From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 03:28:49 GMT

In <Bu2EHM.4Mv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>Most animals learn in their infancy that larger animals can pose 
>threats, albeit not necessarily lethal ones.
[...]
>By contrast, the 
>threat posed by hidden bullets fired by a puny looking human 
>who's a hundred yards away may not be the obvious thing that 
>would pop into the mind of an intelligent, young deer.  

	One point you seem to be overlooking: deer are fairly low
on the food chain.  Such status would make size less important than
unfamiliarity when regarding the potential threat of another animal.
Evolution as a prey animal favors wariness over size discrimination.

>ds> Given the eyesight of a deer, a mile of open land is good enough.
>ds> Woods will lower this a bit, but the smell of blood should carry for
>ds> several hundred feet.

>What makes you think that deer could witness such an event from a
>distance of a mile, or even a few hundred yards?   It seems to me
>that you, and several other posters, have a habit of projecting
>remarkable sensory and cognitive abilities onto deer, simply to
>bolster the argument that it's somehow justifiable to shoot "stupid"
>animals.

	Quite the contrary, I don't require deer be able to even see
to justify my shooting them in my mind, let alone have superior
eyesight.  It merely makes it a greater challenge for me to do so.
However, the fact remains that deer have quite good eyesight, excellent
hearing, and a refined sense of smell.  Coupled together, they make for
a formidable sensory array that I cannot hope to match without tools
such as telescopic sights, buck scent, and camoflauge clothing.

	As for what makes me think deer can witness this, I've seen deer
bolt at a mile distance (two sections of field) when I stepped from the
tractor to <ahem> answer the call of nature.  The tractor they let within
about forty feet, but they ran back into the woods at a mile range.  It
is possible they did not know what I was, but they weren't sticking around
to find out, either.  I know this by seeing white flags bounding into the
woods, as at that distance I couldn't make out individual deer too easily.

>ds> Again, you assume a need for verbal communication and a language.  
>ds> This is unnecessary.  Police cars do not hail you over a 
>ds> loudspeaker and tell you to get off the road, and likewise deer 
>ds> need no such distinct verbage to communicate.  Why else do game 
>ds> calls work?  

>The only game calls that I'm familiar with mimic mating sounds that
>are characteristically engrained in the behavior of the species.  For
>you to cite their effectiveness as evidence of the ability of deer
>to communicate abstract notions seems rather flimsy to me.   You need
>to give the example of police sirens more critical thought, Dan.

	What's your reaction when you hear a siren?  You look around
for possible danger, even before you know what the police are, let
alone what the siren is supposed to communicate.  Game calls work by
emulating sounds that will serve to bring animals in closer.  A squirrel
call will emulate a squirrel proclaming his domain, which should draw
th present occupant out for a confrontation.  Coyote calls emulate a
wounded rabbit, supposedly to draw them to easy prey.  Duck calls
emulate contented ducks, supposedly to lure flying ducks into believing
the still decoys are really contented ducks on the water.  Mating calls
might work on some game, but that requires you to be hunting them
during the mating season, which is not always the case.  That it takes
some talent and skill to work these devices shows that the animals are
capable of distinguishing the difference between "real" and "artificial"
sounds that are very similar.

>ds> Evolution doesn't help them at all, even against other four-
>ds> legged animals, save to give them sufficient sensory perception and
>ds> suitable weapons for defense to ensure a good shot at survival.  That
>ds> the predator now strikes from 50 yards instead of five is no reason
>ds> to assume evolution is necessary to help the prey survive.

>How far can deer see clearly, Dan?   

	At one mile they can see clearly enough to note me leaving the
tractor cab.  Do you require a longer distance given a 100yd maximum
range for shotgun and black powder rifles commonly used in deer hunting?
In areas where high-powered rifles are allowed, they are allowed because
the predominant terrain does not allow bullets to fly very far without
obstructions in the way, hence deer are shot at shorter ranges than the
maximum effective range of the weapon.  That 7mm Remington Magnum is
no good if you can't see your prey, and in areas where these are allowed,
your prey can also see you quite clearly if you can see it.

>Read Mowat, Farley.  _Never Cry Wolf_.  And then we can discuss the
>differences between non-human animal predation and the predation of
>humans bearing guns.

	"You bet.  I'm a damn good shot.  Take maybe forty or fifty carribou
a month to feed the dogs," as the eskimo said to Farley, if I remember right.
Farley then comes to the realization that the eskimo kills several times as
many carribou as the wolves do.  Yeah, I read that book nearly ten years ago.
It was good, but hardly a scientific treatise on predator-prey relationships.

>ds> Against different threats, stupid and couragous can indeed
>ds> be the same act.  It is couragous to charge a badger while screaming.
>ds> Against a black bear, it's stupid.  You'll note that both of these
>ds> animals are predators, but of unequal threat to us.

>While we're noting the size differential between badgers and 
>bears, let's not forget to pay heed to the relatively small 
>stature of humans as compared to bears.

	Don't forget that the badger generally doesn't care, either.

>   Yes, we know that the
>human may be carrying one of those special phaser-weapons that 
>can blow apart planets by virtue of some high-tech concept, but
>this capability may not be immediately obvious to those of us
>who lack the mental and physical resources to learn about such
>things.

	The fangs of a snake are not immediately obvious to them
either, but you don't expect them to discount the ability of a
rattlesnake to protect itself or attack, do you?  That I have a
gun need not be a concern, as the best action, and the one evolution
would be mose favorable towards, is to assume even a puny human is
enough of a threat to kill you.  That doesn't stop some animals, but
I notice even coyote's weighing nearly as much as I do are wary of
humans even though no firearm is in evidence.

<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