From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 05:53:22 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> So says the hunter myth.  If you think about the myth critically, 
rl> you'll discover that it's proponents somehow believe that natural 
rl> predators can outmatch their quarry the way humans with guns 
rl> might do.  The empirical evidence shows, however, that the 
rl> defensive skills of healthy deer are a good match for the 
rl> offensive skills of their traditional predator (wolves).  Apart 
rl> from the empirical evidence presented by Mowat and others, the 
rl> hunter myth falls apart logically when you ask yourself what 
rl> prevents predators from simply killing and consuming all the 
rl> prey.  Surely they don't take a census of the available deer and 
rl> limit their "harvests" the way humans might do.  

In article <viking.714443887@vincent1.iastate.edu>, Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Predators are opportunistic, and that includes both animals
ds> and the vast majority of hunters.  A lion stalking game is no less
ds> opportunistic than the bowhunter sneaking to within ten feet to
ds> deliver a killing shot.  The "myth" you espouse to disagree with is
ds> correct -- food dictates the number of animals in the herd.  It
ds> does that by lowering birth rates and by the starving of the
ds> animals.  This, of course, makes them more succeptable to disease
ds> and physically weaker, hence the predators cull out the least
ds> healthy and life goes on for all concerned.
ds>
ds> You have failed to show that the food supply does not limit
ds> by starvation in any circumstance, and this is what the "myth" you
ds> claim has no merit takes into account.  Prove it wrong.

"Prove it wrong"?  As I've pointed out to Mike Linan, this kind 
of statement is a manifestation of the classical "appeal to 
ignorance" and is a categorical fallacy.  I've presented pointers 
to verifiable data to support my position.  Would you mind 
doing the same, in lieu of presenting fallacious, "prove-me-wrong" 
appeals?  

While it may be true that predators are especially effective 
during times when food is scarce, let's ask ourselves what would 
happen if there were no predators at all.  Contrary to what 
hunters who live in cities may wish to believe, deer food doesn't 
simply run out in nature the way human food might disappear from 
grocery store shelves.  Rather, it becomes harder and harder to 
find and animals typically respond by being less selective in 
choosing their food.  If the food shortage continues, their 
metabolism will drop and they'll expend less energy, as human 
dieters know all too well.  To the extent that caloric 
expenditure still exceeds caloric intake, they'll end up burning 
fat calories.  

For active animals (but not couch potatos), there's quite a span 
between the high-end caloric intake that permits an animal to 
gain fat, and the low-end caloric intake that would ultimately 
bring about death.  As such, the notion that feasting quickly 
turns to starvation seems unfounded to me.  Assuming that a 
serious famine were to continue in the absence of predators, 
competition for food would be great and fertility would drop 
dramatically as fat tissue in the females decreases.  As 
fertility drops, the population would be reduced by old age even 
if predation were totally non-existent.  

I'm not disputing that deer can and do starve in north america.  
Far from it, but it seems to me that this starvation is the 
result of an ongoing ecological crisis in many of our rural and 
wilderness areas and isn't the consequence of "no hunting" signs 
as hunters would have us believe.  Moreover, there's ample 
evidence in hunting books and hunting magazines to show that 
hunters themselves are partially responsible for promoting this 
kind of instability.   One example that comes to mind was an
article that encouraged hunters to petition large lumber companies
to cut timber in such a way that the level of undergrowth would be 
raised (albeit temporarily), thereby enhancing the likelihood
of a bumper deer "harvest".   

rl> It seems to me that we need to stabilize these eco-systems that we
rl> wish to preserve, and stabilization won't be possible as long as
rl> hunter advocacy groups continue to petition lumber companies and park 
rl> departments to maintain a large deer "harvest" from year to year.
rl> Personally, I think it's dishonest when a group campaigns for programs
rl> that will increase overpopulation (aka "harvests), while citing 
rl> overpopulation as a moral excuse for sport hunting.    

ds> Dishonest?  They admit to wanting high populations so they can
ds> harvest more.  That's like claiming a lumber company is dishonest for
ds> planting trees so it can cut them down again.  Rubbish.

I agree that your example is rubbish, although "irrelevant" would be
a kinder term.  

Again, it's grossly dishonest for hunter advocacy groups to 
campaign for measures that contribute to unsustainably high 
populations of deer, and then turn around and offer "hunting" as 
an ethical alternative to death by starvation.  If starvation is 
evil, as many hunters claim, why do so many of them encourage 
policies that cause starvation in the first place?  

rl> Perhaps you don't see a difference between human predation and natural
rl> predation but those differences do, indeed, exist. 

ds> Culling the stupid instead of the weak.  Big deal.

Another myth.  To say that deer are stupid because they allow 
themselves to be caught in a hunter's telescopic sights doesn't 
have much merit.  Unless you think that deer are telepathic in 
some way, how are they supposed to understand the dangers posed 
by humans bearing guns?  Deer school, perhaps?  Deer newspapers?  
Deer radio?  You might argue that such deer are stupid because 
they're simply not afraid.  Yet, studies have shown that 
predators often have a much better chance of successfully 
attacking fleeing deer than they would have with deer that stand 
and fight.  In fact, wolf "testing" is often intended to 
encourage flight, as someone on your side of the fence pointed 
out a few days ago.   As such, it seems to me that deer who
don't run may be "smarter" than the deer that flee.  The fact
that they don't understand the unnatural threat posed by human
hunters with guns is hardly a sign of stupidity.

rl> If I'm not mistaken, the average age of deer in the United States is
rl> less than three years, yet deer don't reach their full skeletal maturity
rl> before five years of age.  If they were subject to natural predation
rl> in stable ecosystems rather than human predation in contrived ecosystems, 
rl> there would be fewer deer and they'd live quite a bit longer.

ds> I'd like to know how this statistic can possibly have any merit.
ds> ...
ds> I wouldn't trust that statistic you've provided any further than I 
ds> can spit.

I'll provide bibliographical pointers when I have a chance, Dan.  Will
it have any impact on your attitudes?    Or will you still insist that
you're entitled to do whatever it is that you want to do?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals