From: eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll)
Subject: Re: ref. on wildlife pop. controls
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:11:20 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.095317.4812@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <72287@netnews.upenn.edu>, barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr1.104056.4697@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>
>>>1) What was the estimated population of deer in what is now the 
>>>continental U.S. prior to establishment of the British colonies?
>
>> 	15-40 million animals.
>
>That high?  Given that the F&WS was not established at that time, how do we 
>know?

	If you are now saying that it is impossible to estimate the
population of Precolumbian deer why did you ask the question in the
first place?
	I have provided 2 references in a posting to Tim Riggs.  If
you any references which suggest otherwise please post them.

>>>2) What happened to the deer population when exposed to unchecked market 
>>>hunting?
>> 
>> 	300-500 thounsand animals just before the 1900.
>
>You got it.  Think about that.  From 15-40 million -> 3-5 hundred thousand.

	What?  Now you seem to accept 15-40 million.

>>>3) What is the current deer population?
>> 
>> 	12-20 million.
>
>Closer to 25 million at this point I think.

	I have also posted references on this point to Tim Riggs.  If
you have any references regarding current U.S. deer populations please
post, otherwise I'm not terribly interested in what you "think" the
population is.

>>>4) Has that population been stable for many years, or has it been subject 
>>>to disporportionate swings, over all?
>> 
>> 	Depends upon where in the US, what species of deer, what you
>> mean by many years and what is dispropoortionate.  So what do you mean?
>
>The key to the meaning is the phrase 'over all'.  So, has the population, 
>over all (not local variations of the sort noted in California below, but 
>the *whole* population) been relatively stable?

	I'd hardly call California local, however the peak an
subsequent decline in mule deer populations was seen all throughout
the western US.  For example see _State of the Environment: A view
toward the nineties_ (1987) page 307 table 5.13: "Populations of
selected large animals in the U.S. Forest Service lands, 1960-1984.
Mule deer populations decreased by about 50% between 1962 and 1976.
So, NO on the whole the mule deer population has NOT been stable.

>>>5) Was the population in (1) above stable, or was it subject to dramatic 
>>>swings?
>> 
>> 	You're joking, right?  Could you please point me to any
>> citation which claims to have reliable data on a) the number of
>> preEuropean deer pop'ns and b) whether or not the pop'n was stable.
>> The U.S. F&WS didn't even exist before 1885 (it wasn't called F&WS
>> then of course).  Trapping records would be of only marginal
>> significance.
>
>I most certainly am *NOT* joking.  I don't have any reliable data on 
>pre-european deer populations.  Nonetheless, it is easy enough to answer 
>this.  In the absence of natural predation, the deer population would be 
>subject to the dramatic swings of the boom and bust cycle.   Given the 
>existence of natural predators, it is shouldn't be too difficult to get a 
>rough idea of population stability.

	Well if it is "easy enough to answer", please do so: how
stable is that rough idea?  In order to even do a seat of the pants
estimate you'll at least need to also have estimates of predator
numbers (oops F&WS wasn't around to help you on that), any weather
cycles, native american predation, competition from any other large
herbivores.

	Predator/prey cycles are well know in population biology.  Are
you really saying that in the presence of predation deer populations
will be "stable"?

>>>Go get the answers to those questions and I think you will have established 
>>>that modern sport hunting has had a beneficial effect on our ability to 
>>>maintain high population numbers among whitetail deer on a long term, 
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>on-going basis.
>> 
>> 	That is obvious.  Maximum sustained yield has been a driving
>> force behind game management for years.  A consequence of that is high
>> but not too high populations.
>> 
>
>Glad to hear you say so.  Ted has been arguing that there is little or no 
>evidence that hunting maintains the population and health of deer.

	I've said nothing about population health.  Health may or may
not be optimized under a maximum sustained yield program -- I can't
really address that.

>We've 
>established, I think, from the above numbers that modern sport hunting 
>promotes sustainable, stable populations.

	We have?  15-40 million, <500 thousand and 12-20 million are
the only "above numbers" I see that you could possibly be referring
to.  The downward trend in western US in mule deer was not stable,
nor apparently was the peak population of mule deer in the early
1960's "sustainable".

>Now for the next question:  How 
>healthy are they?

	Feel free to come up with an operational definition of health.
Until then I'm not interested in discussing "health" in a vacuum.

>John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have


-- 
Edwin Barkdoll
eb3@world.std.com