From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 01:41:52 GMT

In <BtDF10.5Hu@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>In article <viking.714443887@vincent1.iastate.edu>, Dan Sorenson writes:
>ds> Predators are opportunistic, and that includes both animals
>ds> and the vast majority of hunters.  A lion stalking game is no less
>ds> opportunistic than the bowhunter sneaking to within ten feet to
>ds> deliver a killing shot.  The "myth" you espouse to disagree with is
>ds> correct -- food dictates the number of animals in the herd.  It
>ds> does that by lowering birth rates and by the starving of the
>ds> animals.

>ds> You have failed to show that the food supply does not limit
>ds> by starvation in any circumstance, and this is what the "myth" you
>ds> claim has no merit takes into account.  Prove it wrong.

>"Prove it wrong"?  As I've pointed out to Mike Linan, this kind 
>of statement is a manifestation of the classical "appeal to 
>ignorance" and is a categorical fallacy.  I've presented pointers 
>to verifiable data to support my position.  Would you mind 
>doing the same, in lieu of presenting fallacious, "prove-me-wrong" 
>appeals?  

	Scotland, that moor with all the nice, hungry animals.  Let's
leave them alone and see if they starve.  Vermont (?), the state
with lots of nice starving moose that cannot be transplanted into NY.
Let's let them alone for a while too.  Somebody posted an article
yesterday on the effects of culling the rabbits around his house.
I believe he mentioned there would be carcasses if he didn't cull
them, which implies starvation (predators don't kill and leave, save
for some humans).  Thus, if even *one animal* starves the "myth"
you were so hot to reject out of hand shows relevance.  The studies
you've cited are relevant too, of course, but they do not disprove
the portion of the "myth" that denoted culling of populations as
a viable and necessary method of avoiding starvation.  As for the
claim "prove it wrong," most theories are held as true until proof
is presented that shows they are wrong.  You should know this.

>deer food doesn't 
>simply run out in nature the way human food might disappear from 
>grocery store shelves.  Rather, it becomes harder and harder to 
>find and animals typically respond by being less selective in 
>choosing their food.  If the food shortage continues, their 
>metabolism will drop and they'll expend less energy, as human 
>dieters know all too well.  To the extent that caloric 
>expenditure still exceeds caloric intake, they'll end up burning 
>fat calories.  

	Better hope those fat stores can sustain them, and that they
are using less energy foraging than they are taking in.  This sounds
like a really hopeful statement, similar to the old joke of the man
who falls from the fifteenth story and mentions he's doing fine so
far as he passes the fifth floow.  You know it won't always be so,
nor should the situation necessarially be allowed to reach this
state before intervention beging.  Hunting serves this purpose.

>As such, the notion that feasting quickly 
>turns to starvation seems unfounded to me.

	Not does, *may* quickly turn, and quickly could be as long as
three or four months in my part of the country.  This depends so much
on habitat that making the blanker assertation that it cannot happen
is just as silly as claiming it happens in all cases.

>  Assuming that a 
>serious famine were to continue in the absence of predators, 
>competition for food would be great and fertility would drop 
>dramatically as fat tissue in the females decreases.  As 
>fertility drops, the population would be reduced by old age even 
>if predation were totally non-existent.  

	I'd say this takes at least a year to do anything.  That
may not be enough time to solve the over-population problem and
still keep the maximum number of healthy animals on the land.

>I'm not disputing that deer can and do starve in north america.  

	Actually, this is the first time I recall you having stated it.
Sort of takes the wind out of my sails, to be honest.

>Far from it, but it seems to me that this starvation is the 
>result of an ongoing ecological crisis in many of our rural and 
>wilderness areas and isn't the consequence of "no hunting" signs 
>as hunters would have us believe.  Moreover, there's ample 
>evidence in hunting books and hunting magazines to show that 
>hunters themselves are partially responsible for promoting this 
>kind of instability.   

	That ecological crisis should be addressed, of course.
In fact, I'd like to see you elaborate on it some.  What is wrong
and what is right with the way we're managing the land?

>One example that comes to mind was an
>article that encouraged hunters to petition large lumber companies
>to cut timber in such a way that the level of undergrowth would be 
>raised (albeit temporarily), thereby enhancing the likelihood
>of a bumper deer "harvest".   

	Sounds like a good time to me, but that "temporary" clause has
be a bit confused.  How long is temporary?  Three years?  That's barely
enough time for fawns to grow large enough to shoot.  Five years?  Ten?
Keeping a lot of undergrowth is a desirable thing where a forest once
stood, especially since it takes so long for that forest to grow back
to where it can hold the soil, but since undergrowth is a good thing
where forests are harvested, why not ask for it and take the increased
deer harvest as a bonus?

>ds> Dishonest?  They admit to wanting high populations so they can
>ds> harvest more.  That's like claiming a lumber company is dishonest for
>ds> planting trees so it can cut them down again.  Rubbish.

>I agree that your example is rubbish, although "irrelevant" would be
>a kinder term.  

	Ouch!  I've been flamed!  Get the iodine!  It seems like they
are being perfectly up front in their wish, which can be stated simply
as "we want the maximum population that the land is capable of
sustaining, and we want to hunt this population in a regulated manner
so that this population will be held."  Sounds honest to me.

>Again, it's grossly dishonest for hunter advocacy groups to 
>campaign for measures that contribute to unsustainably high 
>populations of deer, and then turn around and offer "hunting" as 
>an ethical alternative to death by starvation.  If starvation is 
>evil, as many hunters claim, why do so many of them encourage 
>policies that cause starvation in the first place?  

	Because we want to hunt them, and we want the animals taken
in that harvest to not cause a severe fluxuation in the future population.
In other words, I want a deer this year, and I don't want one less
deer in the herd next year.  Nothing dishonest about that -- I'm right
up front in admitting I like high deer populations and venison in my
freezer, and that I think my .50 is a better method of removing excess
population than the bodyfat level of the does or starvation.  I point
out that I didn't plant seed on the farm by plowing, sowing by hand,
and saying a prayer or two.  I computed exactly what the maximum
crop density was that would give me the best overall yield, and planted
those seeds to within 0.125 inch of their exact position and depth using
figures that told me what the land was capable of growing.  I then rotated
crops so I didn't exhaust the land of its nutrients.  Is the farmer
somehow dishonest for this act?  It's exactly what the hunter does, only
with the hunter the harvest is somewhat more messy.

>ds> Culling the stupid instead of the weak.  Big deal.

>Another myth.  To say that deer are stupid because they allow 
>themselves to be caught in a hunter's telescopic sights doesn't 
>have much merit.  Unless you think that deer are telepathic in 
>some way, how are they supposed to understand the dangers posed 
>by humans bearing guns?  Deer school, perhaps?  Deer newspapers?  
>Deer radio?  You might argue that such deer are stupid because 
>they're simply not afraid.  

	<sigh!>  First, telescopic sights don't guarentee a kill,
or even a hit.  If you think they do, try shooting in any local NRA
program and post your scores.  You're allowed to use a scope.  At
any range a shotgun, bow, or muzzleloader is capable of delivering
a shot to, the deer can smell me long before I can see him with
20/15 vision (only in one eye, though).  The deer can most likely
see me better at that range too.  You can't shoot what you haven't
spotted and identified as a target.  2nd, I'm another predator in the
woods, and deer learn that fairly quickly.  Those gazelle in Africa
don't have radios, newspapers, and the like to tell them the lion
is a danger.  How do they learn?  Your own example shows itself as
being useless here.  I'll give you a hint -- the gun is seen as a
certain sign of danger by herds that have been hunted (the pigeons
back home, for example), but this requires identifying my gun.
Deer don't bother waiting around this long.

>Yet, studies have shown that 
>predators often have a much better chance of successfully 
>attacking fleeing deer than they would have with deer that stand 
>and fight.  In fact, wolf "testing" is often intended to 
>encourage flight, as someone on your side of the fence pointed 
>out a few days ago.   As such, it seems to me that deer who
>don't run may be "smarter" than the deer that flee.  The fact
>that they don't understand the unnatural threat posed by human
>hunters with guns is hardly a sign of stupidity.

	So I'm shooting genuises now?  Does it make any difference?
This doesn't appear to have any bearing on the genetic disposition of
the deer towards disease, size, or anything else of importance.  Thus,
I can only assume hunting doesn't hurt the evolutionary process.

>ds> I'd like to know how this statistic can possibly have any merit.
>ds> ...
>ds> I wouldn't trust that statistic you've provided any further than I 
>ds> can spit.

>I'll provide bibliographical pointers when I have a chance, Dan.  Will
>it have any impact on your attitudes?    Or will you still insist that
>you're entitled to do whatever it is that you want to do?

	You'll note I didn't say it had any bearing on your conclusion,
just that I don't trust that statistic.  As for the pointers, no, they
won't have any impact on my attitude.  I'm at the top of the food
chain, with the other predators.  If the prey doesn't like it, in my
eyes that's just too bad for them.  As for being "entitled to whatever
it is I want to do," yes I do insist on that.  I also insist on
punishment when it infringes upon the rights of somebody else or my
society at large.  You know these as laws.  Laws protect deer, dogs,
horses, cattle, and a host of other animals.  There has not yet been
a law passed saying killing animals is illegal.  Hence, I'll continue
doing this portion of what I'm entitled to.

<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. >

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals