Date:  9 Apr 92 01:56:58 GMT
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Case Example #1
 
young@alw.nih.gov (Jeff Young) writes:
 
>> |>
>> |> 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.
 
Opps, I stand duly corrected.
 
 
 
>> |>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.
 
Well, it may not shout it out in all dialects, but is seems to be
a reasonable interpretation to me, unless we have better evidence
for an alternative explanation.
 
 
>> |> 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."
 
   Again, I would not rely on this study, or any one singel study
for establishing such a general principle about fecundity rates
inversely affected by pop. density.  Given that the principle is
well established, however, then this data is useful in at least
illustrating that principle.
 
 
>> |>
>> |> >  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.
 
Jeff, here at least we are in healthy agreement.  I prefer not to
be boondoggled by the double-speak of "developers".  Let's call
them "destroyers" as our semantic antibody to this abuse of our
language.
 
>> 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.
 
Naturally, here I disagree.  I will, however, not belabour the
point.
 
 
>> |>
>> |> > 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.
 
Ok, you slippery devil.  ;-)
 
 
 
>> |> 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.
 
You're changing the topic here.  Ok, now, where else can I
practice with complete abandon the style that comes most
naturally for me?  Oh well, I'm not an english professor either,
still, it is a shame that not to use some sesquipedalian words
that fit so much better than what might be captured by a more
familiar word.
 
 
 
>> |> > 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.
 
A number of density-related factors would affect fecundity rates,
health being only one of them and maybe not the most important
unless we are talking about very sick deer.
 
The reduction of he deer population during the hunting season
reduces the density for the next mating year.  Note that there
was a lag of 2 to 3 years before this change in fecundity took
place.   Near steady state systems always show some fluctuations
and delays.  Three years may not be unreasonably with such
ecological systems.  Now, the most reasonably explanation for the
rebound in the population is that the hunting did affect
fecundity rates.  Surely, the game managers were aware of this.
In any case, the situation was not one of reducing the deer to a
population of 250 as planned, but rather to encourage the
greatest "maxiumum sustainable" yield of deer for hunting
purposes. .
 
 
 
>> |>
>> |> 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.
 
The extant figures show no contradiction.  If you have the migration
rates, then indeed you can refute my thesis.  Frankly, I don't
have them and from the report I read, there was no indication that
such migrations figured in any significant way.   I could be wrong
and I welcome your help on this matter.
 
 
 
>> |> 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.
 
Remember, no single study ever has all the conceivable data to
account for all of the conceivable explanations.  There has to be,
a `certeris paribus' (all things assumed reasonably equal) 
assumption in any research.  You may well be right that we don't
have sufficient data for an important alternative explanation.
I simply disagree and so let us leave this point for future 
arbitration by 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.
 
Come now, good critics are also bear some onus on providing data
to support what are their alternative explanations, especially
when those alternate accounts are `prima facie' (at first view)
less plausible.  Unless the extant data itself provides a self
refutation, one is obliged to back up alternative theories.
Given certain assumptions which are reasonably plausible for my
inference, then it is your turn to provide refuting data.
 
 
>> |> 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.
 
I was engaging in a bit of rhetorical flourish and irony here.
Now the statement is true by being qualified by "some hunters"
Not all or most by any means, hence no slur to all or most
hunters was intended; after all, you did sever a compound 
statement into two thereby changing its context somewhat.
 
 
 
>> |> 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.
 
Why?  What established theorectical assumptions or well known
facts would justify such an incredulity?  I have cited some
references supporting that fecudity rates do increased markedly
with density related factors.  Hence, my inferences are not
founded on idle fansy or wish..
 
 
 
>> |>  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?
 
I didn't think they were unduly obscure; certainly, they are now
part of our English vocabulary.  Maybe they wouldn't be so
unfamiliar if we took more trouble to say things with the
precision that our language can ably exact through its rich and
precious heritage of words.
     "Until we learn the use of living words we
      shall continue to be waxworks inhabited
      by gramophones"  (Walter De La Mare)
I'll compromise by providing quick and dirty definitions in brackets
(at least when we have a good, civil exchange).  How's that?
 
 
>> |>
>> |> >>>   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.
 
I'm not certain what you would classify as AR literature.
Certainly, my source is not from a pamphlet published by some
advocacy group.  I gave the  reference right at the start.  It
was from Ron Baker's "The American Hunting Myth".  While Baker
does take a strong position on the issue, his book is not a
chronicle of sensationalized horror stories, but a reasonably
argued and researched work that is quite readable.  Certainly, it
is a cut above above what is usually found in pamphets and pulp
magazines.  Zoologist Dick Kenly and Bina Robinson from the
International Ecology Society compiled this particular table of
data for Ron Baker using information published by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.  Hence, this book is a primary source.
Unfortunately, my library here in Vancouver, Canada only contains
the fisheries index from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not
the index for the wildlife branch.  Hence, I have no easy access
to the raw data.  Maybe you could help us out since you have
taken such a keen interest in this one.  Look up in the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Services Index for Wildlife the subject entries
for Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, starting
at '81 forward for about the next 5 years (publication of
government data is usually delayed by a year or more.
 
 
 
>> |> >>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 assumed, rightly or wrongly, that food shortages and other
natual factors delimited the population.  Lowered birth rates,
starvation, and migration may all have played a role.  The key
point is that nature regulated these
deer quite well before hunting.
 
                                       ted
 

Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals