From: robinson@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: ref. on wildlife pop. controls
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:44:20 GMT
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <BMAnMx.5CD@world.std.com>, eb3@world.std.com (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
> In article <1992Apr6.095317.4812@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>In article <72287@netnews.upenn.edu>, barkdoll@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Edwin Barkdoll) writes:
>>> In article <1992Apr1.104056.4697@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>>>>
>>>>1) What was the estimated population of deer in what is now the 
>>>>continental U.S. prior to establishment of the British colonies?
>>
>>> 	15-40 million animals.
>>
>>That high?  Given that the F&WS was not established at that time, how do we 
>>know?
> 
> 	If you are now saying that it is impossible to estimate the
> population of Precolumbian deer why did you ask the question in the
> first place?
> 	I have provided 2 references in a posting to Tim Riggs.  If
> you any references which suggest otherwise please post them.

I never said it was impossible.  I've seen your posting to Tim.  This 
message was sent out prior to your message arriving at this site, which is 
why I didn't refer to it.

> 
>>>>2) What happened to the deer population when exposed to unchecked market 
>>>>hunting?
>>> 
>>> 	300-500 thounsand animals just before the 1900.
>>
>>You got it.  Think about that.  From 15-40 million -> 3-5 hundred thousand.
> 
> 	What?  Now you seem to accept 15-40 million.

Accept?  No, not necessarily, but I am willing to assume for arguments sake 
that it might be correct.

> 
>>>>3) What is the current deer population?
>>> 
>>> 	12-20 million.
>>
>>Closer to 25 million at this point I think.
> 
> 	I have also posted references on this point to Tim Riggs.  If
> you have any references regarding current U.S. deer populations please
> post, otherwise I'm not terribly interested in what you "think" the
> population is.

I'll see what I can dig up.  

> 
>>>>4) Has that population been stable for many years, or has it been subject 
>>>>to disporportionate swings, over all?
>>> 
>>> 	Depends upon where in the US, what species of deer, what you
>>> mean by many years and what is dispropoortionate.  So what do you mean?
>>
>>The key to the meaning is the phrase 'over all'.  So, has the population, 
>>over all (not local variations of the sort noted in California below, but 
>>the *whole* population) been relatively stable?
> 
> 	I'd hardly call California local, however the peak an
> subsequent decline in mule deer populations was seen all throughout
> the western US.  For example see _State of the Environment: A view
> toward the nineties_ (1987) page 307 table 5.13: "Populations of
> selected large animals in the U.S. Forest Service lands, 1960-1984.
> Mule deer populations decreased by about 50% between 1962 and 1976.
> So, NO on the whole the mule deer population has NOT been stable.

I will look into this given time.

> 
>>>>5) Was the population in (1) above stable, or was it subject to dramatic 
>>>>swings?
>>> 
>>> 	You're joking, right?  Could you please point me to any
>>> citation which claims to have reliable data on a) the number of
>>> preEuropean deer pop'ns and b) whether or not the pop'n was stable.
>>> The U.S. F&WS didn't even exist before 1885 (it wasn't called F&WS
>>> then of course).  Trapping records would be of only marginal
>>> significance.
>>
>>I most certainly am *NOT* joking.  I don't have any reliable data on 
>>pre-european deer populations.  Nonetheless, it is easy enough to answer 
>>this.  In the absence of natural predation, the deer population would be 
>>subject to the dramatic swings of the boom and bust cycle.   Given the 
>>existence of natural predators, it is shouldn't be too difficult to get a 
>>rough idea of population stability.
> 
> 	Well if it is "easy enough to answer", please do so: how
> stable is that rough idea?  In order to even do a seat of the pants
> estimate you'll at least need to also have estimates of predator
> numbers (oops F&WS wasn't around to help you on that), any weather
> cycles, native american predation, competition from any other large
> herbivores.

Exactly.

> 
> 	Predator/prey cycles are well know in population biology.  Are
> you really saying that in the presence of predation deer populations
> will be "stable"?
> 

On the contrary.  My point was precisely the opposite.

>>>>Go get the answers to those questions and I think you will have established 
>>>>that modern sport hunting has had a beneficial effect on our ability to 
>>>>maintain high population numbers among whitetail deer on a long term, 
>>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>on-going basis.
>>> 
>>> 	That is obvious.  Maximum sustained yield has been a driving
>>> force behind game management for years.  A consequence of that is high
>>> but not too high populations.
>>> 
>>
>>Glad to hear you say so.  Ted has been arguing that there is little or no 
>>evidence that hunting maintains the population and health of deer.
> 
> 	I've said nothing about population health.  Health may or may
> not be optimized under a maximum sustained yield program -- I can't
> really address that.
> 
>>We've 
>>established, I think, from the above numbers that modern sport hunting 
>>promotes sustainable, stable populations.
> 
> 	We have?  15-40 million, <500 thousand and 12-20 million are
> the only "above numbers" I see that you could possibly be referring
> to.  The downward trend in western US in mule deer was not stable,
> nor apparently was the peak population of mule deer in the early
> 1960's "sustainable".

The drop to < 500 K was *NOT* due to sport hunting.  It was due to *MARKET* 
hunting.  They are not the same thing.

> 
>>Now for the next question:  How 
>>healthy are they?
> 
> 	Feel free to come up with an operational definition of health.
> Until then I'm not interested in discussing "health" in a vacuum.

If I had such an operational definition I would have posted it.  I was 
hoping you might.
-- 
John Robinson                  Only criminals, tyrants, and cowards have
robinson@ac.dal.ca                 reason to fear the armed, honest citizen.
DOD #0069
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals