From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:40:29 GMT


Tim Rigg asked:
tr> If deer can self regulate their populations without any predation, do
tr> you have any guesses why the League Against Cruel Sports used culling
tr> by shooters to maintain deer populations on reserves they controlled?

Russell Lawrence asks:
rl> Getting back to the deer park that you mentioned previously, 
rl> would you say that the reserves in question were ecologically
rl> stable and free from human interference?  Were the deer that lived 
rl> therein dependent on the resources of the eco-system alone or were 
rl> their food supplies supplemented with fat-rich animal feeds and/or
rl> handouts from well-meaning visitors?  

From article <BtA3pn.JG4@newcastle.ac.uk>, by J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer):
js> And since I am in a position of knowledge on this matter, I'll provide
js> some answers.
js> 
js> 1) It is not a park (that implies enclosed land) it is open wild
js> moorland - Exmoor I believe. One of the few places in England where
js> wild red deer exist and one of the few places where they are hunted.
js> (No coincidence there.)
js> 
js> 2) Yes, the moors are basically free from human interference. It is not
js> cultured land. The area bought by LACS has been deliberately left alone,
js> not even sheep are grazed on it.
js> 
js> 3) Yes the deer are entirely dependent on what nature provides. The
js> LACS made much (when they bought the land) that nature would be left to
js> take its course. (Handouts from visitors? Look Russell, these are WILD
js> deer, they are not domesticated creatures, they keep clear of
js> predators.)
js> 
js> Well, nature *has* taken its course. And now the LACS has red deer
js> coming out of its ears. They have a statutory obligation to prevent
js> marauding deer from damaging neighbour's crops (which the deer are
js> doing)...

Thank you for admitting that these deer are not truly dependent on 
what nature provides.  You've described a group of animals that 
are supposedly free from human interference and free from 
handouts, yet they have human crops available for eating...  
crops that are typically higher in fat and protein than the brush 
material that deer would typically eat.  

js> Their piece of land will support only so many deer.

True.  And the adjacent cropland will only support so many deer.  When
the supplies are exhausted, however, fertility will decline as fat
tissue falls below a certain point.

js> Consequently, they have recognised that, in the absence of natural
js> predation (eg the European wolf) they are going to have to cull the
js> deer themselves, or get someone to do it for them (but not as a sport).
js> Only they don't consider that a pack of deerhounds (eg the Quorn hunt
js> who own neighbouring land) is an acceptable substitute for a pack of
js> wolves. The LACS advocate that the deer should be controlled by
js> "marksmen using high powered rifles". THis is a very different position
js> from that when they bought the land which argued that the deer would
js> stabalise their numbers to that which the ground could support. They
js> don't, they just expand their range (of course).

You're promoting one half-truth as a substitute for another 
half-truth.  Animal populations are, indeed, self-regulating.  And 
animal populations will, indeed, expand their range if given the 
opportunity to do so.  Your example demonstrates that the 
creation and protection of stable, natural ecosystems isn't an 
easy task when the areas in question are surrounding by man-made 
environments like farms.  

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