To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
Hunting can be an important tradition in many cultures of North America. Many individuals rely on hunting to provide food for their families, while other individuals may simply enjoy the connection to the outdoors or the thrill of the hunt itself. Yet, aside from an individual's personal or traditional purpose for hunting, how do hunters prove to play an integral role in deer and elk management? This paper will address how funding from hunters provides a majority of income towards wildlife conservation, how wildlife conservationists utilize hunters for deer and elk population control, the dangers of overpopulation as well as how hunter involvement can have a positive impact on deer and elk movement through learned survival strategies and fitness.
Previous to any wildlife conservation organizations or hunting laws, there was no control over the future protection of wildlife populations.
As an example, in 1926, after an extreme overpopulation of white tailed deer in Pennsylvania, the deer had begun to die off in large numbers due to lack of food from overgrazed vegetation.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Hunting
4.9 (984)
“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”
It was not until 1937 that the white-tailed deer populations had started to recover. Additionally, with lack of hunting laws, market hunters had nearly caused many species of wildlife to go regionally extinct (Heffelfinger, Geist & Wishart, 2013, p.400). However, what is referred to as the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation was created by hunters who were concerned for the future of wildlife populations. This model was created to generate an unequalled abundance of wildlife.
The income from hunters makes up a majority of funding for wildlife conservation, which contributes to the management of deer and elk.
Bergstrom, Hansen & Taylor (2015) had found that hunter funding provided 63 percent of funding for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (p.4), which protects and manages wildlife and the environment. Arnett & Southwick (2015) stated that although some funding from hunters are voluntary, most funding comes from hunter licensing and manufacturer taxes on firearms, ammunition and archery equipment (p.740). This tax program, known as Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, was designed to aid wildlife conservation in North America.
A statewide estimate conducted from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks of hunter expenditures, in 2014 had shown the average expenditures per day for resident deer hunters was $71.86 and non resident deer hunters was $479.41. This is out of a total of 347.9 million dollars in expenditures from Montana hunters alone (Lewis & King, 2014, p.2).
Funding from hunters goes toward several resources aside from wildlife and environmental management. Some of these resources include: paying for the wildlife conservation officers whom not only uphold the hunting regulations but they also “perform duties related to water quality, habitat protection, public safety, search and rescue, littering, vandalism and the trade in threatened and endangered species” (Heffelfinger, Geist & Wishart, 2013, p.405). Hunter funding also pays for educational sources which include hunter education programs and firearm safety training. Additionally, hunters provide thousands of jobs involved with the direct manufacturing and sales of hunting and outdoor products and services as well as the support for thousands of jobs relating to local restaurants, stores and hotels, where hunting related travels utilize local businesses (Arnett & Southwick, 2015, pg.2).
The Recovering America’s Wildlife Act of 2016 was introduced with plans to dedicate $1.3 billion of existing federal revenue from oil and gas that is developed on public lands and waters to fund the wildlife conservation and restoration program. Although this bill has yet to be approved through the House of Representatives, if passed this will generate further funding from non hunters and non anglers;whereas with the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 and the Dingell-Johnson Sportfish Restoration Act of 1950 had been obtaining funding through taxes primarily on hunters and anglers alone (Senate Bill 5650, 2016).
Deer and elk populations and the environment must be closely managed to ensure their protection from over or under population.
The primary goal involved in management is to maintain optimal numbers of wildlife in specific areas and regions of each state so that every species can cohabitate with one another, without causing a disruption in the environment. Wildlife conservationists also have to monitor human activity since this directly affects wildlife. Norton, Diefenbach, Rosenberry & Wallingford (2013) claimed that wildlife conservations generally rely on hunter harvest rates and population models to obtain these population numbers (p.606).
A common technique for wildlife conservations is to obtain deer and elk population numbers through annual surveys that are completed by hunters. These surveys allow conservationists to get an estimate of the number of each sex for elk and deer that had been harvested that year and from what specific area. They are also able to find what areas may have too high of hunter participation, compared to the number of elk and deer in that area. With this information they are able to ensure the protection from overpopulation, underpopulation and disease. Based on annual deer and elk population numbers in each area, wildlife conservationists are able to more accurately adjust hunting regulations to either restrict or allow the hunting of specific sex and species in each area. This will allow low wildlife numbers to recover or to minimize herd numbers before it shows a risk to other forms of wildlife and the environment.
When overpopulated, deer and elk will over graze vegetation and because of their natural survival instinct they will start to push into unusual areas in search for food. When deer and elk move into rural farms they destroy fences, hay forage and disrupt livestock patterns causing farmers and ranchers heavy costs in damages. In 2004 an annual damage estimate for New York determined that farm crop damages from deer alone caused $58,798,049 in damages state wide (Brown, Decker & Curtis, 2004, pg.10).
Additionally, when deer and elk push into suburban areas this causes a risk to the general public safety by way of deer and elk attacking individuals and causing vehicle collisions (Gren, Haggmark-Svensson, Elofsson & Engelmann, 2018, p.4). Heffelfinger, Geist & Wishart (2013) stated that “the number of deer-vehicle collisions is estimated to exceed 1.5 million every year on U.S. roadways” (p.401). Due to the heavy loss of life and property caused from deer and elk in suburban and rural areas, it is extremely important to manage wildlife populations to a reasonable number.
Furthermore, when deer or elk are overpopulated, they may risk obtaining a dangerous disease. Not only does this pose a threat of wiping out a large number of their own population but some diseases may spread to other forms of wildlife that are not overpopulated. This in turn, will cause a large disruption in the ecosystem. On August 1st 2018, there was an outbreak in North America of Chronic Wasting Disease. This fatal disease affects the brain and spinal cord of hoofed animals, which includes deer, elk and moose. The disease is believed to spread between these animals through contact of contaminated body fluids, contaminated tissue or indirectly through exposure of CWD in the environment through food or water consumption. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018)
Yellowstone National Park has been perceived as a natural wildlife inhabited park that has been unaltered by humans. However, the park is nationally managed which is largely based on political and public opinions that are constantly changing the management policies. This has caused current management techniques an undesirable outcomes that had stemmed from the parks history in management.
Prior to the 1800’s, Native Americans inhabited the Yellowstone area and acted as the apex predator at the top of the food chain. As a result they actively managed Yellowstone’s resources by utilizing them to meet their needs. This is what originally shaped the environment of the Yellowstone area. Natives actively burned forestation for hunting techniques to drive animals into specific areas for easier hunting, fires were also used to reduce insects as well as to replenish the nutrients in the soil for needed plant regeneration (Lofthouse, Simmons & Yonk, 2016, pg. 4).
Additionally, natives regularly hunted for food which helped keep elk and other forms of wildlife at an optimal population. However, when Europeans transitioned into the area they brought “Old World diseases to the America’s and at first contact much of the Native American population was wiped out”(Lofthouse, Simmons & Yonk, 2016, p. 5). Due to the Native Americans no longer actively managing the area or wildlife, elk and bison populations began to overpopulate and over forestation problems began.
Yet, when Yellowstone became a national park, visitors looked at that current environment and wildlife as being untouched by humans instead of recognizing that the Natives had actively managed the wildlife and environment. Beginning in 1886 through 1918, the United States Army took control over Yellowstone National Park and implemented several policies for improving the park’s condition (Lofthouse, Simmons & Yonk, 2016, p. 7). In efforts to protect the elk populations the army had killed off most all natural predators; in addition to no hunting allowances in the park, elk populations grew to unmanageable numbers. Because management policies were constantly changing due to changing opinions of public and political preferences, the ecology of the environment was constantly changing. In 1910 the National Park System started a program of trapping and relocating elk to reduce overgrazing to allow food supply for other forms of wildlife.
However, they had quickly realized that this was not enough to manage the large elk populations. As a result they implemented active killing of excess elk after trapping. Between 1949 and the ceasing of the killings in 1968, “rangers had killed more than 13,500 elk” (Lofthouse, Simmons & York, 2016, p.25). Although wolves were reintroduced into the park in 1995 as a natural predator to elk, there had been contradicting results as to whether wolves showed a substantial effect in aiding elk population control. Future outcomes of the park may continue to be negative unless a solid management program is in place. “ NPS managers work to maintain Yellowstone according to rules encoded in law and the preferences of the public and legislators. The rules are contradictory and preferences change ” (Lofthouse, Simmons & York, 2016, p. 56).
Although hunters do alter the natural movements of deer and elk within their natural environment, the amount of time hunters affect their movements is such a short period of time that it did not play a negative overall effect (Simard, Dussault, Huot & Cote, 2013, p.264). For example, Washington’s general hunting season for mule deer runs for ten days annually, whereas Montanas’ general hunting season for mule deer runs for thirty-six days annually. Marantz, Long, Webb, Gee, Little & Damarais (2016) discovered during their study that the alteration in deer movements caused by hunters was not a negative impact for deer. Instead, this alteration allowed the deer to adapt strategies that lent themselves to avoid detection by hunters which could increase fitness through increased survival rates.(p.860)
With hunter income largely funding wildlife management programs they are also providing income toward wildlife conservation officers, hunter educational programs, firearm safety training and more availability of jobs and local businesses who rely on hunter purchases. The wildlife conservationists are better able to manage deer and elk populations through regulated hunting by hunters who have been educated in hunting techniques and firearm safety. With utilization of hunters, wildlife conservationists would be able to closely monitor wildlife population numbers and the environment to prevent overpopulation.
This will aid in preventing damages done to rural farms and ranches as well as preventing danger to individuals in suburban areas. Additionally, although hunters do alter the natural movements of deer and elk in their protected areas, this alteration can cause them to adapt survival strategies that could increase their survival rates. To end, this research has concluded the importance of deer and elk population control as well as environmental management for maintaining a optimal environment for the wildlife population. As well as conservationists utilizing hunting practices to manage deer and elk numbers that provides many ecological benefits for both individuals of society as well as wildlife and the environment.
Deer and Elk Hunting as a Protection of Wildlife Conservation. (2021, Dec 14). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/deer-and-elk-hunting-as-a-protection-of-wildlife-conservation-essay
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
