From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Hunting-Fat-Fertility. Was: Letter to John Robinson
Organization: WP Group
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:52:07 GMT

In <Bs4008.H3M@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Do you have any empirical evidence to support John's allegation
rl> that hunting is only allowed in those areas that require it?  
rl> Your proof-by-rationale isn't very convincing. 

From article <viking.712377861@vincent1.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> Empirical: adj; relying or based on experiment or experience.
ds> My experience has been that hunting isn't allowed where it isn't 
ds> needed.

Unless you're omniscient, how can your experience prove John's claim?

ds> For the last three years I have avoided hunting rabbit and 
ds> squirrel on my land since their populations had dwindled after a 
ds> particularly nasty winter and spring.  Those years I hunted 
ds> tresspassers.  This year they are in abundant numbers.  This 
ds> experiment shows that hunting is only allowed in those areas that 
ds> require it, or at least can afford it...  

Perhaps your "experiment" would be more meaningful if John had 
specifically restricted the scope of his claim to your land, and 
your land alone.  

ds> I have deleted, but concede, the point on water weight versus
ds> fat content.  We now resume our argument where it's relevant:

It's encouraging to see that you have some respect for "accuracy", 
heretofore known as "truth".  :-) 

ds> If ovulation happens at >20% body fat, then it only takes two days 
ds> of poor feed to negate this effect... 

rl> Are you suggesting that abundant food resources that would allow 
rl> a deer to put on 20% body fat would suddenly disappear over a two 
rl> day period, thanks to "poor feed"?  Let me remind you that it's 
rl> far more difficult for a deer, consuming brush, to add fat that 
rl> it might be for hogs fed on fatty grains. 

ds> I wasn't aware that high-lysene corn and soybeans were fatty
ds> grains...

Very definitely.  It's my understanding that a hundred grams of 
soybeans, containing just 9 grams of water, would typically contain 
slightly less than 20 grams of fat.  And this same measure of 
soybeans would might contain app. 30 grams of carbohydrate.  Corn 
has less fat, I believe, but it's still a prodigious source of 
fat and carbohydrate calories when compared to the diets of deer 
living in natural environments.  

ds> ... and though I admit my error as how it affects the two days
ds> argument, what about two weeks?  How about five weeks?  Will the fetus
ds> abort, will it live?  

That's a good question.  The general consensus is that estrus is 
keyed to body fat content in order to assure that pregnancies 
will have a reasonable chance of success.  As you can appreciate, 
allowing pregnancy in time of famine would not be a good survival
strategy for a mammal that must not only carry the offspring to 
term, but nurse it as well.  

ds> Will it matter if the food supply runs out shortly
ds> after hunting season is removed?

You seem to be assuming that a deer would "run out" of food the 
way canned beans might disappear from store shelves.  In reality, 
the food would become less abundant and hence, harder and harder 
to find.  As such, the shift from feast to famine isn't going to 
occur over the course of a few days or even a few months.  

It's a mistake, I believe, to view the process as though it might 
have a beginning and an end within the scope of a single season 
or even a single year, assuming that we're dealing with a stable 
enviroment that isn't beset by some abnormal disaster.  If it 
were otherwise, then we'd be hardpressed to account for the fact 
that hunting actually increases birthrate among deer.  

ds> So, Russ, how'd I do?

rl> Your theory needs work.

ds> It's a fair cop.

It's refreshing to see a demonstration of intellectual courage
on usenet.  My hat's off to you. :-)

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