From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:58:36 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> It seemed to me that Dan was suggesting that "evolution" --- that 
rl> great "deus ex machina" for folks who can't back up their assumptions
rl> about animal behavior --- could somehow "prepare" an organism to make 
rl> esoteric distinctions between thunder and gunfire.  

From article <viking.715498003@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> There's nothing esoteric about it.  Gunfire and thunder sound
ds> different, and once thunder is shown to not be a threat there is no
ds> reason a different sound needs to be thought of as unthreatening. 

A previous poster declared that deer would know that a gunshot is 
dangerous by virtue of the fact that a missed shot would kick up 
dust and debris.  Assuming that a deer had the opportunity of 
surviving a lot of missed shots, how would this differ from the 
dust and debris and tree rustling caused by thunder storms?  

As far as I can tell, the only way a deer might know that 
gunshots cause harm is if he, himself, were shot and managed to 
connect the sound with the pain, or, if he were able to observe
the death of another deer at close proximity.   Do you think
that either of these scenarios is sufficiently likely that we
can rightly judge the "stupidity" of dead deer on the basis of the
assumption that they had failed to learn from prior experience?

ds> That other members are killed during this sound is merely 
ds> reinforcement.

Is there much evidence to indicate that the death of one member of
the herd is going to be well-known by other members of the herd?
How close would another deer have to be in order to observe such
an event?   Why should we assume that one deer would have the 
linguistic ability to pass this info along to other deer?

rl> ... I suppose we could test your theory by playing back 
rl> sounds of thunder, firecrackers, loud music, and so on, to see if 
rl> deer really do understand the significance of gunfire.  It may be 
rl> the case that they do understand the significance, but I haven't 
rl> seen any convincing evidence to support the claim.

ds> I suspect your needs for proof here are slighly greater than they 
ds> would be for other aspects of animal behavior.  Tell me, do your 
ds> dogs salivate at the sound of the dog food bag being rustled?  If 
ds> so, do they salivate (or come running, take your pick) when you 
ds> fold the newspaper?  It's the same sound of paper rustling, yet 
ds> you cannot use this as proof that animals can distinguish between 
ds> similar sounds and determine the ramifications of each based on 
ds> default survival instinct and experience?  

The nature of the learning experiences between feeding dogs and
killing deer are enormous.  It's not "survival instinct" that causes
a dog to come running when he hears noises in the kitchen;  
rather, it's the result of day-in-day-out experience that teaches 
him what these sounds usually signify.  If we were to give a 
dozen dogs the opportunity to learn to come running at such 
sounds, and then kill them one-by-one in relative isolation from 
one another, do you think the remaining dogs would learn from the 
experience, and run away at the sound of kitchen noises?   

rl> Moreover, the 
rl> class of individuals who make such claims often turn out to be 
rl> advocates of the notion that the "stupid" deer who don't 
rl> understand the significance somehow deserve to die.  Perhaps the 
rl> assumptions are self-serving.  

ds> I don't remember claiming they "deserved" to die, but certainly 
ds> evolution is not helped with their genes polluting the pool, so 
ds> to speak, given the threats they live under.  Culling the stupid 
ds> has not been shown to have a negative impact on the prey species 
ds> we hunt.  The assumptions may be self-serving, but that doesn't 
ds> mean they aren't true.  If such an impact could be shown, I've no 
ds> doubt that they would have been given minds such as yours on the 
ds> job.  

Evolutionary development requires many, many generations to manifest
itself, Dan.  I have no doubt that evolution has helped deer to
defend themselves from four-legged predators, but there's no reason
to believe that it's been effective in helping deer to recognize
the significance of gunfire and unseen bullets.   As I've pointed
out repeatedly, the wolf experts claim that the courage to stand
and defy small predators, like wolves, is more advantageous than
the fear that would cause an animal to run away.  Yet, you seem
to be saying that "courage" is "stupidity" since the "smart" deer
are supposed to know about guns.

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