"Conservation" = "More ungulates"?

[RCB]

As a new hunter, I've read and heard a lot about how hunters have contributed to wildlife conservation in the US. (Some would say that "contributed" is too weak a word - maybe "driven" is more accurate.) There's no question that this true. Game animals are around now in high numbers largely because hunters funded the programs that helped recover their populations.

But I also wonder what exactly hunters and anglers think of the word "conservation"? What exactly is being conserved? A cynic or critic might say "hunters only care about conservation that benefits them: they mostly just support conservation efforts that give them more of the animals they like to hunt; they don't care about non-game animals, eco-system health (admittedly a vague term), etc". As a blanket statement I'm sure this is false. But is there any truth to it? Do we see conservation first and foremost as "more ungulates", and less about other considerations (e.g. biodiversity). No doubt there is a variety of opinion on the matter, so I'm curious to hear from you.

A random hypothetical question to provide an example:
Suppose by a collection of efforts, we could raise the ungulate populations of a region well above historical population densities. Possible ways: putting a bunch of water troughs in an arid area; removing most predators; clearing vegetation or burning old-growth forests at greater rates; significantly increasing food supplementation in winter; removing vegetation that ungulates don't like and replacing it with plants they do like. And so on. Let's say as a consequence of this, population densities double, to levels never seen before. And they stay that way for many years. Is this a good thing? What are the pros and cons that you see?

Feel free to point me to another post if this discussion has happened before.

 

[bigdesert10]

What you're describing sounds more like farming than conservation. I personally prioritize game animals over other critters, but it's not really an either/or situation. As it turns out, what's good for ungulates happens to be good for a host of other critters in the ecosystem. Restoring sagebrush helps not only mule deer, but sage grouse and everything else that lives in the high desert. I guess most of my experience with conservation projects has more to do with restoration than it does manipulation.

 

[juan trueno]

I think you are probably a little deeper in the throes of some personal conflict or crisis than can be adequately addressed in the forum here. It’s important to be true to yourself- and if you are indeed conflicted regarding current managment practices I would hope you have the integrity to withdraw your financial support and buy neither license not tag. It’s possible that your more of “sportsperson” or “outdoor lifestylist” than a hunter- though how you self identify is of no consequence to me- and I encourage you to utilize whatever title makes you most comfortable.

 

[RCB]

What you're describing sounds more like farming than conservation. I personally prioritize game animals over other critters, but it's not really an either/or situation. As it turns out, what's good for ungulates happens to be good for a host of other critters in the ecosystem. Restoring sagebrush helps not only mule deer, but sage grouse and everything else that lives in the high desert. I guess most of my experience with conservation projects has more to do with restoration than it does manipulation.

I'm inclined to agree, for the most part.

But consider the example of AZ game and fish installing water troughs in the desert. Maybe I'm wrong, but this isn't "restoring" water holes that were once there and then removed by people. It's adding new, man-made things to the environment. I'm sure that water benefits all sorts of critters, but it's manipulative, not restorative - which is not necessarily a bad thing IMO. Of course, it may well be more complicated than that. Perhaps we inhabited most of the areas that had good water sources, where deer used to live, and so the only way to keep them around is by artificially increasing the amount of drinking water in other areas.

 

[RCB]

I think you are probably a little deeper in the throes of some personal conflict or crisis than can be adequately addressed in the forum here. It’s important to be true to yourself- and if you are indeed conflicted regarding current managment practices I would hope you have the integrity to withdraw your financial support and buy neither license not tag. It’s possible that your more of “sportsperson” or “outdoor lifestylist” than a hunter- though how you self identify is of no consequence to me- and I encourage you to utilize whatever title makes you most comfortable.

Thanks. I don't personally have a strong opinion either way. Still forming my views - hence my curiosity to see what others - who have been hunting much longer than I have - think. In any case, I'm going to continue to hunt and fish.

 

[jspradley]

Some people do seem to define "conservation" as "more ungulates at the expense of everything else".

The goal of wildlife conservation is not to make more animals to hunt, more animals to hunt is just a byproduct of successful conservation and hunting them is the means to fund it.

 

[Btaylor]

I think a big problem with these type discussions is the tendency of society to turn an issue into a catchword cliche often used improperly. Words like ethics or ethical behavior and conservation are prime examples. It is my opinion that we, individually and collectively, should be more focused on good stewardship. That would apply to your example of man made water sources which may be a much needed feature due to shrinking habitat. Linking back to something mentioned earlier, improving habitat for whitetails improves the habitat for countless other wildlife species many of which are non-game species. Things like doing timber stand improvement cuts, controlled burns, food plots, fire breaks, water holes, etc, have a beneficial impact across the entirety of the managed area. Wildlife populations will ebb and flow with the quality of the habitat. If we want strong healthy wildlife populations, not just game animals, we need to have much more serious focus on stewardship of the available land that is left. Almost exclusively, hunters and fishermen are footing that bill.

