"Conservation" = "More ungulates"?

[KurtR]

Well this is a really nuanced topic.

#conservation

 

[Danimal]

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:

You say you're a new hunter and I truly ask this with respect; why do you care what the cynics think? When you've been doing this for 30 straight years you learn after awhile that you can't worry about the cynics. Conservation, ethics, natural, restoration, pre-european, man-made, historic, etc. are all words that don't have a clear cut "real world" definition, and never will.

Aldo Leopold explored this topic but in my opinion never defined a particular target. My favorite quote from him is one that applies to all aspects of our human life. Ol' Aldo said....

“We shall never achieve harmony with the land, anymore than we shall achieve absolute justice or liberty for people. In these higher aspirations the important thing is not to achieve but to strive.”

My advice to you is don't get caught up in the details, and for sure don't worry about the critics. Get out there, hunt, join a NGO or not for profit, and get after it.

Happy hunting.

 

[bitbckt]

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.

This process also restores water resources on the landscape that were removed by human activity - there's no natural reason why the major metros of the southwest should be able to support 1/4 of their current population's water usage.

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

You might read Jim Heffelfinger's "Deer of the Southwest" for insight into the biology and (esp.) the management of deer from perhaps *the* most reputable, current source on the topic. The book includes coverage of Kaibab.

 

[RCB]

You might read Jim Heffelfinger's "Deer of the Southwest" for insight into the biology and (esp.) the management of deer from perhaps *the* most reputable, current source on the topic. The book includes coverage of Kaibab.

Great idea. Thanks.

 

[backstrapsaregood]

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.

Well said!

 

[tt_johnsclist]

For me it comes down to how you define conservation. Many hunters, as the original poster suggests, primarily define “game preservation” as conservation. Historically they have done a good job of limiting harvest and enacting mandatory licenses and fees to facilitate this game preservation and should be commended for that no doubt. But as another poster mentioned, many people, including a few hunters, define conservation as much more than simply preserving sufficient game to kill. This, I believe, is where hunter “conservation” falls way short - and the old hook and bullet organization catch phrase “what we do for game is good for those other species also” just doesn’t cut it anymore. I think we as hunters would do well to move our game preservation more towards real conservation rather than alienating ourselves from the rest of the conservation community as we tend to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Okhotnik]

For me it comes down to how you define conservation. Many hunters, as the original poster suggests, primarily define “game preservation” as conservation. Historically they have done a good job of limiting harvest and enacting mandatory licenses and fees to facilitate this game preservation and should be commended for that no doubt. But as another poster mentioned, many people, including a few hunters, define conservation as much more than simply preserving sufficient game to kill. This, I believe, is where hunter “conservation” falls way short - and the old hook and bullet organization catch phrase “what we do for game is good for those other species also” just doesn’t cut it anymore. I think we as hunters would do well to move our game preservation more towards real conservation rather than alienating ourselves from the rest of the conservation community as we tend to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You think the tens of millions of dollars from the pitman Robertson act ( sportsmen) for Conservation is not notable?

What about all the good work and millions of dollars and hours donated every year by RMEF, DU, TU, MDF, QU , FF , SCI etc are a pittance?

Perhaps one should get educated on all the good work sportsmen do every year for conservation.

Shame the op not interested

 

[Akwoodchuck]

A new hunter that is curious about the natural world and its endless, intricate connections instead of the latest clothes and gadgets?
...hallelujah, my faith has been restored...

 

[tt_johnsclist]

You think the tens of millions of dollars from the pitman Robertson act ( sportsmen) for Conservation is not notable?

What about all the good work and millions of dollars and hours donated every year by RMEF, DU, TU, MDF, QU , FF , SCI etc are a pittance?

Perhaps one should get educated on all the good work sportsmen do every year for conservation.

Shame the op not interested

Not at all, I think those accomplishments are incredible! You took me all wrong! My point was that those actions, as great as they are, were made and continue to be made in the name of game preservation. As commendable as that is I think we could make hunting much more relevant and do a better job of including other non-hunting funding sources today if we did a better job of aligning our definition of conservation with society’s much broader definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin Dill]

Balanced wildlife populations are a dynamic thing. Conservation of certain species tends to skew the balance by weighting things in favor of what hunters want. All of our (hunters) efforts at 'conservation' won't achieve a true natural balance, simply because those efforts are invariably weighted....however slightly....in favor of the species we place higher on our priority scale.

Conservation is a noble-sounding term used by a number of people and groups, but often with opposing viewpoints and objectives.

 

[RCB]

Perhaps one should get educated on all the good work sportsmen do every year for conservation.

What about all the good work and millions of dollars and hours donated every year by RMEF, DU, TU, MDF, QU , FF , SCI etc are a pittance?

Shame the op not interested

I am not sure on what grounds you make that accusation, given that I started this post out of my interest in this topic. I also wonder what makes you so confident that I am not already a contributor to some of those organizations. Perhaps, Okhotnik, you do not know me as well as you think you do.

 

[Okhotnik]

I reread your post. You contradict your own statements based on your other posts stating you are brand new to hunting and using google to teach yourself about hunting which I think is a waste of time imo

Your hypothetical Wildlife Conservation suggestions are already being done by the sportsmen/ Conservation groups I listed above.

As sportsmen we do more work for Conservation than any of the well funded anti hunting Conservation groups. They’re just better at propaganda. I wish sportsmen would publish more media of all the good work we do for the non hunting public.
That is a major problem for us.

 

[RCB]

As sportsmen we do more work for Conservation than any of the well funded anti hunting Conservation groups. They’re just better at propaganda. I wish sportsmen would publish more media of all the good work we do for the non hunting public.
That is a major problem for us.

I'm inclined to agree. Thanks.

 

[Murdy]

There's an underlying premise here, that we humans, hunters and otherwise, don't necessarily agree on. Is human activity natural? That is, are we part of nature or above nature. If the former, the mere fact that we change things does not make them unnatural and in need of restoration. Rather, we should strive to act in such ways as to do as little harm to the planet as possible. That it might change the balance of certain animal populations (for example) is not necessarily bad--as in adding water troughs in the desert. The quandary only arises if you consider human activity to be inherently unnatural and in need of remediation.

On another point, hunters are not the only group that has a direct affect on game populations. Some groups actively oppose expanding game populations. The farm bureau and the insurance industry generally favor increased tag quotas for whitetails in my state. That sort of activity needs to be accounted for too.

 

[New Yoraska]

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.

Thanks for starting a dialogue for people to share their thoughts on the subject.

The hypothetical you gave is very real in the Northeast. I grew up in NY and in many places their deer are considered a native exotic. Their population has grown beyond a historic level and as such have changed the forest plant structure.

While I personally get involved with the organizations mentioned before I also make sure to give other projects that don't deal with game species my volunteer time.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk