Trophy Hunting: Does it hurt genetics?

[normstad]

I just became aware of this study done back in 2003.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature02177

It focuses on horn size and I think when one thinks about this, it makes some sense. After all, the successful rams who breed are normally the larger ones. At some point, those genes are taken out of the population, and smaller horn size results.

I've always been mixed on trophy hunting. The argument often made is that the true trophy hunter has little impact on the total population of a species.

That is true.

On the other hand, what are the long term effects? This study certainly seems to indicate that if one is looking for "quality" trophies, it is better to take a variety of animals, and not just the largest.

[HowSwedeItIs]

That makes a certain amount of sense. As far as taking a variety of animals (instead of just the big, old guys) I can't think of many animal species that are hunted only by 'trophy hunters' and not 'meat hunters' as well, besides the bighorns covered in the article and maybe elephants. Not that you can keep the tusks anymore, but I've read that the 'trophy quality' of bull elephants has diminished since the good old days of the colonial period.

Have larger, older individuals usually been able to contribute their good genes to the next generation by the time they're killed? Yep. If they hadn't been killed, could they have possibly contributed more? Sure. Its about balance

[walking buffalo]

This study and many others by this "Genetic Harm" gang of "scientists" have been refuted.

These people have recently dropped the "genetic" harm claim but are not giving up on their endeavour to end hunting.

The new claim is that hunting is causing a "phenotype" selection, despite not even being able to determine phenotypes within their studies. Absolute garbage agenda based propaganda under the guise of research.


Comparing licenced hunting of Bighorns to the poaching epidemic that effected the elephant population is naive. There is no useful comparison other than the emotion used to validate the incorrect conclusions.


There is a decade worth of threads here on AO regarding this issue.


Not sure if this new paper is available to the public yet, try googling "Inefficiency of Evolutionarily Relevant Selection in Ungulate Trophy Hunting",
A good counter discussion to the Genetic/Phenotype harm gang.

[boah]

For every trophy buck shot, there are probably at least 2 does out there with the same genes.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

This study and many others by this "Genetic Harm" gang of "scientists" have been refuted.

These people have recently dropped the "genetic" harm claim but are not giving up on their endeavour to end hunting.

The new claim is that hunting is causing a "phenotype" selection, despite not even being able to determine phenotypes within their studies. Absolute garbage agenda based propaganda under the guise of research.


Comparing licenced hunting of Bighorns to the poaching epidemic that effected the elephant population is naive. There is no useful comparison other than the emotion used to validate the incorrect conclusions.


There is a decade worth of threads here on AO regarding this issue.


Not sure if this new paper is available to the public yet, try googling "Inefficiency of Evolutionarily Relevant Selection in Ungulate Trophy Hunting",
A good counter discussion to the Genetic/Phenotype harm gang.

Wasn't there a guy here in Alberta pushing this rope? Was he with F&W or the U of A? My memory is foggy.....

[covey ridge]

I think there is much more to genetics than the ability to grow large antlers. No matter how impressive the antlers are, half of what produced the large antlers was inherited from the doe. I am more in favor of healthy bucks bred to healthy does. I am more impressed with large body deer than large antlers.
I think nature produces better results than anything we do or don't do to stack the deck in favor of certain results.

I think that trophy hunting is neither good nor bad with respect to genetics of the herd. Good habitat and good food are more important.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Wasn't there a guy here in Alberta pushing this rope? Was he with F&W or the U of A? My memory is foggy.....

The reference I provided in the OP is from the Alberta professor.

[dmcbride]

By the time an animal becomes a throphy it has passed on its seed more than once.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by dmcbride

By the time an animal becomes a throphy it has passed on its seed more than once.

Probably. But let's look at this from a 'on the ground' affect.

Let's take a look at mulies. They live about 6-7 years, give or take. Their antlers atrophy after about the 4th year (Val Geist).

So, if you take the 4 year old trophy mulie, you are missing out on 20% or more of it's gene participation in the herd. It just makes sense that this will impact future trophies over time.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by boah

For every trophy buck shot, there are probably at least 2 does out there with the same genes.

I think that may be true. As stated to me by a very successful Horse breeder, " more often than not those highly prized genes are passed on by a granddaughter of a particular male."

Although genetics are a crapshoot, selective harvesting of wild Trophy Bucks would appear to interfere less with passing preferred genes on to following generations than randomly targeting the Does and Fawns.

It would be interesting to see what would happen within 5 years if a minimum antler size was applied to Both WT and Mule Deer and the Antlerless harvest severally restricted... not a suggestion- just a thought.

[farmsniper]

Here's Something to think about; for instance if a buck is breeding a doe as a heavy mature 6+ year old deer... he would have passed on the same genetics to her as if he was breeding when he was a 2 year old "basket buck." I think it's most important as hunters to recognize what good qualities are in a herd and be able to pass up young bucks with good potential and harvest deer that have weak antler traits. For does: harvest dry does and leave the does carrying two or more fawns which bring fertility to the herd and also improve overall genetics and population.

[densa44]

There is a farmer near Calgary who farms elk and when I was there on a tour some years ago there was one magnificent bull. When I asked if he was the "herd" bull I was told that the animal was sterile!

It was shipped off to a hunting preserve in the USA for $15K and by now I assume is on someone's wall.

So all is not always as it appears.

[Scruffee]

I believe a healthy herd with a normal buck to doe ratio is what matters. Young dinks can have great genetics too.

By taking out the "monster" in the area, he can very well be replaced by a smaller/younger buck that has great/better genetics. Their genetics doesn't get better with age, they either have good or bad one.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Scruffee

By taking out the "monster" in the area, he can very well be replaced by a smaller/younger buck that has great/better genetics. Their genetics doesn't get better with age, they either have good or bad one.

Age doesn't improve genetics, but it does prove genetics. You don't know whether that smaller/younger buck is good or not. Having him replace the old Monster himself would be the best test, not removing the Monster and seeing what happens. Understand, I'm not arguing one way or the other for any particular hunting regulations. I don't have a dog in that fight. I'm just spit-balling about the most logical way to ensure the biggest survive and rule.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Age doesn't improve genetics, but it does prove genetics. You don't know whether that smaller/younger buck is good or not. Having him replace the old Monster himself would be the best test, not removing the Monster and seeing what happens. Understand, I'm not arguing one way or the other for any particular hunting regulations. I don't have a dog in that fight. I'm just spit-balling about the most logical way to ensure the biggest survive and rule.

Who are we to determine that being the Biggest is best for the species?
I suspect this mindset is all about our own ego.

Many species have evolved to have many phenotypes, big and small, that when co-existing produce the variability to help ensure success.

With sheep, bigger may mean stronger and better in battles, but it also means slower and less agile.

If bigger is always better, why are the BIG "big" ones so rare even in unhunted populations? It's not like World record animals are a dime a dozen in the parks.... these BIG animals are an anomaly.

A few years ago in Alberta there was a sheep study being done to evaluate Big rams and their breeding success. Well, one bad azz little horned ram dominated the herd, did all the breeding. The poor bios ended up throwing the research into the garbage.