HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Date: 28 Aug 1992 22:18:03 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: argon.berkeley.edu

In article <BtpJL5.46p@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>From article <1992Aug27.152729.19321@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>, by keith@clodii.Columbia.NCR.COM (Keith Boyd):
>kb> It's true.  One of the wolves favorite tricks is to chase a 
>kb> single, but perfectly healthy deer onto a patch of ice where it 
>kb> becomes easy prey.  The wolves have better footing on ice due to 
>kb> five relatively sharp claws on each paw versus two relatively 
>kb> dull hoof tips on each leg of the deer.  The deer are pretty 
>kb> clumsy on ice, believe it or not.  They can't make sharp cuts 
>kb> since the hooves offer no "side bite" to dig in for better 
>kb> traction.  I learned this by watching National Geographic 
>kb> programs.  

>It's true that hooved mammals may be incapacitated, not only on 
>ice, but on crusted, windblown snow as well.  And it's also true 
>that wolves will often attempt to drive vulnerable deer onto such 
>terrain.  However, wolf-prey experts like Farley Mowat have pointed 
>out that healthy prey animals will typically stand their ground rather 
>than allow themselves to be driven into compromising positions.  


Would it be correct to believe that someone like Mowat (who most probably
knows more than any of us about wolves) knows all there is to know about
wolves and can not be wrong in his assumptions?  

Do deer stand their ground when confronted by a *pack* of wolves?  Do 
you doubt that a pack of wolves say half a dozen or so could and would
kill a heathly deer if they were hungry?  Would it be "couragous" for 
the deer to "stand his ground" rather than run in such a situation?  


>It seems to me that it takes a lot of courage for an animal to 
>stand and kick rather than turn tail and run away.  Yet this same 
>courage not to run away is regarded as a sign of stupidity among 
>human hunters.  Why is it "courageous" for a deer to stay-put in 
>confrontations with wolves, but "stupid" for a deer to stay-put 
>in confrontations with humans?  


Kicking tail and running may not be courageous in your view but let's not
forget that if that is what a deer has to do to survive it would be wise
to do so.  Would it be courageous for a deer to stand it's ground if under
attack by a grizzly?  Perhaps.  But, in light of the instinct to survive,
it might be viewed as stupid as well.  If so, why would you not expect a 
deer to be viewed as stupid if it stands it's ground when matched against
the human animal that will "win" the encounter nearly every time?  
Courageous?  Perhaps.  Stupid?   Yes.


>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000


Mike Linan








Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Iowa Conference
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:52:09 GMT

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Unfortunately, the production of meat in the US involves quite a bit
rl> more than letting animals simply graze pastures.  According to a paper
rl> from the WorldWatch Institute, the following raw inputs are required
rl> to produce 1 kilogram of various US meat products:

From article <viking.715570082@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Point to ponder: according to the WorldWatch Institute, the total 
ds> deaths from Chernobyl was 73, this in a paper written by a Mr.  
ds> Flavin.  In this paper were several other inconsistencies, 
ds> uncluding some outright lies, concerning the accident.  This may 
ds> be partially explained by a lack of information at the time of 
ds> publication, but I'd be very leery of the WWI as a source of 
ds> scientific data without verifying their sources on my own.  

The data for the WWI paper came from the following sources: 
Cattle-Fax, Inc ("Grain Utilization in the Livestock and Poultry 
Industries", 12/8/89);  the USDA Economic Research Service;  and 
a paper by David Pimentel published in _Science_ ("The Potential 
for Grass-Fed Livestock: Resource Restraints", 2/22/80).  The 
role of petrochemicals in US agriculture isn't a big mystery, and 
is understood, I believe, by every farmer that I know.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: PETA Action Line 1
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:38:30 GMT

In <9208251455.AA20016@super.super.org> wheeler@SUPER.ORG (Ferrell S. Wheeler) writes:


>From ar-news-request@Think.COM Fri Aug 21 23:29:39 1992
>Received: from mail.think.com by super.super.org (4.1/SMI-4.1)
>	id AA03924; Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:29:37 EDT
>Return-Path: <ar-news-request@Think.COM>
>Received: by mail.think.com; Fri, 21 Aug 92 23:17:13 -0400
>Date: 21 Aug 92 23:11:47 EDT
>From: Debbie Leahy <76357.1070@CompuServe.COM>
>To: <ar-news@Think.COM>
>Subject: PETA Action Line
>Message-Id: <920822031146_76357.1070_EHA22-1@CompuServe.COM>
>Sender: ar-news-request@Think.COM
>Status: R

>>From the PETA Action Line - (301)770-8980:
> 
>+ A barbaric drama unfolded this past weekend in Manitoba, Canada as
>activists battled a team of whale catchers hired by the Shedd Aquarium in
>Chicago.  Caught in the act of berthing, a pod of Beluga whales were
>surrounded, as members of a capture team tore individual whales away from
>their close knit families in an attempt to imprison them for the
>entertainment of Shedd Aquarium patrons. Many of the whales had to be
>released after capture due to the extreme stress of the event. Activists
>were set upon by those involved in the capture as the media watched. The
>Shedd aquarium has no mercy and continues to steal animals from the wild, no
>matter how barbaric, cruel, or embarrassing the procedure may be. Please
>call and write to the aquarium and let them know how strongly you oppose
>capture and confinement.  Call (312) 939-2438 and write to:

For the record:
Six belugas were captured in all.  Two were released due to virus' that were
considered detrimental to the other four that were going to be used in the
aquariam.  No whales were reported stressed by the event according to the
Winnipeg Free Press.  Activists up there were apparently harrased only by
locals after having harrassing the locals in the first place.  Information
is from the local newspaper and available to the public.
-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 20:06:03 GMT

In article <Btwv9I.1p8@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Can deer see bullets as they move through the air?  If not, please
>rl> explain how a deer is supposed to learn from the experience of
>rl> being targeted and missed.
>
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>ja> The noise scares the hell out of them and they don't come back.  
>ja> They are much smarter than you apparently give them credit for.  
>
>rl> I suppose thunder would also scare the hell out of them.  Would it
>rl> be smart to be afraid of thunder?
>
>From article <1992Sep1.142339.18250@spdc.ti.com>, by achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>ja> Russell, I've read enough of your writing by now to know you're 
>ja> not stupid.  Neither are deer.  I'm beginning to get the feeling 
>ja> you're hiding behind dumb questions when you think you may be 
>ja> losing an argument.  
>
>If you think my questions are dumb, please take a critical look
>at some of the incredibly dumb assumptions you've been taking 
>for granted.
>
>As an example, you seem to think that the dozens of deer in a 
>particular area that hear the sounds of a particular set of 
>gunshots are supposed to know, by some strange means, that each 
>of these thundering noises has some sort of lethal significance.  
>If deer are as critically astute as you seem to believe, it seems 
>to me that they'd realize after one or two explosions that no 
>real harm was done.  
>

No, not all of them. Just the ones that survived the previous hunting season.
Those that were not around then will learn or most likely be killed. 

  Do you live near an area that allows hunting? If so, you can easily go see
for yourself. Go out before hunting season starts (may be too late this year,
I think dove season may have opened) and spend a day "hunting" deer. Go out
the second or third day of hunting season and try again. Go again after deer 
hunting season has ended. The wildlife commission can probably give you an 
estimate of deer population before and after hunting season. I think you will 
find your sightings decreased by far more than would be expected due to 
hunting mortality alone.

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 05:01:19 GMT

In article <BtH5u3.54r@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Do you know for a fact that the deer didn't have handouts and corn
rl> crops and so on available for consumption?  Or, was this another
rl> assumption?
rl> 
rl> In describing the situation, I believe Jonathan Spencer 
rl> specifically mentioned the fact that deer from the LACS reserve 
rl> were raiding the corn fields on neighboring farms.  Was Jonathan 
rl> mistaken?  If not, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that corn 
rl> has a very high fat content and would significantly raise the 
rl> caloric intake for the herd-at-large, thereby enhancing fertility.

From article <RIGG.92Aug25090923@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> Jonathon Spencer has very clearly stated that the deer were given no
tr> handouts based on published information by the LACS itself.  The same
tr> article stated that deer would invade corn field and be culled quite
tr> quickly. 
tr>
tr> This is one case where the opposite of your self-regulatory
tr> mechanism works quite well:  the deer eat high fat food and their
tr> fertility is dropped to ZERO.

Did Jonathan Spencer know for a fact that all the deer that had invaded 
corn fields were subsequently culled?  Or was this merely an assumption? 

tr> If deer were capable of maintaining their own populations, where are
tr> your examples?  I have vague recollections of several cases where it
tr> doesn't work and am looking for more detailed references.  But where
tr> are your examples, surely there would be some preserves or sactuaries
tr> where your mechanism would apply.
tr> 
tr> In short, it seems quite reasonable that fat content can low
tr> fertility.  However, you have presented NO evidence that such a drop
tr> is sufficient to keep populations in balance without predation. Until
tr> you present such proof, your argument appears quite vacuous.

Precisely which aspect of my argument are you contesting, Tim?  Would
you mind being more specific?

When I get a chance, I'm going to go back through my notes and locate
two references that have an important bearing on this issue.  One of the
references was a manual on deer hunting, and the other was an article
in one of the hunting magazines.  Both of them pointed out that the
"crop" of fawns could be increased by adopting forest management 
practices that increase the quantity of food available for deer.  I'm
sure that you would accept the idea that fertility can be enhanced by
increasing caloric intake.  Why then, are you so opposed to the 
(identical) concept that fertility would be diminished by reducing 
caloric intake?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:09:57 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <Btn1rK.1KJ@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk 
(Jonathan Spencer) writes:

Ted Robinson writes:
> >I was hoping for a bigger picture that includes many species, not just
> >deer.

Jonathan writes:

> You want us to do *your* research for you?

Perhaps I was too subtle. I want you to do *your own* research. If you claim 
that inflicting pain and death on other beings is justified due to an overall 
decrease in suffering, you better be prepared to show that this decrease in 
fact occurs. If it really only occurs 10% of the time, then only 10% of 
hunting can be ethically justified using the argument above.  

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:50:22 GMT

In article <agty-1_@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Since Linda incorrectly stated that my words were "sexist" and 
jve> "demeaning," I think it's safe to assume that there must be a 
jve> reason why she would make such a patently false statement.  
jve> "Hatred" was merely one suggestion, hence the "may." If that's 
jve> not the explanation, perhaps she would like to tell us why she 
jve> said what she did, since it was untrue.  

As quoted from <BttMqw.6K@wpg.com> by russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
rl> If Linda were black, would it have been racist if someone had said,
rl> 
rl>     "I didn't know we could let our niggers vote in this."

From article <Btutxt.Lpz@NCoast.ORG>, by cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton):
cm> Ah yes.  Once again, Russell does the David Duke thing.  

Please explain how/why you think I'm "doing a David Duke thing".  Is
there some similarity between my views and those of David Duke's?  If
so, please itemize the similarities.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:57:49 GMT
Reply-To: tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson)
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale, CA

In article <BtBz5y.4Gv@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk 
(Jonathan Spencer) writes:

> If sufficient are killed, yes, that's true. Look at the experience of
> the red deer in the Scottish Highlands. Insufficient culling of hinds
> has lead to overpopulation to the point where the deer are now causing
> permanent erosion to the land, and die of starvation in their hundreds
> (if not thousands) each winter.

Given a population of 300,000 (from your post), 100's to 1000's starving each 
winter is a death rate on the order of .1 - 1.0 %. I'm no expert on this 
stuff - is a death rate of less than 1% really an indication of severe 
starvation?

> As a starter, try,
> "Practical deer stalking" by KG Whitehead, 1986, Constable, London,
> priced 10.95 pounds...

I was hoping for a bigger picture that includes many species, not just deer.

 
>>1. Fowl - my guess is that rarely, if ever, is hunting needed to
  
> The Canada goose population in Britain is becoming a *serious* problem.
> They can strip a field of winter wheat in a single morning. 

My original question was about culling needed to prevent starvation in the 
targetted species. You've given no indication that this is the case here. 

  

Ted Robinson
tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
These views are mine and not Amdahl's, etc.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach)
Subject: Re: Animal/Human Cruelty Links
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:13:56 GMT

  I just read the abstracts for the papers under the same subject heading.
Is anyone even a little bit surprised? Mean is mean, and some folks are real
mean! Aggression will be directed at anyone or anything that is perceived as
unable to retaliate in kind. I sure hope my tax monies aren't supporting 
these silly studies of the obvious. 

Jeff Achenbach
achenbac@epcot.spdc.ti.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:37:53 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please take the time to read Frisch, Rose.  "Fatness and Fertility",
rl> _Scientific American_, March, 1988.  I'm looking forward to your
rl> comments.

From article <BtyCoJ.K11@newcastle.ac.uk>, by J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer):
js> I'm not going to read it. (I just haven't time.) I do not dispute that
js> an animal in poor condition is less likely to breed. 

Are you one of the few remaining individuals who still believe 
that added fatness is a requirement for health?  If not, why 
would you assume that the dysfunction of ovulatory cycles because 
of lower body fat is a sign of poor condition?  Frankly, it seems 
to me that an individual with 16% body fat may be just as 
healthy, perhaps more healthy, than an individual with 18% body 
fat, yet one may be fertile and not the other.  If I'm not 
mistaken, thinner individuals are also able to utilize fat more 
effectively in time of famine, and often endure better in time of 
famine.  

Our understanding of the role of body fat in regulating fertility 
was aided enormously by studies involving olympic athletes with 
low body fat, notably marathon runners.  [You know what bad 
condition they're in.] There's some evidence to suggest that male 
fertility as well as female fertility is affected when levels of 
body fat are lower.  

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Voting Results
Organization: WP Group
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:40:59 GMT

From article <lbqy_5m@rpi.edu>, by vanetten@unix.cie.rpi.edu (John S. Van Etten):
jve> Anyway, the vote stands and so be it.  Amusing to note that only 6
jve> people cared enough about Ferrell's stuff to voice their opinions in 
jve> favor...

It's amusing that you haven't figured out yet that usenet readers 
weren't fond of your notion that "voting" ought to dictate 
someone else's posting priviledges.  I'm surprised, since Dan 
Sorenson did an admirable job of explaining it to you in a very 
polite and well-written article.  

jve> One other comment, I respect Ferrell's honesty for posting the
jve> list of all those who voted, to show that it was legit.  I'm also
jve> disappointed in those that didn't have enough guts to send me a copy
jve> of their vote, as well.  

I can't speak for the other people who encouraged Ferrell to 
continue posting, but I can assure you that I regarded your 
demand for copies of the "votes" as childish and immature.  Is 
it reasonable for you to assume that a man or woman lacks "guts" 
just because he/she considers one of your ideas to be silly?  
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
From: J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk (Jonathan Spencer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: How often is culling needed?
Date: 27 Aug 92 10:42:55 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

tsr00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Ted Robinson) writes:

>In article <BtBz5y.4Gv@newcastle.ac.uk>, J.M.Spencer@newcastle.ac.uk 
>(Jonathan Spencer) writes:

>> If sufficient are killed, yes, that's true. Look at the experience of
>> the red deer in the Scottish Highlands. Insufficient culling of hinds
>> has lead to overpopulation to the point where the deer are now causing
>> permanent erosion to the land, and die of starvation in their hundreds
>> (if not thousands) each winter.

>Given a population of 300,000 (from your post), 100's to 1000's starving each 
>winter is a death rate on the order of .1 - 1.0 %. I'm no expert on this 
>stuff - is a death rate of less than 1% really an indication of severe 
>starvation?

I think if you'd seen pictures of entire herds (ie dozens of beasts at a
time) piled up in the snow, you'd take a different view. The annual cull
is around 50,000 beasts I understand. I don't know how many starve, but
it must be into the thousands.

But that isn't the only problem. Their numbers are sucht that they are
causing permanent land erosion and deforestation too. There are too many
deer.

>> As a starter, try,
>> "Practical deer stalking" by KG Whitehead, 1986, Constable, London,
>> priced 10.95 pounds...

>I was hoping for a bigger picture that includes many species, not just
>deer.

You want us to do *your* research for you?

>>>1. Fowl - my guess is that rarely, if ever, is hunting needed to
>  
>> The Canada goose population in Britain is becoming a *serious* problem.
>> They can strip a field of winter wheat in a single morning. 

>My original question was about culling needed to prevent starvation in the 
>targetted species. You've given no indication that this is the case here. 

I also mentioned the rabbit population.

--Jonathan
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:25:10 GMT

Tim Rigg writes:
tr> The author stated that lower levels _can_ prevent fertility.  The
tr> extremely undernourished and relatively fat-free women of some
tr> developing countries show that fertility is not prevented.  It is just
tr> lowered. 

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Please name one of these countries and explain why you think that 
rl> the relative absence of fat didn't prevent fertility.

Tim Rigg writes:
[nothing]

Would you mind naming one of the countries, Tim?  

From article <RIGG.92Aug31164708@osnome.che.wisc.edu>, by rigg@osnome.che.wisc.edu (Tim Rigg):
tr> The author states that decreased fat decreases fertility.  Where in
tr> the paper does it state that reduced fat prevents fertility?

   "The comparisons also showed that women who were amenorrheic
    because of simple weight loss needed to reach a weight that was
    about ten percent heavier than the menarche threshold in order
    to restore and maintain normal ovulatory cycles.  They had to
    have [...] indicating that fat accounted for about 22 percent
    of the body weight."

tr> The caloric intake was "perfect" for 1N.  The reduced fertility won't
tr> even start taking effect until 2N or 4N.  So, the population would
tr> continue to grow at least past that point.

rl> Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that the caloric intake was 
rl> 5,000 calories per day/individual, and let's assume that this figure
rl> included sufficient excess calories for the individuals to build and
rl> then maintain 20% body fat.  What would happen to the caloric intake,
rl> and hence fatness, if the population were to increase to 2N or 4N?

tr> Please provide your analysis of this situation with documented
tr> calculations and/or explanations.  I am tired of doing your research
tr> for you.

I don't see why you think that research is necessary to answer 
this question.  If a given habitat produces sufficient calories 
to meet the caloric requirements for 1N animals plus an offset 
that's barely sufficient to assure fertility, how/why could the 
population continue to "explode" as it progresses to 2N or 4N?  

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