From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:14:37 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <BMIH43.BFr@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.091640.4884@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <72734@netnews.upenn.edu>, barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>>> 	There can be a number of confounds in studies which look at
>>> development of certain behaviors as a hunting season progresses.
>>> Russell mentions one - behavior of individual animals is not changing
>>> rather the average behavior of the population may change simply by
>>> virtue of a strong selection pressure, i.e. hunting.
>>> 	Another is that fawns normally undergo (perhaps) developmental
>>> changes in "flightiness" from more to less flighty
>>> 	Yearling males, and to some degree 2.5 yo's also undergo
>>> changes in behavior apparently independent of hunting stress.  These
>>> younger males seem to have less stable and perhaps less familiar home
>>> ranges than do older bucks, and may as a result be more visible to
>>> hunters.  For example increased yearling vulnerability is seen in a
>>> previously unhunted deer herd on 18K acres of a national wildlife
>>> refuge.
>>> 	Despite the repeated reference to bucks becoming almost
>>> totally nocturnal, I have never seen any reference to a study
>>> supporting this -- perhaps whoever posted that claim could supply a
>>> reference.  There are however some which do NOT find bucks or does for
>>> that matter becoming almost totally nocturnal during hunting seasons.
>>> Beir and McCullough Wildl. Monogr. 109 (1990) find that yearround peak
>>> activity either just precedes sunset or just follows sunrise.  Similar
>>> data although less extensive can be found in Kammermyer and
>>> Marchington J. Wildl. Manage. 41(2) 1977.  Nevertheless there is at
>>> least one situation during which the _doe_ becomes almost exclusively
>>> nocturnal and that is during estrus.  This nocturnal activity last at
>>> most about 2 days for an individual doe during november.  One might
>>> imagine that an increase in buck nocturnal activity might also be
>>> observed during that time.
>>
>>Year round?
> 
> 	Reread the paragraph above.  I already stated the answer to
> that question.  In spring peak activity starts before and ends
> slightly after sunset.
> 
>>Irregardless of hunting seasons?
> 
>>Was the area they studied 
>>subject to heavy hunting pressure?  Moderate?  Light?
> 
> 	Given your previous statement that you doubted that over 10%
> of a herd was typically killed annually, I'd say "heavy" but I'm not
> sure what you really mean by that.  I don't have the paper here but as
> I recall about 30% of the herd was killed annually in spring and fall
> hunts.

Interesting.  I am surprised it was so high.  I said I doubted it, not that 
I had any basis fact for my doubts. :-)

> 	That said, you posted the original claim that deer, at least
> bucks, become "almost totally nocturnal".  Please post some sort of
> citation which supports this.

That statement was based on 'hunting lore' and conversations I've had with 
local wildlife departments.  My original statement, I believe, was that 
they become almost totally nocturnal *until* the onset of the rut.  Perhaps 
I clarified that later on.  Perhaps my information is in error.

> 
>>> 	This is not to imply that I think deer are incapable of
>>> learning about humans.  I fully agree that they are quite capable of
>>> learning all sorts of things about hunters.  However, I do NOT agree
>>> that this ability translates into a tangible effect on differential
>>> survival of age groups during hunting season.  An early study by
>>> Macguire and Severinghaus (1954) NY Fish and Game J. observed
>>> increased yearling kill only for the first day of season, Eberhardt
>>> (I've cited this b4, 1961) found that the proportion of an age class
>>> in the population at large was the same as the proportion in the
>>> harvest.  Similar data were obtained in NH (or VT) by Laramie and
>>> White (1965) [cited in _Dynamics of Large Mammal Populations_ Fowler
>>> and Smith ed. (1981)].
>>
>>Ahhh, but there was an increase on the first day....interesting.  If this 
>>happens consistently it would seem to suggest that older deer recognize the 
>>signs of opening day fever prior to the commencement of the hunting season 
>>and take cover.
> 
> 	Ahhh?  I've never claimed that deer were incapable of
> learning, but rather any learning probably irrelevant to differential
> survival during most hunting seasons.

Yes.  It is probably irrelevant because shortly after the hunting season 
starts the mating season begins.  This tends to increase the activity level 
of deer.  Thus it is not surprising (at least to me) that the kill would be 
representative of the population age distribution.

> 	You seem not to have read what I've written above.  That
> "older deer [may] recognize the signs of opening day fever prior to the
> commencement of the hunting season and take cover" is but one possible
> interpretation.  I've outlined others above which was the purpose of
> my post in the first place!.  The data as I've described "suggest"
> nothing unique about mechanism.  Please reread above.

I read it and I understood it.  You're right, it is only one possible 
interpretation.  I think it is the most reasonable one.

> 	Anyway the point of the discussion about deer learning was not
> to discuss argue abstract notions of learning capabilities of deer but
> rather whether or not learning significantly or consistently altered
> the kill rate of young deer over older deer.  So far you have posted
> nothing which supports the belief that over the course of a hunting
> season young deer have disproportionally high mortality, let alone
> show that any increased mortality is due to learning about hunters.

See above wrt the mating season.

> 
>>In essence what this study is saying is that overall, hunters randomly sample
>>the population and thereby end up with a similar distribution?  This would also 
>>seem to negate the claim that hunters are selecting for *any* particular 
>>trait and that overall, what determines any particular deer's chance of 
>>survival is the number of other deer in its age group.
> 
> 	Huh?  I've never said otherwise.  Perhaps you are thinking of
> someone else?  Didn't you argue that mortality was disproportionally
> higher among young males due to learning about hunting or was that
> someone else?

No, you never said that but I wasn't confusing you with someone else.  I 
wove that in from another discussion and I should have been more clear 
about where it came from.  Appologies for the confusion.

> 
>>Was this study conducted on a number of different herds or only one?  Have 
>>its results been reproduced and corroborated in other areas?
> 
> 	Uh, yes.  Please reread what I wrote and note citation of
> Eberhardt (1960) and Laramie and White (1965).  Please feel free to
> post citations which present different results.

Yes.  You're right.  You already answered that.

> 	Has _your_ to date still unsubstantiated claim that deer
> become "almost totally nocturnal" "been reproduced and corroborated in
> other areas"?  

Based on what I've read, I would say yes.  Since my information on this 
topic however has the status of lore, not verified scientific fact, I 
suspect it would be difficult to tell for sure.

> 
>>> 	So,  if the hunting season is short and not very intense, you
>>> might see some effect but probably only minimal.
>>
>>Depends.  Here the season is about 1 month long, maybe more.  It is intense 
>>on the weekends, but not usually too intense (where I hunt at least) during 
>>the week.  I've never been out on opening day, I may go this year.  I 
>>suspect intensity in many areas looks like an exponentially decreasing 
>>curve (starts out high and stays that way for a short period and then drops 
>>dramatically for a short period, levels out a bit and tapers off towards 
>>the end of the season.
> 
> 	Well, it may approximate an exponential (lets say a discrete
> exponential) but certainly in some places then the "time constant" is
> quite short.  I think ~60% of the total harvest in PA last year (?)
> occurred on opening day.  Between 1946 and 1950 (?) ~60% of the total
> harvest occurred in the first 3 days in Minnesota.  Your mileage may
> vary...

Yes, opening day usually accounts for a very large proportion of the taken 
animals.

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Edwin Barkdoll
> eb3@world.std.com
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals