Does Hunting Harvest Affect Horn and Antler Size?

[azmetalman]

 

Surprising New Find: Hunting Harvest May Reduce Size of Trophy Horns and Antlers

A team of scientists has just completed a comprehensive analysis of 108 years’ worth of data on the size of horns and antlers among 25 trophy categories in North America and discovered that, over the past century, size of trophy horns and antlers for most species has declined slightly.

The team of six biologists — from Idaho State University, the University of Montana, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and the California Department of Fish and Game, led by Dr. Kevin L. Monteith, now at the University of Wyoming — analyzed 22,000 records of trophy categories of big game from North America, including mule deer, mountain sheep, and moose. Publishing their results in The Wildlife Society’s newest Wildlife Monographs, the authors found a small (less than 2 percent) but consistent decline in horn and antler size across most trophy categories over the past century.

Through careful analyses, the biologists ruled out several potential causes of the declines, including climate change, habitat alterations, and the “sociological effect” of increased interest among hunters in submitting trophies to the record books. Instead, the analyses provided moderate support for intensive harvest of males as the most likely explanation for the declines, which lowers male age structure, allowing fewer animals to reach trophy status prior to harvest.

The findings have potential implications for management of many species, although the small declines in size of trophy horns and antlers may be of little importance relative to the benefits of hunting as the cornerstone of wildlife management in North America. Nevertheless, the authors offer several recommendations to managers concerned about balancing overall opportunity to hunt with opportunity to harvest large males.

The authors were “initially quite surprised” by the results, says Terry Bowyer, who oversaw the analyses at Idaho State University. Yet he adds that no other study has spanned the time (108 years), geographic extent (all of North America), and range of ungulate species (25 trophy categories), or amassed such a huge sample size (22,000 animals), using precise official horn and antler measures of the Boone and Crockett Club. “There is little doubt that our findings are real,” he concludes. “We hope our research will be of value to fish and game agencies charged with the management of these important natural resources.”

Contact: Lisa Moore, lmoore@wildlife.org

 

[azslim]

I've wondered if we aren't hurting ourselves by taking out all the big, dominant males allowing lesser quality to do the breeding. No way to prove it, except for maybe the Tx game farms where inferior bucks are culled, just a thought I've had drinking beer sitting around a campfire. And we all know beer makes us smarter.

[billrquimby]

Actually, a 2% reduction over 108 years is insignificant, especially when you consider the early records might be or, more likely, probably are inaccurate.

 

Bill Quimby

[hunter72]

The rainfall has alot to do with it.the more food and water the bigger the horns.

[JLW]

not everyone submits their trophies or have them measured.

I'll let you know when I get 1 though... LOL!

 

 

James

[elkhunter]

Not a reasonable find for research, less than 2 percent decline , that means a 400 inch bull 108 years ago would be a 392 inch bull today, not enough size difference to be a significant finding

[6ANut]

108 years divided by 2% means that approximatly each year their is .01852 % decline in horn growth.

 

What a waste of time and money. This world will be long gone before any real decline could be seen.

 

 

“We hope our research will be of value to fish and game agencies charged with the management of these important natural resources.”

 

HE MUST HAVE BEEN JOKING

[DesertBull]

less quality habitat. Notice they did not take into account whitetail deer, which are more adaptable and actually benefit from agriculture. They only studied mountain animals.

[4Falls]

All BS. I almost quit reading when it named the AZG&F and Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game.

[CouesWhitetail]

Normally I appreciate the research published in the Widllife Monographs, but this just has me shaking my head.

 

"Instead, the analyses provided moderate support for intensive harvest of males as the most likely explanation for the declines, which lowers male age structure, allowing fewer animals to reach trophy status prior to harvest."

 

DUH!! that's just a basic idea in wildlife management. If you want trophy antlers, reduce harvest pressure so that the bucks/bulls/sheep/whatever reach an older age. good night, that knowledge has been around for a long time. I would hardly call that a "surprising finding".

[CouesWhitetail]

DB,

 

I doubt they excluded whitetail in the study.....they just didn't mention it in the list press release. But later in the article they did say they analyzed 25 B&C trophy categories and given that whitetail are the most studied and hunted ungulate in the US, I really doubt they excluded them. I will let you know after I read the monograph.

 

Amanda

[audsley]

Whitetail deer were NOT excluded from the study.

 

This is a really big deal. You can expect animal welfare, wilderness and environmental groups to begin citing it as support for policies that discourage access and hunting opportunities.

 

As for personnel from the Az and California wildlife agencies being involved, I can assure you that both Vern Bleich and Jim Heffelfinger are stand-up guys for hunting. Heffelfinger once wrote an article refuting the notion that trophy hunting damages the gene pool, as evidenced by the continuous stream of new entries and new records continuing to be set, as well as the complexity of genetics.

 

Here's my biggest criticism of this study: While the statistical analysis is consistent with their hypothesis, it does not establilsh a clear link between trophy hunting and declines in average B &C scores. It tries, often without success, to rule out other causes of this slight decline and then concludes that trophy hunting must be the driving factor since they can't pin it to anything else. They admit they are unable to quantify habitat quality including nutrition.

 

And here's a question. How many hunting seasons can a really outstanding deer or elk produce B&C antlers, assuming similar nutrition quality each year? Could it be two or even three in some cases? If it's more than one, then isn't it possible (maybe even likely) that increased emphasis on trophy hunting (not to mention better equipment) has led to harvesting more animals in their first year of B&C eligibility? The researchers did not have age data, so they couldn't consider whether today's B&C entries are getting whacked at younger ages than in the past.

 

I'd also like to see some of the older trophies measured to verify accuracy.

[billrquimby]

I wonder how (and if) they factored in the fact that Boone & Crockett raised minimums several times for the most-hunted animals over that 108-year study period -- or even if it would make a difference that "trophies" in the early years would not be worthy of listing today?

 

There is no doubt that there has been an increased emphasis on hunting for "trophies." Few were obsessed with this foolishness before the early 1960s.

 

Bill Quimby

[mpriest]

Here is another good article. I believe this is the case in the sheep population on Ram Mountain in Alberta but not sure if it would be true elsewhere

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ASekxh-xVb4C&oi=fnd&pg=PA94&dq=horn+sheep+hunting+size&ots=JQuKdF0dsK&sig=X49xsjAHffqKqami7G9ozcXN-s0#v=onepage&q=horn%20sheep%20hunting%20size&f=false