Good read from outdoor life: hunters no longer needed

[Exhumis]

I imagine this thread will get heated, but it’s necessary folks know what’s going on. Don’t think because it’s not where you hunt/live it won’t happen:

In Washington State, Hunters May No Longer Be "Necessary to Manage Wildlife"

An emerging wildlife war has its first skirmish this week in Spokane where a reformist group is looking to deprioritize hunting and hunters.

www.outdoorlife.com

 

[Nutterbuster]

Hunter numbers are declining. Less than 4% of the US population hunts. Most of the Pittman-Robertson revenue generated now is due to hobbyist shooters and gun owners, not hunters. We can't sustain the traditional conservation funding method with those numbers.

Birdwatching, canoeing, fishing, backpacking, and many other non-consumptive outdoor activities are on the rise. If we implement a backpack tax, we can tap into that.

At the end of the day, I'd like to keep hunting and will do so as long as I can. I've made more effort than many to keep that flame alive. But, if the end of hunting is the price to pay for funding conservation and maintaining the planet's biodiversity...so be it.

I'd encourage everybody to read up on this stuff, keep a clear head and kind heart, and be honest with themselves.

 

[John 35]

No doubt hippies from San Francisco and other cities have a thing or two to teach us about the outdoors. Just look at the pristine beauty of their cities of origin.

 

[Horn]

In most aspects of life in this country the huge majorities have to accommodate the extreme minorities. Sounds like the opposite here. Few hunters won't be accommodated by the masses..

Thanks for the link

 

[tarafrost]

The urban vs rural divide will continue to widen, so these challenges will only get worse over time.

This part of the article struck a chord:

What mustn’t change, he says, is relying on science to guide decisions. And what shouldn’t change, he says, is the statutory purpose of wildlife agencies.

“Let’s go back to the grounding principles of what we’re here to do, which is to conserve and manage wildlife,” says Bishop, who previously served as assistant director of Colorado’s wildlife agency. “If you can keep coming back to that purpose, then it’s easier to include groups with divergent viewpoints of how that gets accomplished. Easy to say, hard to implement.”

 

[Nutterbuster]

It's hard to take a claim to the scientific high ground seriously when the pro-hunting journalist drops jewels like this:

"The conference’s agenda is packed with wonky (emphasis mine) topics such as “Spatial Ecology and Modeling,” “Conservation of Native Pollinators in Managed Forest Ecosystems,” and “Biometrics and Population Monitoring.”"

I do have mixed feelings about individual rights in the context of species and ecosystems management. I think I disagree with that emphasis. But, the anti-predator stance a lot of hunters have is ridiculous to me, and I wish Alabama DCNR did more to manage non-consumed species. A lot of our state properties are managed (and I use that word loosely) strictly for deer and turkey, to the detriment of other species.

I think hunters have to agree with scientific consensus on the importance of ecosystem management and support it if they want to keep having a place in the conversation. Predators are a part of the ecosystem. I would love a red wolf reintroduction into Alabama, even if it meant a reduction in deer harvest opportunity for me. I'm tickled we're getting bears back, even though I know it's gonna involve critters in the trash can and an extra level of caution in some scenarios.

I've seen the impact of apex predators in an ecosystem first-hand. As our alligator population locally rebounded in our lifetime, the overall health of the delta and its fisheries improved. Specifically, the nutria population that was threatening the root systems keeping the swamp in place was severely reduced. It fixed a problem hunters couldn't have. Natural deer predators target the most unfit individuals, unlike hunters which generally do the opposite. Who knows, that may help with a lot of the acronym diseases we're so worried about in the herd.

 

[thedutchtouch]

No doubt hippies from San Francisco and other cities have a thing or two to teach us about the outdoors. Just look at the pristine beauty of their cities of origin.

Yeah, one would think that people that have experienced urban wastelands might realize that plants are important (apologies, I couldn't resist a bit of sarcasm since I am in some ways similar, I'm one of those people that grew up in the inner city but was lucky to be exposed to the sticks, and a few on here would calle a hippie lol, no real offense meant).

Issues like this are tough because all sides are both right and wrong in their own ways. Compromise isn't meant to be fun for everyone, you're getting part of what you want, and being ok enough with the balance. In my opinion the quote @tarafrost lifted is where it's at, and as usual @Nutterbuster is wise beyond his years but will likely want to downplay this characterization as common sense based on his experiences.

 

[philsanchez76]

You could probably get away with no hunting in certain states and in certain areas. If we went a year without deer hunting in my area, you'd see deer related collisions go up 1000% and folks landscaping would be trashed and you'd see starved deer with their rib bones showing walking around for lack of food. I just think states need to make their own decisions on this stuff.

 

[tarafrost]

If we went a year without deer hunting in my area, you'd see deer related collisions go up 1000% and folks landscaping would be trashed and you'd see starved deer with their rib bones showing walking around for lack of food. I just think states need to make their own decisions on this stuff.

The root cause of that would be lack of natural predators, since we've eliminated them in areas like yours. Reintroduction of apex predators would likely resolve many of these issues over time, but then it brings other issues like safety. Watch the urbanites call for wolf/cougar/bear eradication when their toy poodle gets gobbled up as a snack. LOL

I love to hunt, fish not so much (no objection to fishing, just find it boring is all), but also believe in sustainable ecological balance, which means reintroduction of predators in many cases. I've always had a rule....if I ain't gonna eat it, I ain't gonna hunt it, so have never hunted for wolves. Besides that would be like shooting one of my siberian huskies.

It all comes down to balance and compromise. It's been said that compromise is when all parties are unhappy.

 

[John 35]

Coyotes weed out the weakest among the herd but no one seems to count them in these types of discussions.

 

[BTaylor]

The urban vs rural divide will continue to widen, so these challenges will only get worse over time.

This part of the article struck a chord:

What mustn’t change, he says, is relying on science to guide decisions. And what shouldn’t change, he says, is the statutory purpose of wildlife agencies.

“Let’s go back to the grounding principles of what we’re here to do, which is to conserve and manage wildlife,” says Bishop, who previously served as assistant director of Colorado’s wildlife agency. “If you can keep coming back to that purpose, then it’s easier to include groups with divergent viewpoints of how that gets accomplished. Easy to say, hard to implement.”

It is hard for me to put any stock in what anyone from CPW has to say about conservation or wildlife management. If you want a list of examples, I can certainly provide them.

 

[BTaylor]

It's hard to take a claim to the scientific high ground seriously when the pro-hunting journalist drops jewels like this:

"The conference’s agenda is packed with wonky (emphasis mine) topics such as “Spatial Ecology and Modeling,” “Conservation of Native Pollinators in Managed Forest Ecosystems,” and “Biometrics and Population Monitoring.”"

I do have mixed feelings about individual rights in the context of species and ecosystems management. I think I disagree with that emphasis. But, the anti-predator stance a lot of hunters have is ridiculous to me, and I wish Alabama DCNR did more to manage non-consumed species. A lot of our state properties are managed (and I use that word loosely) strictly for deer and turkey, to the detriment of other species.

I think hunters have to agree with scientific consensus on the importance of ecosystem management and support it if they want to keep having a place in the conversation. Predators are a part of the ecosystem. I would love a red wolf reintroduction into Alabama, even if it meant a reduction in deer harvest opportunity for me. I'm tickled we're getting bears back, even though I know it's gonna involve critters in the trash can and an extra level of caution in some scenarios.

I've seen the impact of apex predators in an ecosystem first-hand. As our alligator population locally rebounded in our lifetime, the overall health of the delta and its fisheries improved. Specifically, the nutria population that was threatening the root systems keeping the swamp in place was severely reduced. It fixed a problem hunters couldn't have. Natural deer predators target the most unfit individuals, unlike hunters which generally do the opposite. Who knows, that may help with a lot of the acronym diseases we're so worried about in the herd.

The biggest problem with predator reintroduction, especially wolves, is at least 2 fold. First, they can and will totally decimate ungulate populations as well as sport kill domestic live stock. Second, most states have not been able to manage those populations once established because of public outcry and judicial blocking. Until such time as the courts are barred from affecting sound management, no state would be wise to implement any such reintroduction of predator species.

 

[Nutterbuster]

The biggest problem with predator reintroduction, especially wolves, is at least 2 fold. First, they can and will totally decimate ungulate populations as well as sport kill domestic live stock. Second, most states have not been able to manage those populations once established because of public outcry and judicial blocking. Until such time as the courts are barred from affecting sound management, no state would be wise to implement any such reintroduction of predator species.

I'll admit I don't know enough to affirm or refute your first two statements. I can tell you you're absolutely wrong about your last one from firsthand experience. Alligators are an apex predator, and their reestablishment has been a net positive all the way around.

I'm curious to know what the wolf livestock predation rate is compared to other mortality factors in areas where they're introduced, and what a before/after deer population analysis looks like after wolves are reintroduced. I'm also curious to know the economic impact of increased predation vs the economic impact of ecotourism where wolves are reintroduced.

 

[woodsdog2]

It's hard to take a claim to the scientific high ground seriously when the pro-hunting journalist drops jewels like this:

"The conference’s agenda is packed with wonky (emphasis mine) topics such as “Spatial Ecology and Modeling,” “Conservation of Native Pollinators in Managed Forest Ecosystems,” and “Biometrics and Population Monitoring.”"

I do have mixed feelings about individual rights in the context of species and ecosystems management. I think I disagree with that emphasis. But, the anti-predator stance a lot of hunters have is ridiculous to me, and I wish Alabama DCNR did more to manage non-consumed species. A lot of our state properties are managed (and I use that word loosely) strictly for deer and turkey, to the detriment of other species.

I think hunters have to agree with scientific consensus on the importance of ecosystem management and support it if they want to keep having a place in the conversation. Predators are a part of the ecosystem. I would love a red wolf reintroduction into Alabama, even if it meant a reduction in deer harvest opportunity for me. I'm tickled we're getting bears back, even though I know it's gonna involve critters in the trash can and an extra level of caution in some scenarios.

I've seen the impact of apex predators in an ecosystem first-hand. As our alligator population locally rebounded in our lifetime, the overall health of the delta and its fisheries improved. Specifically, the nutria population that was threatening the root systems keeping the swamp in place was severely reduced. It fixed a problem hunters couldn't have. Natural deer predators target the most unfit individuals, unlike hunters which generally do the opposite. Who knows, that may help with a lot of the acronym diseases we're so worried about in the herd.

If you manage for Deer and Turkey's you're automatically managing for non-game species as well are you not?

 

[The_Fit_Ness_Monster]

Ill be bold and say thatll never happen i Louisiana. You cant eliminate the sportsman from sportsman’s paradise.

 

[NMSbowhunter]

What could go wrong introducing apex predators? If the city folk like the idea of predators I'm sure there are quite a few serial killers on death row around the country who would like to breath some fresh air. Couldn't hurt, could it?

Mississippi added the Right to hunt and fish to the State's Constitution a few years back.

 

[thedutchtouch]

If you manage for Deer and Turkey's you're automatically managing for non-game species as well are you not?

wildly ignorant of land management but still expressing an opinion:

i think that would depend on HOW you're managing, no? managing for balanced# of deer to live on said land naturally with no added food plots or feeders? possibly, but as soon as you start adding feed or minerals or changing the land to increase deer density, my gues is you'd then be throwing off the ecosystem and causing disadvantage to other species. people can probably argue forever about where the "natural" balances are. sometimes natural balance means no deer (or significantly fewer) on particular tracts of land. sometimes that's natural, sometimes its because your neighbor runs a feeder.

 

[sweats]

If you manage for Deer and Turkey's you're automatically managing for non-game species as well are you not?

Not necessarily I would think. I'm sure there is overlap for some, but habitat that is good for deer and turkey can't be good for all non-game species.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[BTaylor]

I'll admit I don't know enough to affirm or refute your first two statements. I can tell you you're absolutely wrong about your last one from firsthand experience. Alligators are an apex predator, and their reestablishment has been a net positive all the way around.

I'm curious to know what the wolf livestock predation rate is compared to other mortality factors in areas where they're introduced, and what a before/after deer population analysis looks like after wolves are reintroduced. I'm also curious to know the economic impact of increased predation vs the economic impact of ecotourism where wolves are reintroduced.

I was speaking specifically of land predators. You are absolutely correct that gators have been a very effective tool to reduce and control nutria and beaver populations. But they not routinely targeting deer and/or livestock as one of their primary food sources. I cant quickly point you to the sources of information you mentioned but they exist. You should be able to find most of that directly related to Idaho. Again though, the reintroduction is not the problem, it is the inability to properly manage the populations going forward. And at least in the western states, the reintroduced species was not native but rather was a significantly larger canadian species.

 

[Nutterbuster]

I was speaking specifically of land predators. You are absolutely correct that gators have been a very effective tool to reduce and control nutria and beaver populations. But they not routinely targeting deer and/or livestock as one of their primary food sources. I cant quickly point you to the sources of information you mentioned but they exist. You should be able to find most of that directly related to Idaho. Again though, the reintroduction is not the problem, it is the inability to properly manage the populations going forward. And at least in the western states, the reintroduced species was not native but rather was a significantly larger canadian species.

I don't want this to come across as adversarial, and I don't think you'll construe it that way. For anybody reading, I'm just trying to put good info in a public space and encourage clear thinking. And yes, I have too much free time.

This is what I found for Idaho wolf kills in the 2018 fiscal year:

Wolf livestock depredations at record levels | Idaho Farm Bureau

www.idahofb.org

.

And this the total amount of cattle raised annually:

Wolf livestock depredations at record levels | Idaho Farm Bureau

www.idahofb.org

.

2.1 million beef cattle raised annually, plus (if I'm correct in my assumption) dairy animals.

So in the 2018 "record year" 0.005% of cattle raised were confirmed to be killed by wolves. Even if you take on good faith farmers' claims that the kills are underreported, and that wolves presence lowers milk yield and weight gain...I find it hard to feel bad for them.

It doesn't look like they're hurting:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.id...59114adb-5767-528e-bb0d-d0540bdb505d.amp.html