From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 03:29:19 GMT


In article <Bt5B9F.K3w@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Is it true that natural predators, wolves for instance, prey on
rl> diseased and sick animals rather than healthy ones?

From article <1992Aug17.213944.17153@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> ...  natural predators do not prey exclusively on diseased and 
jh> sick animals rather than healthy ones.  Prey animals are 
jh> completely opportunistic.  If they can separate from a fleeing 
jh> herd a healthy specimen, they will kill and eat it.  You view 
jh> prey animals too much as scavengers.  

Yes, I do view prey animals as scavengers of sorts.  The books 
dealing with wolf predation point out that wolves "test" their 
prey, lest they endanger themselves by attacking fit individuals  
whose hooves and antlers might prove formidable.

The evidence suggests that wolves, to name one non-human 
predator, are so evenly matched with deer that healthy deer
have little to fear from them in most circumstances.  Farley 
Mowat, Mech (I think), and several other wolf experts have 
pointed out that wolves and caribou often pass in close proximity 
to one another, without apparently paying each other much notice.  
Such non-chalance tends to belie the notion that non-human 
predation, rather than food supply, is the factor that limits the 
natural population size of "prey" animals.  

Let's ignore the hormonal relationship between adipose tissue and 
fertility for a moment, and assume that natural predation, rather 
than food supply, really is the force that limits population 
size.  In such a case, we'd have to further assume that the 
factors favoring the success of individual predators would 
increase as herd population increases, whereas the factors 
favoring failure would increase as the herd population 
diminishes.  Frankly, I can't figure out what those factors could 
be.  Would you care to explain?  

jh> Additionally, very often healthy young are prey.  Do they fit your 
jh> definition of diseased and sick?

Possibly.  The evidence that I've seen suggests that orphaned 
animals often end up as prey.  Whereas some mammals (humans and 
elephants, for instance) often make special arrangements for 
orphans, this certainly isn't the norm for all mammals and it 
seems obvious that young animals that aren't tended wouldn't have 
much of a future even if predators were nonexistent.

jh> Finally, to my observation the writer was not attempting to show 
jh> how learned he was in wildlife biology.  He was offering his view 
jh> of processes of nature.  What is your thought on the question he 
jh> raised: is nature a cruel, harsh mistress?  Do you know what a 
jh> wolf thinks when it dismembers a deer;  for that matter do you 
jh> know what the starving deer in a metro park near where I live are 
jh> thinking?  

I'd say that nature is harsh, but not cruel. 

My major problem with human predation is that it makes no distinctions
between unfit animals and healthy ones, and thereby upsets the balance
of forces that would otherwise exist in nature.  It seems to me
that there's a kind of justice at work when wolves bring down an
animal that's dying of old age or disease, and hence, unable or
unwilling to defend himself.  On the other hand, I don't see much
justice at all when a hunter shoots down a healthy stag in the
prime of life from 100 yards away.

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