From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:13:35 GMT

In article <d0oN02Tl1eq701@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:
>I wrote:
>
> > A common claim made by hunters is that, by culling herds to supportable 
>>levels, they're actually reducing the suffering and death incurred by the 
>>herd as a whole. 
> 

Culling is only one possible benefit, certainly not the only reaon for hunting.

>
>1. Fowl - my guess is that rarely, if ever, is hunting needed to reduce flock 
>sizes to avoid starvation due to a lack of predation. Is this a reasonable 
>guess? Also, my guess is that birds constitute the single largest target 
>group, in terms of total kills. Is this guess any good?
> 

A reasonable guess, but rabbits are the number one game animal, followed by
deer.

>2. Large Predators - these species (bear, coyote, wolf, cougar) have no 
>natural predators responsible for population control (outside their own 
>species), so obviously there's no predation vacuum that needs human filling.
>

Since prehistoric times, man has hunted them. Why do you claim we are
"unnatural" predators? Reasons for hunting them may (not always) include:
    1. Protection of livestock
    2. Apparent danger to people. I read a while back a cougar was killed
       withing the Colorado Springs city limits. Coyotes in some areas have
       expanded into the suburbs where they find domestic pets to be easy
       pickings. Grizzly attacks increase in areas where they have no reason
       to fear humans.
    3. Property damage. I would venture a guess that if bears were ravaging
       your cabin and strewing your garbage around, you would not appreciate
       it.
>3. Ungulates - there may be some cases where the claim applies to ungulates 
>(note, though, Russell Lawrence's contention that even here application of 
>this claim is ill-advised). How often it applies, I have no idea.  

I believe Russell is saying that long term population control will occur
without hunting. Personally, I believe him but think it an idealistic position
that won't work in suburban and agricultural areas. 

>4. Little critters (that's the technical term, you know) - squirrel, racoons, 
>possum, what else? Don't lots of people like to hunt these little beings? Are 
>they threatened with starvation due to lack of predation? Is such hunting  
>regulated?
>

Population cycles for rabbits are well documented but little understood. If 
they do starve, the carcasses are so small as to be quickly consumed or easily
overlooked. I don't think culling can be used as justification for hunting
small game in most cases. The facts that they reproduce quickly, are fun to 
hunt, and taste great are good enough for me.
>
>  <... but the people who come up with hunting quotas are wildlife experts, 
>   and I trust them to come up with the right numbers.> 
>
>Such trust might make sense if the charter of the limit-setters was 
>"target the MINIMUM number of kills needed to avoid starvation". 
>
>In fact, I suspect their charter (de facto if not de jure) is closer to  
>"target the MAXIMUM number of kills the targetted species can tolerate". 
> 

It's a very complex cost-benefit analysis, benefits including hunter
recreation. The target is more along the lines of maintaining the maximum 
number of healthy animals on a given range. This supplies the maximum possible
benefit in terms of hunter "harvest". (I love using this word here because 
it obviously irritates some to think of animals as a renewable resource.
Immature of me, I know, but I just can't help it.)

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com