Moral Ecological Dilemma

[Doc]

As Mike pointed out, the original question to this thread is not why one hunts but the contradictions in the logic.

Contradiction #1. Explaining that we should hunt predators because they're eating all the small game and deer and then turning around and explaining why we should hunt small game and deer because they are over populated.

Mike explained this very well with the fact that predators also kill off native and endangered species.

Contradiction #2. Trying to manage bigger and healthier bucks but yet we tend to kill the bigger healthier bucks which means the weaker bucks are the ones that end up passing down their genes.

I guess you have assumed that we hunt only to control populations. In actuality, that is only a side effect of our hunting. Perhaps we are effective in deer population control and perhaps bear populations, but there is no way that we have any effect on predator populations, or the bunnies or the squirrels, or the grouse populations, etc., etc. So I don't really see our hunting of predators as being a contradiction because I don't believe in the original premise that our hunting them has any impact on the populations of other critters. To be honest with you, I don't believe that the predator hunting in NYS is in any way effective or has any significance in population control of anything .... including the predators themselves. We do not rely on predator control for population control of other species. That is a losing battle.

On your second point .... here you have made the assumption that we are actually hunting to control the genetic make-up of the herd. We are not. Nor are we capable of doing that. Again that is the reason for all the "why we hunt" replies. They are simply reactions to a flawed premise in the original post of why we hunt. Hunting has nothing to do with hunting based natural selection and evolution of superior or inferior deer. We don't really have it in our power to do that. We have been hunting the biggest, best and strongest of the herd for generations, and have yet to make any significant change in the make-up of the herd. It's not a contradiction, it is simply a non-issue.

[Elmo]

I see your point, Doc but I don't completely agree. If we have no effect on population then why does the DEC set bag limits and date limits?

[greybeard]

Elmo..

.I understand your issues. I have questioned myself quite a few times over the years. I believe you should be guided by your own conscience, It's good to understand why others hunt, but be guided by your own values.

I like to eat game birds,some waterfowl, turkey and squirrel so I have no problem taking some for food.

I was a coon hunter for a number of years and myself and most times the men I hunted with had a one coon per night rule. Even though there was no limit, and some nights the hounds treed a few coons, we imposed our own limit so as not to wipe out the local populations in our VERY limited spots.

During my waterfowl days I also limited the number of kills and would not shoot ducks that tasted like low tide.

As far as fox and crows, neither of which I, or any friends would eat, I did "mostly" calling . Kind of catch and release.(obviously I didn't literally catch them). I am not opposed to shooting them and through the years I have taken a number of crows that I called by hand calls.. ( I realize that some predator and varmint control is necessary.) I have spots where neither species is hunted and call as many as I want and not screw it up for the predator guys.( The only thing anyone hunts in some of those spots are ducks). By calling I get the thrill of the hunt, and don't have to skin anything.. The fox and crows will become very wary so you have to continuously change calls and strategies. I've had some really great calling only hunts for different species ...If you try just calling, use caution with predators, I carry a rather long stick and have had to poke a few , or they would have been on me.and I could have possibly been bitten.Maybe it's rare, but it could happen. There's a good video on youtube which shows a raccoon attacking the caller.

I have 0 experience with coyotes. and bobcats.

[mike rossi]

Predator control by trapping done by wildlife staff in nesting hot spots increases nest success very much, it is a valuable tool. I know thats different than the predator control most people think of, thats why I am pointing it out.

[Doc]

I see your point, Doc but I don't completely agree. If we have no effect on population then why does the DEC set bag limits and date limits?

In fact that we do not have bag limits on the coyote that you are concerned about shooting. Furthermore, there is a very limited participation in coyote hunting. And on top of that, the coyote sits on top of his food chain with the only exception being hunters and disease (and maybe a car or two ..... lol). So whether you shoot that coyote or not, you will have absolutely no significant impact on the deer herd. Certainly, if you spare that coyote, you will not make any difference in how many deer have to be harvested the following year. So there really is no contradiction.

Yes, we have an intensive deer, bear, and turkey management system that has some levels of success at population control. Does that mean that we have any kind of control on predator/prey ratios? ...... I don't think so. But more to the point we are talking about a perceived contradiction of predator/prey balancing through hunting. And I maintain that there is nothing we can do as hunters to achieve or effect that balance.

So go ahead and shoot that coyote. There is no need to feel that hunting predators is going to cause some explosion in deer populations or any other prey population. In the greater scheme of things, you will make absolutely no significant impact because we are incapable of regulating predator/prey ratios to a self-sustaining level. Hunting predators is not at odds with deer management.

[Elmo]

Doc, there are no bag limits but there are date limits. For example, unprotected species such as woodchucks you can hunt with no bag limits any time of there year where as coyotes you cannot hunt from April to September. That's 5 whole months that is crucial to it's repopulation because that's when the mothers are rearing the young. I don't see coyotes as having an impact on deer populations because while they do eat their share of fawns, I think the bulk of their diet would be rodents and other small game. Lastly, as far as participation, I do not have a actual count to go by but from the interest I see from this forum, I see white tail hunting at the very top by far with coyote hunting as the second most popular group, albeit a distant second.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Elmo

[nyantler]

I think that if there were any significant numbers of coyotes being taken that caused the population of coyotes to become endangered.. you might see bag limits and greater restriction on them... mother nature usually adapts to take care of everything as long as we don't overdo it and really screw things up.

[phade]

Doc, there are no bag limits but there are date limits. For example, unprotected species such as woodchucks you can hunt with no bag limits any time of there year where as coyotes you cannot hunt from April to September. That's 5 whole months that is crucial to it's repopulation because that's when the mothers are rearing the young. I don't see coyotes as having an impact on deer populations because while they do eat their share of fawns, I think the bulk of their diet would be rodents and other small game. Lastly, as far as participation, I do not have a actual count to go by but from the interest I see from this forum, I see white tail hunting at the very top by far with coyote hunting as the second most popular group, albeit a distant second.

The seasonal dates for yotes has to do more with the implements used and current methods of hunting them paried with increased outdoor activity at that point of the year.

Coyotes do get some press for ravaging deer numbers...some of it is sensationalized, but you cannot deny that the growing population can have a large impact on deer numbers. There are two major points in which coyotes target deer, the first being around fawn drop and the second being a point in time in winter - this was shown in a few studies...I think Cornell had one and the QDMA sourced one (possibly through UGA). Mother nature tries to combat the predatory impact on deer by coyotes, bears, etc. by "flooding the market" so to speak...in other words, does drop their fawns in a relatively short window. If dragged out, coyotes have a longer period where they can take advantage of this. Instead, monther nature has so many fawns that while some are pinched, there's simply too many out there for the yotes to completely decimate the deer herd. Now, in localized areas, this can be a bigger issue (say lower deer numbers and high snowfall, compounded by winter mortality).

Trapping coyotes in localized areas can significantly improve fawn survival rates (one study was conducted on ground near a power plant in SC that was open to hunting). The place had the perfect data collection for decades prior...in the early 2000s the deer numbers started dropping. Biologists were able to trace it back to the coyotes and I think they found that 3/4 or a very similar number of fawns were being taken by coyotes. They radio collared several does/fawns and were able to track them...as soon as one stopped moving for a period of time, they raced to the site for evidence (they were able to conclude that a static signal in the same spot for XX time meant the fawn was dead)...and guess what, coyote predation was the cause of all of the mortalities.

They brought trappers in and boom...fawn survival started improving right away the following year and again the next. After the third year, they were able to approach the deer numbers just prior to the downturn.

Edited August 17, 2012 by phade

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Yote season is open 365...isn't it?

[phade]

Yote season is open 365...isn't it?

SSS?

[mike rossi]

Predator control by trapping done by wildlife staff in nesting hot spots increases nest success very much, it is a valuable tool. I know thats different than the predator control most people think of, thats why I am pointing it out.

It should also be pointed out that even if hunters are not doing the actual predator control, we are funding it, including projects for non game, threatened, and endangered species.

[mike rossi]

Predator control, at least focused predator control, sometimes increases the survival of prey animals. But some of the non hunting public, some biologists, and, off course, anti hunters do not believe it is ethical to control predators when the goal is to increase game populations for hunting. The debate is fueled by the contridiction created by the promotion of hunting's importance in population control of game animals. Elmo is simply asking: How do you all reconcile that?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

The problem wit predators is they mostly are NOT specific in their approach. Alowing a predator population to increase may cause the over use of a prey animal that is not needed. as you cited about endangered species. We, as thinking predators can be selective in out take, as demonstrated by our game laws. We can take Black ducks one year ans if the population falls the balck duck season closes. We can still duck hun but focus on other more populated species. any other natural predator would be taking mallards, blacks, and others and does not have the ability to evaluate one against the other. That is the benefit I think we bring to the table over a natural predator.

[mike rossi]

The problem wit predators is they mostly are NOT specific in their approach. Alowing a predator population to increase may cause the over use of a prey animal that is not needed. as you cited about endangered species. We, as thinking predators can be selective in out take, as demonstrated by our game laws. We can take Black ducks one year ans if the population falls the balck duck season closes. We can still duck hun but focus on other more populated species. any other natural predator would be taking mallards, blacks, and others and does not have the ability to evaluate one against the other. That is the benefit I think we bring to the table over a natural predator.

Thats interesting and it debunks the opponents stance that game management sometimes neglects species diversity...

[Doc]

Predator control, at least focused predator control, sometimes increases the survival of prey animals. But some of the non hunting public, some biologists, and, off course, anti hunters do not believe it is ethical to control predators when the goal is to increase game populations for hunting. The debate is fueled by the contridiction created by the promotion of hunting's importance in population control of game animals. Elmo is simply asking: How do you all reconcile that?

First of all, I still maintain that humans are not efficient population controllers of coyotes. The only places where I have ever heard of where humans were able to make permanent, significant changes in coyote populations are from rancher activities out west when bounties and poisons were regularly used. Here in NYS we do not have the will to control coyote populations. There is no financial incentives to do that. Trappers and hunters can be marginally effective for short periods of time and on a very limited basis, but I have never heard of these activities by themselves being a significant control of coyote populations especially when it is done at the insignificant rate that it is practiced in NYS. So there is no justified contradiction that I can see. If I shoot a coyote, there will be no noticeable impact on the deer herd as the initial thread premise assumed.

Second, I do not reconcile predator hunting even if it were to be mistakenly motivated as being for the benefit of deer populations. I don't reconcile it because I don't feel the need to. And that is where all the talk on this thread about why we hunt began. I do not hunt coyotes to control coyote populations or to have any effect on deer populations (we have antlerless permits that are designed to perform that function). When I do hunt coyotes or any kind of predator it is simply because it is another separate species to hunt. And so, I don't feel any contradictions or controversies or dilemmas. Also, even if we could magically manipulate coyote populations to favor deer populations, I would never feel a need to justify that to anybody or question the morals or ethics behind that decision. It is a non-issue as far as I am concerned. There is no legitimate concern there. I place that emotional struggle in the same vein as arguing that no one should hunt things that they do not eat. That too another emotional wrestling match that I simply don't get involved in. The short answer to it all is that no reconciliation is required. It doesn't belong in the realm of ethics or morals and certainly is not a dilemma. At least that is the way I view it all. Others certainly may view it differently, but I feel that getting into those kinds of emotional aspects of hunting is beginning to play the anti-hunters game. And I don't play that.

[Elmo]

It certainly isn't about playing their game but it also wouldn't hurt to win them over.

[Doc]

It certainly isn't about playing their game but it also wouldn't hurt to win them over.

Ok, but I thought this thread was about a personal moral wrestling match you were going through. If you are talking about debate material to justify hunting, I would suggest that you simply examine why you hunt and base your arguments accordingly. Anyone that I am trying to "win over" will have to be convinced of why I hunt and the fact that it has nothing to do with playing one population against the other. If they can't accept that, then the debate is over.

You see, you started out the thread by assuming that we justify hunting based on the fact that as hunters we are required to step in where vanished predators are no longer doing the job. I'm saying that that is not my reason for hunting. That is not even in my mind when I am out there hunting and it would be dishonest of me to say that it was. Population control may be a by-product but it is not the reason I am hunting. If I use that reason to justify hunting to someone else, my argument is going to sound hollow and is not going to be believable simply because it's not the true reason that I hunt.

[Elmo]

Ok, but I thought this thread was about a personal moral wrestling match you were going through. If you are talking about debate material to justify hunting, I would suggest that you simply examine why you hunt and base your arguments accordingly. Anyone that I am trying to "win over" will have to be convinced of why I hunt and the fact that it has nothing to do with playing one population against the other. If they can't accept that, then the debate is over.

You see, you started out the thread by assuming that we justify hunting based on the fact that as hunters we are required to step in where vanished predators are no longer doing the job. I'm saying that that is not my reason for hunting. That is not even in my mind when I am out there hunting and it would be dishonest of me to say that it was. Population control may be a by-product but it is not the reason I am hunting. If I use that reason to justify hunting to someone else, my argument is going to sound hollow and is not going to be believable simply because it's not the true reason that I hunt.

Understood. That makes sense.

[Caveman]

Is anyone else here not a good enough hunter to really be faced with this issue too often? lol

[Doc]

Is anyone else here not a good enough hunter to really be faced with this issue too often? lol

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with not being a "good enough hunter". I took the question as simply being a reaction to what appeared to be a couple of potential ethical contradictions. Certainly it was a valid enough question and a good topic for discussion. I don't understand any connection to who is or isn't a good enough hunter.

[Caveman]

Just a joke Doc, I meant I'm not a good enough hunter to have to worry about the ethics of killing things because I don't get the chance to kill them. Just a little self-depricating humor.

[Doc]

Just a joke Doc, I meant I'm not a good enough hunter to have to worry about the ethics of killing things because I don't get the chance to kill them. Just a little self-depricating humor.

I get it now .... lol. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Caveman]

Not a problem, if you read it that way I'm assuming others did too

[Meat Hunter]

I also have a hard time explaining the need to hunt the bigger, better buck. In nature, the predators takes out the weak which ensures that the species continues to evolve to be stronger and better but it seems the human predator has a negative effect in that we eliminate only the stronger specimens and ensure the weak survive.

The only time I have heard this "hunters kill the best and strongest" argument is from a PETA girl. In fact NY hunters kill all the male deer as juveniles. Actually it is 85% at 2.5 years and younger and 99.5+ % before they are 4.5 years old. That creates an unnatural population that has insufficient adults bucks to engage in natural and normal social deer behavior. Hunters only wish to harvest the biggest and strongest in fact and practice the opposite is true.

By the way nice job on the invasive birds. Hardly anyone seems to know let alone act on that.

[shawnhu]

.

By the way nice job on the invasive birds. Hardly anyone seems to know let alone act on that.

Because they are not considered trophies.