From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:12:19 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> When it seemed to fit the image you were hoping to convey, you 
>rl> stated that the LACS deer were consuming corn crops on 
>rl> neighboring farms, and, if I'm not mistaken, you also mentioned 
>rl> that the LACS deer were responsible for deforestation. 

>From article <BtJ87s.5xL@newcastle.ac.uk>, by J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer):
>js> You are not mistaken, you are wrong on both counts.
>js> 
>js> 1) I said that *surplus* deer caused by continued breeding of the deer
>js> on the LACS land are forced to seek new territory and *some* deer (not
>js> *the* deer, I have made that quite explicit) stray onto lower and
>js> cultivated land. I haven't ever mentioned what the crops might be. (It
>js> was you who mentioned corn.)

>How were you able to factually distinguish between "the" [your 
>emphasis] deer that consumed the crops and "some" [your emphasis] 
>deer that did not consume crops?  

Let me try (again). "The" deer means the main herds. As I understand
it, they live on the hill. That is, most of the deer live on the hill,
and for most of the time. "Some" deer means a very small minority of
migrants. These deer stray off the hill and onto cultivated land. Is
the distinction clear now?

> Would the act of consuming
>human crops cause the deer to be branded in some mysterious way?

Yes, that's the whole point. They would have moved onto cultivated
land, ie *not* on the hill. They become "marauders" of crops as thus
liable to be shot outside the normal huntign seasons and with weapons
not normally permitted (but more widely owned and available).

>js> 2) It is the Scottish highland deer, who appear not to know about 
>js> your birth control mechanisms, who are causing both permanent 
>js> land erosion, and deforestation through pressure of numbers.  It 
>js> is the Scottish deer which are insufficiently culled (cf the 
>js> culling policies of LACS) which are starving in their thousands, 
>js> not the LACS deer.  

>Please take the time to read Frisch, Rose.  "Fatness and Fertility",
>_Scientific American_, March, 1988.  I'm looking forward to your
>comments.

I'm not going to read it. (I just haven't time.) I do not dispute that
an animal in poor condition is less likely to breed. That's not in
dispute. What is in dispute is that, left alone, the deer will settle
for a breeding rate that avoids mass starvation during the winter and
hence culling is unnecessary. That was, after all, the starting point
of this thread, and why Tim raised the question of the LACS culling: if
it isn't necessary, why do they advocate it?

>rl> Are you in favor of game management policies that would reduce 
>rl> overpopulation?  Or, would you favor game management policies that
>rl> maintain consistently high "harvests"?

>js> Both. They are not mutually exclusive.

>If deer starvation is an ethical "bad" that ought to be 
>alleviated by hunting, would it not also be "bad" to promote 
>policies that increase the threat of starvation in the first 
>place?  

I'm not sure I was talking about ethics, was I? To my mind, the starved
deer represent an awful waste of nutritious, low fat, additive free,
meat. It's also a sorry sight, but nature is a harsh mistress.

Now, of which policies "that increase the threat of starvation" are you
thinking?

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals