4 ms·
I'm not sure about elk, but deer tend to have an alpha male that mates with multiple females, so shooting a buck doesn't damage the population as much. I think
by 13of40 9y ago
I'm not sure about elk, but deer tend to have an alpha male that mates with multiple females, so shooting a buck doesn't damage the population as much. I think that's why antelope hunting is gender-agnostic and you need to win a lottery to do it: They're monogamous, so killing a male has the same impact on the population as killing a female.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoIt seems a lot more likely that killing males would discourage them from being monogamous than that killing males would have the same population impact as killing females.
- Mz 9y agoIf you assume that they adapt the way human cultures do to such influences, which isn't necessarily true of animal populations.
- wbl 9y agoEvolutionary pressure is a harsh mistress.
- IndrekR 9y agoI am not sure how well Heinlein's polyandrous Loonies[1] would match real-life scenarios. This did not happen in New South Wales where male convicts outnumbered the female convicts six to one[2]. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_women_in_Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convict_women_in_Australia
- thaumasiotes 9y agoMales and females are not symmetrical. A female who never reproduces because she wants to be faithful to a mate who doesn't exist is giving up 100% of her reproduction. A female who stays faithful to a mate who does exist is giving up 0%, in terms of quantity -- one mate can provide all the children a female is capable of having.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoThe only things you need to assume are that they're alive and their mode of reproduction is obligately sexual. As far as the prediction is concerned, humans are totally irrelevant.