From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Self Regulating Populations
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 18:03:00 GMT

In <Bu2EHM.4Mv@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> By contrast, the threat posed by hidden bullets fired by a puny 
rl> looking human who's a hundred yards away may not be the obvious 
rl> thing that would pop into the mind of an intelligent, young deer.  

From article <viking.715663729@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
ds> One point you seem to be overlooking: deer are fairly low
ds> on the food chain.  Such status would make size less important than
ds> unfamiliarity when regarding the potential threat of another animal.
ds> Evolution as a prey animal favors wariness over size discrimination.

I've noticed that you often derive your "facts" from theories, 
instead of basing your theories on facts.  Bad habit, Dan.  :-) 
I've been kicked by a horse, and I've been kicked by birds.  The 
horse kick landed me in the hospital with three broken ribs, 
whereas the bird kicks were inconsequential.  The kick that broke 
my ribs would have killed a wolf, and could have killed me if 
medical care had been unavailable.  

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.

rl> What makes you think that deer could witness such an event from a
rl> distance of a mile, or even a few hundred yards?   It seems to me
rl> that you, and several other posters, have a habit of projecting
rl> remarkable sensory and cognitive abilities onto deer, simply to
rl> bolster the argument that it's somehow justifiable to shoot "stupid"
rl> animals.

ds> 	Quite the contrary, I don't require deer be able to even see
ds> to justify my shooting them in my mind, let alone have superior
ds> eyesight.  It merely makes it a greater challenge for me to do so.
ds> However, the fact remains that deer have quite good eyesight, excellent
ds> hearing, and a refined sense of smell.  Coupled together, they make for
ds> a formidable sensory array that I cannot hope to match without tools
ds> such as telescopic sights, buck scent, and camoflauge clothing.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that the eyesight of
a deer is "quite good", as you say?  Or, is this another one of those
assumptive "facts"?

ds> 	As for what makes me think deer can witness this, I've seen deer
ds> bolt at a mile distance (two sections of field) when I stepped from the
ds> tractor to <ahem> answer the call of nature.  The tractor they let within
ds> about forty feet, but they ran back into the woods at a mile range.  It
ds> is possible they did not know what I was...

Precisely.

rl> The only game calls that I'm familiar with mimic mating sounds that
rl> are characteristically engrained in the behavior of the species.  For
rl> you to cite their effectiveness as evidence of the ability of deer
rl> to communicate abstract notions seems rather flimsy to me.   You need
rl> to give the example of police sirens more critical thought, Dan.

ds> What's your reaction when you hear a siren?  You look around
ds> for possible danger, even before you know what the police are, let
ds> alone what the siren is supposed to communicate...

What's your point?

> ...
rl> How far can deer see clearly, Dan?   

ds> At one mile they can see clearly enough to note me leaving the
ds> tractor cab...

Does the term "post hoc ergo propter hoc" mean anything to you?   Please
furnish some evidence to support the claim that deer can distinguish
human movements at a distance of one mile.

> ...
rl> Read Mowat, Farley.  _Never Cry Wolf_.  And then we can discuss the
rl> differences between non-human animal predation and the predation of
rl> humans bearing guns.

ds> "You bet.  I'm a damn good shot.  Take maybe forty or fifty 
ds> carribou a month to feed the dogs," as the eskimo said to Farley, 
ds> if I remember right.  Farley then comes to the realization that 
ds> the eskimo kills several times as many carribou as the wolves do.  
ds> Yeah, I read that book nearly ten years ago.  It was good, but 
ds> hardly a scientific treatise on predator-prey relationships.  

One of us has a poor memory.  Please quote the passage where Farley
came to the conclusion that the eskimo killed "several times" more
caribou than the wolves.  

I agree that this book isn't a scientific treatise on predator-prey
relationships, but it's quite a bit more factual than the assumptions,
derived from your theory, that you've presented to support your theory.

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