Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Special Feature Articles - Most Recent
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • List of Issues
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • This Week In PNAS
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • Fees and Licenses

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Commentary

Human hunters and nonhuman predators: Fundamental differences

Richard Zeckhauser
PNAS January 3, 2017 114 (1) 13-14; first published December 28, 2016; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617003114
Richard Zeckhauser
aKennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: richard_zeckhauser@harvard.edu

See related content:

  • How hunter decisions affect selectivity
    - Nov 28, 2016
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The article in PNAS entitled, “How constraints affect the hunter’s decision to shoot a deer,” (1) develops and tests an extremely useful model of the way deer hunters behave in Norway. The authors, Diekert et al. (1), find that hunters, constrained by the number of deer that they can kill, by the number of days that they can hunt, and by social norms, adjust their selectivity regarding the animals they shoot. As costs rise and constraints tighten, they become less selective in the manner predicted by an optimal stopping model (2). The analysis also recognizes that objectives (recreation, provision of meat, or deer population reduction) differ among hunters, and that such differences affect the hunters’ selections of deer prey. These findings should generalize qualitatively to hunters from other nations and of other game.

Hunters and Predators: Fundamental Differences

The article spurs the reader to ponder similarities and differences between hunters (hereafter, humans) and predators (hereafter, nonhumans). This commentary focuses on some significant differences between hunters and predators, and between their effects on their prey populations.

Diekert et al. (1) observe that large carnivores, which are the natural predators in many wildlife populations, are now well below equilibrium levels in many industrial countries, and that hunters provide the predominant preying control on wildlife populations. They observe, as well, that hunters, by their selectivity and ability to kill at far above natural rates, produce far different effects on prey species than would their natural predators. However, there is a counterbalance to hunters’ outsized killing capability. Humans can impose regulations on themselves (e.g., catch limits, prohibitions on taking animals of a certain size or gender, hunting seasons) and can establish and adhere to social norms. The response to such limitations is the focus of Diekert et al. (1).

Most carnivores hunt to survive; they adjust their behaviors depending on their needs and on the availability of prey. Predatory animals have highly variable behaviors both within and among species. Lions appear lazy; they mostly sleep and rest because they can afford to do so. Snakes can be much more infrequent hunters; some eat only every 6 mo. Shrews are near-constant hunters; a few hours without eating can be fatal. Humans are in the tiny minority of species that often hunt recreationally, although our domesticated pets, dogs and particularly cats, also often kill their prey with little need for consumption.

Hunters have powers not available to predators, as mentioned; they can constrain their hunting behaviors through regulations and social norms (3). The behavior of predators, by contrast, is regulated by natural forces. Where humans are not significant participants, coevolved predator–prey populations produce equilibria. The equilibria may wander, and some populations move in cycles (4). In boreal forests, the lynx–snowshoe hare cycle, with some other predators participating, lasts roughly a decade and is an extreme example, with populations exploding and collapsing (5). Not surprisingly, lynx, just like Norwegian deer hunters, move on to less favored targets when faced with the constraint of a collapse in the hare population. Lynx, however, cannot long sustain themselves on secondary prey, and their population subsequently collapses, with emigration and losses to reproductive capability contributing.

Humans and Species Extinctions

No endangered species regulation constrains predators. However, there is virtually no known case where native predators have driven a prey species to extinction in a setting where humans played little or no role. Humans, by contrast, despite their regulatory tools, have contributed to innumerable extinctions. Humans can disrupt equilibrium patterns through their often outsized hunting capabilities, their habitat destruction, and their introductions of invasive species.

The lamented extinction of the once-multitudinous passenger pigeons is one example. Human activity greatly reduced their breeding grounds. However, the decisive exterminating factor was that those pigeons traveled in vast flocks, making them easy for humans to hunt even when their numbers dwindled (6). Alas, the human fervor for passenger pigeons did not give the pigeons time to evolve safer travel procedures.

A somewhat different story of cycle disruption revolves around humans’ superior ability to locate their prey. Hunters, unlike the nonhuman predators, may make extra special efforts to go after trophy species, such as the “Big Five” (lion, Cape buffalo, leopard, African elephant, and rhinoceros), which then become scarce. Thus, as elephant herds collapse, as they are now doing, the price of ivory may soar. If the cost of poaching goes up more slowly than the value of ivory, the cyclical phase of depletion may accelerate rather than self-correct. This depletion raises the need for humans to hunt humans, at least in terms of tracking and arresting poachers, and thereby significantly raises the costs to elephant hunters. This observation illustrates one of the few advantages that hunters have over predators if species preservation is the concern: Humans can consciously and collectively agree to curb or redirect their hunting activities.

Heterogeneity among predators of the same species may play a significant role in natural selection. Much has been made of habitat heterogeneity in predator–prey relationships (7). Heterogeneity within a predatory species should also be considered. When prey are abundant, they are easily found. Thus, the sickly within a predatory species can survive alongside the sturdy. However, if food sources are scarce, dinner will disproportionately go to the strong and the swift. When a predatory species might be in danger due to scarcity of food, it is subject to more stringent selective pressures, which is good news for the next generation. Such a pattern is no doubt beneficial to the species’ long-term survival.

The deer-hunter article by Diekert et al. (1) also stimulates readers to attend to the role of hunting from the standpoint of the prey. The survival of prey is critical to both humans and ecosystem balance, even when their natural predators have been relegated to a minor or zero role. As any prey grow scarcer, we can speculate, as more articles like the article by Diekert et al. (1) should document, on the ways they might gain a selective advantage relative to hunters. Positing that prey are important consumers of their favorite food sources, their food supply will be relatively abundant. They can spend less time foraging, an activity that tends to make them more available targets. When prey numbers are threatened by humans, a greater fraction of a prey species can locate in more difficult terrains, further from civilization, which is another way to make them more difficult to hunt. Despite lacking great cognitive powers, prey may naturally adjust their behavior to protect themselves against hunters, as they do against predators (8).

