Trophy Hunting Produces Survival Of Weak And Scrawny?

This is by far not a new topic but one that has shown its face in the media world once again. I’m talking about the theory that trophy hunting culls out the best of the litter in game animals, dumbing down the genes and weakening the species.

A recent article published in Newsweek magazine once again raises the question.

When hunting is severe enough to outstrip other threats to survival, the unsought, middling individuals make out better than the alpha animals, and the species changes. “Survival of the fittest” is still the rule, but the “fit” begin to look unlike what you might expect. And looks aren’t the only things changing: behavior adapts too, from how hunted animals act to how they reproduce. There’s nothing wrong with a species getting molded over time by new kinds of risk. But some experts believe problems arise when these changes make no evolutionary sense.

The Newsweek discussion is in part the results of a study done on Ram Mountain in Alberta, Canada with big horn sheep. The study claims that over a research period of 30 years, the sheep have a 25% reduction in horn size and both male and female sheep have gotten smaller. Some, as in the author of the Newsweek piece, want to blame trophy hunting for at least a certain amount of this decline.

First of all, it should be pointed out that at the conclusion of the article, the writer states that none of the information provided can be proven.

At present, researchers’ alarm about these trends are based on theories that are hard to prove. To make scientific claims about the effects of hunting on the evolution of a species, researchers like Melnick would need thorough data from animal populations that lived at least several decades ago, which rarely exist. Evolution, it turns out, is a difficult beast to study in real time because it is the product of so many factors—changes in climate, habitat and food supply, as well as gene frequencies—and because it occurs so slowly. Researchers began tracking sheep on Ram Mountain in the early 1970s, corralling the entire population every year to make measurements and trace genealogies. “You cannot really just go out and take data and look for a trend,” says Festa-Bianchet. “Even if you find a trend it can be due to environmental changes, to changes in density. You’re really trying to tease out the genetic part of the change.”

I would guess that the writer thought the idea of blaming trophy hunting as good fodder for a story. The facts are the facts and from both ends of the spectrum we can speculate as to what evolutionary results are caused from.

I asked around a bit to see if I could muster up some information about the Ram Mountain survey area to see if this might help us better understand the study parameters. Dr. Charles Kay, Utah State University, told me the area under study is small with a lot of outside influences.

The study area, Ram Mt., is rather small and is located relatively close to Calgary. It is also accessed by a high-speed paved highway. In addition, the hunting is NOT by permit only. Instead, there is NO LIMIT on the number of hunters. Hunters are restricted to 3/4 curl or larger, THUS, the hunting pressure on this unit is extreme, unlike sheep hunting most places in the West

This information was verified by Dr. Valerius Geist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science, The University of Calgary, Canada. I also later confirmed that horn requirements are for a full curl.

The truth is we know far too little to make these kinds of claims and also leave too many unanswered questions. Without knowing the complete data of the study area, which includes hunting and harvest information, it is extremely difficult to draw real conclusions. However, if that particular area is over hunted, we might be able to make conclusions based on that study area but I fail to see how one can extrapolate from an isolated study that trophy hunting of game species worldwide is leaving us with species being represented by the “weak and scrawny”.

Over a year ago I spoke with Lee Kantar of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Kantar is the head deer and moose biologist for the state. I talked with him in reference to an article in a Pennsylvania newspaper that accused the lack of trophy deer in that state to archery hunters. This blame game was similar to the one presented in the Newsweek article in that archers were blamed for having first crack at the trophy deer and being notorious for taking only the larger horned animals leaving the “weak and scrawny” for the rifle hunters.

Kantar’s response dealt win many aspects that could possibly affect the species.

In the big game management world researchers have been looking more at potential consequences of trophy hunting and how it affects social hierarchies as well as the genetic structure of a particular herd. In order for real effects to take place, a significant number of older age class animals would need to be removed from the herd consistently over a number of years to start to have effects. In isolated herds with low total population numbers this could certainly be of concern and researchers have looked at some bighorn sheep populations to identify how these issues effect things.

If the big horn sheep population on Ram Mountain is shrinking and is being over hunted, there could be reason to believe the species is suffering on Ram Mountain. In short, it might be mismanaged, we just don’t know.

The theory though that hunters are taking only trophy game leaving only the weak and scrawny is a tough sell. While this may be a possibility in small pockets here and there, the idea that hunting has weakened the species isn’t very likely. For one, the number of animals taken is such a small percentage.

Kantar points out that in part of the state’s game management plans, there are several things that get considered and one of them is the percentage of hunters who they believe hunt only for “trophy” game.

But during the last 5 year increment from 2001-2005 our average annual yearling harvest was about 43%. That essentially indicates that 57% of the 2.5 year and older bucks escaped or survived for another year. IF you compare these numbers to other states it will tell you that Maine is looking pretty good as far as herd age structure and annual survival.

This is why it is important to have game management that is geared toward the healthy survival of the animal and not necessarily how many tags can be sold. To conclude that trophy hunting is weakening a species is also to say that there is widespread and extremely poor management of those game species.

There are things to ponder and questions to be asked if we are to consider trophy hunting as a cause for a weaker species. A myth that is perpetuated consistently is that hunters only take “trophy” game animals. This is understandable because most people only see on TV and in magazines stories about hunting trophy animals. After all, who wants to write or read a story about some average game animal taken by Fred and his hunting party? There are still ample “meat hunters”. Are the demographics changing? I believe they are but not to the extreme that it is affecting the game species. And even if there are more hunters only interested in trophy game, then fish and game management should adjust their plans to meet the changes.

The fact remains that only a percentage of hunters consistently pass up a smaller animal in hopes of taking a larger one. Are we even considering the vast number of alpha males that escape the intent of the hunter each year?

We must also consider the passing on of the genes of the dominant or alpha male, the one we say ensures the survival of the species. Is there a determination as to what age this so-called alpha male must be before its genes are any good to be passed on? Are these game animals being hunted before, during or after mating season? Are we ignorant enough to believe that only the biggest and strongest males get to do the mating while the eager, younger one stands by content to watch?

Some also think it is the big ole boys that are the strongest and therefore survive the most when in fact we know that often those male animals use up much of their stored fat supplies to do the mating and are susceptible to winter kill. Are we only considering the older the male the better the gene?

Perhaps a good question to be asked has to do with the theory of reduction in size of both antlers and body. If this is true, then we should probably not be seeing the continued breaking of records that come from harvesting trophy animals. If we are shrinking the species, leaving only the weak and scrawny, how do we explain the new records being broken? There is argument to be made that if hunting were removed from this equation, the size of the species would shrink even smaller, that it is the generations of hunting that has added to the viability of a species. Man is a predator and we cannot continue to attempt to exclude him from life’s equations.

And to go along with that same theory, studies are showing us that the number of hunters is decreasing, therefore the number of animals being killed should be decreasing as well, removing some of the pressure of trophy hunting. So, will this negatively or positively affect our game species?

The Newsweek article brought up the topic too that sometimes evolution makes for smaller antlered/tusked animals, perhaps even reduced body size, in order to adapt for survival.

The short of it is that claims of evolutionary changes in species cannot be made over short periods of time (30 years) and in small, uncontrolled study areas. Even though the author points out that the scientists say their theories can’t be proven, I am left wondering if the aim of the article isn’t politically motivated.

Tom Remington