A recent article in New Scientist highlights the need for wildlife management to consider the impacts of humans on the social structure of animals. In other words, for species like wolves that live in social groups, simply focusing on population numbers is not enough.
Historical wildlife management practices in North America typically have not dealt with the qualitative features of species. Instead, management has been geared toward what has been referred to as the “farming” of wildlife – maintaining a sufficient supply to hunt or trap for recreational or commercial purposes.
Scientific research by Trent University and the Ministry of Natural Resources shows that a ban on the hunting and trapping of eastern wolves in the townships around Algonquin, put in place in 2001, has yielded significant ecological benefits. The ECO supported this ban being put in place on ecological grounds, in our 2001/2002 Annual Report.
Before the ban, two-thirds wolf mortality was human-caused with most of that due to hunting and trapping outside park boundaries as packs travelled to deer-yards. Now, the numbers of wolves has remained steady – but, they are now living longer and dying of natural causes, forming larger packs of related animals, and shifting their diet from deer to moose. Even though the same numbers of wolves existed before and after the ban, they are now behaving and functioning like a healthy wolf population because of increased protection from hunting.
The ECO flagged this very issue in our 2007/2008 Annual Report: MNR’s approach to wildlife management typically focuses on the total numbers of a population.  Put another way, as long as X number of animals is generally maintained, then Y number can be harvested annually, and thus, a management program is deemed to be sustainable. This approach inadequately considers the ecological role of species and the cascading effects that human influences can cause on biological systems. As the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Linda Rutledge, advocates, conservation policies should “look beyond numbers” and take into account the social dynamics of wild creatures.
We whole-heartedly agree.
Email This Post