such processes. Harvesting strategies that are currently 

 practical do not even closely mimic the culling and 

 "harvesting" practices of domestic livestock operations which 

 make use of "substitution". 



Normally, domestic cattle ranchers attempt to cull and 

 sell older, unproductive, and unthrifty cows before they die. 

 Similarly, "cow-calf" operators sell the major portion of the 

 crop of young-of-the-year shortly after weaning, retaining the 

 best calves to replace adults that were culled. Although not 

 100% efficient, generally those animals most likely to die or 

 decline in productivity are sold for a return rather than 

 retaining them in the population. 



If on 1 October each year, the rancher randomly, rather 

 than selectively, removed 20-30% of his cows and calves for 

 sale, some additional mortality would almost certainly occur 

 during the next year among vulnerable animals not selectively 

 culled. In this case, the rancher employed a harvesting 

 strategy similar to most "enlightened" wildlife harvesting 

 strategies that harvest a portion of the females and young. 

 The point of this example is that even for areas or species in 

 which some density-dependent compensatory mortality and 

 reproduction are considered to be a valid component of models, 

 we should not assume anywhere close to 100% efficiency of 

 operation. At least some harvesting loss will always be 

 additive to other losses. Recruitment must match harvests 

 plus additional natural loss to maintain stable 

 populations . 



Where habitats contain interspersed public and private 

 lands, the distribution of harvest in both space and time has 

 important implications to population dynamics. Hunters seem 

 to prefer to not ask permission to hunt on private land if 

 public land is available. Part of the mystique of hunting is 

 the sense of freedom and "providing for yourself". In Montana 

 at least, asking permission violates both desired products. 

 At some point, however, overcrowding on public land reduces 

 the sense of freedom and the deer population enough to 

 increase the attractiveness of hunting on private land. This 

 situation aids those interested in "privatization" of wildlife 

 and argues against overharvests of deer on public lands. It 

 may also indicate that high sustained harvests and maximum 

 opportunity for everyone is not a unanimous public goal for 

 management on public lands. 



Because of the above and other considerations, 

 uncontrolled distribution of hunting pressure often results in 

 overharvests of "roadside" deer and deer on public lands. 

 Thus, core populations in secure habitat and populations on 

 private lands with limited access can remain relatively 

 unchanged while hunter dissatisfaction generally increases. 



341 



