What is unfortunate is that when the media picked up on this “finding”, it seized on the opportunity to thrash the hunting community as evildoers who are going to destroy our wildlife.

Sportsmen discuss such events at varied levels and this seldom finds its way beyond hunting magazines and a few scholastic pieces.

Thank you for taking the time to offer you thoughts on this.

The claims of subtle shifts in which rams do the breeding deserves attention but with a great deal of caution. What I believe is at play here has far less to do with the biology of the Ovis canadensis than it does with scratching an ideological itch that has long festered with the public.

One of the grand narratives of non- and anti-hunters is that hunting ~in addition to being a moral wrong~ has unintended negative consequences for wildlife at the population level. There has been a longstanding hunger for some scientific evidence to support this stance amongst adherents to the “hunting-hurts-wildlife” philosophy and when Coltman’s paper appeared in a flagship journal, there was very much made of it, probably more than the biology deserved, but debate is a good thing.

As hunters we often put a lot of capital into the argument that hunting-helps-wildlife through sportsman contributions, lobbying for habitat, awareness, protection, reintroductions etc. If indeed there are a few small downsides – and I do believe that Coltman’s genetics argument has some possible merit from an evolutionary perspective – then I think we should face up to them and incorporate them into our management regimes. They can be accomodated. Knowledge of, and response to, phenotypic/genetic management problems are some of the things we can do pretty well with hunted wild populations.

Imagine if we had found that hunting actually IMPROVED antler size and dominant male fitness; I suspect we hunters would have crowed long and loud about the benefits, not because the science was so profound but because it favored the continuation of the activities we dearly love.

Yes, I think we should speak out to broaden the discussion and provide context when opponents of hunting try to use leverage to end the activities we love and believe in. No, I don’t think we should compromise our credibility as responsible stewards by never admitting there are both up and downsides to wildlife management. The list of negatives exists but in the larger picture, that list is dwarfed by the beneficial contributions of wildlife ecology.

I am very proud that some of the Ram Mountain Sheep research has been sponsored by hunter and angler dollars over the last decade the the Alberta Conservation Association. I am looking forward to further study and the incorporation of findings into enlightened management by our Provincial wildlife system.

Shoot straight

Lee Foote