Final answer:
If hunting were stopped or banned, animal populations would generally increase until reaching the carrying capacity of their environment. Without hunting, there could be concerns of overpopulation leading to habitat destruction and decline in biodiversity. Eventually, populations may stabilize at a sustainable level if natural predation and ecosystem balance are maintained.
Step-by-step explanation:
If hunting were stopped or banned completely, the immediate effect on animal populations would generally be an increase. This is because hunting by humans removes individuals from the population, which reduces its size. Without hunting, the population growth rate may accelerate until it reaches the carrying capacity of their environment, which is the maximum population size that the environment can sustain given the food, habitat, water, and other necessities available in the environment.
Over time, the lack of hunting could lead to overpopulation if the growth exceeds the carrying capacity, which could then lead to negative impacts on the environment, such as overgrazing, habitat destruction, and decline in certain plant species. Additionally, it could also result in increased competition among animals for the limited resources, possibly leading to a population decrease thereafter. However, if the ecosystem is robust and has natural predators to control the animal population, then the populations may stabilize at a level sustained by the carrying capacity.
In the long term, the complete absence of hunting could also cause ecological imbalances, as certain species may dominate over others, leading to a loss of biodiversity. Thus, wildlife management strategies often include regulated hunting to maintain a balance within ecosystems.