Culling Costs versus hunting revenue
Sue Bishop
As for hunting, as opposed to culling by hired professional hunters (Russell's
choice), the local news station was talking about the advent of deer season
here in Ohio. There are 500,000 licensed hunters in this state, revenues from
hunters put approximately $20,000,000 into the state coffers. They will
harvest at least 125,000 deer, probably closer to 150,000 since 125,000
was last year's number. Now to go to the expense of hiring professional
hunters, setting up drives to herd the deer to locales where they can be
shot by the hunters, it's hard to calculate the possible cost of this but
it could very easily be well over the $20,000,000 mark. So, to cull the
deer by Russell's professional hunter method would really mean a loss to
the state of $20,000,000 in revenue, plus another possible $20,000,000
or much more, in expenses...... And just to keep the deer herd in check
for only one year. The state would have to shell out that much or more
the next year, and the next, and the next.
Now I don't know how rich your state is, but our state has definitely had
a major income drop in the last few years.
Sue
Russell Lawrence
sb> As for hunting, as opposed to culling by hired professional
sb> hunters (Russell's choice), the local news station was talking
sb> about the advent of deer season here in Ohio. There are 500,000
sb> licensed hunters in this state, revenues from hunters put
sb> approximately $20,000,000 into the state coffers. They will
sb> harvest at least 125,000 deer, probably closer to 150,000 since
sb> 125,000 was last year's number.
Would these losses be offset by any savings? Please list some of
these savings so that we can develop a balanced view of the argument.
sb> Now to go to the expense of hiring professional hunters,
sb> setting up drives to herd the deer to locales where they can be
sb> shot by the hunters, it's hard to calculate the possible cost
sb> of this but it could very easily be well over the $20,000,000
sb> mark. So, to cull the deer by Russell's professional hunter
sb> method would really mean a loss to the state of $20,000,000 in
sb> revenue, plus another possible $20,000,000 or much more, in
sb> expenses...... And just to keep the deer herd in check for only
sb> one year. The state would have to shell out that much or more
sb> the next year, and the next, and the next.
Not really.
Populations that are managed closer to K would produce "yields"
that are far lower than the "yields" produced by populations that
are managed for maximum sustainable harvests. One of McCullough's
graphs (McCullough 1987, figure 4) shows that the "yield" of
whitetailed deer is greatest when populations are managed at
56% of K. Yield values decline appreciably as populations
increase beyond the 56% mark, however, and they zero-out where
populations equal K. In view of your insistence that recruitment
rates remain constant as populations increase from 0% to 100% of
K, contrary to McCullough's published statements and graphs, I
can only suppose that you'll disagree with my "interpretation"
of the evidence presented in figure 4. However, I would invite other
readers --- especially readers with scientific training --- to
analyze the graph for themselves.
See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
Populations", in Wemmer C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987. p 540
Now, let's suppose that a population of deer in a particular
range is managed in such a way as to stabilize the herd without
resorting to hunting, but that a population overshoot occurs in
spite of our best efforts because of some uncontrollable element
such as unusually good or bad weather over a period of several
years, forest fires, or habitat encroachment. Is it reasonable
to assume that humanely motivated culling in such a circumstance
would be as time consuming or costly as amateur hunting? Probably
not. Here are some of the differences that come quickly to mind:
-- Culling need not be limited to a particular season. This would
reduce total labor cost substantially.
-- Methods that would be considered unsportsmanly could be
employed without restraint, such as the use of special baits,
salt licks, etc.
-- The annual cost to society, in terms of equipment and ammo,
would be reduced significantly. One gun in the hands of a wildlife
manager would suffice to cull many animals, and not merely the
single animal permitted by most state licensing agreements.
I'm sure you can think of other differences as well. Please feel
free to add additional items to the above list.
--
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
ru...@wpg.com
Sue Bishop
> From article <1993Dec2.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
> sb> As for hunting, as opposed to culling by hired professional
> sb> hunters (Russell's choice), the local news station was talking
> sb> about the advent of deer season here in Ohio. There are 500,000
> sb> licensed hunters in this state, revenues from hunters put
> sb> approximately $20,000,000 into the state coffers. They will
> sb> harvest at least 125,000 deer, probably closer to 150,000 since
> sb> 125,000 was last year's number.
>
> Would these losses be offset by any savings? Please list some of
> these savings so that we can develop a balanced view of the argument.
What losses? The previous statement refers to profits. If you mean
the losses in the following statement, it's up to you to come up with
some significant savings. There might be a few less game wardens hired
but I doubt it.
I strongly suggest that YOU read McCullough AND call him and ask him
about populations 'zeroing' out at K. As you have been repeatedly told,
the white-tailed deer is a K species that tends toward the r end of
the scale (very prolific) and they very rarely stabilize. Besides,
Maximum density means they are living at the limit of the resources
available (something you have also been repeatedly told) and the resources
in this area mean farm crops.
You still haven't answered any of the questions that arise. Why should
the state PAY money when there are people who will PAY THE STATE for
the exact same thing?
> See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
> Populations", in Wemmer C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987. p 540
>
> Now, let's suppose that a population of deer in a particular
> range is managed in such a way as to stabilize the herd without
> resorting to hunting, but that a population overshoot occurs in
> spite of our best efforts because of some uncontrollable element
> such as unusually good or bad weather over a period of several
> years, forest fires, or habitat encroachment. Is it reasonable
> to assume that humanely motivated culling in such a circumstance
> would be as time consuming or costly as amateur hunting? Probably
> not. Here are some of the differences that come quickly to mind:
>
Please state some of the costs to the state of amateur hunting. I stated
the profits involved, you keep nattering about costs.
-- Culling need not be limited to a particular season. This would
> reduce total labor cost substantially.
>
Culling has to be done mostly in the winter. This is because the density
of the forests makes it impossible to do it at other times of the year.
> -- Methods that would be considered unsportsmanly could be
> employed without restraint, such as the use of special baits,
> salt licks, etc.
OK, you are going to set up special baits. Please tell us how you are
going to do this for 400,000 deer. Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> -- The annual cost to society, in terms of equipment and ammo,
> would be reduced significantly. One gun in the hands of a wildlife
> manager would suffice to cull many animals, and not merely the
> single animal permitted by most state licensing agreements.
>
This statement makes no sense at all. You want the STATE to buy these
guns, that is an expense. Private hunters pay for their OWN guns. AND,
they pay a very sizeable fee for the privilege of hunting, just so they
can take ONE deer. Please re-read my original post. 500,000 hunters
put $20,000,000 (that's Millions, Russell) into the state profits.
How much is it going to cost to hire professionals to shoot 150,000
deer? And how long would it take them? Besides, to take the population
below K, many more than 150,000 would have to be killed.
Once again, the state would LOSE the revenue of $20,000,000 plus have the
added expense on top of that of hiring extra wildlife managers to do the
culling. It would take a very large number of managers to shoot over
150,000 deer.
Don't you realize how totally impractical your data sounds?
Sue
Russell Lawrence
From article <1993Dec2.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> As for hunting, as opposed to culling by hired professional
sb> hunters (Russell's choice), the local news station was
sb> are 500,000 licensed hunters in this state, revenues from
sb> hunters put approximately $20,000,000 into the state coffers.
sb> They will harvest at least 125,000 deer, probably closer to
sb> 150,000 since 125,000 was last year's number.
In article <CHHKD...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> Would these losses be offset by any savings? Please list
rl> some of these savings so that we can develop a balanced view
rl> of the argument.
From article <1993Dec4.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> What losses? The previous statement refers to profits. If you
sb> mean the losses in the following statement, it's up to you to
sb> come up with some significant savings. There might be a few
sb> less game wardens hired but I doubt it.
Hmm. You used the term "revenue" in your previous statement. The
term "revenue" typically refers to gross receipts, whereas the
term "profits" typically designates receipts minus expenses.
Surely there must be some expenses associated with the management
of sport hunting programs in Ohio. Would you mind giving us the
figures for these expenses. This will allow us to develop a
balanced view. BTW, what's the cost of a deer license in Ohio?
sb> Now to go to the expense of hiring professional hunters,
sb> setting up drives to herd the deer to locales where they
sb> can be shot by the hunters, it's hard to calculate the
sb> possible cost of this but it could very easily be well over
sb> the $20,000,000 mark. So, to cull the deer by Russell's
sb> professional hunter method would really mean a loss to the
sb> state of $20,000,000 in revenue, plus another possible
sb> $20,000,000 or much more, in expenses...... And just to keep
sb> the deer herd in check for only one year. The state would
sb> have to shell out that much or more the next year, and the
sb> next, and the next.
rl> Not really.
rl>
rl> Populations that are managed closer to K would produce "yields"
rl> that are far lower than the "yields" produced by populations that
rl> are managed for maximum sustainable harvests. One of McCullough's
rl> graphs (McCullough 1987, figure 4) shows that the "yield" of
rl> whitetailed deer is greatest when populations are managed at
rl> 56% of K. Yield values decline appreciably as populations
rl> increase beyond the 56% mark, however, and they zero-out where
rl> populations equal K. In view of your insistence that recruitment
rl> rates remain constant as populations increase from 0% to 100% of
rl> K, contrary to McCullough's published statements and graphs, I
rl> can only suppose that you'll disagree with my "interpretation"
rl> of the evidence presented in figure 4. However, I would invite other
rl> readers --- especially readers with scientific training --- to
rl> analyze the graph for themselves.
sb> I strongly suggest that YOU read McCullough AND call him and
sb> ask him about populations 'zeroing' out at K. As you have
sb> been repeatedly told, the white-tailed deer is a K species
sb> that tends toward the r end of the scale (very prolific) and
sb> they very rarely stabilize.
Whether deer populations often stabilize or rarely stabilize
doesn't alter the argument that I presented in the previous
paragraph. Do you disagree with notion that "recruitment"
decreases as populations approach K?
sb> Besides, Maximum density means they are living at the limit
sb> of the resources available (something you have also been
sb> repeatedly told) and the resources in this area mean farm
sb> crops.
Are the deer in your area consuming farm crops at the present time?
If so, perhaps measures should be taken to protect those crops,
once and for all.
sb> You still haven't answered any of the questions that
sb> arise. Why should the state PAY money when there are people who
sb> will PAY THE STATE for the exact same thing?
No, it's not the exact same thing, but since we cannot agree on
the simple scientific facts, it seems useless to discuss the more
complex scientific and ethical issues.
rl> See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
rl> Populations", in Wemmer C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
rl> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987. p 540
rl>
rl> Now, let's suppose that a population of deer in a particular
rl> range is managed in such a way as to stabilize the herd without
rl> resorting to hunting, but that a population overshoot occurs in
rl> spite of our best efforts because of some uncontrollable element
rl> such as unusually good or bad weather over a period of several
rl> years, forest fires, or habitat encroachment. Is it reasonable
rl> to assume that humanely motivated culling in such a circumstance
rl> would be as time consuming or costly as amateur hunting? Probably
rl> not. Here are some of the differences that come quickly to mind:
sb> Please state some of the costs to the state of amateur
sb> hunting. I stated the profits involved, you keep nattering
sb> about costs.
I asked you a question, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
rl> -- Culling need not be limited to a particular season. This would
rl> reduce total labor cost substantially.
rl>
sb> Culling has to be done mostly in the winter. This is because
sb> the density of the forests makes it impossible to do it at
sb> other times of the year.
Is this necessarily true?
rl> -- Methods that would be considered unsportsmanly could be
rl> employed without restraint, such as the use of special baits,
rl> salt licks, etc.
sb> OK, you are going to set up special baits. Please tell us how
sb> you are going to do this for 400,000 deer. Inquiring minds
sb> want to know.
How did you arrive at the 400,000 figure? In the previous
posting, you claimed that 150,000 deer had to be culled annually.
Now you say that the figure is 400,000 deer. Perhaps I should
ask you one more time: Do you disagree with my claim that
McCullough's research shows that recruitment decreases to zero as
populations approach K?
rl> -- The annual cost to society, in terms of equipment and ammo,
rl> would be reduced significantly. One gun in the hands of a wildlife
rl> manager would suffice to cull many animals, and not merely the
rl> single animal permitted by most state licensing agreements.
sb> This statement makes no sense at all. You want the STATE to
sb> buy these guns, that is an expense. Private hunters pay for
sb> their OWN guns. AND, they pay a very sizeable fee for the
sb> privilege of hunting, just so they can take ONE deer.
Still, the cost of these expenditures are still borne by society...
just as the cost of managing deer herds humanely would be borne
by society.
sb> Please re-read my original post. 500,000 hunters put
sb> $20,000,000 (that's Millions, Russell) into the state
sb> profits. How much is it going to cost to hire professionals
sb> to shoot 150,000 deer? And how long would it take them?
sb> Besides, to take the population below K, many more than
sb> 150,000 would have to be killed.
The population is already below K, Sue. Again, the number
of deer that would have to be killed (if any) would be reduced
substantially if the populations were managed closer to K.
sb> Once again, the state would LOSE the revenue of $20,000,000
sb> plus have the added expense on top of that of hiring extra
sb> wildlife managers to do the culling. It would take a very
sb> large number of managers to shoot over 150,000 deer.
On the other hand, it wouldn't take nearly as many managers to shoot
a much, much smaller number of deer. And the cost of shooting each
deer could be reduced significantly by culling the animals on a year-
round basis, using baits, etc.
sb> Don't you realize how totally impractical your data sounds?
Perhaps we could have a more "practical" conversation if we could
agree on the basic scientific facts.
James M Hoskins
[...]
>Sue Bishop:
>sb> Besides, Maximum density means they are living at the limit
>sb> of the resources available (something you have also been
>sb> repeatedly told) and the resources in this area mean farm
>sb> crops.
>
>Are the deer in your area consuming farm crops at the present time?
>If so, perhaps measures should be taken to protect those crops,
>once and for all.
Before crop fencing would become a reality I am certain Ohio would
move in the direction other states have in response to farmers'
concerns about crop loss. A farmer land-owner may kill one deer a
month, provided the deer is consumed solely by the farmer's own family.
A second response to the concerns of farmers has been the enactment
of regulations where farmers are permitted to protect their fields
by killing any number of deer as long as the deer are not utilized
and left to rot (eg., Tennessee, where, if memory serves me correctly,
Russell used to deer hunt).
Estimates are that about 38,000 deer were killed Monday, November
29th, the first day of shotgun season in Ohio. I talked to some
hunters who were out on Monday on private land at the invitation
of the farmer-owner. The farmer's land is what wildlife
scientist Verme would classify as "farmland-brush," (Class I), as
is much of Ohio. The hunters told me that as they field dressed
the deer they observed the deer had large quantities of corn
in their stomachs. This farmer estimated that 5% of his crop
went to the deer. By the way, this hunting party gave two of the
deer to two local families who are very poor.
Corn is not necessarily the forage of preference for deer. Ozoga
and Verme (_Physical and Reproductive Characteristics of a Supplementally-
Fed White-Tailed Deer Herd_, J. Wildl. Manage., 46:(2):1982) note that
deer prefer their natural grasses and twigs throughout the period of
abundance in the summer and early autumn. Just as harvest (both
deer harvest and corn harvest) time arrives, deer turn to corn and by
virtue of corn's ready availability throughout Ohio they are in prime
condition as they enter the autumn rut.
[...]
:
Sue Bishop
As for expenses, they may have a few more game wardens in the fields
during the hunting season which is about two weeks. That's not a major
expense since the game wardens are full time employees, not hired just
for hunting season. A deer license can be bought at sporting goods
stores and there may be some expense to the state in processing these.
How it can be estimated is difficult since the computers used are also
used for other processing. Probably a few clerks are kept busy entering
the information, that's all, since high speed scanners are probably used
to input the data.
A deer license costs around $35 or $40 dollars, I forget the exact figure.
Then there are taxes on ammunition, taxes of the sales of guns...
So you are still afraid to tell us what McCullough said to you and you
don't want to talk to him again.... hmmmm....
> Whether deer populations often stabilize or rarely stabilize
> doesn't alter the argument that I presented in the previous
> paragraph. Do you disagree with notion that "recruitment"
> decreases as populations approach K?
Answer the question Russell and stop trying to change the argument.
The state WILL lose the income from the license fees, yes or no?
>
> sb> Besides, Maximum density means they are living at the limit
> sb> of the resources available (something you have also been
> sb> repeatedly told) and the resources in this area mean farm
> sb> crops.
>
> Are the deer in your area consuming farm crops at the present time?
> If so, perhaps measures should be taken to protect those crops,
> once and for all.
>
Yes, Russell, they are consuming farm crops. Maybe you should try visiting
the Midwest sometime. Anyone can take you down to a corn field and show
you deer damage.
> sb> You still haven't answered any of the questions that
> sb> arise. Why should the state PAY money when there are people who
> sb> will PAY THE STATE for the exact same thing?
>
> No, it's not the exact same thing, but since we cannot agree on
> the simple scientific facts, it seems useless to discuss the more
> complex scientific and ethical issues.
>
Answer the question, Russell, why should the state pay money for culling
the deer when there are hunter who will PAY the state to cull the deer?
> rl> See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
> rl> Populations", in Wemmer C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
> rl> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987. p 540
> rl>
> rl> Now, let's suppose that a population of deer in a particular
> rl> range is managed in such a way as to stabilize the herd without
> rl> resorting to hunting, but that a population overshoot occurs in
> rl> spite of our best efforts because of some uncontrollable element
> rl> such as unusually good or bad weather over a period of several
> rl> years, forest fires, or habitat encroachment. Is it reasonable
> rl> to assume that humanely motivated culling in such a circumstance
> rl> would be as time consuming or costly as amateur hunting? Probably
> rl> not. Here are some of the differences that come quickly to mind:
>
> sb> Please state some of the costs to the state of amateur
> sb> hunting. I stated the profits involved, you keep nattering
> sb> about costs.
>
> I asked you a question, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
I'll answer the question when you state what costs you are talking about.
Just saying there are costs doesn't make sense. It's an unfounded assertion.
>
> rl> -- Culling need not be limited to a particular season. This would
> rl> reduce total labor cost substantially.
> rl>
>
> sb> Culling has to be done mostly in the winter. This is because
> sb> the density of the forests makes it impossible to do it at
> sb> other times of the year.
>
> Is this necessarily true?
Yes, Russell, it is necessarily true. In other seasons the density
of the forests make it impossible to even SEE the deer, let alone
shoot them. Obviously you have never visited the Midwest or walked
in any of our forests.
>
> rl> -- Methods that would be considered unsportsmanly could be
> rl> employed without restraint, such as the use of special baits,
> rl> salt licks, etc.
>
> sb> OK, you are going to set up special baits. Please tell us how
> sb> you are going to do this for 400,000 deer. Inquiring minds
> sb> want to know.
>
> How did you arrive at the 400,000 figure? In the previous
> posting, you claimed that 150,000 deer had to be culled annually.
There are 400,000 deer in the state. YOu need to lure at least 70% of
the does to the bait stations to kill enough of them to reduce the
fertility level to a recruitment of zero. I'm hoping that you can
do the math, you won't get ONLY does to the feeding station. You need
to lure in a vast amount of the herd to get shots at enough of them
to make it worth while to cull the herd.
> Now you say that the figure is 400,000 deer. Perhaps I should
> ask you one more time: Do you disagree with my claim that
> McCullough's research shows that recruitment decreases to zero as
> populations approach K?
What on earth has that got to do with culling the increasing deer herds
here in lush green Ohio? You really DO get fixated on certain sentences,
don't you? Makes us wonder about your mental processes....
Sue
Jeff Achenbach
>From article <1993Dec2.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>sb> As for hunting, as opposed to culling by hired professional
>sb> hunters (Russell's choice), the local news station was talking
>sb> about the advent of deer season here in Ohio. There are 500,000
>sb> licensed hunters in this state, revenues from hunters put
>sb> approximately $20,000,000 into the state coffers. They will
>sb> harvest at least 125,000 deer, probably closer to 150,000 since
>sb> 125,000 was last year's number.
>
>Would these losses be offset by any savings? Please list some of
>these savings so that we can develop a balanced view of the argument.
Seems to me culling is your chosen method. Why would you expect Sue to make
your argument for you?
>Now, let's suppose that a population of deer in a particular
>range is managed in such a way as to stabilize the herd without
>resorting to hunting, but that a population overshoot occurs in
>spite of our best efforts because of some uncontrollable element
>such as unusually good or bad weather over a period of several
>years, forest fires, or habitat encroachment. Is it reasonable
>to assume that humanely motivated culling in such a circumstance
>would be as time consuming or costly as amateur hunting? Probably
>not. Here are some of the differences that come quickly to mind:
>
>-- Culling need not be limited to a particular season. This would
> reduce total labor cost substantially.
>
True
>-- Methods that would be considered unsportsmanly could be
> employed without restraint, such as the use of special baits,
> salt licks, etc.
>
True
>-- The annual cost to society, in terms of equipment and ammo,
> would be reduced significantly. One gun in the hands of a wildlife
> manager would suffice to cull many animals, and not merely the
> single animal permitted by most state licensing agreements.
I fail to see ANY cost to society due to hunting. The costs you mention are
borne by the hunters, who are private citizens. On the other hand, the wildlife
managers are paid by society (largely by hunters). Take away hunting license
revenues and find the money elsewhere to pay them.
Actually, Russell, I'm surprised you're getting into this argument. But
glad to see it. This is, IMO, one of the "realities" I've been wondering about.
Jeff Achenbach
Paul Keck
>
>-- Culling need not be limited to a particular season. This would
> reduce total labor cost substantially.
Don't follow you here Russell. Are you talking overtime savings or something?
>-- Methods that would be considered unsportsmanly could be
> employed without restraint, such as the use of special baits,
> salt licks, etc.
I suppose you have a point, in that it would be easier to wipe out a local
population by baiting them in. But, after they're gone, you have to move your
bait and try again. This takes time, and deer are starving. Like Sue says,
are you going to bait in hundreds of thousands of deer?
>-- The annual cost to society, in terms of equipment and ammo,
> would be reduced significantly. One gun in the hands of a wildlife
> manager would suffice to cull many animals, and not merely the
> single animal permitted by most state licensing agreements.
A gun lasts for many hunting seasons, and the value of the meat more than pays
for it and the ammo. If you're not a gun freak, i.e. with a bunch of guns you
don't use, there's little cost.
Paul Keck
James M Hoskins
Achenbach) writes:
[...]
>
>Sue, where'd the $20,000,000 figure come from? Is that just license costs?
>That's only an average of $40/hunter. Should I move to Ohio? Here I pay
>$67 in license fees alone. Start adding the excise taxes on hunting supplies,
>the fuel taxes to get there, and camping fees when I head to East Texas,
>and I would guess I spend way over $100/year directly to the state. Not to
>mention the money I put in the pockets of the local merchants.
>
>Jeff Achenbach
>
Basic hunting license with deer permit totals $28 in Ohio.
Because of the rapidly expanding population, the 2nd doe
option has been offered during the past couple seasons, and
carries an extra fee.
Jeff Achenbach
>In article <CHHKD...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> From article <1993Dec2.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>
>guns, that is an expense. Private hunters pay for their OWN guns. AND,
>they pay a very sizeable fee for the privilege of hunting, just so they
>can take ONE deer. Please re-read my original post. 500,000 hunters
>put $20,000,000 (that's Millions, Russell) into the state profits.
>How much is it going to cost to hire professionals to shoot 150,000
>deer? And how long would it take them? Besides, to take the population
>below K, many more than 150,000 would have to be killed.
>
Sue, where'd the $20,000,000 figure come from? Is that just license costs?
Greg Brown
: ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) wrote:
[...]
: A gun lasts for many hunting seasons, and the value of the meat more than pays
: for it and the ammo. If you're not a gun freak, i.e. with a bunch of guns you
: don't use, there's little cost.
The issue of cost has been discussed numerous times. Several economic
studies of deer hunting have been conducted in the past. The figures
range anywhere from $18 - $30 per pound of deer meat. Hardly a
bargain for the average hunter.
When I have posted these figures in the past, I usually get the typical
denial...BUT it doesn't cost me that much! That's the problem with
averages. Nonetheless, for the average hunter, he would be better
off going to the store from a pure cost perspective.
--
Greg Brown (University of Idaho)
gr...@uidaho.edu
Sue Bishop
The $20,000,000 figure was the one that the news station used. I think that
hunting fees are around $40 but I'd have to check. I think that an anterless
deer can be added to the fee for around $15 or $20 dollars more. Camping
fees would add onto the amount, fuel taxes would also add to the state
coffers. $20,000,000 is sorta on the low side.....
Sue
Sue Bishop
> In article <1993Dec6.1...@spdc.ti.com> ache...@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff
> Achenbach) writes:
> [...]
>>
>>Sue, where'd the $20,000,000 figure come from? Is that just license costs?
>>That's only an average of $40/hunter. Should I move to Ohio? Here I pay
>>$67 in license fees alone. Start adding the excise taxes on hunting supplies,
>>the fuel taxes to get there, and camping fees when I head to East Texas,
>>and I would guess I spend way over $100/year directly to the state. Not to
>>mention the money I put in the pockets of the local merchants.
>>
>>Jeff Achenbach
>>
>
> Basic hunting license with deer permit totals $28 in Ohio.
Thanks, Jeff. I really wasn't certain exactly how much a deer permit costs,
I did think it was around $40 but that's probably with the doe permit
added. Anyway, the local news station used a figure of $20,000,000 as
income from the hunters. Counting camping fees, fuel taxes, ammunition
taxes, etc., it could easily make up the rest of the money.
Sue
Jeff Achenbach
IMO, you've missed the point here, Greg. The costs I spend hunting are
voluntary, as opposed to the government confiscating my wages and spending
them as THEY see fit. Not at all comparable. This is why we distinguish
between what we spend and societal cost. To claim this is a burden on society
as a whole is analagous to claiming that every discretionary cent you spend
is a societal cost.
Jeff Achenbach
Paul Keck
:In article <2e0iui...@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu> gr...@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:
::Paul Keck (ke...@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu) wrote:
::: A gun lasts for many hunting seasons, and the value of the meat more than pays
::: for it and the ammo. If you're not a gun freak, i.e. with a bunch of guns you
::: don't use, there's little cost.
::
:: The issue of cost has been discussed numerous times. Several economic
:: studies of deer hunting have been conducted in the past. The figures
:: range anywhere from $18 - $30 per pound of deer meat. Hardly a
:: bargain for the average hunter.
::
:: When I have posted these figures in the past, I usually get the typical
:: denial...BUT it doesn't cost me that much! That's the problem with
:: averages. Nonetheless, for the average hunter, he would be better
:: off going to the store from a pure cost perspective.
:
: IMO, you've missed the point here, Greg. The costs I spend hunting are
:voluntary, as opposed to the government confiscating my wages and spending
:them as THEY see fit. Not at all comparable. This is why we distinguish
:between what we spend and societal cost. To claim this is a burden on society
:as a whole is analagous to claiming that every discretionary cent you spend
:is a societal cost.
:
:Jeff Achenbach
I agree with Jeff here also, Greg. Also, if you have those figures handy I'd
like to see them. Even if you only got 20 lbs of meat from a deer (I'm sure
you'd get more) that's $360 - $600 by your scale. Maybe those figures were
calculated by asking people how much they spent on hunting last year, and they
added in their new RV purchase or something. In cases like that, they're not
just spending money on the deer, but on the whole "outdoor" thing. Most people
I know visit a friend's land and shoot a deer, maybe after an hour's drive.
$10 for gas, $50 for hunting permit, $10 on ammo. Average a $300 rifle over
10 years, you get $100/year for deer hunting. A lot cheaper if you're a farmer
killing deer on your own land.
Paul Keck
Dan Sorenson
> The issue of cost has been discussed numerous times. Several economic
> studies of deer hunting have been conducted in the past. The figures
> range anywhere from $18 - $30 per pound of deer meat. Hardly a
> bargain for the average hunter.
One caveat: the gun has a lifetime greater than ours, and the
cost of ammunition is rather trivial. Hunting licenses and tax stamps
take a fair cost, but let's look at the sunk costs:
Remington Model 48
20,000 rounds through it over 30 years.
Deer? a couple dozen.
Meat? Roughly 2400lbs
My cost? $0.15/round since I reload.
License: $15.
My grandfather fed his family with this gun, my father did, and now
I do so. So for $15.15 I can get 100lbs of venison. The rest is
skeet shooting, target practice, and a hobby. As such, I do not
count these any more than I count the cost of a sissy bar when I
evaluate the cost of a new motorcycle. The sunk costs are a
given -- what I spend on gratuities is up to me.
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Russell Lawrence
In article <2e0iui...@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu> gr...@owl.csrv.uidaho.edu (Greg Brown) writes:
gb> The issue of cost has been discussed numerous times. Several
gb> economic studies of deer hunting have been conducted in the
gb> past. The figures range anywhere from $18 - $30 per pound of
gb> deer meat. Hardly a bargain for the average hunter.
gb>
gb> When I have posted these figures in the past, I usually get
gb> the typical denial...BUT it doesn't cost me that much! That's
gb> the problem with averages. Nonetheless, for the average
gb> hunter, he would be better off going to the store from a pure
gb> cost perspective.
From article <2e3h2o$r...@athena.cs.uga.edu>, by ke...@zookeeper.zoo.uga.edu (Paul Keck):
pk> ... if you have those figures handy I'd like to see them.
pk> Even if you only got 20 lbs of meat from a deer (I'm sure
pk> you'd get more) that's $360 - $600 by your scale. Maybe those
pk> figures were calculated by asking people how much they spent
pk> on hunting last year, and they added in their new RV purchase
pk> or something. In cases like that, they're not just spending
pk> money on the deer, but on the whole "outdoor" thing. Most
pk> people I know visit a friend's land and shoot a deer, maybe
pk> after an hour's drive. $10 for gas, $50 for hunting permit,
pk> $10 on ammo. Average a $300 rifle over 10 years, you get
pk> $100/year for deer hunting. A lot cheaper if you're a farmer
pk> killing deer on your own land.
Let's take a look at the direct costs [no RV purchases included]
associated with Jeff Achenbach's deer hunting venture this year:
======================================================================
In article <CEsos...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> How did you calculate the "billions" figure that you've specified
rl> here? I hope you're not including the tax money collected on the
rl> ammo that I purchase for my handguns every year.
From article <1993Oct12.2...@spdc.ti.com>, by ache...@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> I saw it in a magazine recently, and that was just referring
ja> to Texas. Personally, I have spent over $300 on direct expense
ja> items this year, and we are only two weeks into the season.
ja> And I hunt on public land. The majority of Texas hunters, or
ja> at least the majority that I know, pay for hunting leases,
ja> to the tune of $500 per year or more. There are around a
ja> million hunters in Texas. If we use what I believe to be a very
ja> conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year, on average,
ja> we reach a half billion dollars in just one of the fifty
ja> states. And the $300 I have spent is only for licenses, boots,
ja> hunting clothes, etc. Some of these I won't buy next year. But
ja> last year I bought a stand, a backpack, a beltpack. The year
ja> before a new bow, quiver, etc. I'm not even counting anything
ja> but bow season at this point.
