Author Topic: Hunting bad for animal populations  (Read 766 times)

Offline Dune

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1727
      • http://www.352ndfightergroup.com/
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2003, 07:51:34 AM »
Quote
Journal of Mammalogy: Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 682–698.

INFLUENCE OF TROPHY HUNTING AND HORN SIZE ON MATING BEHAVIOR AND SURVIVORSHIP OF MOUNTAIN SHEEP
Francis J. Singer,a and Linda C. Zeigenfussa

aU.S. Geological Survey, Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, and Natural Resources Ecology Lab, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
 

ABSTRACT

We conducted a study of the effects of horn sizes and trophy hunting on mating behavior and survival of rams in hunted and unhunted populations of Dall sheep (Ovis dalli), Rocky Mountain bighorn (O. canadensis canadensis), and desert bighorn (O. c. nelsoni) sheep. Mating success was positively correlated with horn size in Dall sheep (P = 0.03) and Rocky Mountain bighorns (P = 0.05), but not in the desert bighorn (P > 0.05) taxa. Group sizes, rams per rut group, and competition between rams were lowest in desert bighorn sheep. There were indications of greater harassment of ewes by young rams in trophy-hunted populations. In hunted populations, compared with unhunted, ewes ran away more often from approaching rams, ewes moved farther away from courting young rams (P = 0.003), younger rams performed fewer courtship displays (P = 0.042) and more aggressive displays to ewes, and sheep interacted 27% more of the time. Ram-to-ewe interaction times per individual ewe did not differ for any of the taxa (P > 0.05), and, apparently as a consequence of this, we found no discernable effects of trophy hunting on survivorship of ewes, ewe fecundity, or recruitment of young (P > 0.05). There were greater energy expenditures by young rams in the heavily hunted Dall sheep population versus the paired Dall sheep unhunted population, but not in the lightly hunted Rocky Mountain and desert bighorn populations when compared with unhunted populations. This was consistent with evidence for depressed survivorship of rams too young or too small to be hunted (approximately ages 4–6) in the heavily hunted Dall sheep population (P = 0.0001), but not in the bighorn sheep populations (P > 0.05).

Keywords: mating behavior, Ovis canadensis, Ovis dalli, survivorship, trophy hunting.

Submitted: 12 September 2000
Manuscript Accepted 27 November 2001

Section Editor: John G. Kie

© 2002, American Society of Mammalogists



http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-abstract&issn=0022-2372&volume=083&issue=03&page=0682

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2003, 07:55:58 AM »
Gee david, after reading Dunes article by field biologists, now its hard to tell whos telling the truth! ;)

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10165
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2003, 08:29:15 AM »
look at those shifty eyes.
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Dago

  • Parolee
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5324
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2003, 10:26:06 AM »
Once again, davidpt only posts something of a negative theme.

Never anything really interesting, positive or thought provoking.

Must be an abused child.


dago
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2003, 10:42:37 AM »
Quote
Once again, davidpt only posts something of a negative theme.

Never anything really interesting, positive or thought provoking.

Must be an abused child.


OTOH, this is a prime example of a happy-clapper, sunshine post.
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline Otto

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1566
      • http://www.cris.com/~ziggy2/
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2003, 10:53:26 AM »
LONDON (Reuters) -- Trophy-hunting has taken an
evolutionary toll on Canada's bighorn sheep, scientists
said on Wednesday.


Why the hell can't they do the same for Canadian Geese???

Offline Dune

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1727
      • http://www.352ndfightergroup.com/
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2003, 11:24:55 AM »
The Boone and Crockett club keeps track of the biggest antelered animals taken in the world.  They are the Guiness book for hunting.  They list the largest bighorn as one taken in 2002 in Alberta.  Seems there are still some big ones in Canada.

BTW, this is what animal populations ahve done in the last century:



This is what a century of conservation and sustainable hunting has brought us.  Larger populations which means a bigger gene pool and healthier herds.  I would suspect that whoever wrote that study has an axe to grind.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2003, 11:31:31 AM by Dune »

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2003, 11:34:07 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Maverick
That doesn't seem to follow. The rams reach breeding age long before they get the massive horns. The horns are best towards the start of the end of their breeding career so they should have already passed on their genes earlier.

This has been the case with deer herds and their numbers are far in excess of what they were 200 years ago.

I think I smell an antihunting theme to this "report".

Get out of here, with your evil common sense.  Murderer!

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2003, 11:38:16 AM »
I don't know about bighorn sheep but in California we bracket Sturgeon, not sure of the sizes but I think they have to be over 42" and under 60" (or whatever) to keep. Buddy of mine caught one that was over 72" and he had to let it go...I wasn't there, but he said he cried.

Offline Toad

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18415
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2003, 12:03:30 PM »
There's areas that "bracket" elk too.

In some Colorado areas you can shoot spikes or four point or better but nothing in between.  Other areas, no spikes.

Game animals and hunting are "managed" all the time.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2003, 01:00:39 PM »
I counted a flock of over 50 wild turkeys at my Parents' place.

One reason deer and elk are more plentiful is that areas that have been logged provide better habitat for them than areas of old growth forrest. Told that to a tree hugger once and they got PO'd, but it's true.

Offline ra

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3569
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2003, 01:05:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
I counted a flock of over 50 wild turkeys at my Parents' place.

One reason deer and elk are more plentiful is that areas that have been logged provide better habitat for them than areas of old growth forrest. Told that to a tree hugger once and they got PO'd, but it's true.

Yup, many treehuggers don't realise that an old-growth forest is just a desert covered by trees.  That's why for thousands of years the Indians burned huge swaths of forests, to give grasslands and young forests a chance to grow, increasing the productivity of the land immeasurably.  The Great Plains were man-made.

ra

Offline davidpt40

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1053
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2003, 01:43:49 PM »
Go take your anti-depressants dago.

Offline AKcurly

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2003, 01:51:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Dune
The Boone and Crockett club keeps track of the biggest antelered animals taken in the world.  They are the Guiness book for hunting.  They list the largest bighorn as one taken in 2002 in Alberta.  Seems there are still some big ones in Canada.

BTW, this is what animal populations ahve done in the last century:



This is what a century of conservation and sustainable hunting has brought us.  Larger populations which means a bigger gene pool and healthier herds.  I would suspect that whoever wrote that study has an axe to grind.


Geez, you forgot to list the population levels of the predators.  I don't see griz listed anywhere?  Wolves?  Cougars?  Jaguar (Texas)?

curly

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13899
Hunting bad for animal populations
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2003, 10:02:24 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by ra
Get out of here, with your evil common sense.  Murderer!


I'm not a murderer. Those deer were armed, I swear it!!! Bagdad Bob will corroborate the story!










:p :lol
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown