From: young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Case Example #1
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:07:47 GMT
Organization: National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD


Forgive the format, I need to jump throught hoops to post
to tpa.
---------- Forwarded message begins here ----------


Excerpts from mail: 8-Apr-92 talk.politics.animals #4886..
young@alw.nih.gov (11478)

> In article <altar.702713059@sfu.ca>, altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn
> Altar) writes:
> |> young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young) writes:
> |> >
> |> > The point is that this isn't good data.    You say it is
> |> > and then preform some arithmetic on the data and pronounce
> |> > sweeping conclusions.
> |>  
> |> What arithmetic?  

> "3.  Before the hunt the average deer pop. was about 585.  After
> the deer began to increase their reproductive rates, the average
> 1978-81 pop. was 588.  Whether or not the refuge is "managed" by
> hunting, approx 585-590 deer is the midpoint for the deer cycles.
> "

> Sounds to me as if you've calculated an average here.  

> |>I've only presented a table of data for us to
> |> inspect and allow to speak for itself. 

> "4.  Deer, like other species of wildlife, will attempt to adjust
> their numbers to available food and habitat.  Hunting thus served
> to altered the innate population controls of the animals by
> increasing their reproductive rates.  The purported reason for
> the hunt for reducing the size of the herd to a posthunt level of
> 250 simply did not occur.  Thus one, and only one purpose was
> really served in mutating what was once a true "refuge" into a
> kind of public supported "game farm", namely the PERPETUATION OF
> HUNTING FOR THE HUNTERS."

> The data is not speaking for itself.

> |> Let us more modestly
> |> observe that data is "good" to the extent that it is sufficient,
> |> reliable, and valid for providing a provisional answer to those
> |> research questions that one has started out with.  The
> |> conclusions don't have to be "sweeping" to be interesting and
> |> important and certainly the conclusions I've presented are not
> |> very "sweeping" at all.

> The data may well be good if your question is "how many deer
> will this refuge support."  It is not good enough to answer your
> question "does hunting alter the reproductive rates of deer on
> this refuge and in fact turn the refuge into a managed "game
> farm."

> |>  
> |>  
> |>  
> |> >  I say it isn't because you've
> |> > left out some important numbers - let's call them variables
> |> >  - and that without these numbers your simple arithmetic
> |> > becomes more complex algebra.
> |>  

> [deleted]

> |>  If it is migration rates you are referring to, then
> |> this could cut both ways. 

> Exactly,  how can you make your assertions knowing this?

> |> Deer leave and others from the outside
> |> may well enter the refuge.  Being situated in New Jersey,
> |> however, which is mostly metropolitan, then large deer migrations
> |> don't seem likely. 

> I live in a very metropolitan area.  It is becomming more so each
> day with the developers chewing up large farms. Deer migrations
> away from these "development"  (I prefer to call it rape of the land
> for profit at tax payer expense)  areas are commonplace.
> I suspect that it is possible that this was much the case in the 
> seventies in NJ.  To get a good picture one would have to go back
>  and see what "development" was taking place during this time.

> |> Please correct me if I am wrong, but do so
> |> with facts and figures rather than `ipse dixit' assertions.

> I am only making my own conclusions to refute your own, part
> of the point is that my  conclusions  are just as "ipse
> dixit" as are yours.  

> |>  
> |>  
> |>  
> |>  
> |> > I retract my original statement.  I stand corrected.  It is
> |> > more than possible it is probable that a herd of 269 can
> |> > produce 231 fawns (read 231).  Now read the more comprehensive
> |> > analysis of your data that I posted (which was completely
> |> > ignored) if you wish to continue this discussion.
> |>  
> |> Well, I did in fact read your more "comprehensive analysis" (two

> Since I wrote it, let me put the quotes where I choose:

> "more comprehensive" analysis

> as in more comprehensive than the one before it. 
> Neat trick.

> |> paragraphs constitutes a "comprehensive analysis?) and I did not
> |> see anything that was not already brought up by yourself or
> |> somebody else, and, which in turn I thought I had already
> |> addressed.
> |>  

> To be civil:
> Let's just say I find your posts a little long-winded and full of things
> I have to look up in a dictionary.  Forgive me, I am an electrical
> engineer not an english professor, most of the people on the 
> net are technical - ever think of writing for the audience?  I don't
> mind the education, God knows my vocabulary could use it but
> if you want me to pour over your every word try to make it so
> that a dictionary is not necessary.



> |> > Because your data does not support this claim.  If your claim
> |> > is that deer regulate their rate of reproduction in response
> |> > to their environment I will agree.  When food is plentiful,
> |> > deer are prolific. If you say that they will regulate their
> |> > rate of reproduction in response to hunting, you'll have to
> |> > provide more complete data.
> |>  
> |> Again, I believe that it is well established that "density-
> |> dependent factors do control population size" (Slobodkin, 1961).

> Right,  but the density preceding and during  mating time is the 
> deciding factor, correct?  In fact the genral health of the herd
> at the time of mating is the non-environmental factor which is
> most influential in the birth rate of the following spring.   
> The culling does not take place
> until mating occurs or has occured.  Please explain.  

> |>  
> |> One such factor would be predation which by way of the removal of
> |> some animals increases the food available for others, thereby
> |> increasing the reproductive rate.  The figures provided support
> |> rather than contradict this relationship that the reproductive
> |> rate of deer varies inversely with their population density.

> It does no such thing.  Figures on migrations, winter survival,
> and reproduction are necessary before this statement can be made.

> |> If you have an alternative explanation for how these deer have
> |> maintained their numbers in spite of this heavy new toll on their
> |> population caused by hunting, then please state your alternative
> |> hypothesis more explicitly.

> I do not.  I only question the validity of your conclusions based on
> the data.

> |> If, for instance, migrations from the outlying areas is what you
> |> propose, then how about providing some evidence to support this
> |> alternative explanation.  It is possible that some influx of deer
> |> from the outside could have helped to augment the population, but
> |> look at the numbers again.  Do you really want to claim that this
> |> near steady state of our deer in the Great Swamp Refuge was
> |> maintained simply by immigrating deer from the outside? 

> Certainly not,  just as I would not maintain that in the years
> of zero or negative population growth before hunting were caused
> by a zero reproductive rate for that year.

> |> If so,
> |> then how about providing some data of your own to support this
> |> more implausible alternative hypothesis.

> You make the hypothesis, you found the data, the burden of proof
> is with you.  Find data that disproves any alternatives.

> |> Why is it implausible, you ask?  Well, I know that some hunters
> |> are of the view that nature created deer so that they may have a
> |> weekend hunting lark,

> 
> Personal experience?
> Sounds as bad as the "AR folks don't read books statement" if you
> don't think so, I ask why did you post it if not to slur hunters.

> |> but it is too much to believe (without
> |> supporting evidence) that coincidental with the introduction of
> |> hunting in 1974, deer migrations into the what was formerly a
> |> safe "refuge" would steadily and markedly increase to maintain
> |> the same population at pre-hunting levels.

> I find it too much to believe that a population of 650 went to a 
> population of 520, then 570 without some migration or census
> error.

> |>  I think it prudent to
> |> first have some documented facts before we place our confidence
> |> in a less plausible hypotheses at the expense of the more likely
> |> one.
> |>  

> You've given all the facts needed to doubt your own assertions.

> You are certainly more well-read than anyone I know on the
> subject.  I will try to be civil, could you tone down your use of
> obscure latin phrases?


> |>  
> |> Is this a sincere question or are you just being derisive again.
> |> First of all, the point of my even mentioning that I have some
> |> books was not to be immodest but simply to provide a convenient
> |> counter-example to our perfervid friend who simply and
> |> authoritatively pronounced that all AR folk don't read books.

> I missed that one.  You wouldn't find me that far out on a limb.
>  I did see your reference to your library, forgive
> me it sounded pompous.

> |> All I have to do simply cite one counter-example to such an
> |> extreme stereotyping to provide a refutation.
> |>  
> |>  
> |>  
> |> >>>   Sounds as if someone has looked long and hard to find a
> |> >>> study which would support a claim - but then ar has nothing
> |> >>> to do with good science.
> |>  

> Did you find this reference study originally or did you find
> it referenced in AR literature?  I have no doubt that you found
> the original study, but what pointed you to the original.


> |> >>And your making up numbers and precluding right at the start
> |> >>that this study is invalid, or must invariantly be irrelevantly
> |> >>atypical, is called "good science"?
> |> >>
> |> > Ted, I didn't make the numbers up, you provided them.
> |> > If you want to ignore the variables and just do simple
> |> > arithmetic, so be it.
> |>  
> |> I'm sorry, but you did make up some numbers.  In attempting to
> |> demonstrate how implausible my data must be, you postulated that
> |> "the 19 bucks that were on the refuge in the fall of 1977 had
> |> their hands full to impregnate 250 does".  Now, where does this
> |> figure of 19 bucks come from?  Certainly, not from the numbers
> |> I've provided.

> Without accounting for multiple births (an assumption that I 
> made in haste and have retracted) explain how a herd of 269
> becomes a herd of 500 in one year?  Certainly there are some
> fatalities over the winter, from cars, old age, etc.  Which would
> drive the birth rate near the previous years' population.  Why
> did this not occur again?

> Better yet, explain how a herd of 650 becomes a herd of 520
> without significant starvation, or migration and without hunting?

> I am truly curious as to your position at the University.
> I would expect that you teach a class in philosophy?
> Perhaps one in ethics? 


> -- 
> ___________	
> 	jy
> 	young@heart.dcrt.nih.gov


___________	
--
___________	
	jy
	young@heart.dcrt.nih.gov
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals