From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:12:57 GMT


Tim Rigg writes:
tr> When a clearly anti-hunting organization resorts to hunting or 
tr> similar culling, the only logical conclusion is that culling is 
tr> the only feasible mechanism to control populations without other 
tr> natural predators.  

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Is this the only logical conclusion?  Of course not.  Here are 
rl> four more possibilities that quickly come to mind: 
rl> 
rl> 1) A fence would be too expensive to erect and maintain;

From article <RIGG.92Aug22122824@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Many hunting resorts have fences enclosing thousands of acres.  It
tr> seems AR folks are asking folks to pay a very high price that they are
tr> unwilling to pay themselves.

You're not thinking clearly, Tim.  The fact that one particular 
group can afford fences whereas another particular group cannot 
afford fences says nothing about the respective committments of 
hunters as opposed to AR advocates.  To illustrate, let's suppose 
that a well-endowed AR organisation had erected such a fence 
whereas a poorly-endowed hunting "resort" had failed to do so.  
Would this lead you to conclude that AR activists are more willing 
to pay the cost of wildlife management than hunter groups?  
Probably not.  

rl> 2) A fence would be affordable, but not magically effective in
rl>    reducing overpopulation already caused by encroachments of
rl>    the deer on the surrounding terrain;

tr> But you have claimed such magical effectiveness.  If the area is large
tr> enough (which it seems to be based on posted desciptions), your
tr> self-regulating idea should work "magically".

The fact that adipose tissue turns androgen into estrogen, thereby
regulating fertility, isn't magic.  Please take the time to read
the article I cited previously.  Frisch, Rose. "Fatness and Fertility",
_Scientific American_, March, 1988.

rl> 3) The LACS is unaware of the research showing that fertility
rl>    is controlled by fat tissue.

tr> Perhaps they have not read the specific articles you have but most AR
tr> folks think animals are not effected by unnatural environments such as
tr> those without predators.  They tried to let them control their own
tr> numbers and it did not work.

As I explained previously, the natural regulatory mechanism isn't 
going to work in unstable environments.  As long as the deer in a 
given preserve are provided with handouts or allowed to dine on 
neighboring corn crops, they'll remain both fat and fertile.  The 
fact that such deer would starve to death when the handouts and 
corn crops are no longer available would _not_ lead a critical 
thinker to conclude that the natural regulatory mechanisms don't 
work.  

rl> 4) The LACS is aware of the relationship between fertility and
rl>    fat, and the relationship between food and fat, but still 
rl>    believe that it's somehow wrong to arrange things so that
rl>    deer end up on subsistence diets.  [Note that many humans make
rl>    no distinction between hunger and starvation]

tr> Perhaps they realized that some predation was quite natural.

There's a difference between beliefs and truths, Tim.  The
fact that predation may be "natural" for wolves doesn't mean that
predation is "natural" for weapons-bearing humans.

In any case, I think you'll have a hard time proving that starvation
is inevitable in the absence of predation.

rl> Please read the article I cited previously if you wish to continue
rl> the discussion:  Frisch, Rose.  "Fatness and Fertility. _Scientific
rl> American, March, 1988.  It's written in a clear lucid prose and
rl> well documented.  

tr> It seems quite reasonable that reduced food will decrease fertility.
tr> Our disagreement is whether such a decrease would be enough to balance
tr> the population.  There are numerous example where deer have destroyed
tr> small islands and were ravaged by disease when there was no natural
tr> predation.  If they were able to self-regulate, such situations would
tr> not happen.  To answer your coming question, I will look for
tr> documentation of such situations.

Uh, huh.  Are you referring to "islands" in the Everglades, by 
any chance?   Please present your evidence.

Incidently, I would readily agree that natural predators reduce disease
by killing and consuming infected animals.   As Gerald Hough has pointed
out on several occasions, wolves have an uncanny ability to 
recognize illness in animals that would appear to be completely 
fit to human eyes.  It seems rather obvious that the actions of 
wolves in killing such animals may be good, not only for the 
healthy members of the herd, but for the infected animals as well.  
Unfortunately, human hunters are less selective.  

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