From: schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber and a look on hunting\
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 23:11:55 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.124754.4819@ac.dal.ca> robinson@ac.dal.ca writes:
>In article <n-wt--f@rpi.edu>, schwae@marcus.its.rpi.edu (Eric A. Schwartz) writes:
>> In article <rd3f2INNaqk@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>>>It would seem that the experiences of the hunting community have left hunters
>>>in a more appropriate position to comment on the behaviour of wildlife in
>>>general.  This is also confirmed by the comments of some obviously ill-inform-
>>>ed AR activists.
>>>
>> Not at all.  Unless you have done much with the wildlife other than hunt
>> them by the "hide in a tree and shoot" or "stalk and hope one comes by"
>> methods.  Wildlife in general, and deer specifically, do quite a bit more
>> than get shot and/or run away.  The experiences of the "hunting community"
>> if such a fraternity truly exists, represent an extremely limited and
>> stunted view.  You are probably in a better position to comment on the
>> fracture mechanics of bullets and deer, on common hunting practice, and
>> on the behavior of deer when shot at, but not on wildlife behavior in 
>> general.  
>
>Yeah, gee.  I guess knowing what deer like to eat, when the like to eat, 
>when they sleep and what kind of cover they sleep in couldn't have any 
>relevance to hunting.  Neither could knowing their mating habits, courting 
>rituals, foot prints, spoor, or much of anything else.  Hell, all you have 
>to do is walk into the woods, set up a stand or sit on a log and wait for 
>one to happen by....NOT.  Only one whose ignorance of hunting was only 
>overshadowed by his own ignorance of his own ignorance would presume that.
>
>In addition to all of this stuff about deer, one also has to learn how to 
>shoot, balistics, bullet composition, suitable calibers and why they're 
>suitable, and if one wishes to reload one's own ammunition there is a whole 
>bunch of other stuff to be learned.  As I've said before, there is a hell 
>of a lot more to hunting than just walking into the woods and blasting a 
>deer.....
>
I've already answered this.  Refer to a parallel posting (I believe  #4838,
but I'm not certain) in reply to Mike, who brought up the same points.
I simply oversimplified.
 
>> Most of what has been said here is all "It fits what I've seen", or
>> anecdotal evidence.  That is nearly completely worthless because of
>> something called confounding.  You expect something, so you bring it
>> about.  In order to determine that your experience represents the true
>> nature of deer, you would have to watch them without interfering in any
>> way.  That means you could not be there, unless you can move without
>> any sound, and have no smell, and be invisible.  Then you could watch
>> yourself hunt them, and see what difference you make.   Otherwise,
>> you are getting a picture of deer that you alter to fit what you think
>> it should be.  Or you could simply check out journals of wildlife ecology
>> and ethology to find the uncontaminated conclusions of people who used 
>> that kind of variable control.
>
>I see.  They behave the way we say they behave because we hunt them and if 
>we didn't hunt them they wouldn't behave that way......interesting, if 
>somewhat pointless, argument.
>
It points out that what you know of deer is only knowledge of hunted
deer.  It is likely applicable to deer under natural circumstances,
but that has never been proven, as far as I'm aware.

>> As an example, you think deer fear you, so you try to sneak up on them,
>> and when you give yourself away, your behavior frightens them, thus
>> reinforcing your "evidence" that you were correct, and deer fear you.
>
>We don't try to sneak up on them because we think they fear us.  If you 
>think that any more than one in perhaps a thousand hunters is *capable* of 
>sneaking up on a deer you're wearing your ignorance on your sleeve 
>again....
>
Oversimplified yet again.  I figured you'd know enough to add in the
details.  Guess not.  

So, you don't sneak up on deer.  There is no stealth involved at all,
huh?  Then why not just stomp out in the woods in broad daylight?
Why wear camoflage, sit perfectly still, and sit in a tree stand?
Chew a stick of gum, wander around, pitch stones to pass the time,
hey, why not bring along a portable TV? 

All I meant was that by using stealthy techniques and botching them,
you cause a huge inaccuracy in your observations.  And as you said,
only one in a thousand wouldn't botch them.

E.S.