Question: What very active tradition Trinidad and Tabago have?

Answer: hunting of small to medium-sized wild game

<hl> There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. <hl> Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

There is a very active tradition of <hl> hunting of small to medium-sized wild game <hl> in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

question: What very active tradition Trinidad and Tabago have?, context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.


Question: What animal aids in the hunting?

Answer: hounds

There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. <hl> Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds , with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. <hl> With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of <hl> hounds <hl>, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of <hl> hounds <hl> , with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets.

question: What animal aids in the hunting?, context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.


Question: What population has extirpated?

Answer: red brocket deer

There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. <hl> As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer ) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). <hl> It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and <hl> red brocket deer <hl>) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and <hl> red brocket deer <hl> ) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013).

question: What population has extirpated?, context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.


Question: What do hunters pay to obtain hunting license?

Answer: very small fees

There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. <hl> Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. <hl> There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay <hl> very small fees <hl> to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.

question: What do hunters pay to obtain hunting license?, context: There is a very active tradition of hunting of small to medium-sized wild game in Trinidad and Tobago. Hunting is carried out with firearms, and aided by the use of hounds, with the illegal use of trap guns, trap cages and snare nets. With approximately 12,000 sport hunters applying for hunting licences in recent years (in a very small country of about the size of the state of Delaware at about 5128 square kilometers and 1.3 million inhabitants), there is some concern that the practice might not be sustainable. In addition there are at present no bag limits and the open season is comparatively very long (5 months - October to February inclusive). As such hunting pressure from legal hunters is very high. Added to that, there is a thriving and very lucrative black market for poached wild game (sold and enthusiastically purchased as expensive luxury delicacies) and the numbers of commercial poachers in operation is unknown but presumed to be fairly high. As a result, the populations of the five major mammalian game species (red-rumped agouti, lowland paca, nine-banded armadillo, collared peccary, and red brocket deer) are thought to be quite low (although scientifically conducted population studies are only just recently being conducted as of 2013). It appears that the red brocket deer population has been extirpated on Tobago as a result of over-hunting. Various herons, ducks, doves, the green iguana, the gold tegu, the spectacled caiman and the common opossum are also commonly hunted and poached. There is also some poaching of 'fully protected species', including red howler monkeys and capuchin monkeys, southern tamanduas, Brazilian porcupines, yellow-footed tortoises, Trinidad piping guans and even one of the national birds, the scarlet ibis. Legal hunters pay very small fees to obtain hunting licences and undergo no official basic conservation biology or hunting-ethics training. There is presumed to be relatively very little subsistence hunting in the country (with most hunting for either sport or commercial profit). The local wildlife management authority is under-staffed and under-funded, and as such very little in the way of enforcement is done to uphold existing wildlife management laws, with hunting occurring both in and out of season, and even in wildlife sanctuaries. There is some indication that the government is beginning to take the issue of wildlife management more seriously, with well drafted legislation being brought before Parliament in 2015. It remains to be seen if the drafted legislation will be fully adopted and financially supported by the current and future governments, and if the general populace will move towards a greater awareness of the importance of wildlife conservation and change the culture of wanton consumption to one of sustainable management.


Question: What does hunting give resource managers an important tool?

Answer: managing populations

<hl> Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] <hl> In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in <hl> managing populations <hl> that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: What does hunting give resource managers an important tool?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What is carrying capacity in most circumstances determined by?

Answer: combination habitat and food availability,

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by <hl> a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] <hl> In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a <hl> combination habitat and food availability, <hl> and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: What is carrying capacity in most circumstances determined by?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What do some environmentalists assert reintroducing predators would achieve?

Answer: same end

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] <hl> that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. <hl>

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the <hl> same end <hl> with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: What do some environmentalists assert reintroducing predators would achieve?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: How is hunting an important tool for resource managers?

Answer: managing populations

<hl> Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] <hl> In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in <hl> managing populations <hl> that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: How is hunting an important tool for resource managers?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What happens if a population exceeds the carrying capacity of their habitat?

Answer: threaten the well-being of other species

<hl> Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species , or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. <hl> Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and <hl> threaten the well-being of other species <hl>, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and <hl> threaten the well-being of other species <hl> , or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population.

question: What happens if a population exceeds the carrying capacity of their habitat?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: How can hunting actually increase the population of predators?

Answer: by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] <hl> In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established , resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. <hl> Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes <hl> by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established <hl>, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes <hl> by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established <hl> , resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population.

question: How can hunting actually increase the population of predators?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What do some hunting advocates assert that is indirectly reduced among animals when intraspecific competition has been reduced?

