Is wildlife management an oxymoron?

[hessianmx111]

Alright I have a project for school and the topic is "Is wildlife management an oxymoron?" I usually think that people asking for homework help on a forum is stupid, but I've tried researching it on the net and everything is hard to understand because of how it's written. I figured that many of you are hunters and may have some knowlede on this. So I wanted to know what you all think of wildlife conservation parks and what not. If you dont want to reply because you think it's dumb that im asking for homework help then I totally understand, but if you could help I would really appreciate it.

[Doober]

i would think it is....because it wouldnt be wild if you can manage it...

[250R-Dee]

Without management a lot of the wildlife reserves would become populated with humans and/or stripped of it's natural resources. Also overpopulation of wildlife in certain areas will lead to an untimely demise of those animals because there will be too many animals feeding in one area.

[big-guy]

If we don't kill them, they'll starve!

Seriously though, the earth will take care of itself. Animals will come and go, as they have for millions of years. Humans included.

It's in man's nature to try to control his environment, but let's face it, we can't hardly control ourselves.

[cletusEX]

A lot of what is considered wildlife management is not management at all. Areas are set aside to protect them from development and construction. These areas are protected from human interaction.

In some instances actual hands on management is needed to control the overpopulation of some species. Due to human development many species do not have any natural predators (wolves and bears have been pushed out of many eastern areas). This forces us to manage species to restore the balance once found in these systems.

So to answer the question wildlife management is not an oxymoron.

[wilkin250r]

Hunting itself can be considered wildlife management. Cletus already touched on population control, but not all hunting is population control. However, ALL hunting is regulated. Wildlife officials conduct studies to determine game populations, and limits and tags are issued based on the results of those studies. After a particularly hard winter, drought, or fire, when populations decrease, there are fewer numbers of tags issued for those areas.

Although it's not directly managing the wildlife, like a preserve, it is managing the harvest of wildlife and game.

[trick250r]

think about it, its WILDlife. if it's being managed it sure as hell isn't wild

[nebjamin]

well we manage where they can and cant go. We also manage there popluation. They can do whatever they want but wont come near places like big cities anyways.

[bulkdriverlp]

wilikin has it right, i was thinking that but couldnt figure out how to say it. wildlife management is controlling the sex of species also, like doe permits, the study is done and that determines the number of permits handed out, maybe there are too many does. a lot of deer starve during the winter. if you have not enough of one sex of a particular bird for example the dnr will section off a wildlife sanctuary, to attract what they are looking for. like the damn kirkland warbler around here. weve lost so much woods to these birds because their numbers are low and the dnr sectioned off quite a few spots and put up bird houses to try to get them to mate more to up their population. its hard to explain, i did my best

[DeerNuts]

Originally posted by bulkdriverlp
wilikin has it right, i was thinking that but couldnt figure out how to say it. wildlife management is controlling the sex of species also, like doe permits, the study is done and that determines the number of permits handed out, maybe there are too many does. a lot of deer starve during the winter. if you have not enough of one sex of a particular bird for example the dnr will section off a wildlife sanctuary, to attract what they are looking for. like the damn kirkland warbler around here. weve lost so much woods to these birds because their numbers are low and the dnr sectioned off quite a few spots and put up bird houses to try to get them to mate more to up their population. its hard to explain, i did my best

I understand what you're getting at.

First off, there is no way that wildlife management is an oxymoron. Second, to whoever said something along the lines of: "If you manage it, it is no longer wild" --- that is a totally incorrect assumption. Just go hunting, and I am not talking about a roped-off area either. Our wildlife here in PA is managed, and it is still wild. Observe the deer out back of my house and tell me that they are not wild creatures and Ill tell you that you are wrong.

In addition, to say, "Well, animals have made it for X amount of years and been just fine so why should we intervene" is also showing ignorance. That statement cannot be backed up. While this is of course going to vary in opinions, as some believe that animals were around for millions of years before humans, while others (myself included) believe they have co-existed for less than millions of years, you cant say they dont need to managed. They need to be managed NOW because never before has the human:animal ratio been this high. It is a fact that humans are encroaching and ruining many wildlife areas. As some have already stated: Too many animals + not enough land= unnecessary disease, death, and waste. Not to mention that increased encounters with wolves have resulted in loss of western rancher's sheep; cougar attacks (especially in CA) have gone up quite a bit recently, deer are eating all the rich people shrubbery (LMAO, go deer! ), sniper teams have been brought into Louisiana to reduce, of all things, the nutria population!

So as you can see, and make a case for, wildlife doesnt become any less wild because it is managed (when done correctly and not irresponsibly) and wildlife also MUST be managed, and since it's not a contradiction to manage wildlife, it's not an oxymoron

ps> sorry for the long post!