[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Fri Jun 21 17:00:22 UTC 2002


> Jeme> "Replaced" is a tricky word.  We might do the population
> Jeme> balancing, but we don't do the other positive things (like take
> Jeme> non-game animals or leave carcasses for scavengers or provide
> Jeme> host for parasites and symbiotic organisms).
> 
> Furthermore, predators tend to eat the old, young, sick or weak first.
> This has the effect of increasing the average fitness of the remaining
> prey population.

True, and good point.

>  Human hunters, armed with rifles and grocery-store
> backup, are more likely to want to shoot the strongest, healthiest
> individual prey animal first, which has the opposite bias.

Hmm.  I can see this being true in many cases.

On that note, I do have more to add, just for the fun of seeing where it
goes.  I'm just making it up as I go, but the whole purpose of this is to
think about things, right? :)


Most hunters (I think, anyway), while they are primarily in it for the food
and the experience, are aiming for a trophy if at all possible as well.  The
best trophies are the oldest animals.  This might help pull their harvesting
tendencies toward the old, at least.

As for the young, I don't see taking them as neccessarily helping the prey
population the same way weeding out the old and weak does.  While increasing
the average fitness, it also increases the average age.  If too many are
taken it will have a negative impact, for that reason.  (Where would the
future healthy ones come from?)  Take too few (a probable effect of human
hunting) and it will increase the strong healthy population... but too much.
(They've evolved to withstand taking of a certain amount by natural
predators.   So taking less could lead to overpopulation.)  Which increases
the need for more taking of the middle population.  So those that can't bag
an old trophy can still take something without hurting the population badly,
and helping prevent overpopulation.  At least I hope it works out that way.


I'm not saying we're a good substitute or even a real substitute for natural
predators.  :)  (Or even that we even should be in a position where we need
to try to fill in for them.)  I'm just finding the effects that we might
have on a population and how they differ from natural ones pretty
interesting.

Which is probably something the Dept of F&W gets into a lot.  Should we find
some rangers and drag them in for an interview, to see what they can tell
us? :)





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list