 

[RCB]

I think a big problem with these type discussions is the tendency of society to turn an issue into a catchword cliche often used improperly. Words like ethics or ethical behavior and conservation are prime examples. It is my opinion that we, individually and collectively, should be more focused on good stewardship. That would apply to your example of man made water sources which may be a much needed feature due to shrinking habitat. Linking back to something mentioned earlier, improving habitat for whitetails improves the habitat for countless other wildlife species many of which are non-game species. Things like doing timber stand improvement cuts, controlled burns, food plots, fire breaks, water holes, etc, have a beneficial impact across the entirety of the managed area. Wildlife populations will ebb and flow with the quality of the habitat. If we want strong healthy wildlife populations, not just game animals, we need to have much more serious focus on stewardship of the available land that is left. Almost exclusively, hunters and fishermen are footing that bill.

Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I totally agree - to quote another commenter, to me it sounds a bit "more like farming than conservation". But I see where you're coming from and I don't necessarily disagree outright.

As an extreme example, consider natural areas that naturally have low biomass - there are just fewer things living there. Deserts are a prime case - too dry and too hot to support a large amount or variety of vegetation, which in turn means few herbivores, which means few carnivores. That's just the natural state of things for deserts. Would it be better if deserts didn't exist? If in their place were forests and grasslands? There'd certainly be more wildlife, more biodiversity, more useful rangeland, water sources, timber sources - all things we think of as "good". I realize this is a pretty useless hypothetical because we're not getting rid of deserts, but maybe it gets the idea across. More generally, how much should we alter the natural landscape to make produce more of the things we want, vs attempt to conserve it in its natural state (which does not necessarily mean leaving it alone)? What are the limits to this? Etc

 

[wind gypsy]

No secret that most hunter's primary efforts in conservation are towards their target species. That said, my understanding is that the DNR, Fish & Game, parks & wildlife, etc of each state is responsible for managing all flora/fauna of the state and these departments are largely funded by hunters. So whether intentional or as a byproduct, hunters are responsible for a bulk of the conservation efforts put forth each year.

Just the habitat that hunters protect for their target species creates a huge benefit for non-game species as well. Think about all of the habitat supported by duck stamps and all of the species that benefit.

 

[Btaylor]

Thanks for sharing. I'm not sure I totally agree - to quote another commenter, to me it sounds a bit "more like farming than conservation". But I see where you're coming from and I don't necessarily disagree outright.

As an extreme example, consider natural areas that naturally have low biomass - there are just fewer things living there. Deserts are a prime case - too dry and too hot to support a large amount or variety of vegetation, which in turn means few herbivores, which means few carnivores. That's just the natural state of things for deserts. Would it be better if deserts didn't exist? If in their place were forests and grasslands? There'd certainly be more wildlife, more biodiversity, more useful rangeland, water sources, timber sources - all things we think of as "good". I realize this is a pretty useless hypothetical because we're not getting rid of deserts, but maybe it gets the idea across. More generally, how much should we alter the natural landscape to make produce more of the things we want, vs attempt to conserve it in its natural state (which does not necessarily mean leaving it alone)? What are the limits to this? Etc

I did not mean to imply that landscapes be manipulated away from what they are naturally. I am saying that we need to manage the resources to keep each particular area in the highest level of health possible. Every landscape is different and the biology present is different. I am saying manage to that.

 

[joeljenewein]

More generally, how much should we alter the natural landscape to make produce more of the things we want, vs attempt to conserve it in its natural state (which does not necessarily mean leaving it alone)? What are the limits to this? Etc

The problem I see with this general thought is that we have already altered the natural landscape by inhabiting it the way we do. Ungulates and other critters have always had to contend with natural predators, but now, in their escape from natural predators may decide the land on the other side of that two lane highway seems to be safer and get smacked by a pickup on their way across.

How we inhabit the land is not going to change, and it isn't going to be reversed. In light of that, I understand the need for man made water troughs to use your example, or other methods of providing for critters that nature did not come up with on it's own.

 

[Okhotnik]

I think you are probably a little deeper in the throes of some personal conflict or crisis than can be adequately addressed in the forum here. It’s important to be true to yourself- and if you are indeed conflicted regarding current managment practices I would hope you have the integrity to withdraw your financial support and buy neither license not tag. It’s possible that your more of “sportsperson” or “outdoor lifestylist” than a hunter- though how you self identify is of no consequence to me- and I encourage you to utilize whatever title makes you most comfortable.

Read the wolf threads

 

[Okhotnik]

As a new hunter, I've read and heard a lot about how hunters have contributed to wildlife conservation in the US. (Some would say that "contributed" is too weak a word - maybe "driven" is more accurate.) There's no question that this true. Game animals are around now in high numbers largely because hunters funded the programs that helped recover their populations.

But I also wonder what exactly hunters and anglers think of the word "conservation"? What exactly is being conserved? A cynic or critic might say "hunters only care about conservation that benefits them: they mostly just support conservation efforts that give them more of the animals they like to hunt; they don't care about non-game animals, eco-system health (admittedly a vague term), etc". As a blanket statement I'm sure this is false. But is there any truth to it? Do we see conservation first and foremost as "more ungulates", and less about other considerations (e.g. biodiversity). No doubt there is a variety of opinion on the matter, so I'm curious to hear from you.

A random hypothetical question to provide an example:
Suppose by a collection of efforts, we could raise the ungulate populations of a region well above historical population densities. Possible ways: putting a bunch of water troughs in an arid area; removing most predators; clearing vegetation or burning old-growth forests at greater rates; significantly increasing food supplementation in winter; removing vegetation that ungulates don't like and replacing it with plants they do like. And so on. Let's say as a consequence of this, population densities double, to levels never seen before. And they stay that way for many years. Is this a good thing? What are the pros and cons that you see?

Feel free to point me to another post if this discussion has happened before.

Go spend some some actual time in wilderness areas instead of google

I’ve helped put in gurglers for chukar and that has helped hun and chukar populations

Go to Idaho and buy a few wolf tags. Great way to learn how to hunt

Join mule deer foundation and RMEF.

Our local MDF chapter has done a lot to help local herds

Your local state fish and game dept always need help repairing elk fences, clearing down timber etc

It’s tough grunt work so not very romantic. Can only spend so much time on duh internets for your quandary

 

[nv_hunter]

I think alot of people forget that recreational shooters, being non-hunters fund a significant amount of wildlife conservation. Aldo Leopold documented turning the Kaibab into a "sportsman's paradise." It wasnt ecologically sound management. In addition to the ecological health, massive ungulate populations spreads the threat of CWD. A worry I have is what CWD could do to the heritage of big game hunting if we can't find a solution to it soon.

Just my two cents.

 

[BuzzH]

As a new hunter, I've read and heard a lot about how hunters have contributed to wildlife conservation in the US. (Some would say that "contributed" is too weak a word - maybe "driven" is more accurate.) There's no question that this true. Game animals are around now in high numbers largely because hunters funded the programs that helped recover their populations.

But I also wonder what exactly hunters and anglers think of the word "conservation"? What exactly is being conserved? A cynic or critic might say "hunters only care about conservation that benefits them: they mostly just support conservation efforts that give them more of the animals they like to hunt; they don't care about non-game animals, eco-system health (admittedly a vague term), etc". As a blanket statement I'm sure this is false. But is there any truth to it? Do we see conservation first and foremost as "more ungulates", and less about other considerations (e.g. biodiversity). No doubt there is a variety of opinion on the matter, so I'm curious to hear from you.

A random hypothetical question to provide an example:
Suppose by a collection of efforts, we could raise the ungulate populations of a region well above historical population densities. Possible ways: putting a bunch of water troughs in an arid area; removing most predators; clearing vegetation or burning old-growth forests at greater rates; significantly increasing food supplementation in winter; removing vegetation that ungulates don't like and replacing it with plants they do like. And so on. Let's say as a consequence of this, population densities double, to levels never seen before. And they stay that way for many years. Is this a good thing? What are the pros and cons that you see?

Feel free to point me to another post if this discussion has happened before.

A couple things to consider:

1. The amount of conservation that hunters/fisherman can do is limited in scope. In most cases, a majority of the habitat is NOT owned, controlled or administered by State Game and Fish agencies. As such, about all the "control" they have is to set quotas on wildlife, control hunting regulations, bag limits, those kinds of things. The actual HABITAT they control, that they could augment somehow to "farm" wildlife is pretty small. Even within the state lands they control, there are separate and competing interests. Some are set aside (state wildlife management areas) for things like winter range other are administered for making profits for the State Trust/School trusts. Meaning that the primary function of those state lands are to recognize a profit to the state, many times that mandate is in direct conflict with what's in the best interest of conservation and/or wildlife.

2. I think you need to consider that conservation takes many forms, including the great work that many private landowners provide the "conservation/hunting" community. Some are very tolerant of the States wildlife and in many cases do things to enhance conservation on their lands. Also, the Federal Land management agencies are equally as tolerant as to how they conserve not only the State's wildlife, but also the habitat that supports the State Wildlife. Wildlife is only one of many things that the Federal Agencies are mandated to consider when making management decisions...recreation, clean water, clean air, diversity, grazing, logging, etc. etc. etc.

So, even if hunters and anglers want more game and fish to run hooks and bullets through, they're largely at the mercy of the private land owners and federal land agencies that they have little control over.

To me, conservation is not even close to just being about wildlife or creating more ungulates. Its about having the complete package, abundant wildlife, timber resources, grazing, recreation, clean water, clean air, and places where the public has access to all that.

Easy concept, but tough to make function for all the demands we place on our land and resources. It takes a concerted effort by everyone to make it all work. For the most part, I think we do an OK job balancing it all.

 

[ramont]

This is why education and REAL historical information is so important, without both we are destined to repeat the stupidity of the past.

All of what you are talking about was tried just about 100 years ago and it failed miserably. The great Theodore Roosevelt (I'm being sarcastic here because I think that the guy was an idiot) created the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve in 1906, the goal of which was to increase the numbers of mule deer on the Northern Arizona Kaibab plateau (because they were so pretty don't ya' know). They brought in food and water, they killed all of the predators that they could find, they banned hunting, and in the end, they almost wiped out every ungulate in northern Arizona. The natural selection process of weening out the weak and diseased no longer produced healthy animals that could withstand the winters and the diseased animals spread their illnesses everywhere. It took them about 15 years to destroy the animal population and another 40 years to recover most of their numbers.

 

[RCB]

This is why education and REAL historical information is so important, without both we are destined to repeat the stupidity of the past.

All of what you are talking about was tried just about 100 years ago and it failed miserably. The great Theodore Roosevelt (I'm being sarcastic here because I think that the guy was an idiot) created the Grand Canyon National Game Preserve in 1906, the goal of which was to increase the numbers of mule deer on the Northern Arizona Kaibab plateau (because they were so pretty don't ya' know). They brought in food and water, they killed all of the predators that they could find, they banned hunting, and in the end, they almost wiped out every ungulate in northern Arizona. The natural selection process of weening out the weak and diseased no longer produced healthy animals that could withstand the winters and the diseased animals spread their illnesses everywhere. It took them about 15 years to destroy the animal population and another 40 years to recover most of their numbers.

I'm not quite following. Natural selection happens naturally in every wild population... which is why it's called natural selection. It sounds like what you are really saying is that populations probably first increased (more food, more water, less predation and hunting -> more animals), which increased population densities, which allowed some disease to proliferate and knock out a lot of the population. The unintended consequence of letting a population get too crowded: disease wipes em out. That makes sense to me.
EDIT: I suppose habitat degradation would also potentially follow. Too many deer -> poor vegetation growth -> not enough food -> lots of dead deer

As for "All of what you are talking about was tried just about 100 years ago"... well, some of what I said is happening now. Again, right now there are water troughs in AZ deserts that exist solely to provide water to wildlife. I don't know what affect this is having on populations there. Nor do I think it's wrong. And if I remember correctly, some state agencies do supplement deer and elk herds with food in very difficult winters - or at least they have in the past. I'm sure many hunters think these are good things to do. I don't disagreed, just opening a discussion.

 

[RCB]

I am saying that we need to manage the resources to keep each particular area in the highest level of health possible.

This brings to mind another question: what is a "healthy" ecosystem (or habitat, environment, whatever)? Is more deer always healthier? Are we improving the "health" of deserts by adding sources of water that have never existed there before? How much is too much? etc

Want to remind everyone that I don't have good answers to these questions, or any axe to grind. Just trying to open up a discussion.

 

[RCB]

Can only spend so much time on duh internets for your quandary

Thanks for your conservation volunteer work and hunting advice. I'm not in a quandary; just interested in hearing others' opinions.

 

[RCB]

Someone mentioned the Kaibab deer population crash story, which I had never heard of, so I thought I'd look into. I'm sure many of you already know a lot about this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Thought I'd share two cool resources I found.

Apparently it's somewhat disputed exactly what happened, but the basics are known. Here's a little presentation that reviews the controversy:

http://modeling-the-environment.com/Len%20Zeoli%20Thesis%20Presentation.pdf

What is known is that deer herds got big and then crashed in the 1920s, probably due to forage degradation. Exactly why they got big, and why the vegetation sucked, is debated a bit.

Here's a 2006 paper showing that aspen growth appears to have been well below average around the 1920s (determined from aging aspen tress in the area, from growth rings). They take that as supporting the finding of extreme deer herbivory due to too many deer.

Was Aldo Leopold Right about the Kaibab Deer Herd? - Ecosystems

In ecology textbooks prior to the 1970s, Aldo Leopold’s classic story of predator control, overpopulation of deer, and habitat degradation on the Kaibab Plateau during the 1920s epitomized predator regulation of herbivore populations. However, the story disappeared from texts in the late 20th...

link.springer.com