310 



PREDATION 



COMPETING INTERESTS 



Contemplation of the possibility of predator control for the benefit of game imme- 

 diately raises a number of issues among those whose interests would be affected. The old 

 adage, "You can't please all the people all the time", applies here as elsewhere. To the sports- 

 man predators represent competitors, but to some orchardists the grouse itself, game bird par 

 excellence, is a predator*. To the trapper those which are also fur bearers are a means of 

 livelihood. To the nature lover they are all, game and predator alike, interesting members of 

 the community of the outdoors. To the biologist each species is a unique and irreplaceable 

 cog in the vast mechanism of the universe. "What is one man's meat is another's poison." 



In each faction one finds extremists as well as conservatives. Many so-called sportsmen 

 would welcome the complete elimination of all important predators of their favorite game 

 species. On the other hand there are protectionists who would c()m])la(ently watch the last 

 grouse fall victim to any predator except the human one. The majority, however, although per- 

 haps less vociferous, are more reasonable, and many have widely overlapping interests. 



It is axiomatic that any well founded game management program must take all points of 

 \iew into consideration. Yet one must realize that their relative importance may vary 

 widely between localities. In the central Adirondack* of New York, for example, fur trap- 

 ping is of greater moment than is bird shooting, while over most other areas of the State the 

 reverse is true. In certain localities the running of foxes and raccoons with dogs is a major 

 sport. Similarly the ideal of the protectionist is feasible only in sanctuaries and on private 

 lands. 



Moreover, although at first appearing diametrically opposed, the actual conflict between 

 the objectives of the various factions is in reality not great when considered with due regard 

 for all sides of the question. Extreme points of view ar<' obviously irreconcilable and. as 

 Leopold™ says, "biologically unsound and in many cases economically impossible". Yet no 

 reasonably minded person desires the extermination of any native wildlife species, and only 

 the most selfish will contend that a harvest of the surplus of a game or fur species is not 

 justified. rill' principal stumbling-block is tin' failure |o differentiate luluccn llie fale of 

 populations and that of individuals. 



But the deliberation of sages is merely guesswork unless ihey ha\e facts ujjon which to base 

 their reasoning. Game managers are no exception. In general, however, existing knowledge 

 has hardly more than peered in at the entrance to the labyrinth of ramifications involved. 

 The following discussion represents what additional light the In\ cstigation is able to slicd on 

 the problem with respect to the ruffed grouse in the Northeast. 



ROLE OF I'KKDATION 



As has been pointed out. wildlife species must be prevented from realizing their reproduc- 

 tive j)otcntials and ])re(lation is one of the major means bv which Nature acconiplishcs that 

 purpose. Its basic funclioii is the irduclinii nl |>u|iul,ilioii surpluses. That it represents 



» S<r Ch.i|.l.c II, |.. lOJ. 





'^-^ 



bCA&. 