Answer: mortality

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. <hl> Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. <hl> Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing <hl> mortality <hl> among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: What do some hunting advocates assert that is indirectly reduced among animals when intraspecific competition has been reduced?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What would environmentalists have done, instead of hunting?

Answer: (re)introducing predators

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] <hl> that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain. <hl>

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that <hl> (re)introducing predators <hl> would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: What would environmentalists have done, instead of hunting?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What is an important tool in managing populations?

Answer: Hunting

<hl> Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] <hl> In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

<hl> Hunting <hl> is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: What is an important tool in managing populations?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What is carrying capacity determined by?

Answer: combination habitat and food availability

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by <hl> a combination habitat and food availability , and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. <hl> Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a <hl> combination habitat and food availability <hl>, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

a <hl> combination habitat and food availability <hl> , and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population.

question: What is carrying capacity determined by?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What can it increase the population of?

Answer: predators

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] <hl> In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. <hl> Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of <hl> predators <hl> such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.

question: What can it increase the population of?, context: Hunting is claimed to give resource managers an important tool in managing populations that might exceed the carrying capacity of their habitat and threaten the well-being of other species, or, in some instances, damage human health or safety.[citation needed] However, in most circumstances carrying capacity is determined by a combination habitat and food availability, and hunting for 'population control' has no effect on the annual population of species.[citation needed] In some cases, it can increase the population of predators such as coyotes by removing territorial bounds that would otherwise be established, resulting in excess neighbouring migrations into an area, thus artificially increasing the population. Hunting advocates[who?] assert that hunting reduces intraspecific competition for food and shelter, reducing mortality among the remaining animals. Some environmentalists assert[who?] that (re)introducing predators would achieve the same end with greater efficiency and less negative effect, such as introducing significant amounts of free lead into the environment and food chain.


Question: What did sport hunters in the 19th century purse game for?

Answer: trophy

<hl> In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy , usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. <hl> The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a <hl> trophy <hl>, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a <hl> trophy <hl> , usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess.

question: What did sport hunters in the 19th century purse game for?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: What was the head of an animal displayed as?

Answer: sign of prowess

<hl> In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess . <hl> The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a <hl> sign of prowess <hl>. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a <hl> sign of prowess <hl> .

question: What was the head of an animal displayed as?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: What happened to the rest of the animal?

Answer: s typically discarded

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. <hl> The rest of the animal wa s typically discarded . <hl> Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal wa<hl> s typically discarded <hl>. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

The rest of the animal wa <hl> s typically discarded <hl> .

question: What happened to the rest of the animal?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: What did some churches disapprove of?

Answer: such waste

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. <hl> Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste . <hl> In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of <hl> such waste <hl>. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

Some cultures, however, disapprove of <hl> such waste <hl> .

question: What did some churches disapprove of?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: What countries frowned upon this hunting?

Answer: Nordic

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. <hl> In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. <hl> Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In <hl> Nordic <hl> countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

question: What countries frowned upon this hunting?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: What was the only goal for many European sport hunters in the 19th century?

Answer: a trophy

<hl> In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy , usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. <hl> The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for <hl> a trophy <hl>, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for <hl> a trophy <hl> , usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess.

question: What was the only goal for many European sport hunters in the 19th century?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: What types of trophies would hunters keep as trophies to be displayed as a sign of their prowess?

Answer: the head or pelt of an animal

<hl> In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal , which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. <hl> The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually <hl> the head or pelt of an animal <hl>, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually <hl> the head or pelt of an animal <hl> , which was then displayed as a sign of prowess.

question: What types of trophies would hunters keep as trophies to be displayed as a sign of their prowess?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: In what countries was the hunting for trophies frowned upon, back in the day and in modern times?

Answer: Nordic

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. <hl> In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. <hl> Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In <hl> Nordic <hl> countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

question: In what countries was the hunting for trophies frowned upon, back in the day and in modern times?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]


Question: What was hunting in North American in the 19th century used to supplement?

Answer: food supplies

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. <hl> Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies , although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. <hl> In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement <hl> food supplies <hl>, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]

Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement <hl> food supplies <hl> , although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies.

question: What was hunting in North American in the 19th century used to supplement?, context: In the 19th century, southern and central European sport hunters often pursued game only for a trophy, usually the head or pelt of an animal, which was then displayed as a sign of prowess. The rest of the animal was typically discarded. Some cultures, however, disapprove of such waste. In Nordic countries, hunting for trophies was—and still is—frowned upon. Hunting in North America in the 19th century was done primarily as a way to supplement food supplies, although it is now undertaken mainly for sport.[citation needed] The safari method of hunting was a development of sport hunting that saw elaborate travel in Africa, India and other places in pursuit of trophies. In modern times, trophy hunting persists and is a significant industry in some areas.[citation needed]