From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Hunting-Fat-Fertility. Was: Letter to John Robinson
Date: 30 Jul 92 02:46:56 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <Bs54Iw.42A@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>In <Bs4008.H3M@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> Do you have any empirical evidence to support John's allegation
>rl> that hunting is only allowed in those areas that require it?  
>rl> Your proof-by-rationale isn't very convincing. 

>From article <viking.712377861@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
>ds> Empirical: adj; relying or based on experiment or experience.
>ds> My experience has been that hunting isn't allowed where it isn't 
>ds> needed.

>Unless you're omniscient, how can your experience prove John's claim?

	If I were omniscient, do you think I'd be here arguing?  My
experience proves John's claim is correct where I have seen it in use.
Russ may have seen evidence to the contrary.  Would the opposite claim
to John's be true based on that experience?  Since none of us are
omniscient, this is about the only thing we have to go on.

>Perhaps your "experiment" would be more meaningful if John had 
>specifically restricted the scope of his claim to your land, and 
>your land alone.  

	Of course it would be.  If we restrict it even further, we
get an claim that's only good for the conditions of the experiment.
Just as Charles-Boyle's Perfect Gas Laws have never been shown to
work (not having an ideal gas to test it on), they work well enough
in most cases to become a scientific law and a good measure of what
will happen or should happen.

>ds> I have deleted, but concede, the point on water weight versus
>ds> fat content.  We now resume our argument where it's relevant:

>It's encouraging to see that you have some respect for "accuracy", 
>heretofore known as "truth".  :-) 

	Yeah, I'm just full of suprises today, aren't I?

>rl> Are you suggesting that abundant food resources that would allow 
>rl> a deer to put on 20% body fat would suddenly disappear over a two 
>rl> day period, thanks to "poor feed"?  Let me remind you that it's 
>rl> far more difficult for a deer, consuming brush, to add fat that 
>rl> it might be for hogs fed on fatty grains. 

>ds> I wasn't aware that high-lysene corn and soybeans were fatty
>ds> grains...

>Very definitely.  It's my understanding that a hundred grams of 
>soybeans, containing just 9 grams of water, would typically contain 
>slightly less than 20 grams of fat.  And this same measure of 
>soybeans would might contain app. 30 grams of carbohydrate.  Corn 
>has less fat, I believe, but it's still a prodigious source of 
>fat and carbohydrate calories when compared to the diets of deer 
>living in natural environments.  

	That leaves only 41% for protein and inert matter, which sounds
a bit too low based on the corn-soybean ratios for feed.  I'll have to
tap the results of protein, oil, and starch testing on the database at
work and see what happens for averages on this.  I suppose there might
even be a book somewhere in the lab with this information.

>ds> ... and though I admit my error as how it affects the two days
>ds> argument, what about two weeks?  How about five weeks?  Will the fetus
>ds> abort, will it live?  

>That's a good question.  The general consensus is that estrus is 
>keyed to body fat content in order to assure that pregnancies 
>will have a reasonable chance of success.

	I note that spring is also when most young are born, being the
best time for growth of the young before the next winter stresses them.
I wonder, then, if estrus is keyed also on the time of the year so that
the child has the best chance of surviving those first few weeks?  This
would place more stress on the adult, having birth so soon after the end
of winter and also winter pregnancy adding some stress on the body.  I'd
say it's probably geared towards the young, not the adult.

>ds> Will it matter if the food supply runs out shortly
>ds> after hunting season is removed?

>You seem to be assuming that a deer would "run out" of food the 
>way canned beans might disappear from store shelves.  In reality, 
>the food would become less abundant and hence, harder and harder 
>to find.  As such, the shift from feast to famine isn't going to 
>occur over the course of a few days or even a few months.  

	I think it will happen a lot faster than a few months, but
perhaps a full month is a good compromise.  It certainly depends on
the herd's range and the forage available there, but it's not a switch
that can be flipped on and off.  You just go from easy availability to
spending a longer time foraging to finally foraging all day for just
enough food to support the effort.  After this point, it's over.  The
food has run out for a portion of the herd.  Once they die, the
remaining animals may be able to survive due to the increased food/critter
ratio, but you'll note it was increased due to a lower denominator, not
a higher value in the numerator, and I can't speculate on just how much
this affects the time and effort necessary to forage.

>ds> So, Russ, how'd I do?
>rl> Your theory needs work.
>ds> It's a fair cop.

>It's refreshing to see a demonstration of intellectual courage
>on usenet.  My hat's off to you. :-)

	Thanks for the compliment!  Some times it does seem to take more
courage to admit being wrong, but isn't that what learning is all about?

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >