Readings Study Guide 10
Hunting and Trapping
Chapter 10

Humans evolved as hunter-gatherers.  The Neolithic age was marked by the domestication of plants and animals.  Today, our efficiencies at farming and livestock production have removed us from the direct relationships we once had with the land.  Now, we get our food without perceived struggle or bloodshed on Styrofoam wrapped in clear plastic.  However, nearly 1 in 10 adults in the United States hunts.

1. To hunt or not to hunt
   1. There are at least 2 sides to the hunting issue - the text gives examples of several (often antagonistic) viewpoints about hunting
      1. "animal rights" vs. "the land ethic"
      2. who are the proponents ? what are the major differences?
   2. Kellert's attitudes (Table 10-1)(revisited from our class survey)
      1. naturalistic contact with nature
      2. ecologistic ecosystem interdependence
      3. humanistic pets, love of individual animals
      4. moralistic concern for animal welfare
      5. scientistic curiosity, study, knowledge
      6. aesthetic artistic character and display of animals
      7. utilitaristic practicality, usefulness of animals
      8. dominionistic mastery or superiority over animals
      9. negativistic avoidance, dislike, or fear of animals
   3. education may be best tool to change attitudes and to reduce the conflicts over hunting
      1. emphasize ecologistic attitude in dialog between hunter and anti-hunter.
      2. encourage managers recognition of different attitudes reflecting different uses and satisfactions that people gain from animals
      3. diversity funding sources for wildlife management to include contributions from non-hunting publics
      4. increase attention and funding to non-game research and recreational programs
2. the effects of hunting on populations of animals
   1. humans were evolutionarily successful because the evolved behaviors and developed technologies to increase their skill at hunting.
      1. may have caused widespread animal extinction's 10-11,000 years ago
      2. have caused extinction's since 1600's - perhaps at a greater rate than previously known
   2. While we have developed more efficient ways of killing animals we have also learned about the disastrous results of overhunting and have developed more efficient means to regulate hunting.
      1. ritualization of hunting responsible hunting
      2. market hunting vs. sport hunting
3. Harvest and hunting (pages 184-186 are a key principle- they apply things we learned in Chapter 5)
   1. The direct and indirect effects of human activities on communities has often reduced community complexity - removing predators, reducing or displacing buffer species, creating habitats that are favorable for large numbers of only a few species.
   2. compensatory mortality- the various 'natural' mortality factors tend to be compensatory
      1. is hunting compensatory? or must it be treated as a separate additive mortality factor?
   3. general harvest theory proceeds from the premise explained below (A-E):
      1. growth rate of a population at carrying capacity (K) = 0; (births and immigration are offset by deaths and emigration)
      2. hunting will reduce the population numbers but this loss will also increase the population growth rate, because of:
         1. reduced death rates from other causes (fewer animals competing for remaining resources = less starvation, disease etc...)
         2. higher birth rates (remaining adults will be in better condition from greater resource availability - and will give birth to more young who in turn will have higher survival rates)
      3. this accelerated growth rate of the population (which resulted from the removal of individuals) will produce more animals than are needed to replace the ones that were removed.
         1. increased productivity will more than offset the losses due to hunting - e.g., will create a surplus number of animals that can be removed.
      4. recall, the logistic growth curve.  Where is the greatest rate of increase?  The greatest rate (e.g., where the most new animals are added to the population) occurs at the inflection point on the curve.
         1. max increase occurs at ˝ of K (when the population numbers are half as many as the environment can support)
         2. this point, where populations produce the most = maximum sustained yield (MSY) is defined as the largest average harvest that can be taken continuously from a population under existing conditions.
      5. MSY = harvest where H = Kr / 4 occurs where;
         1. population size is kept about ˝ of its number at carrying capacity
         2. harvest takes the number of individuals = to the annual production of the population (e.g., the number produced under its growth rate (r) when the population size is at ˝ K and therefore, by the logistic model nothing is limiting growth)
   4. Why not manage for MSY?
      1. because environments are variable; carrying capacity (K) does not remain constant, growth rates (r) change, and wildlife population sizes are not easily determined.
      2. harvest theory behind MSY requires assumptions that are not often met in actual wild populations:
         1. rate of increase (r) responds immediately to population density
         2. stable age distribution (SAD)
         3. harvest is spread evenly through the population
      3. there are other user interests that desire something other than maximum harvestable surplus
      4. setting harvest rates by regulating hunters is inexact.
      5. Managers prefer to be conservative, setting strict limits and preferring to underharvest rather than overharvest populations.
      6. Then they monitor population trends.  If populations shows consistent declines then further restrictions may be required, whereas stable or increasing number suggest that a larger harvest could be possible.
4. Several studies of harvest regimes are reviewed, giving examples of compensatory and additive mortality and population responses to hunting.
   1. Mallard
      1. compensatory mortality.  Studies showed that although in some years up to 50% of mallard mortality is due to hunting (25% of the population is shot) there was no difference in survival rates whether hunting regulations were strict or liberal.  This means that hunting in these mallard populations was a compensatory mortality. It didn't matter if you shot few or a lot (within the ranges tested) you had about the same number of mallards surviving to the following year.
   2. American woodcock
      1. shifts in hunting pressure caused population declines in eastern populations of woodcocks.  These shifts were detected through regular monitoring of woodcock populations.  Traditional hunting limits had to be restricted, it remains to be seen if this will provide a long-term solution.
   3. Wild turkey
      1. turkey populations studied have shown that turkeys in good habitats are resilient to large population reductions.  They have a high reproductive potential which, with good poult survival, quickly replaces animals removed.
   4. Deer
      1. discussed the history of establishment of the "buck law" and the difficulties that managers have had with the public in trying to change management from 'buck only' hunting when deer populations increased.
5. Managing for the hunter
   1. maximizing levels of hunter satisfaction may be more important than harvesting at MSY
      1. harvesting an animal is not the only satisfaction that people get from hunting. Not all hunters successfully harvest wildlife (maybe only 1 in 3-5 deer hunters shoots a deer and less than 1 in 7 elk hunters usually harvests an elk)
      2. some hunter satisfactions are directly related to the number of game animals: seeing animals and their signs, succesful harvest… these are managed with habitat improvement, hunting regulations, and law enforcement
      3. other rewards include:  fellowship, getting out in nature… these are better managed by controlling numbers of hunters (hunting regulations), providing hunting information and improving hunt camp facilities.
6. Trapping and furbearers -
   1. Trapping has received even more controversy in recent years than has hunting (see Table 10-5).  For some trapping is a profession but for most it is a hobby.
   2. Trapping opponents argue:
      1. that trapping causes undue animal suffering
      2. that taking animal life for fashion (furs) is immoral
      3. trapping kills and maims many non-target species
   3. Trapping supporters argue:
      1. trapping harvest data helps biologists/managers keep track of furbearer populations (this claim has not been supported by data)
      2. trapping provides annual crop of furs that would otherwise be lost to other mortalities.
      3. fur sales are of economic value to states and incividuals
      4. rabies, distemper and other diseases are suppressed by trapping
      5. inevitable death is less painful by trapping than it would be by starvation, predation, or other 'natural' causes.
   4. The main arguments against trapping are that traps are inhumane and they can attract/trap non-target animals
      1. research has shown that traps can be made to humanely kill the animals they trap
      2. however, the problem of non-target animals still exists.
   5. Trapping in Ontario
      1. example of the most intensively managed trapping in North America
   6. Traps (common kinds used)
      1. trapped individuals can be released
         1. leghold traps - most popular among trappers
            1. animal usually held alive by trap until the trapper comes to dispatch it.
         2. snares -
            1. neck snares usually strangle victim, but foot snares usually do less damage than leghold traps
      2. killing traps (individuals cannot be released)
         1. Vital, Conibear traps are examples of traps that kill the animal when the trap is sprung.
   7. trapping and hunting education
      1. as with most controversies, education of both sides is required before there is any hope for a solution.