x,y, &z bla bla. You know the script.
If that’s the case….
Actually, I’m between a hot whatever and a cold no on Metallica. This is much better.
I get now that you’re trying to have a more rationalist detached discussion for the sake of it instead of grumping that there’s some sheep out there that you can’t legally kill. Fair question then, I guess.
I suppose I still fall on the side of just letting nature nature in some places, even if it’s imperfect (ie your mention of other users at the monument).
As to “Why not, if there’s not a biologically sound reason not to?” I guess I’d ask “Is there a biologically sound reason that humans need to kill one of these deer or sheep instead of a more natural predator?”
Anecdotally I used to trail run in DC’s Rock Creek Park a bunch in grad school. It’s a really pretty island of calm in the city and the creek looks very inviting and fishy looking, like smallmouth and pan-fishy, not trout. It’s administered by the NPS and you’re not allowed to fish in their section of Rock Creek. I was OUTRAGED by this at the time. I emailed the park administrator letting them know this was asinine, “If I can fish in Yellowstone NP why not Rock Creek, damn it?!” Their response was essentially “Yeah, we know there’s roads and such through there but we’re just gonna let the creek do its thing. Sorry.” That didn’t really satisfy me at the time, but I think I get it now. The fishing was better in Shenandoah NP anyhow. Though, I’m still curious to know what’s swimming around in Rock Creek, unmolested by man.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
Why don’t you ask the folks in NJ that about their black bears?
rjthehunter
Well-known member
Hunting is conservation! If there's a stable population, give some tags out. What's a good reason not to?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Think you missed the point, but that's no surprise.
Rack Daniels
Well-known member
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I think it’s a fair question, but I would also suggest that part of biologically sound management does include leaving some places closed. I actually think as we continue to lose habitat and see increased hunting pressure and increased demand for opportunities, it’s even more important to provide some sanctuary areas where populations can be unmolested.
Also agree that changing agencies isn’t necessary to open hunting in a monument though. That’s just an administrative exercise. Essentially the same type of action that folks have been seeing with opening “new” hunting opportunities on wildlife refuges.
Also agree that changing agencies isn’t necessary to open hunting in a monument though. That’s just an administrative exercise. Essentially the same type of action that folks have been seeing with opening “new” hunting opportunities on wildlife refuges.
Lasiocarpa
Well-known member
I’ve always had issues with this overly simplistic slogan. It seems to get used in a way to remove our obligation to think more critically about complex issues.
Hunting can be conservation, and is certainly an important tool in many places, but by itself it is not inherently conservation. We can’t just fill our stack of tags and proclaim “I did my part for conservation!”.
I certainly have my issues with National Parks and “industrial tourism” but I’m with Buzz on this. We can hunt on the majority of our public lands, not a bad thing to have a few places that are off limits.
I’ve had some memorable evenings in Yellowstone, glassing for critters well off the beaten path. Didn’t need a rifle in hand to enjoy myself.
Potsie
Well-known member
I think that question swings both ways… is there a biological reason they need to be hunted?
I don’t know the area, or the population dynamics at all - are there large scale die-offs because the herd has exceeded the carrying capacity of the habitat? If so I think the “hunting is conservation” argument holds merit.
But then again, I definitely see your side of there’s already plenty of human caused disturbance in the area, why not 1 sheep tag.
