1694142233

pdf

School

Texas A&M University, Commerce *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

435

Subject

Anthropology

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by BarristerPrairieDog3752

were not convinced that a special hunt was a desir- able means of balancing deer numbers with the sup- ply of natural foods (see also Gilbert 1977). In another example, overabundance occurs when hundreds of thousands-and sometimes millions-of blackbirds concentrate in winter roosting areas (Gra- ham 1976). The flocks consist of four species: red- winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus), starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), grackles (Quiscalus quiscula), and cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Huge flocks of these birds winter in Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Ken- tucky, where field crops and cattle feedlots provide ample food supplies (see White et al. 1985). The im- mense concentrations of blackbirds apparently result from the proximity of suitable roosting sites to feed- ing areas. In such large numbers, the birds are noisy and dirty and may damage crops and offer potential health hazards. Several methods have been tried to reduce the flocks, including spraying the birds with detergents on cold nights (thereby causing death from exposure when the soaked plumage can no longer provide in- sulation), frightening the birds with noisemakers and playing recorded bird distress calls through loud- speakers, and thinning the roost trees. However, these techniques have been only partially successful and have raised the ire of many bird lovers. Also, the process of thinning the winter flocks of blackbirds has been questioned on ecological grounds because, on their summer range, these birds may reduce insect populations (Bendell et al. 1981). The difficulties of controlling some 550 million blackbirds without up- setting natural systems or human emotions thus re- main a clear challenge for wildlife managers. 2.7 PREDATOR CONTROL: BOUNTIES, BAITS, AND BLUNDERS Wildlife biologists still have much to learn about predator-prey relationships and under what circum- stances predator control should be initiated. Howev- er, we do know that mistakes have been made many times in the past. The public once assumed that all carnivores threatened the continued existence of game and domestic animals. In particular, William T. Hornaday championed the view that predators were the root of considerable evil. He rallied public con- cern for the nation's dwindling wildlife resources with his landmark book, Our Vanishing Wild Life (Hornaday 1913). In his book, Hornaday condemned 2.7 Predator Control: Bounties, Baits, and Blunders 17 all killers of animals in sweeping terms, blaming cats, dogs, Italian immigrants, poor southerners, hunters, and wild predators. A particularly forceful sentence reads: "Beyond question, it is both desirable and nec- essary that any excess of wild animals that prey upon our grouse, quail, pheasants, woodcock, snipe, mal- lard duck, shore birds, and other species that nest on the ground should be killed." We can only wonder how Hornaday, given his fateful plans for an excess of predators, might deal today with an "excess" of hunters, southerners, or immigrants.

Predator control became a common practice in the 1930s under authorization from state and federal agen- cies. State and county governments offered bounties on several predators, including wolves, foxes (Vulpes vulpes), weasels (Mustela spp.), and common crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos). At first glance, placing a price on the head of an offending animal would seem an effective means of control. After 20 years of em- ploying state trappers for predator control, Michigan adopted the bounty system in 1935 and offered $15 per male and $20 per female for wolves and coyotes. About 3000 coyotes were bountied each year during the 1960s and 1970s, but no reduction was noticeable in the coyote population nor was there any sign of corre- sponding increases in grouse, rabbits, or other wildlife populations. Trappers and hunters received millions of dollars from the public treasury for harvesting what was only part of the annual surplus of coyotes. Even drivers who accidently ran over coyotes were paid when the carcasses were turned in. The Michigan legis- lature finally removed the coyote bounty in 1980; since then, there has been no perceptible increase in coyote numbers nor declines in rabbits, grouse, or deer. Simi- larly, the number of bounties paid for weasels in Penn- sylvania increased from 36,816 in the five-year span 1915-20 to 68,423 weasels in 1930-35. After 20 years and $1,209,500 in bounty payments, however, the weasel population in Pennsylvania remained without noticeable decrease (Allen 1974a). In addition to being generally ineffective, bounties also are subject to fraud. In New Brunswick, a 50-cent bounty on porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) per- sisted into the 1950s. To collect a bounty, a citizen simply presented the nose of a porcupine to the town clerk, who was often a person with neither the train- ing nor the inclination to perform close examinations of porcupine noses. As more than one entrepreneur discovered, two holes punched in each foot pad im- mediately produced five "noses"-and $2.50-from one porcupine. Elsewhere, bounties were paid for the ears of dogs (as ersatz ears of coyotes or wolves), and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version