From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:31:12 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <!+7t2w+@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.100323.4931@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <6=2tmj=@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>>> In article <1992Apr6.123853.4818@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>Hunting preasure makes them less active during the day.  However, if a cold 
>>>>snap triggers the rut, all that goes out the window and you are likely to 
>>>>see deer at any time.  As well, deer show an uncanny ability to adapt to 
>>>>the movements of their predator.  They know when most of these bipedal 
>>>>creatures leave the woods (around noon) and so they come out and stretch.
>>> 
>>> Do you know they come out around noon because you don't leave at noon?
>>> Wouldn't that mean you take a higher percentage of "smart" deer who
>>> do learn to recognize that humans are supposed to leave at noon?
>>
>>No, it doesn't mean that I take a higher percentage of them.  It means that 
>>I see a higher percentage of them.
>>
> You don't shoot at deer that you see?  Or are you not shooting at
> deer that are out at noon?

My point was, wrt the previous discussion on number of deer seen vs. number 
of deer shot, that the two are not the same thing.  Just because I see more 
of them doesn't mean, necessarily, that I get more shots at them.

> 
>>>>No one has been able to do anything but *assert* that damage *might* happen 
>>>>so far.  :-)
>>>>
>>> Right.  Nor has anyone been able to deny it.  And I don't get the 
>>> impression that anyone is watching out to insure that it does not
>>> happen.  If such damage were occurring (and allow me to point out
>>> yet again that I don't think it is), would that not constitute
>>> grounds for curtailing or eliminating hunting?
>>
>>Not necessarily.  It would depend on what the damage was, exactly.  Then 
>>the appropriate response would be to analyse the situation and amend the 
>>regulations accordingly.  Obviously, how they would be amended would 
>>depended on what the damage was.  It would have to be pretty extreeme 
>>indeed to support banning hunting.
>>
> But less extreme to support a temporary ban.  At least you realize there
> are regulations.

Even a temporary ban would imply a failure of the wildlife managment 
department in question, to me at least.  Now I suppose that one could 
dream up a situation in which this was not the case, but I would still be 
suspicious.  Still, if a temporary ban were requested and supported by the 
wildlife biologists, I would support it.

> 
>>>>They are always active at night.  See above.  They just become a little 
>>>>less active during the day and a little more active at night.
>>>>
>>> That little bit may be a little bit too much.  As I said, they live on
>>> a very narrow balance of energy.  So a little bit may be the difference
>>> between helping and hurting the deer population.  As near as I can tell,
>>> nobody is even willing to watch out for this.  Just a self-serving
>>> assumption that it isn't happening.  
>>
>>What would one watch out for?  Would one not expect to see an increase in 
>>the winter kill despite lower numbers, if this was harming the deer?  I 
>>suspect that other factors are much more significant to the population as a 
>>whole.  The population has been down here recently.  Some hunters blame the 
>>coyotes, who are relatively new to this region.  I checked with the 
>>wildlife service here and *they* claim that the herd exceeded its range 
>>slightly a few years back and then has had a high fawn mortality rate for 
>>the last couple of years (due to very wet and cold springs, this one 
>>doesn't look much better).
>>
> No, one would expect smaller deer.  How many points did the biggest buck 
> you ever saw have?  How long ago did you see it?  How close do the
> ones you see now come to that one?  How big was the biggest ever caught
> in your area, what was the average size then?  What is the average now,
> and what was the biggest caught last year?  etc....

Given variations in habitat and habitat quality I don't think it would be 
possible to do more than establish a superficial correlation between 
hunting and deer sizes, and I think even that would be quite difficult.

There are deer going into the record books all the time.  The new record 
non-typical was found in Misouri a few years ago (if memory serves) and it 
broke a record that had been around since roughly the turn of the century.

Where these deer comes from depends on a complex set of factors, some of 
which include hunting pressure and the population age structure. 

Even if one could form correlative link between deer size and hunting, one 
would be hard pressed to show that a smaller size represented the maximum 
genetic potential of the animal.

> 
> I notice nobody is blaming the hunters for the declining population.
> The high fawn mortality due to weather sounds quite plausible, but
> what was done to rule out overhunting?  Maybe it should be less
> than 40% this year?

Its interesting what happens.  Kind of a self-regulating loop.  The success 
ratio has been lower than ever the last couple of years.  Indeed, due to a 
perception on the part of hunters that coyotes are having a serious 
negative impact on the herd, there have been fewer hunters in the woods 
last few years, so hunting presure is already down.  This information comes 
from a telephone conversation I had with DNR a while a go.

>  
>>> You say now that sleep is relatively undisturbed.  Yet they are more
>>> active later.  Wouldnt' that yield greater total active time, and
>>> greater energy expenditure?
>>
>>I'm not sure.  It might increase their energy expenditure slightly, it 
>>might not.  It depends on how dormant they are during the daylight hours.
>>
> You have first hand experience with deer. :-)  How dormant are they
> during the daylight hours?

Since I've not actually snuggled right up next to them in their bed, I 
wouldn't know.  I just don't understand why they don't want my company.... 
:-)

> 
>>>>Personally I suspect that mating activity puts a much higher drain on the 
>>>>animals energy reserves than being a little more nocturnal does.
>>>>
>>> You'd be surprised.  Find a calorie counting table, and find out how much
>>> energy is burned off by different exercises.  Add up every "activity"
>>> you do during the day.  It is next to nothing compared to your caloric
>>> intake.  Most of your energy goes to maintaining your temperature.
>>
>>Perhaps, but during the mating season they seem to be on the go almost 
>>*all* the time.  I strongly suspect that that increases the drain by a 
>>non-trivial amount.
>>
> Not if you account for the fact that muscular activity generates heat, 
> thus decreasing the amount of energy that must be used strictly for
> producing heat.  The increase probably isn't "trivial" but I doubt it
> is very serious compared to heat balance.

Hard to say.

> 
> E.S.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069