|
My thoughts on the matter browning, are pretty much based from biological facts and idea's . I do not believe trapping is an effective way of long term or wide spread population control, nor is it needed for the animals to continue on, in future existence at healthy levels. However, I do think that trapping is a great practice to reduce damage to human revenues and goods that is being caused by animals, albeit very temporal too. I'm not in the least bit worried, that if folks quit trapping today, that animals would cease to be in healthy numbers because of over population.....that simply isn't true.
First let's look at just what conservation means. From Kansas Wildlife and Parks,,," ....The wise use of a renewable resource". Notice it didn't say a word about the needof harvesting for overall animal populations? The wise use..... that's what it is........For instance, I like to ask folks that believe harvesting animals or birds is a necessity this question. "Who is it that harvest Robins, Jays, other song birds or any other thousands of species of wildlife that are not harvest-able by law?" Are those populations remaining? Are they healthy? Yes they are...and without harvesting of any type. Those animals are susceptible to many diseases and woe's, just like fur bearing animals, or game animals are.....yet they remain in healthy numbers without harvest being in the mix. How much more proof is needed? Harvest is about the wise use, of a renewable resource.
Now that I covered that portion, I will continue with the renewable resource part. Anyone that studies biology much, knows what "Carrying capacities" are, but others may not know. When any certain types of wildlife have the elements needed for life and survival, they naturally can exist in that parcel of ground. How many animals within that parcel is determined by the limiting factors of the amounts of space, habitat/cover, food, air, and water available on that parcel of ground. By nature, that determines the number of wildlife that can utilize that, which is that parcels "carrying capacity". That averaged number won't change no matter if animals are harvested or not. There may be a temporary reduction caused by any number of outside influences, such as trapping, but the number will always increase right back to the carrying capacity and no more, and do it rapidly. There are 2 exceptions to that rule, one devastating, and one quite natural that happens every year,,,,with or without our influences.
In devastation, wide spread animal annihilation would have to take place, so that animals cannot recover and no pops are left to spread back into habitats. Things like introduced species, or massive habitat alterations, both can cause this... but not normally your average disease. With disease, many animals make it through, for a number of various reasons, to repopulate. It can be devastation, but most of the time not, and normally it's localized in certain area's and spotty. For instance, distemper swept through my State a few years ago. The State said it killed thousands of animals, like coons and foxes. By the time trapping season came, I never could tell because enough animals made it through to repopulate right back to the carrying capacity.
Now the other more frequent happening, is a seasonal population fluctuation. When spring is here, life blooms. Everything is rich, easy and plenty. More food, more cover, more water and so on. So nature answers by giving us,,,,baby wildlife. Suddenly, a population boom to match the environmental boom. As the year goes, and fall and winter starts to set in, food, cover, water, and so on, gets more slim. Now there is too many animals for the once flourishing fauna to support, because the vegetation is largely going dormant. Again nature responds, and animals must die, to match the fauna's ability to support. Once that has leveled out, those animals go on, until spring comes and plenty abounds once again, and the cycle starts again, and repeats over and over. To find the true carrying capacity, an average must be taken from the population fluctuations high and it's low. Do we need intervene in this grand scheme to make it work? Certainly not! Remember the Robins? Nature doesn't need us, to survive a healthy population.
Having said that and going back to conservation,,,,The wise use of a renewable resource. The fact is, there are a certain amount of animals going to die when winter comes on and carrying capacities are coming to a low. Now, we are presented with a couple choices. One, we can leave animals to die at the hands of nature, not because of some "out of control pop explosion" from lack of harvest, but because it's a finely tuned machine that works. OR.....two,,, we can make WISE USE of animals that are in the seasonally high pop fluctuation, and both helping mankind going on in his way, and saving the unlucky critters the suffering of starvation or exposure due to seasonal pop fluctuations that will occur every single year. Isn't it ironic, our hunting and trapping seasons are centered around and just before/during the same time of year the animals numbers will be reduced by nature anyway? I don't think it's to much so.... Instead I think its strategic planning by biologist that understand the cycle of wildlife.
Even in animal damage control, the animals will always return. They are there to stay, and unless the habitat is largely changed, they will continue to always fill the carrying capacity. I personally think we as humans think to highly of ourselves, in what it is we control and what we don't.
Last edited by Amak on 30 Mar 2015, 22:58, edited 1 time in total.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
