From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:41:44 GMT
Organization: WP Group


In <Bu0nDp.Cws@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> As far as I can tell, the only way a deer might know that 
rl> gunshots cause harm is if he, himself, were shot and managed to 
rl> connect the sound with the pain, or, if he were able to observe
rl> the death of another deer at close proximity.   Do you think
rl> that either of these scenarios is sufficiently likely that we
rl> can rightly judge the "stupidity" of dead deer on the basis of the
rl> assumption that they had failed to learn from prior experience?

From article <viking.715579954@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> I don't think either is sufficiently valid, to tell the truth.
ds> I'd bet chickens are naturally afraid of foxes and badgers, yet it is
ds> ludicrous to think they would have to be chased and/or hurt by such
ds> a beast to determine it is a threat.  You're stretching yourself
ds> pretty thin on this one.

Most animals learn in their infancy that larger animals can pose 
threats, albeit not necessarily lethal ones.  The spectre of a 
heretofore unseen fox is hardly an abstract notion in the mind of 
a chicken.  The chicken can see that such an animal is large and 
fast moving, and as you yourself might point out, it's possible 
that evolution may have prepared the chicken for such an 
encounter over tens of thousands of years.  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.  

rl> Is there much evidence to indicate that the death of one member of
rl> the herd is going to be well-known by other members of the herd?
rl> How close would another deer have to be in order to observe such
rl> an event?

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.

rl>    Why should we assume that one deer would have the 
rl> linguistic ability to pass this info along to other deer?

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.

> ...
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?   

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.

> 
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.   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.

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