From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:22:05 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
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.

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

From article <viking.714534112@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Scotland, that moor with all the nice, hungry animals.

And the nice adjacent farmlands where the animals could dine on human
crops.  In lieu of untraceable anecdotes, how about some posting
some pointers to scientific literature describing all the details of 
these environments so that we can judge for ourselves how they
were managed or mismanaged?

> ...
ds> The studies you've cited are relevant too, of course, but they do 
ds> not disprove the portion of the "myth" that denoted culling of 
ds> populations as a viable and necessary method of avoiding 
ds> starvation. 

I don't doubt that killing deer would reduce deer starvation, nor 
would I doubt that killing humans in some regions would reduce 
human starvation.  

However, I strongly doubt the claim that starvation is inevitable 
without sport killing.  Unless hunters are prepared to encourage 
forest management policies that stabilize the food supply for 
deer, hence reducing fertility, their pretenses about saving deer 
from the pain of starvation will remain transparent.  

ds> As for the claim "prove it wrong," most theories are 
ds> held as true until proof is presented that shows they are wrong.  
ds> You should know this.  

No, I don't know this.  One of my favorite theories is that 
traffic jams in Paris are caused, not by cars as most people 
believe, but by invisible pink and blue unicorns that flood the 
streets during rush hour, thereby halting vehicular traffic.  
Prove it wrong. 

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

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

Another sign of dishonesty is the hunter's willingness to 
recognize the sentience of deer when deer are starving, while 
ignoring or contesting the sentience of deer when the discussion 
turns to "harvests".  

The pivotal questions are these:

=====================================================================
If forests could be managed in such a way that both food supplies 
and deer populations could be stabilized, would you be in favor 
of adopting such policies?  Or, would you prefer policies that 
produce radical swings in the available food supply, and hence, 
cause the very same threat of deer starvation that hunters 
pretend to abhore?  
=====================================================================

I'm sure that many voters who haven't taken a stand on hunting issues 
will consider the answers proffered by hunters to be illuminating.  

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

ds> Because we want to hunt them, and we want the animals taken in 
ds> that harvest to not cause a severe fluxuation in the future 
ds> population.  In other words, I want a deer this year, and I don't 
ds> want one less deer in the herd next year.  Nothing dishonest 
ds> about that -- I'm right up front in admitting I like high deer 
ds> populations and venison in my freezer, and that I think my .50 is 
ds> a better method of removing excess population than the bodyfat 
ds> level of the does or starvation. 

Thanks for admitting, albeit indirectly, that you're not truly
concerned about the starvation of deer, but are merely attending
to your own stomach.

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

ds> <sigh!>  First, telescopic sights don't guarentee a kill,
ds> or even a hit.  If you think they do, try shooting in any local NRA
ds> program and post your scores.  You're allowed to use a scope.  At
ds> any range a shotgun, bow, or muzzleloader is capable of delivering
ds> a shot to, the deer can smell me long before I can see him with
ds> 20/15 vision (only in one eye, though)...

Do they teach human smells in deer schools?  Does an old doe get 
up in front of the classroom and tell all the teenagers to run 
like hell when they perceive the odor of men with guns, but not 
to run when they perceive the odor of nature hikers?  The fact 
that the deer can smell you doesn't mean that he's "stupid" for 
failing to perceive danger.  Try hunting a big stag with your 
bare hands and we'll see how "stupid" the stag is if he stands 
his ground.  Be sure to have your friends post the name of the 
hospital so we can send you some "get well" magazines and books.  

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