From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ref. on wildlife pop. controls
Date: 6 Apr 92 12:53:16 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <72287@netnews.upenn.edu>, barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
> 
> 	DO NOT MISATTRIBUTE THINGS TO ME, JOHN.  THANK YOU.

TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, EDWIN, I DIDN'T.

Let me shed some light on the following for you:

> - means you wrote it in your last article
>> - means I wrote it in the article you're responding to
>>> - means you wrote it in the article I responded to
>>>> - means Ted wrote it in the article you responded to
>>>>> - Means Tim wrote it in the article Ted responded to
>>>>>> - means Ted wrote it in the article Tim responded to

Pay attention now, this gets complicated. :-)

> 
> In article <1992Apr1.104056.4697@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <BLxI60.6xq@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>>> In article <altar.701901278@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>>>>rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <altar.701893430@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>>>>
Using the above key, it would appear that Ted wrote this:

>>>>>>   Endless anecdotes and testimonies abound from our hunter
>>>>>>   advocates.  It might be salutary if more verified facts and
>>>>>>   scientific studies could be referenced for their claims that
>>>>>>   hunting maintains such things as, say, the population and
>>>>>>   health of deer.  Certainly, the following 3 books about
>>>>>>   natural population controls do not provide support for the
>>>>>>   pro-hunting assertions.
>>>>

It seems that Tim wrote this:

>>>>>I will look for these books if I have time but I wonder what they can
>>>>>prove.  If I produce 4 (or 40) books that support sport hunting, do I
>>>>>"win"? 
>>>>
And it seems that Ted wrote this:

>>>>The issue pertains to whether hunting is necessary for the population
>>>>and health of, say, deer.  If you can find qualified sources 
>>>>(e.g., PhD's in animal ecology) producing respectable publications, 
>>>>indeed you can win.
> 
> 	I did not write this last bit which you quote.

You're right.  Ted wrote it.  I never suggested otherwise.  You should 
learn to understand USENET attribution before bursting out in flames. :-)

> 
> 
I wrote this:

>>Well, why not fall back on the 'ultimate source', experience?  To do this, 
>>let's ask a few questions:
>>
>>1) What was the estimated population of deer in what is now the 
>>continental U.S. prior to establishment of the British colonies?
> 

You wrote this:

> 	15-40 million animals.

That high?  Given that the F&WS was not established at that time, how do we 
know?

> 
>>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.

> 
>>3) What is the current deer population?
> 
> 	12-20 million.

Closer to 25 million at this point I think.

> 
>>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?

> 
> 	For instance in CA deer population increased from about 0.5
> million in 1932 to 2 million in 1960 and back down to a little over
> 0.5 million in 1974 where it has remained more or less til 1990.  The
> decline between 1960 and 1990 has not been quamtiatively explained.
> 
>>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.

> 
>>> 	By your criteria I would have to exclude all 3 of the
>>> references from which you actually quote.  None is a reviewed
>>> article or a primary source.  

By our key, you wrote the above text, Ted wrote the stuff below.

>>> 
>>>>You have raised an empirical issue, therefore 
>>>>I am quite ammenable to being persuaded by the weight of the evidence.
>>>>Editorials from hunter magazines or "how to hunt books" simply don't
>>>>measure up.  Lets look at the primary sources for both positions.
> 
> 	Again, please don't misquote me.  I think this is Ted's
> statement.

Well, if you'd take the time to understand the attribution system you 
wouldn't have to think about it, you'd know. :-)

> 
>>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.  We've 
established, I think, from the above numbers that modern sport hunting 
promotes sustainable, stable populations.  Now for the next question:  How 
healthy are they?

Oh and by the way, feel free to delete some of this intervening text.  The 
attribution list is getting a *little* out of hand. :-)

> 
> 
> Edwin Barkdoll
> barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu
> eb3@world.std.com
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069