3

Hunting advocates and various fish and game bureaus argue that hunting is an effective and needed means to control various species and manage wildlife. One such claim says that "hunting benefits all wildlife" and that:

Scientifically-based and regulated hunting has never led to threatened or endangered wildlife populations, ever!
OutdoorNebraska.gov

I think "regulated hunting" is a pretty clear term. I'm not sure what "scientifically-based hunting" is, but I think it's safe to assume some empirical data is involved. I would expect "scientifically-based" anything to look a lot like legitimate science with lots of observational data correlated to various activities and actions.

Considering the complexity of any ecosystem, I have a hard time believing that all hunting (wildlife harvesting) schemes done with conservationist intentions, even based on scientific data, have never had unintended negative consequences. However, the claim specifically says threatened and endangered populations, which is pretty strictly defined in a scientific sense. The claim may just be hiding behind a strict set of definitions. If the claim is strictly true, has it ever come close to that?

  • I am sorry but your post is very confusing to me. Keep it simple: **quote** a claim, **reference** the claim, and **ask** "Is this claim valid"? You do not need to do anything other than that. –  Oct 21 '18 at 19:51
  • @Michael Then I have a higher likelihood to get crap answers. I want answers worth more than a Google search. I'll trim it down, but not that much. –  Oct 21 '18 at 20:09
  • @Michael better? –  Oct 21 '18 at 20:20
  • [Trophy hunting](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/wildlife-watch-trophy-hunting-extinctions-evolution/?user.testname=none) reducing the quality of the gene pool comes to mind, but I'm not sure it counts. – Laurel Oct 21 '18 at 20:37
  • @Laurel Deer hunting is very popular where I live, and I have often criticized that shooting the biggest strongest oldest buck probably harms the species, not helps it. However, I know of no science either way. After all, the deer are still here, and hunters still manage to get their trophies. –  Oct 21 '18 at 20:45
  • @fredsbend The last half of the post — after the quote — just makes it more confusing. Specifically: the only information that the third paragraph adds is that you are unsure of what one term means. The fourth paragraph adds nothing that helps us answer. To be blunt: a questioner's **speculations** about a claim adds more confusion than it helps for us to answer whether the claim is true or not. If you have no **facts or references** to add, then do not add anything else. Speculation of the sort "I think this may mean something along these lines, but I am not sure", does not help. –  Oct 21 '18 at 21:33
  • "Regulated hunting" is not a clear term unless we actually have the regulations. A regulation stipulating that one deer per decade can be hunted obviously wouldn't threaten extinction, but a regulation stipulating that all deer must be hunted yearly obviously would. – Giter Oct 21 '18 at 22:04
  • @Giter Both situations would be "regulated", would they not? And if you know of such regulations, I suppose you will be readying an answer soon. –  Oct 21 '18 at 22:49
  • @Michael I disagree. I will not edit further. –  Oct 21 '18 at 22:51
  • Is fishing included as a type of hunting? – GEdgar Oct 21 '18 at 23:57
  • @gedgar I think so. They call both activities "harvesting". –  Oct 22 '18 at 02:27
  • 1
    What if the extinction of a species is what the "regulation" was about? – DevSolar Oct 22 '18 at 11:59
  • @fredsbend Would you also consider a bounty to be "regulated"? I personally would consider that different, because "money per kill" is not the same as "kill them all" or "only kill _x_ per year". Do you know what the article intended with "regulated"? – JMac Oct 22 '18 at 14:00
  • 1
    Despite saying "regulated hunting" is a clear term, it looks like it might turn into a "true Scotsman" problem. When was hunting first "regulated"? Is that concept so new that we haven't had a chance to attribute extinctions to it? Has it ever been regulated? (I am thinking of examples like passenger pigeon, shark finning, whaling, the northern white rhinoceros, muskox. Where it was legal to hunt, was it considered regulated? Where it was illegal to hunt and hunting continued, was it regulated?) – Oddthinking Oct 22 '18 at 14:44
  • @devsolar I don't think that's what they have in mind, but then the might be a scotsman problem like oddthinking mentions. –  Oct 22 '18 at 14:50
  • @odd I think they have modern instances in mind only, where preservation is a prime goal. –  Oct 22 '18 at 14:50
  • @fredsband: Hunting in places like Uganda is now regulated - some animals are legal to hunt, some are illegal to hunt. Despite that, **illegal hunting** has contributed to the (effective) extinction of the Northern White Rhino. I can write that up as an answer, but I genuinely am not sure if it fits the description. – Oddthinking Oct 22 '18 at 15:05
  • @Odd Well first, it's pretty far away from the source, Nebraska. Not really the same people or situation. Second, poaching is distinctly illegal, against a regulation. If you think that's a *useful* answer, go for it. I personally don't find it useful. –  Oct 22 '18 at 15:36
  • @fredsbend You are more likely to get a clear and informed answer if you keep empty fluff out of the post. And this is not a matter of **opinion** to agree or disagree about, I am telling you: that is how it is. Relevant facts help to give a good answer. Relevant references even more so. But I, as someone potentially writing an answer, cannot do anything with your speculations or your uncertainties about what some terms mean. It clutters up the post and distracts from the claim. So, **for your benefit** it is best to keep the post clean of vagueness and speculation. –  Oct 22 '18 at 15:37
  • @Michael I have 5 years experience reading and participating here. Yes, we can disagree on this point, and we do. And since we're verging on meta issues, feel free to ping me in chat if you wish to discuss further. –  Oct 22 '18 at 15:46
  • 1
    @fredsbend You misunderstand: this is not a topic for discussion, because I have no dog in this hunt. I am simply informing you — for future reference — that keeping your posts clean of vagueness and speculation increases the chances of useful replies, because concise and precise questions generally attract more answers than long-winded and imprecise posts. –  Oct 22 '18 at 16:03
  • 1
    I think we've confirmed it as a True Scotsman problem. The claim only applies to laws which limit the number of kills, which are *followed*, and are *very recent*, and are *in the region*. This makes it such as small set (the null set?) we can't be too surprised that there are no examples of extinction. It makes it a weak defence of their political position though. – Oddthinking Oct 24 '18 at 02:48

1 Answers1

5

Yes, as part of a hunting program begun and regulated through bounties by the Australian government in the late 1800's the thylacine was hunted to extinction.

According to the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania the thylacine had disappeared from mainland Australia thousands of years prior, but by 1803 thylacines were widespread in Tasmania. However, the introduction of sheep in 1824 led to conflict between farmers and the thylacine.

In 1888 the Tasmanian Parliament placed a hunting bounty of £1 per thylacine, and 20 years later the hunting program was ended due to their rarity, with 2184 bounties paid out. The London Zoo bought its last thylancine for £150 in 1926, and in 1933 the last wild thylacine, named Benjamin, was captured. With no confirmed sightings for decades, the thylacine was officially declared extinct in 1986.

Giter
  • 11,405
  • 8
  • 46
  • 46
  • 3
    Was the bounty system regulated? Almost sounds like it was more of a free-for-all per dead animal. I'm not sure if I would count a bounty system without limits as "regulated". – JMac Oct 22 '18 at 13:40
  • @JMac: According to a comment by the OP, a regulation as simple as "kill them all every year" counts as regulated hunting, so "kill them all and get some money" definitely is too. The claim was quite broad and very absolute, so pretty much any pest eradication program like this would fit. A better question, and probably harder to answer, would be if any hunting program that *didn't* have goal of threatening extinction accidentally threaten extinction, but that's not what was claimed. – Giter Oct 22 '18 at 13:48
  • But was "kill them all" actually ever part of it? If there was never any control or direction given for the bounty, would you consider that hunting "regulated" at all? It sounds like there was _no_ regulation, and that's why they went extinct. – JMac Oct 22 '18 at 13:59
  • 2
    @JMac: A bounty for specific animals in a specific location created by government authority fits [several definitions of regulation](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulation): "an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure", or "rule or order issued by an executive authority or regulatory agency of a government and having the force of law". – Giter Oct 22 '18 at 14:10
  • I guess it depends on the context they were using regulate in their specific claim. For example, regulate also refers to controlling the rate or amount; which clearly doesn't happen in the cited case. I guess what I'm really saying is the claim is quite vague. This doesn't rule out that you could go back and say "that's not what I meant by regulated" which I guess isn't really a problem with your answer. – JMac Oct 22 '18 at 14:19
  • Yes, this is a valid answer, but misses the spirit of the question. It's a bit obtuse to answer like this. *"A better question, and probably harder to answer, would be if any hunting program that didn't have goal of threatening extinction accidentally threaten extinction".* You already know what a good answer with useful info would look like. So do I, and say as much in my last paragraph. –  Oct 22 '18 at 15:30
  • @fredsbend: Well, if you find a notable source claiming what I said was a better question then feel free to rewrite your question to ask about that claim, and I'll rewrite my answer to address the new claim if I can and remove it if I can't. (this why I asked if incredibly simple regulations counted as 'regulated hunting', and why I said 'regulated hunting' was in no way a clear term) – Giter Oct 22 '18 at 15:38