Humans can protect a depleted prey species by adjusting their hunting behavior. Thus, social norms, regulation, or merely higherThe article by Diekert et al. spurs readers to look more deeply into humans' hunting behavior. It also reminds us, much more importantly, that native predators often help ecosystems persist; human hunters often disrupt them. hunting costs lead them to turn to other species or curb hunting activity overall. A salient early success was the effort that enabled the severely threatened American alligator population to recover fully by 1987 after the Endangered Species Act had prohibited its hunt. Lynx take a different course to enable hare populations to recover; they die themselves, suffer reproductive problems, and move away.

In current times, humans seem much more capable of limiting hunting activity than they are of undoing the introductions of invasive species and the destruction of native habitats. Feral cats, introduced to locales as pets, are responsible for the extinctions of numerous bird species (9). Burmese pythons, also originally pets, now thrive in vast numbers in the Everglades. The pythons have driven populations of small animals, such as raccoons, rabbits, and foxes, down to tiny percentages of their original numbers (10). Extinction of some species, or at least local extirpation, is probable.

Humans have powers not available to animal predators, both to kill prey and to prevent such killing. Some such powers are exercised individually; others are exercised collectively. When hunters kill, their “strongly selective hunting may have unexpected ecological and evolutionary consequences” (ref. 1, p. 5). Fortunately, this article enables us to understand such selective behavior better, thus creating some potential to create policies to alter it.

The article by Diekert et al. (1) spurs readers to look more deeply into humans’ hunting behavior. It also reminds us, much more importantly, that native predators often help ecosystems persist; human hunters often disrupt them.

Footnotes

  • ↵1Email: richard_zeckhauser{at}harvard.edu.
  • Author contributions: R.Z. wrote the paper.

  • The author declares no conflict of interest.

  • See companion article on page 14450 in issue 50 of volume 113.

View Abstract

References

  1. ↵
    1. Diekert FK,
    2. Richter A,
    3. Rivrud IM,
    4. Mysterud A
    (2016) How constraints affect the hunter’s decision to shoot a deer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(50):14450–14455.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Arrow KJ,
    2. Blackwell D,
    3. Girshick MA
    (1949) Bayes and minimax solutions of sequential decision problems. Econometrica 17(3/4):213–244.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Nickerson PH
    (1990) Demand for the regulation of recreation: The case of elk and deer hunting in Washington State. Land Econ 66(4):437–447.
    .
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. May RM
    (1972) Limit cycles in predator-prey communities. Science 177(4052):900–902.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Stenseth NC,
    2. Falck W,
    3. Bjornstad ON,
    4. Krebs CJ
    (1997) Population regulation in snowshoe hare and Canadian lynx: Asymmetric food web configurations between hare and lynx. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94(10):5147–5152.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Bucher EH
    (1992) The causes of extinction of the passenger pigeon. Current Ornithology, ed Power DM (Springer, New York), Vol 9, pp 1–36.
    .
  7. ↵
    1. Gorini L, et al.
    (2012) Habitat heterogeneity and mammalian predator–prey interactions. Mammal Rev 42(1):55–77.
    .
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Luttbeg B,
    2. Schmitz OJ
    (2000) Predator and prey models with flexible individual behavior and imperfect information. Am Nat 155(5):669–683.
    .
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Dauphiné N,
    2. Cooper RJ
    (2009) Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Birds, Habitats and People: Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference, eds Rich TD, Arizmendi C, Demarest D, Thompson C (Partners in Flight, McAllen, TX), pp 205–219.
    .
  10. ↵
    1. Dorcas ME, et al.
    (2012) Severe mammal declines coincide with proliferation of invasive Burmese pythons in Everglades National Park. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109(7):2418–2422.
    .
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Human hunters and nonhuman predators: Fundamental differences
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Predators sustain; hunters disrupt
Richard Zeckhauser
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2017, 114 (1) 13-14; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1617003114

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Predators sustain; hunters disrupt
Richard Zeckhauser
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Jan 2017, 114 (1) 13-14; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1617003114
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 114 (1)
Table of Contents

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Social Sciences
  • Sustainability Science

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Hunters and Predators: Fundamental Differences
    • Humans and Species Extinctions
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Abstract depiction of a guitar and musical note
Science & Culture: At the nexus of music and medicine, some see disease treatments
Although the evidence is still limited, a growing body of research suggests music may have beneficial effects for diseases such as Parkinson’s.
Image credit: Shutterstock/agsandrew.
Scientist looking at an electronic tablet
Opinion: Standardizing gene product nomenclature—a call to action
Biomedical communities and journals need to standardize nomenclature of gene products to enhance accuracy in scientific and public communication.
Image credit: Shutterstock/greenbutterfly.
One red and one yellow modeled protein structures
Journal Club: Study reveals evolutionary origins of fold-switching protein
Shapeshifting designs could have wide-ranging pharmaceutical and biomedical applications in coming years.
Image credit: Acacia Dishman/Medical College of Wisconsin.
White and blue bird
Hazards of ozone pollution to birds
Amanda Rodewald, Ivan Rudik, and Catherine Kling talk about the hazards of ozone pollution to birds.
Listen
Past PodcastsSubscribe
Goats standing in a pin
Transplantation of sperm-producing stem cells
CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing can improve the effectiveness of spermatogonial stem cell transplantation in mice and livestock, a study finds.
Image credit: Jon M. Oatley.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science
  • Teaching Resources

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Librarians
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2021 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490