From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Closure on Sport Hunting.
Date: 22 Aug 92 01:07:55 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <BtCr95.L2@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
in response to me:

[loads deleted -- we agree on the large scope, and you've read it before]

>Sure they'll fluctuate, but it's important to remember that the 
>seasonal fluctuation in available food calories, in itself, wouldn't
>doom animals to starvation.   Most mammals, perhaps all mammals,
>can accomodate seasonal fluctuations with ease.  Humans, for example,
>might enjoy an intake of 5,000 calories per day in times of "fat",
>but easily endure an intake of 1,000 calories for several months
>on end (ie winter) without running the risk of true starvation.

	Of course.  Prisoners of War often go from these extremes you
mention, and report that the body adapts within a few weeks, though
their bodyfat percentage rarely climbs back up on the low-calorie
diet.  The body is, above all, a survivor.

	Still, those seasonal fluxuations may still prove to allow only
a bit above "enough" in the summer and not enough for everybody in
the winter.  I'd say the habitat is the biggest factor here, and I also
claim that starvation is one method nature uses to control the
population depending on that habitat, which will show up in those data
points that fluxuate all over the graph.

>ds> In addition, there will be some young born as the time of conception
>ds> may have been when food was plentiful, and caloric intake/capita
>ds> need not drop in a gentle curve depending on the area the herd
>ds> has to forage in. 

>I think both of us should do some more research to get a better idea
>of the food calories available in normal deer "food", and then try to 
>get a better grip on caloric expenditures on a season-by-season basis.   

	I am rather busy at the moment (I've gotta get a faster modem --
I refuse to break my addiction to Usenet), but I don't see where the
caloric expenditures are relevant unless one knows exactly how many
calories the habitat can provide per critter.  Since this cannot be
known with any degree of accurracy outside of a small field or where
crops are grown, I'd say we've got a problem.  A far easier method
of ascertaining the caliroc intake/capita is to put a certain number
of critters in an exclosed area and then observe their bodyfat and/or
possibly weigh them occassionally.  This data I have on bovines,
and I've posted it before.  In brief, everybody is happy and fat for
a few weeks, then the next week we see shrinkage of the animal, and
within the next two weeks there's nothing edible left.  This was with
about 50 cows on roughly 300 acres of corn stalks (with some corn
unharvested due to a seriously wet fall, but this was less than half
an acre in size and disappeared really quickly).  After week number
three we started supplimenting their feed with silage and stacks of
corn stalks, and finally hay.  Still, as time went on we had to
switch to higher-calorie foods and more of it to keep the herd at
the same (or similar) bodyfat.  I'd say the extrapolation of this
data just shows that unless the habitat is incapable of providing
less than what the herd needs, it will have its limits pushed, and
that pushing may result in fewer births or starvation depending
upon the number of other deaths in the herd and the time frame
during which the habitat is depleted.

	We're still talking about starvation as a distinct
possibility, and that's one reason for culling.

<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