======================================================================
Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
Certainly no bargain.
--
Mike Linan
Russ, let me school ya some son. Because you obviously don't know what
you're talking about. This year, my hunt cost me $560 for a new rifle and
scope, $45 for my license and tag, $50 for gas and $80 for food. That's
a grand total of $735 to hunt. Now, I didn't have to buy a new rifle since
I already had one but, I like guns and just had to have it. I could have
gotten a deer with my old rifle. The $50 dollars for gas was split with
a fellow hunting friend who drove up with me. The $80 for food would have
been spent if I was sitting in my living room since I do eat at home as well.
So, the vast majority of the cost this year was to satisfy my desire to have
a new rifle instead of a mandatory expense to participate in the hunt. But,
lets assume that I didn't have a rifle and needed to spend that money. Next
year, I will not have that capitol expenditure so, you could eliminate that
expense all together. Or you could average the cost of acquiring the tools
for hunting over the rest of you hunting life.
To sum up, the cost to hunt in California (which is probably one of the most
expensive states) is $45 for the license and tag, $20 bucks for ammo (which
will probably last for more than one year unless you're the type to 'blast
away') and gas to get where you're going. That comes to less than $70.
I realize that Jeff has spent alot of money this year just as I have. I
imagine I have over $3000 worth of hunting/outdoor gear but, my $150 Red
Wing boots are over 10 years old and still in good shape. Much of my
gear is used for other activities other than hunting as well. Like fishing
and camping. I plan to go to Idaho hunting next year and this will add $500
to my costs but, I don't HAVE to go there. It is my choice and I WANT to
go there. Hunting does not HAVE to be expensive. A $250 30-30 rifle, some
good boots (about $70-150), a good coat and a few other items are all thats
needed other than yearly licenses and tags, for years and years of hunting.
Any questions?
>Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
Mike Linan
Jeff Achenbach
Nope. But well worth it to me, or I'd give it up. I hunt primarily for
recreation. I enjoy it more than anything else I can do with my clothes on.
And to give you an idea of how expensive it really is, in the last 4 years,
I've killed one javelina and one deer. So the cost per pound of meat is
a whole lot more than prime rib at a fancy restaurant. I won't claim it's
a bargain as a source of groceries, though for someone who lives in a better
area, it certainly can be. For instance, if I could walk out my back door
and hunt an area with a high deer population, my only cost would be licenses
and ammo. But the real point of this exchange, IMO, was social cost. I
hardly consider my discretionary spending to be a social cost. My hunting
expenses contribute a significant amount to the procurement, maintenance,
and management of wildlife and it's habitat. If we were to stop hunting and
hence that influx of cash, we would have to come up with the money to pay
for the alternative management methods you propose. Unless this can also
come from a voluntary fund, with the longterm stability that hunting revenues
have demonstrated, then the money will have to come from the public coffers,
and can properly, IMO, be labeled social cost.
Jeff Achenbach
Greg Brown
of deer hunting. I know that there have been some studies. In the past,
when this issue has been discussed, I believe someone else actually posted
citation. If anyone has one, I'll be glad to get it and post
excerpts.
I think it would be instructive to examine the assumptions of these
studies and their methodology. This is the only way to move beyond the
"well it only cost me..." argument and examine hunting from a social
Sue Bishop
So what? I know people who spend thousands a year on a private airplane.
I also know people who spend thousands a year on showing and training
horses. That's their choice, their money, their entertainment. NOT
money that comes out of our taxes and out of our state budget like your
solution, state paid culling.
Sue
Bob Christ
>ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
ache...@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach) worte:
(JA)...I have spent over $300 on direct expense items this year.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(RL)Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
(RL)Certainly no bargain.
(SB)So what? I know people who spend thousands a year on a private airplane.
(SB)I also know people who spend thousands a year on showing and training
(SB)horses.
Seems like everyone missed this bit in Russell's post. I guess that's
because people who hunt do spend a lot of money on hunting vacatiosns.
At least the people I know do.
In any case, Russell, Jeff made it QUITE clear that $300 was "direct expense."
Little trouble with reading comprehension skills, Russell? Russell, I
doubt that you know anything about hunting. I don't hunt, but even I
know a LOT more about it than YOU do.
My guess is because you only believe what you want to about it. Maybe
even make stuff up as you go along.
Same thing with that Wheeler character.
Bob
Russell Lawrence
rl> Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
rl> Certainly no bargain.
From article <1993Dec10.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> So what? I know people who spend thousands a year on a
sb> private airplane. I also know people who spend thousands a
sb> year on showing and training horses. That's their choice,
sb> their money, their entertainment. NOT money that comes out
sb> of our taxes and out of our state budget like your solution,
sb> state paid culling.
You're misrepresenting my position.
Russell Lawrence
I've taken the liberty of editing-in some material that Bob
Christ had edited-out.
Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> ... Personally, I have spent over $300 on direct expense
ja> items this year, and we are only two weeks into the season.
ja> And I hunt on public land. The majority of Texas hunters, or
ja> at least the majority that I know, pay for hunting leases,
ja> to the tune of $500 per year or more. There are around a
ja> million hunters in Texas. If we use what I believe to be a very
ja> conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year, on average,
ja> we reach a half billion dollars in just one of the fifty
ja> states. And the $300 I have spent is only for licenses, boots,
ja> hunting clothes, etc. Some of these I won't buy next year. But
ja> last year I bought a stand, a backpack, a beltpack. The year
ja> before a new bow, quiver, etc. I'm not even counting anything
ja> but bow season at this point.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
rl> Certainly no bargain.
From article <931210215...@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, by bo...@swdc.stratus.com (Bob Christ):
bc> Seems like everyone missed this bit in Russell's post. I
bc> guess that's because people who hunt do spend a lot of money
bc> on hunting vacatiosns. At least the people I know do.
bc>
bc> In any case, Russell, Jeff made it QUITE clear that $300 was
bc>"direct expense."
bc>
bc> Little trouble with reading comprehension skills, Russell?
bc> Russell, I doubt that you know anything about hunting. I
bc> don't hunt, but even I know a LOT more about it than YOU do.
Read the following text carefully:
"If we use what I believe to be a very conservative estimate of
$500 per hunter per year...
Do you disagree with Jeff's conservative estimate?
Scott Wood
`>ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
`(RL)Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
`(RL)Certainly no bargain.
`Seems like everyone missed this bit in Russell's post.
`In any case, Russell, Jeff made it QUITE clear that $300 was "direct expense."
I would imagine my expenses over the year for scouting, practice,
equipment and hunting trip expenses are probably in the $200-400
range. I have 30 lbs of prime cut and 5 lbs of venison burger in
the freezer to show for it. I also have a few birds and a couple
of squirrels. I hope I am fortunate enough to get another 50-60 lbs
of venison and about 3 more squirrels and 6 rabbits before the season
lets up. Even a few more partridge if I am lucky. All in all, a little
on the high side for the cost of the meat you would say.
However, I did not even see a deer during my opening day trip this year,
and still learned a lot and had a ball. My deer feeding is going to help
a locally pressured population of animals (not just deer) ward off the
infringement of man and reasonable hunting to have a strong and healthy
animal population next spring.
All in all, when coupling the education benefit, the ecological impact
and the recreational resource created by my expenditures, I am making out
like a bandit and the meat is all BONUS!
Ted once said something that went like this:
"Hunting is a traditional, wholesome, family activity
that occasionally results in steaks." - the Nuge!
swood
--
Dec. 10 Opening day of Michigan Muzzleloading deer (zones 2 & 3)
Dec. 12 Closing day of Michigan Muzzleloading deer (zone 1)
Dec. 14 Closing day of late Michigan Elk season (permit only)
All Month Squirrel and Rabbit season(s) are still alive and well!!!
Sue Bishop
> Russell Lawrence writes:
> rl> Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
> rl> Certainly no bargain.
>
> From article <1993Dec10.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
> sb> So what? I know people who spend thousands a year on a
> sb> private airplane. I also know people who spend thousands a
> sb> year on showing and training horses. That's their choice,
> sb> their money, their entertainment. NOT money that comes out
> sb> of our taxes and out of our state budget like your solution,
> sb> state paid culling.
>
> You're misrepresenting my position.
Exactly how am I misrepresenting your position? For ages, you said that
the deer herds would stabilize by limiting their fertility alone, that
there would be no huge increase in mortality to balance their very high
fertility. Then you started saying that 'culling' by professionally hired
hunters would be the best way to go, with no explanation as to how the
states were to bear this considerable expense.
Now you are saying that the $500 per hunter estimate as posted above
is of some concern.
I post that it is NO ONE'S business how much money someone spends on
their hunting, hobby, whatever.
Are you now saying that you are NOT in favor of culling?
Sue
Russell Lawrence
> However, I did not even see a deer during my opening day trip this year,
> and still learned a lot and had a ball. My deer feeding is going to help
> a locally pressured population of animals (not just deer) ward off the
> infringement of man and reasonable hunting to have a strong and healthy
> animal population next spring.
Tell us more about your deer feeding operation, Scott. Is deer
feeding a common practice among hunters in your state?
> All in all, when coupling the education benefit, the ecological impact
> and the recreational resource created by my expenditures, I am making out
> like a bandit and the meat is all BONUS!
Interesting.
Russell Lawrence
> In article <CHwpq...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> You're misrepresenting my position.
>
> Exactly how am I misrepresenting your position? For ages,
> you said that the deer herds would stabilize by limiting
> their fertility alone, that there would be no huge increase
> in mortality to balance their very high fertility. Then you
> started saying that 'culling' by professionally hired hunters
> would be the best way to go, with no explanation as to how the
> [simplistic stuff deleted]
As I said, you're misrepresenting my position.
Sue Bishop
Once again from Russell, an unsubstanciated assertion.
Sue
Jeff Achenbach
Well, if you would actually state a position, we wouldn't have to infer it.
Jeff Achenbach
Russell Lawrence
From article <1993Dec12.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Exactly how am I misrepresenting your position? For ages,
sb> you said that the deer herds would stabilize by limiting
sb> their fertility alone, that there would be no huge increase
sb> in mortality to balance their very high fertility. Then you
sb> started saying that 'culling' by professionally hired hunters
sb> would be the best way to go, with no explanation as to how the
sb> states were to bear this considerable expense...
sb> ... [simplistic stuff deleted]
In article <CHyt7...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> As I said, you're misrepresenting my position.
From article <1993Dec13.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Once again from Russell, an unsubstanciated assertion.
You're the one who's making the unsubstantiated assertions. Not
me. If you truly believe that you're better qualified than me
to dictate my position statements, then it's useless for me to
continue this discussion with you.
Russell Lawrence
The whole dialog is an ongoing presentation of position statements.
Nowhere have I stated that "deer herds would stabilize by limiting
their fertility alone" nor have I claimed that "culling by
professionally hired hunters would be the best way to go". Such
statements are distorted, misrepresentations of my views.
Jeff Achenbach
>From article <1993Dec13.1...@spdc.ti.com>, by ache...@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>> In article <CHyt7...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>From article <1993Dec12.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>>>> In article <CHwpq...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>>> You're misrepresenting my position.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly how am I misrepresenting your position? For ages,
>>>> you said that the deer herds would stabilize by limiting
>>>> their fertility alone, that there would be no huge increase
>>>> in mortality to balance their very high fertility. Then you
>>>> started saying that 'culling' by professionally hired hunters
>>>> would be the best way to go, with no explanation as to how the
>>>> states were to bear this considerable expense...
>>>> [simplistic stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>As I said, you're misrepresenting my position.
>>
>> Well, if you would actually state a position, we wouldn't have to
>> infer it.
>
>The whole dialog is an ongoing presentation of position statements.
No, the whole dialog has been an ongoing quote of published works, with
the emphasis on published observations, and little to nothing said as to
how we should act on this knowledge. For it is in the latter that the
disagreement ultimately lies. It is not now, nor has it ever in the time
I've read tpa been clear exactly what your position is. In fact, you seem
to at times go to great lengths to dodge making any kind of statement which
you might be later held accountable for, choosing instead to let "the experts"
speak for you. Never a clear statement of your own ideas.
>Nowhere have I stated that "deer herds would stabilize by limiting
>their fertility alone" nor have I claimed that "culling by
>professionally hired hunters would be the best way to go". Such
>statements are distorted, misrepresentations of my views.
So once again you complain you are being misrepresented, yet you decline
the opportunity to offer an explanation of your views. Why?
Jeff Achenbach
Rich Young
Instead of getting all huffy about it, threatening to pick up
all your toys and go home, why don't you just answer her
question: Exactly how is she misrepresenting your position?
-Rich Young
(The views expressed herein do not reflect those of Eastman Kodak Company Inc.)
Rich Young
>From article <1993Dec13.1...@spdc.ti.com>, by ache...@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
>> In article <CHyt7...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>From article <1993Dec12.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>>>> In article <CHwpq...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>>> You're misrepresenting my position.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly how am I misrepresenting your position? For ages,
>>>> you said that the deer herds would stabilize by limiting
>>>> their fertility alone, that there would be no huge increase
>>>> in mortality to balance their very high fertility. Then you
>>>> started saying that 'culling' by professionally hired hunters
>>>> would be the best way to go, with no explanation as to how the
>>>> states were to bear this considerable expense...
>>>> [simplistic stuff deleted]
>>>
>>>As I said, you're misrepresenting my position.
>>
>> Well, if you would actually state a position, we wouldn't have to
>> infer it.
>
>The whole dialog is an ongoing presentation of position statements.
>
>Nowhere have I stated that "deer herds would stabilize by limiting
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From <C7ACM...@wpg.com> in a discussion with Dan Sorenson:
rl> Not so, Dan. We were discussing the effect of adipose tissue (ie,
rl> fat) on the fertility of deer. And your general line of argument
rl> was that fat tissue can fluctuate so rapidly that it serves no real
rl> purpose as a regulator of wildlife populations, contrary to the
rl> evidence presented in the papers that I had cited. [...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, you didn't use those exact words, but your thrust is clear
enough from this ancient exchange with Dan Sorenson. Your
implication is clearly that fertility (and fat) regulate the
population of deer, and the context of the discussion was the
contention that deer would starve from overpopulation unless
hunted.
JK...@psuvm.psu.edu
>Russell Lawrence (ru...@wpg.com) wrote:
>: From article <swood.7...@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, by
>sw...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood):
>: > However, I did not even see a deer during my opening day trip this year,
>: > and still learned a lot and had a ball. My deer feeding is going to help
>: > a locally pressured population of animals (not just deer) ward off the
>: > infringement of man and reasonable hunting to have a strong and healthy
>: > animal population next spring.
> Hmmm. I didn't think it was ethical to "bait" deer?
There's a difference between baiting and feeding..obviously you just want to
confuse the two.
My family has had a corn feeder for deer, turkeys, and all sorts of wild game
on our property..but that property is closed to hunting and we don't hunt it
ourselves..it's our backyard.
Giving wildlife a helping hand by putting out feed is an excellent way to
help alleviate the lack of food that is often caused by overpopulation or
during rough winters when it is hard for wildlife to get to the forest floor
to scavage food for themselves.
All the hunters I know that put feed out frown upon hunting the area near
that feed..not to mention it is unethical, but also illegal to do so.
So Greg, your obvious attempt at confusing the issue of Feeding and Baiting
are transparent...I just hope everyone can recognize your feeble attempt
at confusing the two for the purposefully mis-leading tactic it is.
Russell Lawrence
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Nowhere have I stated that "deer herds would stabilize by limiting
rl> their fertility alone"....
From article <CI191...@newsserver.pixel.kodak.com>, by yo...@serum.kodak.com (Rich
Young):
ry> No, you didn't use those exact words, but your thrust is clear
ry> enough from this ancient exchange with Dan Sorenson.
ry> ===============================================================
ry> "Not so, Dan. We were discussing the effect of adipose tissue
ry> (ie, fat) on the fertility of deer. And your general line
ry> of argument was that fat tissue can fluctuate so rapidly
ry> that it serves no real purpose as a regulator of wildlife
ry> populations, contrary to the evidence presented in the
ry> papers that I had cited."
ry> ===============================================================
ry> Your implication is clearly that fertility (and fat) regulate
ry> the population of deer,
The scientific evidence clearly shows that fertility and
fecundity in deer are regulated by adiposity, which in turn
is a function of nutritional resources. (references on
request).
ry> and the context of the discussion was the
ry> contention that deer would starve from overpopulation unless
rl> hunted.
Right. I disagree with the notion that deer herds will inevitably
starve in the absence of hunting. Quoting McCullough:
"... it does not follow that all deer populations should
be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
deer populations have no problem."
From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
_White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic notion
that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their fertility
alone."
Dan Sorenson
>>Nowhere have I stated that "deer herds would stabilize by limiting
>>their fertility alone"....
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From <C7ACM...@wpg.com> in a discussion with Dan Sorenson:
>rl> Not so, Dan. We were discussing the effect of adipose tissue (ie,
>rl> fat) on the fertility of deer. And your general line of argument
>rl> was that fat tissue can fluctuate so rapidly that it serves no real
>rl> purpose as a regulator of wildlife populations, contrary to the
>rl> evidence presented in the papers that I had cited. [...]
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> No, you didn't use those exact words, but your thrust is clear
> enough from this ancient exchange with Dan Sorenson. Your
> implication is clearly that fertility (and fat) regulate the
> population of deer, and the context of the discussion was the
> contention that deer would starve from overpopulation unless
> hunted.
Not to be too quick to defend Russell (he doesn't need my help), but
to add context as I recall my base of argument was that fat tissues could
fluxuate over the gestation period such that a level of 25% allowing
pergnancy and a level of 20% not allowing it would be useless in controlling
herd size since the gestation period is longer than the time it takes for
this lowering of fat reserves, particularly during inclement weather such
as is found here in the Midwest.
That being said, perhaps Russell would care to ignore the water
loss on pigs and explain just how the "virgin environment" would allow
this to take place when three months sees such a change in that
environment? I don't recall being satisfied with his answers at that
time, but I admit that I based my opinions on common sense and my
experience with raising other pasture-fed animals and might have
missed something. And no, Russ, I've no intention of debating you
on this -- I have final exams and job interviews that require more
immediate attention. I'm just setting the stage, so to speak.
<puff!> <puff!> "Is this thing on?" <puff!>
It's all yours, Russ.
Dan Sorenson
>Right. I disagree with the notion that deer herds will inevitably
>starve in the absence of hunting. Quoting McCullough:
> "... it does not follow that all deer populations should
> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
> populations and K.
Can you point to a few of these "stable" environments? Say,
those not in permafrost or tundra and somewhat outside of the tropics?
We have "weather" up here, Russ, and my contention is that there is no
such thing as a "stable environment" in this regard for our deer. Hence,
what might work in balmy LA in no way means frigid IA will find it works too.
>However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic notion
>that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their fertility
>alone."
Noted. So what is your solution for Ia, Ne, Mi, Il, Mn, Sd, Nd...
Bob Christ
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've taken the liberty of editing-in some material that Bob
Christ had edited-out.
Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> ... Personally, I have spent over $300 on direct expense
ja> items this year, and we are only two weeks into the season.
ja> And I hunt on public land. The majority of Texas hunters, or
ja> at least the majority that I know, pay for hunting leases,
ja> to the tune of $500 per year or more. There are around a
ja> million hunters in Texas. If we use what I believe to be a very
ja> conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year, on average,
ja> we reach a half billion dollars in just one of the fifty
ja> states. And the $300 I have spent is only for licenses, boots,
ja> hunting clothes, etc. Some of these I won't buy next year. But
ja> last year I bought a stand, a backpack, a beltpack. The year
ja> before a new bow, quiver, etc. I'm not even counting anything
ja> but bow season at this point.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
rl> Certainly no bargain.
From article <931210215...@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, by bo...@swdc.stratus
.com (Bob Christ):
bc> Seems like everyone missed this bit in Russell's post. I
bc> guess that's because people who hunt do spend a lot of money
bc> on hunting vacatiosns. At least the people I know do.
bc>
bc> In any case, Russell, Jeff made it QUITE clear that $300 was
bc>"direct expense."
bc>
bc> Little trouble with reading comprehension skills, Russell?
bc> Russell, I doubt that you know anything about hunting. I
bc> don't hunt, but even I know a LOT more about it than YOU do.
Read the following text carefully:
"If we use what I believe to be a very conservative estimate of
$500 per hunter per year...
Do you disagree with Jeff's conservative estimate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell, you damn moron! Read what you posted!
You see the part where he mentions stuff that isn't needed EVERY year
for hunting? All he wrote was what he thought was a conservative
extimate on what hunters spent, not what was required for hunting.
Do you agree with that?
But, you're made it quite clear that you think that much is REQUIRED
for hunting. Most of the hunters I know, never travel more than 50
miles, they car pool. They don't buy new stuff every year.
You know anything about hunting?
Bob
Russell Lawrence
> My family has had a corn feeder for deer, turkeys, and all
> sorts of wild game on our property..but that property is closed
> to hunting and we don't hunt it ourselves..it's our backyard.
>
> Giving wildlife a helping hand by putting out feed is an
> excellent way to help alleviate the lack of food that is often
> caused by overpopulation or during rough winters when it is
> hard for wildlife to get to the forest floor to scavage food
> for themselves.
Rich Young has agreed that the practice of providing supplemental
feed to wild animals actually increases the likelihood of
overpopulation. Do you agree with him?
> All the hunters I know that put feed out frown upon hunting the
> area near that feed..not to mention it is unethical, but also
> illegal to do so.
What percentage of hunters engage in the practice of providing
supplemental feed?
Russell Lawrence
Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> ... Personally, I have spent over $300 on direct expense
ja> items this year, and we are only two weeks into the season.
ja> And I hunt on public land. The majority of Texas hunters, or
ja> at least the majority that I know, pay for hunting leases,
ja> to the tune of $500 per year or more. There are around a
ja> million hunters in Texas. If we use what I believe to be a very
ja> conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year, on average,
ja> we reach a half billion dollars in just one of the fifty
ja> states. And the $300 I have spent is only for licenses, boots,
ja> hunting clothes, etc. Some of these I won't buy next year. But
ja> last year I bought a stand, a backpack, a beltpack. The year
ja> before a new bow, quiver, etc. I'm not even counting anything
ja> but bow season at this point.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
rl> Certainly no bargain.
Bob Christ writes:
bc> Seems like everyone missed this bit in Russell's post. I
bc> guess that's because people who hunt do spend a lot of money
bc> on hunting vacatiosns. At least the people I know do.
bc>
bc> In any case, Russell, Jeff made it QUITE clear that $300 was
bc>"direct expense."
bc>
bc> Little trouble with reading comprehension skills, Russell?
bc> Russell, I doubt that you know anything about hunting. I
bc> don't hunt, but even I know a LOT more about it than YOU do.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Read the following text carefully:
rl>
rl> "If we use what I believe to be a very conservative estimate of
rl> $500 per hunter per year...
rl>
rl> Do you disagree with Jeff's conservative estimate?
From article <931216003...@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, by bo...@swdc.stratus.com (Bob Christ):
bc> Russell, you damn moron! Read what you posted!
bc>
bc> You see the part where he mentions stuff that isn't needed
bc> EVERY year for hunting? All he wrote was what he thought was
bc> a conservative extimate on what hunters spent, not what was
bc> required for hunting.
This doesn't make much sense. The fact that I could hunt birds
with a handful of river stones and a pocket rocket doesn't mean
that duck hunting -- as practiced by the average american -- is
an economical activity.
bc> Do you agree with that?
bc>
bc> But, you're made it quite clear that you think that much is REQUIRED
bc> for hunting.
Not really.
bc> Most of the hunters I know, never travel more than 50
bc> miles, they car pool. They don't buy new stuff every year.
Do you agree with Jeff's figures?
Sue Bishop
Once again, Russell has indulged in selective quoting, taking a paragraph
out of a section of the article which changes the author's intent. How
about adding in the REST of the section?
This is the paragraph before the one Russell uses...
'To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an article
of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That a hunting harvest is
sustainable is not the same as being necessary. Certainly, the damage to
vegetation THAT RESULTS IN LOWERING K and the productitivity curve of a
given management unit is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the
George Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area is
managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population is harvested
only because of THE DESTRUCTION OF VEGETATION THAT RESULTED WHEN IT WAS NOT
CONTROLLED. DEER ARE THE ONLY ANIMALS (or plants) ON THE RESERVE THAT ARE
ARTIFICIALLY CONTROLLED.'
>
HOWEVER, (Russell omitted this word at the beginning of the paragraph.)
> "... it does not follow that all deer populations should
> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
> deer populations have no problem."
>
(Then the REST of the book section.)
'Second, in extremely fluctuating environments, hunting is not
necessary beacause environmental variation regularly results in the population
being below K. The very characteristics that make ad hoc management
for hunting in such environments make it unnecessary to hunt at all.
Third, hunting in moderately fluctuating environments is not
necessary IF a good complement of efffective natural predators is present.
(Remember how this whole discussion started? Russell said NO predation was
necessary to regulate deer herds.)
The selectivity of natural predations (more correctly stated as the
vulnerability of the prey) is a more exact way to retain equilibrium values
or residual populations. Hunting can accomplish the same end, but because
of its lack of selectivity, a higher kill is required than natural predation
to achieve the same end. Stated another way, natural predators are better
at reducing chronic mortality than are human hunters, because the former
remove the vulnerable individuals most likely to succumb to chronic mortality
factors. Thus, there is very high substitutability of predator kills for
chronic mortality, while for human hunting, chronic mortality is sumewhat
more additive, although still substituteable to a considerable extent.
(McCullough, 1979)
As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must distinguish
between cases WHERE HUNTING IS NECESSARY AND WHERE IT IS NOT. (NOTE:
Russell thinks that hunting is NEVER necessary!) It is possible to
recognize the legitimate interests and NECESSARY ROLES OF HUMAN HUNTERS
WITHOUT BECOMING APOLOGISTS OR ADVOCATES FOR THE RECREATION. Bias toward
hunting in situations where hunting is not necessary can only result in
loss of credibility. Professional integrity demands that no side of a
controversy be given favor on biological grounds that cannot be justified
by the BIOGY OF THE CASE UNDER REVIEW. If hutners are favored because
they pay the costs of management through license fees and special taxes,
let that be the justification, and not an indefensible position that hunting
is necessary in cases where it is not.'
> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
> Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
>
> However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic notion
> that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their fertility
> alone."
But you have implied this over and over, argued against any hunting to
regulate the herds, argued that 'nutritional restriction' will limit
the herds without any position as to how to regulate herds in environments
such as here in the Farm Belt where the ground is extremely fertile,
crops grow VERY well and any untended ground grows grass about five feet
high.
Sue
Jeff Achenbach
>
>Jeff Achenbach writes:
>ja> ... Personally, I have spent over $300 on direct expense
>ja> items this year, and we are only two weeks into the season.
>ja> And I hunt on public land. The majority of Texas hunters, or
>ja> at least the majority that I know, pay for hunting leases,
>ja> to the tune of $500 per year or more. There are around a
>ja> million hunters in Texas. If we use what I believe to be a very
>ja> conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year, on average,
>ja> we reach a half billion dollars in just one of the fifty
>ja> states. And the $300 I have spent is only for licenses, boots,
>ja> hunting clothes, etc. Some of these I won't buy next year. But
>ja> last year I bought a stand, a backpack, a beltpack. The year
>ja> before a new bow, quiver, etc. I'm not even counting anything
>ja> but bow season at this point.
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
>rl> Certainly no bargain.
>
>
>From article <931216003...@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, by bo...@swdc.stratus.com (Bob Christ):
>bc> Russell, you damn moron! Read what you posted!
>bc>
>bc> You see the part where he mentions stuff that isn't needed
>bc> EVERY year for hunting? All he wrote was what he thought was
>bc> a conservative extimate on what hunters spent, not what was
>bc> required for hunting.
>
>This doesn't make much sense. The fact that I could hunt birds
>with a handful of river stones and a pocket rocket doesn't mean
>that duck hunting -- as practiced by the average american -- is
>an economical activity.
>
>bc> miles, they car pool. They don't buy new stuff every year.
>
>Do you agree with Jeff's figures?
>
Notice, I was speaking of Texas. Hunting is pretty expensive here. But if
you accept my assumption of half a billion spent in Texas, then it's not
much of a stretch to think that another half billion or more is spent in
the other 49 states combined, which puts us to the "billions" that I claimed
and that Russell questioned.
There still seems to be a fixation on whether this activity is an economical
form of obtaining food. That is entirely up to the individual. I wouldn't
need to spend quite as much what I do, though I couldn't really get by for
a whole lot less. In other states, with more public land, one can hunt for
a whole lot less. But the question, IMO, is one of choice. And this, Russell,
you continue to ignore. I CHOOSE to spend this money, and you are trying to
compare it to being forced (by government) to hand it over. Do you honestly
view taxation and discretionary spending as equivalent? If not, then what's
your point?
Jeff Achenbach
Rich Young
>From article <93348.19...@psuvm.psu.edu>, by <JK...@psuvm.psu.edu>:
>> My family has had a corn feeder for deer, turkeys, and all
>> sorts of wild game on our property..but that property is closed
>> to hunting and we don't hunt it ourselves..it's our backyard.
>>
>> Giving wildlife a helping hand by putting out feed is an
>> excellent way to help alleviate the lack of food that is often
>> caused by overpopulation or during rough winters when it is
>> hard for wildlife to get to the forest floor to scavage food
>> for themselves.
>
>Rich Young has agreed that the practice of providing supplemental
>feed to wild animals actually increases the likelihood of
>overpopulation. Do you agree with him?
This may be the one time in the history of the human race where
Russell and I agree. I can't speak to the feeding of "turkeys,
and all sorts of wild game", but the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation Wildlife Bureau *strongly* discourages
supplemental feeding of deer, and has evidence to show that such
a practice nearly guarantees subsequent starvation, even in
populations in which starvation had previously been seen only
rarely.
Do NOT feed wild deer!
Sue Bishop
>
> Jeff Achenbach writes:
> ja> ... Personally, I have spent over $300 on direct expense
> ja> items this year, and we are only two weeks into the season.
> ja> And I hunt on public land. The majority of Texas hunters, or
> ja> at least the majority that I know, pay for hunting leases,
> ja> to the tune of $500 per year or more. There are around a
> ja> million hunters in Texas. If we use what I believe to be a very
> ja> conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year, on average,
> ja> we reach a half billion dollars in just one of the fifty
> ja> states. And the $300 I have spent is only for licenses, boots,
> ja> hunting clothes, etc. Some of these I won't buy next year. But
> ja> last year I bought a stand, a backpack, a beltpack. The year
> ja> before a new bow, quiver, etc. I'm not even counting anything
> ja> but bow season at this point.
>
> Russell Lawrence writes:
> rl> Jeff gives us a conservative estimate of $500 per hunter per year.
> rl> Certainly no bargain.
>
So what? It's HIS money, not your money, not state money, not federal
money. He can spend it any way he damn well pleases.
> Bob Christ writes:
> bc> Seems like everyone missed this bit in Russell's post. I
> bc> guess that's because people who hunt do spend a lot of money
> bc> on hunting vacatiosns. At least the people I know do.
> bc>
> bc> In any case, Russell, Jeff made it QUITE clear that $300 was
> bc>"direct expense."
> bc>
> bc> Little trouble with reading comprehension skills, Russell?
> bc> Russell, I doubt that you know anything about hunting. I
> bc> don't hunt, but even I know a LOT more about it than YOU do.
>
> Russell Lawrence writes:
> rl> Read the following text carefully:
> rl>
> rl> "If we use what I believe to be a very conservative estimate of
> rl> $500 per hunter per year...
> rl>
> rl> Do you disagree with Jeff's conservative estimate?
>
As I said, what possible business is it of yours how/why/where he spends
his money?
Unlike the state funds that YOU want to spend on culling deer, which come
out of the pocket of EVERYONE, personal income is just that, personal
income.
> From article <931216003...@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, by bo...@swdc.stratus.com (Bob Christ):
> bc> Russell, you damn moron! Read what you posted!
> bc>
> bc> You see the part where he mentions stuff that isn't needed
> bc> EVERY year for hunting? All he wrote was what he thought was
> bc> a conservative extimate on what hunters spent, not what was
> bc> required for hunting.
>
> This doesn't make much sense. The fact that I could hunt birds
> with a handful of river stones and a pocket rocket doesn't mean
> that duck hunting -- as practiced by the average american -- is
> an economical activity.
No one claimed it is a particularly economical activity. What we are
trying to get you to explain is WHY you want to spend state money
to cull deer herds when the same thing can be done for a tidy profit!
>
> bc> Do you agree with that?
> bc>
> bc> But, you're made it quite clear that you think that much is REQUIRED
> bc> for hunting.
>
> Not really.
>
> bc> Most of the hunters I know, never travel more than 50
> bc> miles, they car pool. They don't buy new stuff every year.
>
> Do you agree with Jeff's figures?
>
Are you ever going to answer ANY questions? Especially the ENTIRE conversation
you had with Dr. McCullough!
Sue
Rich Young
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Nowhere have I stated that "deer herds would stabilize by limiting
>rl> their fertility alone"....
>
>From article <CI191...@newsserver.pixel.kodak.com>, by yo...@serum.kodak.com (Rich
>Young):
>ry> No, you didn't use those exact words, but your thrust is clear
>ry> enough from this ancient exchange with Dan Sorenson.
>ry> ===============================================================
>ry> "Not so, Dan. We were discussing the effect of adipose tissue
>ry> (ie, fat) on the fertility of deer. And your general line
>ry> of argument was that fat tissue can fluctuate so rapidly
>ry> that it serves no real purpose as a regulator of wildlife
>ry> populations, contrary to the evidence presented in the
>ry> papers that I had cited."
>ry> ===============================================================
>ry> Your implication is clearly that fertility (and fat) regulate
>ry> the population of deer,
>
>The scientific evidence clearly shows that fertility and
>fecundity in deer are regulated by adiposity, which in turn
>is a function of nutritional resources. (references on
>request).
So what? That wasn't the question being addressed. The point
to be determined is whether this regulates the herd population
so that it stabilizes prior to mass starvation and overbrowsing.
>ry> and the context of the discussion was the
>ry> contention that deer would starve from overpopulation unless
>rl> hunted.
>
>Right. I disagree with the notion that deer herds will inevitably
>starve in the absence of hunting. Quoting McCullough:
>
> "... it does not follow that all deer populations should
> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
> deer populations have no problem."
>
>From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
>_White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
>Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
"...environments that are stable...", Russell.
>However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic notion
>that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their fertility
>alone."
Then why did you propose it and defend the premise?
-----------------------
From <C7C9t...@wpg.com>:
ry> It would seem that starvation has not limited the reproduction
ry> rate of local deer, at least.
>
rl>The effectiveness of adipose tissue as a regulating mechanism is
rl>often disrupted in parks by "unnatural" events that would be
rl>unlikely to occur in a truly natural setting.
----------------------
From <C7r50...@wpg.com>:
rl>The point made by Darwin, Frisch, and others, is that
rl>fertility declines when fat stores decline and the available
rl>evidence suggests that this mechanism plays the key role in
rl>limiting many, if not most, populations of mammals and birds.
----------------------
From <CA2JE...@wpg.com>:
ry> ....but neither is it even a semblance of support
ry> for your contention that deer control their populations by infertility
ry> rather than starvation.
>
rl>Oh, I agree with this last point.....
----------------------
I'm sure there are other comments in which you imply that deer
herds control their populations through infertility and not
starvation.
Russell Lawrence
sb> [Quoting McCullough]
sb> "As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must
sb> distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and
sb> where it is not."
sb>
sb> (NOTE: Russell thinks that hunting is NEVER necessary!)
Let's distinguish between acts of killing that are intended to
serve the killer's own selfish interests, and acts of euthanasia
that are intended to serve individuals rather than to harm them.
Sport hunting -- unlike euthanasia -- is never necessary from an
ethical point of view.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ... [quotation deleted]
rl> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve",
rl> LK Halls, ed, _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_.
rl> Stackpole Books: Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
rl>
rl> However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic
rl> notion that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their
rl> fertility alone."
sb> But you have implied this over and over, argued against any
sb> hunting to regulate the herds, argued that 'nutritional
sb> restriction' will limit the herds without any position as to
sb> how to regulate herds in environments such as here in the Farm
sb> Belt where the ground is extremely fertile, crops grow VERY
sb> well and any untended ground grows grass about five feet high.
Sue, we've been over this many times. Until we can agree on
the basics [eg the relationship between nutritional resources
and recruitment rate], it would be silly to waste our time
discussing how scientific knowledge could be applied to
wildlife management.
Russell Lawrence
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Right. I disagree with the notion that deer herds will inevitably
rl> starve in the absence of hunting. Quoting McCullough:
rl>
rl> "However, it does not follow that all deer populations should
rl> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
rl> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
rl> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
rl> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
rl> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
rl> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
rl> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
rl> deer populations have no problem." p 239-240
rl>
rl> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
rl> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
rl> Harrisburg, PA, 1984.
From article <1993Dec16.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue
Bishop):
sb> Once again, Russell has indulged in selective quoting, taking
sb> a paragraph out of a section of the article which changes the
sb> author's intent.
The author's intention was to point out that hunting isn't always
necessary to prevent overpopulation. Do you disagree with
his position?
sb> How about adding in the REST of the section?
sb>
sb> This is the paragraph before the one Russell uses...
sb>
sb> "To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an
sb> article of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That
sb> a hunting harvest is sustainable is not the same thing as being
sb> necessary. Certainly, the damage to vegetation that results in
sb> lowering K and the productivity curve of a given management unit
sb> is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the George
sb> Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area
sb> is managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population
sb> is harvested only because of the destruction that resulted when
sb> it was not controlled. Deer are the only animals (or plants) on
sb> the Reserve that are artificially controlled."
You left out the passages from McCullough's 1987 article where
he explains WHY this ecological destruction occurred on the George
Reserve:
"Destructive overshoot occurs in situations where
artificially low population sizes result in "accumulation"
of resources in a living, dynamic sense. (Note, however,
that vegetation damage can occur under other circumstances;
see stochasticity below). These include cases where
populations have been heavily overexploited, new habitat has
been created, or introductions to favorable habitat have
occurred."
"... Figure 7 shows the destructive overshoot curve for the
George Reserve white-tailed deer population that comes
from an experiment that I am currently conducting. This
population was purposefully overexploited to reduce it to a
residual population size of 10 in 1974-1975. The population
was not exploited at all in the following four years to
allow unimpeded population growth. Population growth, if
adjusted for different starting sizes, virtually duplicated
the growth of the original introduction of size animals in
1928, a much celebrated example of deer population growth in
a favorable environment (McCullough, 1982). The population
reached an estimated 121 in 1980-1981, which greatly exceeds
the equilibrium of K of 176.
"The purpose of the experiment is to show that the overshoot
is traceable to an "accumulation" of food resources and
that, as the accumulation is used up, the size of the
kill that is required to bring the residual population
to 130 subsides over time from a value greatly above the
equilibrium value to the equilibrium value." page 543
McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
Bob Christ
From article <931216003...@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, by bo...@swdc.stratus
.com (Bob Christ):
bc> Russell, you damn moron! Read what you posted!
bc>
bc> You see the part where he mentions stuff that isn't needed
bc> EVERY year for hunting? All he wrote was what he thought was
bc> a conservative extimate on what hunters spent, not what was
bc> required for hunting.
>This doesn't make much sense. The fact that I could hunt birds
>with a handful of river stones and a pocket rocket doesn't mean
>that duck hunting -- as practiced by the average american -- is
>an economical activity.
Yes it does, Russell. You can't hunt birds in this country with,
"a handful of river stones and a pocket rocket." You need a gun,
ammo, license and place to hunt, that's it Russell.
Uh, just how much money does the 'average' american hunter spend a
year, Russell? I don't think you're qualified to know. Everyone
I know makes out hunting. Ever buy quail or deer meat? Nah, I doubt
it, but do you have any clue what it costs?
bc> Do you agree with that?
bc> But, you're made it quite clear that you think that much is REQUIRED
bc> for hunting.
>Not really.
Well, Russell I guess that's true. You're never CLEAR on anything.
bc> Most of the hunters I know, never travel more than 50
bc> miles, they car pool. They don't buy new stuff every year.
>Do you agree with Jeff's figures?
No, Russell, I don't. I don't think he has the figures. He was using himself
as an example, that's all.
If you do, back up the figures. I'm just giving you my opinon.
Here's a bit more Jeff wrote;
ja> Notice, I was speaking of Texas. Hunting is pretty expensive here. But if
ja>you accept my assumption of half a billion spent in Texas
Notice the word 'assumption'? Reading compression is not your strong point
Russell. In the original article, that's what he was doing. You seem to be
the only person that couldn't figure that out.
Now, your turn Russell.
I WANT to know how YOUR conversation with Dr. McCullough went.
You insisit on asking more-and-more questions and never answering any
yourself, Russell. Why is that? (Not that I really expect to get an
answer.)
Weasel.
Yours,
Bob Christ
---
"Come, let us retract the foreskin of misconception and
apply the wire brush of enlightenment."
Geoff Miller; alt.tasteless quote of the year, 1992
Russell Lawrence
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Do you agree with Jeff's figures?
From article <931216202...@echidna.swdc.stratus.com>, by bo...@swdc.stratus.com (Bob Christ):
bc> No, Russell, I don't. I don't think he has the figures. He
bc> was using himself as an example, that's all.
Thanks for giving me a straight answer. I don't agree with his
figures either.
bc> Notice the word 'assumption'? Reading compression is not your
bc> strong point Russell. In the original article, that's what he
bc> was doing. You seem to be the only person that couldn't figure
bc> that out.
You must have missed the original argument. I contested his
guesstimates from the beginning.
Russell Lawrence
rl> fecundity in deer are regulated by adiposity, which in turn
rl> is a function of nutritional resources. (references on
rl> request).
From article <CI5GG...@newsserver.pixel.kodak.com>, by yo...@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
ry> So what? That wasn't the question being addressed.
Yes it was. Are you disputing the role played by adiposity~fertility
in influencing population dynamics?
ry> The point
ry> to be determined is whether this regulates the herd population
ry> so that it stabilizes prior to mass starvation and overbrowsing.
You're oversimplifying the problem, Rich. The fact that deer
fertility and fecundity are regulated by adiposity, wouldn't lead
us to conclude that other environmental factors can be ignored.
In Pennsylvania, for example, we'd have to evaluate the impact
caused by the sporadic, artificial feeding programs of hunters
like JKC. Supplemental food would artificially fatten deer, and
thereby lead to an increase in deer population that could overburden
the environment's natural resources.
rl> Right. I disagree with the notion that deer herds will inevitably
rl> starve in the absence of hunting. Quoting McCullough:
rl>
rl> "... it does not follow that all deer populations should
rl> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
rl> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
rl> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
rl> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
rl> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
rl> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
rl> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
rl> deer populations have no problem."
rl>
rl> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
rl> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
rl> Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
ry> "...environments that are stable...", Russell.
Do you agree that deer starvation is not inevitable in the absence
of predation?
rl> However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic notion
rl> that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their fertility
rl> alone."
ry> Then why did you propose it and defend the premise?
The phrase quoted above, "deer herds will stabilize by limiting
their fertility alone", was written by Sue Bishop. Not by me.
ry> From <C7C9t...@wpg.com>:
====================================================================
ry> It would seem that starvation has not limited the reproduction
ry> rate of local deer, at least.
rl> The effectiveness of adipose tissue as a regulating mechanism is
rl> often disrupted in parks by "unnatural" events that would be
rl> unlikely to occur in a truly natural setting.
====================================================================
We both understand why park environments tend to be unstable.
What's your point?
ry> From <C7r50...@wpg.com>:
====================================================================
rl> The point made by Darwin, Frisch, and others, is that
rl> fertility declines when fat stores decline and the available
rl> evidence suggests that this mechanism plays the key role in
rl> limiting many, if not most, populations of mammals and birds.
====================================================================
Right. What's your point?
ry> From <CA2JE...@wpg.com>:
====================================================================
ry> ....but neither is it even a semblance of support
ry> for your contention that deer control their populations by infertility
ry> rather than starvation.
rl> Oh, I agree with this last point.....
====================================================================
Right. What's your point?
Jeff Achenbach
You and I agreed. So how do you propose we apply such knowledge? Personally,
I find hunting as an integral part of wildlife management suits me just fine.
Jeff Achenbach
Jeff Achenbach
>In article <CI5Hp...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>In article <1993Dec16.0...@desire.wright.edu>, Sue Bishop writes:
>>sb> [Quoting McCullough]
>>sb> "As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must
>>sb> distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and
>>sb> where it is not."
>>sb>
>>sb> (NOTE: Russell thinks that hunting is NEVER necessary!)
>>
>>Let's distinguish between acts of killing that are intended to
>>serve the killer's own selfish interests, and acts of euthanasia
>>that are intended to serve individuals rather than to harm them.
>>Sport hunting -- unlike euthanasia -- is never necessary from an
>>ethical point of view.
>>
Wildlife management considers populations moreso than individuals. So does
government in regards to humans. Greatest good to the largest number, or
something like that. But, you may say, deer are managed for the benefit of
humans, rather than for their own benefit. And that is correct. So is every-
thing else that we have the ability to manage. We have tempered this attitude
somewhat with the realization that we are dependent on the life support
systems of planet earth, thus we now have such things as environmental impact
statements before undertaking large disruptive projects. I see nothing wrong
with utilizing resources, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, but merely
wish that they be used wisely, and hopefully in a sustainable manner.
Pennsylvania's whitetailed deer population numbers over a million. Texas
estimates the whitetailed deer population at something over 4.5 million.
Two states out of fifty totals over 5.5 million animals, and you suggest we
should attempt to "serve individuals rather than harm them". How about
providing a clue as to how we should go about doing so? On the question of
culling: How is the wildlife manager going to determine which deer are
certain to starve, and therefore should be culled? Surely you don't want to
risk making a mistake and killing one which may have otherwise survived?
So, do we simply wait until they are obviously too weak to forage, then go
finish them off? What do you think will be the state of the forage base by
the time we can be sure of which individuals to cull?
As to hunting never being necessary from an ethical point of view, possibly
not. From a practical point of view, it seems to work reasonably well, at
little to no public expense, and with a sizeable portion of the populace
perceiving a net benefit from it. Not to mention the benefit of habitat
preservation (which you conveniently continue to ignore) to non-game species,
which is funded in large part by hunting revenues.
Jeff Achenbach
Bob Christ
>to dictate my position statements, then it's useless for me to
>continue this discussion with you.
I'd say that's a good idea, Russell. She's pretty much kicked your
ass on this one.
Bob
--
This person is currently under going electric shock therapy at Agnews
Developmental Center in San Jose, California. All his opinions are
static, please ignore him.
Thank you, Nurse Ratched
Rich Young
>
>In article <CI1wz...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>rl> The scientific evidence clearly shows that fertility and
>rl> fecundity in deer are regulated by adiposity, which in turn
>rl> is a function of nutritional resources. (references on
>rl> request).
>
>From article <CI5GG...@newsserver.pixel.kodak.com>, by yo...@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> So what? That wasn't the question being addressed.
>
>Yes it was. Are you disputing the role played by adiposity~fertility
>in influencing population dynamics?
No, it was not. No one has argued that fertility does not
decrease with falling nutrition in white-tailed deer. The
argument is over your assertion that this fertility decrease
results in a stable population prior to overbrowsing and/or
large-scale starvation, thus making predation by Man an
unnecessary burden of suffering on any given population of deer
to avert stunting of growth, environmental damage, and starvation.
>ry> The point
>ry> to be determined is whether this regulates the herd population
>ry> so that it stabilizes prior to mass starvation and overbrowsing.
>
>You're oversimplifying the problem, Rich. The fact that deer
>fertility and fecundity are regulated by adiposity, wouldn't lead
>us to conclude that other environmental factors can be ignored.
Thank you for finally admitting that deer may NOT control
their populations strictly through loss of fertility.
>rl> Right. I disagree with the notion that deer herds will inevitably
>rl> starve in the absence of hunting. Quoting McCullough:
>rl>
>rl> "... it does not follow that all deer populations should
>rl> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
>rl> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
>rl> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
>rl> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
>rl> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
>rl> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
>rl> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
>rl> deer populations have no problem."
>rl>
>rl> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
>rl> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
>rl> Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
>
>ry> "...environments that are stable...", Russell.
>
>Do you agree that deer starvation is not inevitable in the absence
>of predation?
What does that have to do with the quote you've supplied above?
I see no reference to predation one way or another in McCullough's
statement. I see a reference to "...environments that are
stable...", however.
>rl> However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic notion
>rl> that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their fertility
>rl> alone."
>
>ry> Then why did you propose it and defend the premise?
>
>The phrase quoted above, "deer herds will stabilize by limiting
>their fertility alone", was written by Sue Bishop. Not by me.
Nor did I say otherwise.
>ry> From <C7C9t...@wpg.com>:
>====================================================================
>ry> It would seem that starvation has not limited the reproduction
>ry> rate of local deer, at least.
>
>rl> The effectiveness of adipose tissue as a regulating mechanism is
>rl> often disrupted in parks by "unnatural" events that would be
>rl> unlikely to occur in a truly natural setting.
>====================================================================
>
>We both understand why park environments tend to be unstable.
>What's your point?
You've clearly implied that adipose tissue IS a regulating
mechanism outside of such environments.
>ry> From <C7r50...@wpg.com>:
>====================================================================
>rl> The point made by Darwin, Frisch, and others, is that
>rl> fertility declines when fat stores decline and the available
>rl> evidence suggests that this mechanism plays the key role in
>rl> limiting many, if not most, populations of mammals and birds.
>====================================================================
>
>Right. What's your point?
"...this mechanism plays the key role in limiting many, if not
most populations of mammals and birds."
>ry> From <CA2JE...@wpg.com>:
>====================================================================
>ry> ....but neither is it even a semblance of support
>ry> for your contention that deer control their populations by infertility
>ry> rather than starvation.
>
>rl> Oh, I agree with this last point.....
>====================================================================
>
>Right. What's your point?
By agreeing, you have tacitly accepted that the "contention" as
stated is, in fact, yours.
Greg Brown
: From article <swood.7...@vela.acs.oakland.edu>, by sw...@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Scott Wood):
: > However, I did not even see a deer during my opening day trip this year,
: > and still learned a lot and had a ball. My deer feeding is going to help
: > a locally pressured population of animals (not just deer) ward off the
: > infringement of man and reasonable hunting to have a strong and healthy
: > animal population next spring.
Hmmm. I didn't think it was ethical to "bait" deer?
--
Sue Bishop
>
> In article <CI1wz...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> rl> The scientific evidence clearly shows that fertility and
> rl> fecundity in deer are regulated by adiposity, which in turn
> rl> is a function of nutritional resources. (references on
> rl> request).
>
> From article <CI5GG...@newsserver.pixel.kodak.com>, by yo...@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young):
> ry> So what? That wasn't the question being addressed.
>
> Yes it was. Are you disputing the role played by adiposity~fertility
> in influencing population dynamics?
Are you denying that you have implied that the deer would stabilize by
fertility alone?
>
> ry> The point
> ry> to be determined is whether this regulates the herd population
> ry> so that it stabilizes prior to mass starvation and overbrowsing.
>
> You're oversimplifying the problem, Rich. The fact that deer
> fertility and fecundity are regulated by adiposity, wouldn't lead
> us to conclude that other environmental factors can be ignored.
> In Pennsylvania, for example, we'd have to evaluate the impact
> caused by the sporadic, artificial feeding programs of hunters
> like JKC. Supplemental food would artificially fatten deer, and
> thereby lead to an increase in deer population that could overburden
> the environment's natural resources.
>
Very few areas in Pennsylvania and the Midwest have ever fed deer. For
example, the deer population here in Ohio was 30,000 in the 1970s, it
is at least 300,000 now. That's an increase of a factor of ten in
about 20 years. We have asked you repeatedly how this rapidly increasing
herd is to be controlled without destroying the environment. You've
only come up with extremely expensive suggestions such as putting 8-foot
deer-proof fence around farm lands, somehow culling the deer (without
any suggestion as to how the state will pay for the culling or even how
it can be accomplished). You are dead set against any hunting, quite
likely because some people do enjoy it. Once again, I state that you
dislike hunting for the same reason the Victorians were against sex,
it's an enjoyable pursuit for some people and you are against enjoyable
pursuits.
> rl> Right. I disagree with the notion that deer herds will inevitably
> rl> starve in the absence of hunting. Quoting McCullough:
> rl>
> rl> "... it does not follow that all deer populations should
> rl> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
> rl> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
> rl> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
> rl> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
> rl> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
> rl> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
> rl> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
> rl> deer populations have no problem."
> rl>
> rl> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
> rl> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
> rl> Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
>
> ry> "...environments that are stable...", Russell.
>
> Do you agree that deer starvation is not inevitable in the absence
> of predation?
Do you deny that the statement above describes stable environments? Please
state where these stable environments are found! Also, why do you repeatedly
extract this one paragraph that seems to support your position but edit out
the rest of the section which states that 'wildlife biologists and managers
must distinguish between CASES WHERE HUNTING IS NECESSARY AND WHERE IT IS
NOT.' Do you agree that McCullough repeatedly states in his articles and
in his book that he considers hunting to be very necessary in quite a few
instances? And that he repeatedly states that the George Reserve Deer
Herd is controlled by hunting?
>
> rl> However, this doesn't justify the contorted, simplistic notion
> rl> that "deer herds will stabilize by limiting their fertility
> rl> alone."
>
> ry> Then why did you propose it and defend the premise?
>
> The phrase quoted above, "deer herds will stabilize by limiting
> their fertility alone", was written by Sue Bishop. Not by me.
>
You have repeatedly so implied in your posts. Over and over and over.
> ry> From <C7C9t...@wpg.com>:
> ====================================================================
> ry> It would seem that starvation has not limited the reproduction
> ry> rate of local deer, at least.
>
> rl> The effectiveness of adipose tissue as a regulating mechanism is
> rl> often disrupted in parks by "unnatural" events that would be
> rl> unlikely to occur in a truly natural setting.
> ====================================================================
>
> We both understand why park environments tend to be unstable.
> What's your point?
>
So since park environments tend to be unstable, your example above is
faulty.
> ry> From <C7r50...@wpg.com>:
> ====================================================================
> rl> The point made by Darwin, Frisch, and others, is that
> rl> fertility declines when fat stores decline and the available
> rl> evidence suggests that this mechanism plays the key role in
> rl> limiting many, if not most, populations of mammals and birds.
> ====================================================================
>
> Right. What's your point?
Exactly where in the article does it say that deer fertility will be depressed
to the point of zero? Unless fertility is depressed to zero, the deer still
have fawns. If nutritional input is despressed then the herd is controlled
by the fawns being rejected by their mothers at birth. Once again, I suggest
you read the article on Population and Nutrition in The White-tailed Deer,
but I really don't expect you to use any of the material out of it, because
it doesn't support your position at all.
>
> ry> From <CA2JE...@wpg.com>:
> ====================================================================
> ry> ....but neither is it even a semblance of support
> ry> for your contention that deer control their populations by infertility
> ry> rather than starvation.
>
> rl> Oh, I agree with this last point.....
> ====================================================================
>
> Right. What's your point?
So you agree that deer populations are controlled by starvation instead
of infertility? That's what I've been trying to get you to agree to for
ages! So it's finally sunk into your brain...... wow.... there are
miracles.....
Sue
Sue Bishop
Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped my postings.
I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the number of fawns that
survive to six month of age. (See The George Reserve Deer Herd, McCullough,
1979, Chapter 6 (Since you just can't seem to find anything in any article
I've quoted) for more details on Deriving a Recruitment Model) IF YOU HAVE
A RECRUITMENT RATE OF ZERO THEN ALMOST NO FAWNS ARE SURVIVING TO SIX MONTHS
OF AGE! This is very clearly covered in the article on Physiology and
Nutrition by Verme and Ullrey. They state that 'There is a close relationship
between maternal nutrition and neonatal mortality.' Since I have to explain
EVERYTHING in very simple terms, neonatal MEANS at or around birth. In
other words, the fawns are born dead, die right away or are rejected by
their mothers and starve to death. In fact, Verme and Ullrey say that
'Most fawns were born alive but died because they were too weak to stand,
they were too small to reach the teats, lactation (that's milk production,
Russell) was delayed or absent, or a mother abandoned or refused to nurse
her offspring.'
You've repeatedly based your arguments that on stating that nutritional
restrictions alone would limit the size of the herd. This doesn't take
into account that low nutrition is a tightrope, it's hard to balance
low feed levels.
>
> You and I agreed. So how do you propose we apply such knowledge? Personally,
> I find hunting as an integral part of wildlife management suits me just fine.
>
> Jeff Achenbach
I know that Russell prefers to spend state money on hiring professional
hunters to 'cull' the herds. Still no explanation on how he plans to do
this. Especially since experienced hunters spend days hunting and get about
one or maybe two deer during the season.
Sue
Roberta Hatch
>
>Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped my postings.
>I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the number of fawns that
>survive to six month of age.
bobbi
--
i am a vegan because i do not want anything to suffer or die for my food,
clothing, personal care items or household cleaning items.
JK...@psuvm.psu.edu
>In article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>
>sbi...@desire.wright.edu
>(Sue Bishop) writes:
>>
>>Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped my postings.
>>I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the number of fawns that
>>survive to six month of age.
>this not true! russell never distorts anything. shame on you sue.
Russ doesn't distort anything...he distorts *EVERYTHING*...like I said before,
the truth isn't always nice.
Mike Linan
>In article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu> sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop) writes:
>>
>>Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped my postings.
>>I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the number of fawns that
>>survive to six month of age.
I think it's great that they now have machines that can relay usenet posts
to the blind, because without such capabilities this poor blind person Bobbi
wouldn't be able to appreciate what is so obvious to most others. Now if
they could only devise some way to strighten out her mind. Russell never
distorts anything. HA! What a joke!
Mike Linan
Russell Lawrence
From article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
> Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped
> my postings. I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the
> number of fawns that survive to six month of age.
And I've repeatedly explained to you that your definition of
recruitment doesn't fit the one used by wildlife biologists. Perhaps
Jeff Achenbach will take the time to explain it this time around.
> (See The George Reserve Deer Herd, McCullough, 1979, Chapter 6
> (Since you just can't seem to find anything in any article I've
> quoted) for more details on Deriving a Recruitment Model) IF
> YOU HAVE A RECRUITMENT RATE OF ZERO THEN ALMOST NO FAWNS ARE
> SURVIVING TO SIX MONTHS OF AGE!
This conclusion is unwarranted. A given population can achieve a
recruitment rate of zero in a particular year, even though all
the fawns have survived.
> This is very clearly covered in the article on Physiology and
> Nutrition by Verme and Ullrey. They state that 'There is a
> close relationship between maternal nutrition and neonatal
> mortality.'
Yep.
> Since I have to explain
> EVERYTHING in very simple terms, neonatal MEANS at or around birth.
The definition of "neonatal" isn't an issue.
Russell Lawrence
>> You're oversimplifying the problem, Rich. The fact that deer
>> fertility and fecundity are regulated by adiposity, wouldn't lead
>> us to conclude that other environmental factors can be ignored.
>> In Pennsylvania, for example, we'd have to evaluate the impact
>> caused by the sporadic, artificial feeding programs of hunters
>> like JKC. Supplemental food would artificially fatten deer, and
>> thereby lead to an increase in deer population that could overburden
>> the environment's natural resources.
>
> Very few areas in Pennsylvania and the Midwest have ever fed deer.
Sources, please. JKC has admitted that his Pennsylvania
family feeds deer; perhaps this practice is more widespread than
you believe.
> For example, the deer population here in Ohio was 30,000 in
> the 1970s, it is at least 300,000 now. That's an increase of a
> factor of ten in about 20 years. We have asked you repeatedly
> how this rapidly increasing herd is to be controlled without
> destroying the environment. You've only come up with extremely
> expensive suggestions such as putting 8-foot deer-proof fence
> around farm lands, somehow culling the deer (without any
> suggestion as to how the state will pay for the culling or
> even how it can be accomplished). You are dead set against any
> hunting, quite likely because some people do enjoy it. Once
> again, I state that you dislike hunting for the same reason the
> Victorians were against sex, it's an enjoyable pursuit for some
> people and you are against enjoyable pursuits.
This doesn't deserve a response. When you're ready to honestly
debate the facts, without resorting to ad hominem speculation,
let me know.
Dan Sorenson
>> Very few areas in Pennsylvania and the Midwest have ever fed deer.
>Sources, please. JKC has admitted that his Pennsylvania
>family feeds deer; perhaps this practice is more widespread than
>you believe.
I have to toss this one to Russ; anywhere you plant a crop you
are feeding the deer. Of course, this isn't the intent behind the
claim above, but literally it is true.
--
* Dan Sorenson, DoD 1066 vik...@iastate.edu z1...@exnet.iastate.edu *
* Vikings? There ain't no vikings here. Just us honest farmers. *
* The town was burning, the villagers were dead. They didn't need *
* those sheep anyway. That's our story and we're sticking to it. *
Jeff Achenbach
>
>From article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>> Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped
>> my postings. I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the
>> number of fawns that survive to six month of age.
>
>And I've repeatedly explained to you that your definition of
>recruitment doesn't fit the one used by wildlife biologists. Perhaps
>Jeff Achenbach will take the time to explain it this time around.
I can only explain what I think it means. I'm not sure whether I came across
a definition or inferred it from usage in the papers you sent me. Anyway, I
take it to simply refer to a change in population, with positive recruitment
meaning the population grew and negative, it shrank. By using 6 months of age,
fawns below that age wouldn't be included in a census.
>> (See The George Reserve Deer Herd, McCullough, 1979, Chapter 6
>> (Since you just can't seem to find anything in any article I've
>> quoted) for more details on Deriving a Recruitment Model) IF
>> YOU HAVE A RECRUITMENT RATE OF ZERO THEN ALMOST NO FAWNS ARE
>> SURVIVING TO SIX MONTHS OF AGE!
>
>This conclusion is unwarranted. A given population can achieve a
>recruitment rate of zero in a particular year, even though all
>the fawns have survived.
True, provided an equivalent number of adults die.
Jeff Achenbach
Bob Christ
>In article MSGID, bha...@netcom.com (Roberta Hatch) says:
>>(Sue Bishop) writes:
>>>Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped my postings.
>>this not true! russell never distorts anything. shame on you sue.
>
>Russ doesn't distort anything...he distorts *EVERYTHING*...like I said before,
>the truth isn't always nice.
Oh geez, this almost beyond belief! Who let this airhead out of the
looney bin?
Bob
---
I'm convinced that the animal rights movement is a perversion induced
by suburban life, where pets are equal members of the household.
-John Hollister
Bob Christ
>>>Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped my postings.
>wouldn't be able to appreciate what is so obvious to most others. Now if
>they could only devise some way to strighten out her mind. Russell never
>distorts anything. HA! What a joke!
>>this not true! russell never distorts anything. shame on you sue.
Oh geez...
Bob "I can't stop laughing" Christ
---
Thank you. Now, for encore, I will demonstrate my vegematic,
with a yuppie backstabber as the "veg."
- Lenore Levine
Jeff Achenbach
>In article <93354.18...@psuvm.psu.edu> JK...@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>In article MSGID, bha...@netcom.com (Roberta Hatch) says:
>
>>>(Sue Bishop) writes:
>
>>>>Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped my postings.
>
>>>this not true! russell never distorts anything. shame on you sue.
>>
>>Russ doesn't distort anything...he distorts *EVERYTHING*...like I said before,
>>the truth isn't always nice.
>
>Oh geez, this almost beyond belief! Who let this airhead out of the
>looney bin?
I checked the header to see if it was crossposted. Nope. I can only assume
that either Roberta Hatch really does exist, and has a silly sense of humor,
or that this person is an artificial construct of some other netter who
knows enough about computers to set up this alias and post nonsense for
entertainment. At least I assume such things are possible.
Jeff Achenbach
Sue Bishop
> In <CID0p...@wpg.com> ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>
>>> Very few areas in Pennsylvania and the Midwest have ever fed deer.
>
>>Sources, please. JKC has admitted that his Pennsylvania
>>family feeds deer; perhaps this practice is more widespread than
>>you believe.
>
> I have to toss this one to Russ; anywhere you plant a crop you
> are feeding the deer. Of course, this isn't the intent behind the
> claim above, but literally it is true.
>
Well, then there's just one solution to this, stop growing crops!
Grin
Sue
Sue Bishop
>
> From article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>> Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped
>> my postings. I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the
>> number of fawns that survive to six month of age.
>
> And I've repeatedly explained to you that your definition of
> recruitment doesn't fit the one used by wildlife biologists. Perhaps
> Jeff Achenbach will take the time to explain it this time around.
It would help if you would read just a little!
'1. Recruitment. The number of offspring surviving to about six
months of age.' (The George Reserve Deer Herd, 'Chapter six,
'Deriving a Recruitment Model', McCullough)
'Net reproduction was measured as recruitment. Recruitment is a
useful concept in population studies since it is measured at
an age when the young are at some threshold of practical importance.
In this case, recruitment age was considered to be six months of
age - the autumn of the first year, when fawns were large enough
to be included in the harvest.' The value of recruitment as
a concept is that it integrates BIRTHS AND EARLY MORTALITY WHEN
DEATH IS MOST PROBABLE - each of which is exceedingly difficult
to measure in practice - into one measure after survivorship
begins to approach that of older animals.
Recruitment RATE is the number of recruits per individual in the
population producing the recruits.' (Lessons from the George Reserve,
McCullough)
Well, Russell, care to eat your words?
>
>> (See The George Reserve Deer Herd, McCullough, 1979, Chapter 6
>> (Since you just can't seem to find anything in any article I've
>> quoted) for more details on Deriving a Recruitment Model) IF
>> YOU HAVE A RECRUITMENT RATE OF ZERO THEN ALMOST NO FAWNS ARE
>> SURVIVING TO SIX MONTHS OF AGE!
>
> This conclusion is unwarranted. A given population can achieve a
> recruitment rate of zero in a particular year, even though all
> the fawns have survived.
Please explain your statement in the context of the quotes above.
Also, explain how that Verme and Ullrey state that 'At a low plane
of nutrition, mortality was 93% (referring to fawns) and birth weight
averaged 1.9 kilograms.' (Physiology and Nutrition, Verme and Ullrey)
>
>> This is very clearly covered in the article on Physiology and
>> Nutrition by Verme and Ullrey. They state that 'There is a
>> close relationship between maternal nutrition and neonatal
>> mortality.'
>
> Yep.
>
>> Since I have to explain
>> EVERYTHING in very simple terms, neonatal MEANS at or around birth.
>
> The definition of "neonatal" isn't an issue.
>
Sigh, Russell, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE. Verme and Ullrey very clearly
state neonatal mortality figures for fawns from mothers at a low rate
of nutrition.
And you claim you DON'T have a reading comprehension problem?
Sue
Sue Bishop
> From article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>> In article <CI69L...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> You're oversimplifying the problem, Rich. The fact that deer
>>> fertility and fecundity are regulated by adiposity, wouldn't lead
>>> us to conclude that other environmental factors can be ignored.
>>> In Pennsylvania, for example, we'd have to evaluate the impact
>>> caused by the sporadic, artificial feeding programs of hunters
>>> like JKC. Supplemental food would artificially fatten deer, and
>>> thereby lead to an increase in deer population that could overburden
>>> the environment's natural resources.
>>
>> Very few areas in Pennsylvania and the Midwest have ever fed deer.
>
> Sources, please. JKC has admitted that his Pennsylvania
> family feeds deer; perhaps this practice is more widespread than
> you believe.
You are the one who originally claimed that feeding is done, you come
up with the stats.
>
>> For example, the deer population here in Ohio was 30,000 in
>> the 1970s, it is at least 300,000 now. That's an increase of a
>> factor of ten in about 20 years. We have asked you repeatedly
>> how this rapidly increasing herd is to be controlled without
>> destroying the environment. You've only come up with extremely
>> expensive suggestions such as putting 8-foot deer-proof fence
>> around farm lands, somehow culling the deer (without any
>> suggestion as to how the state will pay for the culling or
>> even how it can be accomplished). You are dead set against any
>> hunting, quite likely because some people do enjoy it. Once
>> again, I state that you dislike hunting for the same reason the
>> Victorians were against sex, it's an enjoyable pursuit for some
>> people and you are against enjoyable pursuits.
>
> This doesn't deserve a response. When you're ready to honestly
> debate the facts, without resorting to ad hominem speculation,
> let me know.
When you are ready to answer the repeated questions that you have been
asked about how to finance deer herd control, let ME know!
Sue
Russell Lawrence
Sue Bishop writes:
sb> Very few areas in Pennsylvania and the Midwest have ever fed deer.
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> Sources, please. JKC has admitted that his Pennsylvania
rl> family feeds deer; perhaps this practice is more widespread than
rl> you believe.
Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> I have to toss this one to Russ; anywhere you plant a crop you
ds> are feeding the deer. Of course, this isn't the intent behind the
ds> claim above, but literally it is true.
From article <1993Dec21.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Well, then there's just one solution to this, stop growing crops!
In areas where deer cause significant losses, both (regional) extinction
and fencing could solve the problems.
Russell Lawrence
sb> my postings. I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the
sb> number of fawns that survive to six month of age.
In article <CID0z...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> And I've repeatedly explained to you that your definition of
rl> recruitment doesn't fit the one used by wildlife biologists. Perhaps
rl> Jeff Achenbach will take the time to explain it this time around.
From article <1993Dec21.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> It would help if you would read just a little!
sb>
sb> '1. Recruitment. The number of offspring surviving to about six
sb> months of age.' (The George Reserve Deer Herd, 'Chapter six,
sb> 'Deriving a Recruitment Model', McCullough)
This title is ambiguous, Sue. And, it's dated -- as I will
demonstrate shortly.
Try reading this:
====================================================================
Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> Perhaps you would both define "recruitment". It is not
ja> crystal clear to me that you are using the term in the same
ja> way. My interpretation is not simply number of deer born, but
ja> rather, population _increase_. That is, births minus deaths
ja> from all causes.
From article <1993Nov12.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue
Bishop):
sb> You are correct, recruitment is rate of population increase.
====================================================================
Or better still, read this:
"Net recruitment rate -- called "population change" in
McCullough (1979) -- is defined as the number of recruits
minus mortality of animals of recruitment age and older
divided by the residual population. Productivity is the
number of fawns born minus the combined mortality of all
three kinds at a given residual population size."
From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
_White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p. 218.
Make a note of the fact that McCullough warns readers that his
terms had changed, and that the concept called "population
change" in the 1979 book was henceforth labeled, "net recruitment
rate".
sb> 'Net reproduction was measured as recruitment. Recruitment is a
sb> useful concept in population studies since it is measured at
sb> an age when the young are at some threshold of practical importance.
sb> In this case, recruitment age was considered to be six months of
sb> age - the autumn of the first year, when fawns were large enough
sb> to be included in the harvest.'
Right. We can both agree that animals younger than six months of
age aren't regarded as recruits.
sb> The value of recruitment as a concept is that it integrates
sb> BIRTHS AND EARLY MORTALITY WHEN DEATH IS MOST PROBABLE - each
sb> of which is exceedingly difficult to measure in practice -
sb> into one measure after survivorship begins to approach that of
sb> older animals. Recruitment RATE is the number of recruits per
sb> individual in the population producing the recruits.' (Lessons
sb> from the George Reserve, McCullough)
sb>
sb> Well, Russell, care to eat your words?
Your definitions are inconsistent, Sue. The definition used by
McCullough in labeling his graphs is consistent with your previous
definition, but inconsistent with your second definition.
sb> (See The George Reserve Deer Herd, McCullough, 1979, Chapter 6
sb> (Since you just can't seem to find anything in any article I've
sb> quoted) for more details on Deriving a Recruitment Model) IF
sb> YOU HAVE A RECRUITMENT RATE OF ZERO THEN ALMOST NO FAWNS ARE
sb> SURVIVING TO SIX MONTHS OF AGE!
rl> This conclusion is unwarranted. A given population can achieve a
rl> recruitment rate of zero in a particular year, even though all
rl> the fawns have survived.
sb> Please explain your statement in the context of the quotes above.
Again, McCullough's graphs show that both net recruitment and net
recruitment rate decline to zero as populations approach K. Since
both figures include the mortality of older animals, it doesn't make
sense to conclude that a net recruitment rate of zero necessarily
means that no fawns are surviving.
sb> Also, explain how that Verme and Ullrey state that 'At a low
sb> plane of nutrition, mortality was 93% (referring to fawns)
sb> and birth weight averaged 1.9 kilograms.' (Physiology and
sb> Nutrition, Verme and Ullrey)
Please explain precisely how the term "low plane of nutrition" is
defined here. Are the authors referring to 2500 calorie per diem
diets? 2750 calorie per diem diets? 3,125 calorie per diem diets?
[Hint: The answer isn't in the text]
In the table that I presented previously, the term, "high plane
of nutrition", designates a 4,375 calorie diet whereas the term,
"low plane of nutrition", designates a 3,125 calorie diet.
sb> This is very clearly covered in the article on Physiology and
sb> Nutrition by Verme and Ullrey. They state that 'There is a
sb> close relationship between maternal nutrition and neonatal
sb> mortality.'
rl> Yep.
sb> Since I have to explain
sb> EVERYTHING in very simple terms, neonatal MEANS at or around birth.
rl> The definition of "neonatal" isn't an issue.
sb> Sigh, Russell, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE. Verme and Ullrey
sb> very clearly state neonatal mortality figures for fawns from
sb> mothers at a low rate of nutrition.
sb>
sb> And you claim you DON'T have a reading comprehension problem?
As I said, the definition of "neonatal" isn't an issue here. Do you
have a reading comprehension problem?
--
Russell Lawrence
> In article <CID0p...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>> From article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>>> In article <CI69L...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>>> You're oversimplifying the problem, Rich. The fact that deer
>>>> fertility and fecundity are regulated by adiposity, wouldn't lead
>>>> us to conclude that other environmental factors can be ignored.
>>>> In Pennsylvania, for example, we'd have to evaluate the impact
>>>> caused by the sporadic, artificial feeding programs of hunters
>>>> like JKC. Supplemental food would artificially fatten deer, and
>>>> thereby lead to an increase in deer population that could overburden
>>>> the environment's natural resources.
>>>
>>> Very few areas in Pennsylvania and the Midwest have ever fed deer.
>>
>> Sources, please. JKC has admitted that his Pennsylvania
>> family feeds deer; perhaps this practice is more widespread than
>> you believe.
>
> You are the one who originally claimed that feeding is done, you come
> up with the stats.
I don't have such statistics, Sue, but I'm willing to concede that
JKC's pro-hunting, anecdotal stories may be inaccurate.
Russell Lawrence
In article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>, Sue Bishop writes:
sb> Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped
sb> my postings. I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the
sb> number of fawns that survive to six month of age.
Roberta Hatch writes:
rh> this not true! russell never distorts anything. shame on you sue.
JKC writes:
jkc> Russ doesn't distort anything...he distorts
jkc> *EVERYTHING*...like I said before, the truth isn't always
jkc> nice.
Bob Christ writes:
bc> Oh geez, this almost beyond belief! Who let this airhead out of the
bc> looney bin?
From article <1993Dec21.1...@spdc.ti.com>, by ache...@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jeff Achenbach):
ja> I checked the header to see if it was crossposted. Nope. I
ja> can only assume that either Roberta Hatch really does exist,
ja> and has a silly sense of humor, or that this person is an
ja> artificial construct of some other netter who knows enough
ja> about computers to set up this alias and post nonsense for
ja> entertainment. At least I assume such things are possible.
I'm surprised that you would engage in this kind of personal
attack, Jeff.
Please reread Sue's statement at the top of this file... right
after the part where she accuses me of distorting her postings:
"I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the
number of fawns that survive to six month of age."
Now reread the following exchange between Sue and yourself:
====================================================================
Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> Perhaps you would both define "recruitment". It is not
ja> crystal clear to me that you are using the term in the same
ja> way. My interpretation is not simply number of deer born, but
ja> rather, population _increase_. That is, births minus deaths
ja> from all causes.
From article <1993Nov12.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue
Bishop):
sb> You are correct, recruitment is rate of population increase.
====================================================================
Am I the person who's truly responsible for the apparent distortions
here?
Sue Bishop
OK, how many miles of fencing are you willing to pay for? Exactly how
is the state to pay for this 'regional extinction'?
Not that I expect an answer from you, you've never answered it before.
You just make unsubstantiated suggestions and never come up with HOW!
Sue
Sue Bishop
>
> From article <1993Dec19.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
> sb> Russell, you have repeatedly distorted and edited and warped
> sb> my postings. I've repeatedly told you that recruitment is the
> sb> number of fawns that survive to six month of age.
>
> In article <CID0z...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> rl> And I've repeatedly explained to you that your definition of
> rl> recruitment doesn't fit the one used by wildlife biologists. Perhaps
> rl> Jeff Achenbach will take the time to explain it this time around.
>
> From article <1993Dec21.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
> sb> It would help if you would read just a little!
> sb>
> sb> '1. Recruitment. The number of offspring surviving to about six
> sb> months of age.' (The George Reserve Deer Herd, 'Chapter six,
> sb> 'Deriving a Recruitment Model', McCullough)
>
> This title is ambiguous, Sue. And, it's dated -- as I will
> demonstrate shortly.
What? Now you are claiming that McCullough's book is dated?
Please note that I am defining recruitment, not recruitment RATE.
The two terms are NOT exactly the same.
>
> Try reading this:
>
> ====================================================================
> Jeff Achenbach writes:
> ja> Perhaps you would both define "recruitment". It is not
> ja> crystal clear to me that you are using the term in the same
> ja> way. My interpretation is not simply number of deer born, but
> ja> rather, population _increase_. That is, births minus deaths
> ja> from all causes.
>
> From article <1993Nov12.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue
> Bishop):
I didn't make it entirely clear in that posting, I will admit that.
But recruitment and recruitment rate are not exactly the same.
Read the literature.
> sb> You are correct, recruitment is rate of population increase.
> ====================================================================
>
> Or better still, read this:
>
> "Net recruitment rate -- called "population change" in
> McCullough (1979) -- is defined as the number of recruits
> minus mortality of animals of recruitment age and older
> divided by the residual population. Productivity is the
> number of fawns born minus the combined mortality of all
> three kinds at a given residual population size."
>
He's talking about recruitment RATE!
> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
> Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p. 218.
>
> Make a note of the fact that McCullough warns readers that his
> terms had changed, and that the concept called "population
> change" in the 1979 book was henceforth labeled, "net recruitment
> rate".
>
Net recruitment rate is a percentage figure. Read The George Reserve
Deer Herd and especially the chapter on how to calculate a Recruitment
RATE model.
> sb> 'Net reproduction was measured as recruitment. Recruitment is a
> sb> useful concept in population studies since it is measured at
> sb> an age when the young are at some threshold of practical importance.
> sb> In this case, recruitment age was considered to be six months of
> sb> age - the autumn of the first year, when fawns were large enough
> sb> to be included in the harvest.'
>
Please note that this refers to NET recruitment AND recruitment age, two
different terms.
> Right. We can both agree that animals younger than six months of
> age aren't regarded as recruits.
>
> sb> The value of recruitment as a concept is that it integrates
> sb> BIRTHS AND EARLY MORTALITY WHEN DEATH IS MOST PROBABLE - each
> sb> of which is exceedingly difficult to measure in practice -
> sb> into one measure after survivorship begins to approach that of
> sb> older animals. Recruitment RATE is the number of recruits per
> sb> individual in the population producing the recruits.' (Lessons
> sb> from the George Reserve, McCullough)
> sb>
> sb> Well, Russell, care to eat your words?
>
> Your definitions are inconsistent, Sue. The definition used by
> McCullough in labeling his graphs is consistent with your previous
> definition, but inconsistent with your second definition.
>
NO, Russell, YOUR definitions are inconsistent. Goes right along with
your confusion in earlier postings where you confuse productivity and
rate of increase.
> sb> (See The George Reserve Deer Herd, McCullough, 1979, Chapter 6
> sb> (Since you just can't seem to find anything in any article I've
> sb> quoted) for more details on Deriving a Recruitment Model) IF
> sb> YOU HAVE A RECRUITMENT RATE OF ZERO THEN ALMOST NO FAWNS ARE
> sb> SURVIVING TO SIX MONTHS OF AGE!
>
> rl> This conclusion is unwarranted. A given population can achieve a
> rl> recruitment rate of zero in a particular year, even though all
> rl> the fawns have survived.
>
> sb> Please explain your statement in the context of the quotes above.
>
> Again, McCullough's graphs show that both net recruitment and net
> recruitment rate decline to zero as populations approach K. Since
> both figures include the mortality of older animals, it doesn't make
> sense to conclude that a net recruitment rate of zero necessarily
> means that no fawns are surviving.
Note that he is using two terms, net recruitment, net recruitment rate
and that recruitment itself is still another term.
>
> sb> Also, explain how that Verme and Ullrey state that 'At a low
> sb> plane of nutrition, mortality was 93% (referring to fawns)
> sb> and birth weight averaged 1.9 kilograms.' (Physiology and
> sb> Nutrition, Verme and Ullrey)
>
> Please explain precisely how the term "low plane of nutrition" is
> defined here. Are the authors referring to 2500 calorie per diem
> diets? 2750 calorie per diem diets? 3,125 calorie per diem diets?
> [Hint: The answer isn't in the text]
>
References are made to the literature that covers nutritional intake.
And Verme and Ullrey repeatedly give protein intake figures. Try reading
the article again.
> In the table that I presented previously, the term, "high plane
> of nutrition", designates a 4,375 calorie diet whereas the term,
> "low plane of nutrition", designates a 3,125 calorie diet.
>
> sb> This is very clearly covered in the article on Physiology and
> sb> Nutrition by Verme and Ullrey. They state that 'There is a
> sb> close relationship between maternal nutrition and neonatal
> sb> mortality.'
>
> rl> Yep.
>
> sb> Since I have to explain
> sb> EVERYTHING in very simple terms, neonatal MEANS at or around birth.
>
> rl> The definition of "neonatal" isn't an issue.
>
> sb> Sigh, Russell, PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE. Verme and Ullrey
> sb> very clearly state neonatal mortality figures for fawns from
> sb> mothers at a low rate of nutrition.
> sb>
> sb> And you claim you DON'T have a reading comprehension problem?
>
> As I said, the definition of "neonatal" isn't an issue here. Do you
> have a reading comprehension problem?
SO? What does a definition of neonatal have to do with your problem
about the 93% of mortality?
Sue
James M Hoskins
(Sue Bishop) writes:
>>
>> Russell Lawrence writes:
>>
>> In areas where deer cause significant losses, both (regional) extinction
>> and fencing could solve the problems.
>>
>
>OK, how many miles of fencing are you willing to pay for? Exactly how
>is the state to pay for this 'regional extinction'?
>Not that I expect an answer from you, you've never answered it before.
>You just make unsubstantiated suggestions and never come up with HOW!
>
>Sue
Don't overlook what Russell is saying here, Sue. Regional extinction.
You have a growing population of urban-based voters who are sympathetic
to animal rights. Eventually they will lobby to outlaw deer hunting.
The argument against having a deer population in a state such as Ohio
need not solely be based on animal rights arguments either. Support for
elimination of the deer herd might come from farm interests, insurance
companies, people in suburban/rural transitional zones who find the
annual hunt annoying, or through appeals to non-hunting nature lovers in
general who find excursions into the wild more satisfying without the
possibility of encountering hunters.
Before deer hunting is outright banned the population will be "culled."
Small herds will be maintained within enclosed areas and have their
populations controlled by contraception and sterilization.
I think the animal rights activists find it preferable that 400,000 deer
be hunted down to 10,000 to be maintained in nature preserves to an annual
repetitive cycle in which 100,000 deer are killed. You'll have to ask them
and see if you get an answer.
:
Russell Lawrence
Sue Bishop writes:
sb> Well, then there's just one solution to this, stop growing crops!
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> In areas where deer cause significant losses, both (regional) extinction
rl> and fencing could solve the problems.
From article <1993Dec22.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> OK, how many miles of fencing are you willing to pay
sb> for? Exactly how is the state to pay for this 'regional
sb> extinction'? Not that I expect an answer from you, you've
sb> never answered it before. You just make unsubstantiated
sb> suggestions and never come up with HOW!
I'll be happy to discuss fencing as soon as you clear up some
unfinished business.
Do you still believe that the value of recruitment rate,
as depicted in McCullough's graph, is a constant 100% as
population ranges between 0% and 100% of K? Or, do you
agree with Jeff Achenbach and myself that the value of
recruitment rate declines from 100% to 0% as population
density increases from 0% to 100% of K?
Russell Lawrence
From article <1993Dec21.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Well, then there's just one solution to this, stop growing crops!
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> In areas where deer cause significant losses, both (regional) extinction
rl> and fencing could solve the problems.
From article <2fa14j$7...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by jhos...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins):
jh> Don't overlook what Russell is saying here, Sue. Regional
jh> extinction.
jh>
jh> You have a growing population of urban-based voters who are
jh> sympathetic to animal rights. Eventually they will lobby
jh> to outlaw deer hunting. The argument against having a deer
jh> population in a state such as Ohio need not solely be based on
jh> animal rights arguments either. Support for elimination of the
jh> deer herd might come from farm interests, insurance companies,
jh> people in suburban/rural transitional zones who find the annual
jh> hunt annoying, or through appeals to non-hunting nature lovers
jh> in general who find excursions into the wild more satisfying
jh> without the possibility of encountering hunters.
jh>
jh> Before deer hunting is outright banned the population will be
jh> "culled." Small herds will be maintained within enclosed areas
jh> and have their populations controlled by contraception and
jh> sterilization.
jh>
jh> I think the animal rights activists find it preferable that
jh> 400,000 deer be hunted down to 10,000 to be maintained in
jh> nature preserves to an annual repetitive cycle in which 100,000
jh> deer are killed. You'll have to ask them and see if you get an
jh> answer.
Both you and Sue have complained vociferously about crop damage
in Ohio... a problem that hunting has not resolved. Apart from
fencing and regional extinction, plus Sue's suggestion ("stop
growing crops"), do you foresee any other solutions?
On the whole, you've given me the impression that deer crop
damage is a kind of magician's trick. Most of the time it's
vaporous, but it materializes instantly when the word "hunting
ban" is mentioned.
Russell Lawrence
rl> McCullough in labeling his graphs is consistent with your previous
rl> definition, but inconsistent with your second definition.
From article <1993Dec22.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> NO, Russell, YOUR definitions are inconsistent. Goes right
sb> along with your confusion in earlier postings where you
sb> confuse productivity and rate of increase.
Here's the evidence, Sue:
=========================================================================
From article <1993Dec21.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> It would help if you would read just a little!
sb>
sb> '1. Recruitment. The number of offspring surviving to about six
sb> months of age.' (The George Reserve Deer Herd, 'Chapter six,
sb> 'Deriving a Recruitment Model', McCullough)
=========================================================================
=========================================================================
From article <1993Nov12.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue
Jeff Achenbach writes:
ja> Perhaps you would both define "recruitment". It is not
ja> crystal clear to me that you are using the term in the same
ja> way. My interpretation is not simply number of deer born, but
ja> rather, population _increase_. That is, births minus deaths
ja> from all causes.
sb> You are correct, recruitment is rate of population increase.
=========================================================================
Hmm. You say that recruitment is the number of offspring surviving
to about six months of age, yet you also say that recruitment is
the rate of population increase.
As I explained previously, in the post-1979 period, McCullough used
the term 'recruitment' as a refined notion of 'productivity'. In
fact, one of the graphs that has elicited many unresolved disputes
between you and I is labeled as follows:
"Net recruitment numbers (productivity) for white-tailed
deer and mule deer depending upon residual population size."
This graph shows a parabolic curve that peaks where population = 56%
of K, and declines to zero where population = 100% of K, contrary
to your previous claims.
Recruitment is calculated by tabulating the fawns that have reached
the so-called age of recruitment (six months) and substracting
post-recruitment-age mortality of all types, including death from
old age. No doubt you will continue to argue, but we expect such
behavior from you.
Sue Bishop
Russell.... I'll make one last response to this question that you have
wasted tons of band width on. I'm not going to answer it. It's much
more fun to watch you post it over and over and over and over and....
And I really don't expect you to ever answer any of the myriad of questions
you have been asked by me and by others. You seem to have some kind of
pathological question answering block.
Sue
Russell Lawrence
rl> unfinished business.
rl>
rl> Do you still believe that the value of recruitment rate,
rl> as depicted in McCullough's graph, is a constant 100% as
rl> population ranges between 0% and 100% of K? Or, do you
rl> agree with Jeff Achenbach and myself that the value of
rl> recruitment rate declines from 100% to 0% as population
rl> density increases from 0% to 100% of K?
From article <1993Dec23.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Russell.... I'll make one last response to this question
sb> that you have wasted tons of band width on. I'm not going to
sb> answer it. It's much more fun to watch you post it over and
sb> over and over and over and....
sb>
sb> And I really don't expect you to ever answer any of the
sb> myriad of questions you have been asked by me and by others.
sb> You seem to have some kind of pathological question answering
sb> block.
Your refusal to concede this particular mistake is going to hurt
you down the road. As it stands, your public position on deer
population dynamics is based on a gross mistake that will be
readily apparent to any intelligent reader who takes the time to
examine the supporting material.
Let's reiterate:
Contrary to your previous statements, including one comment
that you attributed to McCullough, the graphs of recruitment
rates presented in figures 1 and 2 of McCullough's 1987 paper
show that both net recruitment and net recruitment rates of
whitetail deer decline to zero as populations approach "carrying
capacity" (aka K).
See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
p 537.
My hat's off to Jeff Achenbach for taking the time to read the
article. If we've heard the last word from you on this
subject, perhaps Jeff and I can now pursue this topic in greater
detail.
Sue Bishop
Go ahead, post this again and again and again and ......
> See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
> Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
> p 537.
>
> My hat's off to Jeff Achenbach for taking the time to read the
> article. If we've heard the last word from you on this
> subject, perhaps Jeff and I can now pursue this topic in greater
> detail.
Oh, I think that Jeff is doing this for the same reason I am doing it...
entertainment value. And to see how many ways we can ask you questions
that you refuse to answer.
Are you going to keep refusing to go back to the very original start of
this whole discussion which was how to control the vast deer herds that
are exploding in population all over the midwest and various other areas
of the country? You insist that sport hunting is never justified, yet
Dr. McCullough (BTW, it is rude on your part to call him 'Dale' when you
are definitely not on first name basis with him...) is definite in saying
in his book and articles that hunting is the main control on the deer herds,
even though you have tried to prove otherwise by selective quoting.
For example, you have repeatedly quoted one short section out of a larger
section where he definitely says that hunting IS necessary but your selection
is out of context. This is a tactic that is commonly used by fundamentalist
Christians to try to bolster their 'emotional agenda' against science.
Sue
Russell Lawrence
rl> Let's reiterate:
rl>
rl> Contrary to your previous statements, including one comment
rl> that you attributed to McCullough, the graphs of recruitment
rl> rates presented in figures 1 and 2 of McCullough's 1987 paper
rl> show that both net recruitment and net recruitment rates of
rl> whitetail deer decline to zero as populations approach "carrying
rl> capacity" (aka K).
rl>
rl> See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
rl> Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
rl> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
rl> p 537.
From article <1993Dec23.2...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Go ahead, post this again and again and again and ......
These graphs represent an important body of facts, as you know
quite well. They not only show wildlife managers that herd
increases can be maximized but they demonstrate that herd increases
can be minimized as well, right down to the zero point.
rl> My hat's off to Jeff Achenbach for taking the time to read the
rl> article. If we've heard the last word from you on this
rl> subject, perhaps Jeff and I can now pursue this topic in greater
rl> detail.
sb> Oh, I think that Jeff is doing this for the same reason I am
sb> doing it... entertainment value. And to see how many ways we
sb> can ask you questions that you refuse to answer.
Thanks for mentioning this. I've suspected for quite some time
that education wasn't your goal, and your use of the word "bimbo"
to label a new tpa participant yesterday further confirmed my
suspicions. However, I suspect that you're misjudging Jeff.
sb> Are you going to keep refusing to go back to the very original
sb> start of this whole discussion which was how to control the
sb> vast deer herds that are exploding in population all over the
sb> midwest and various other areas of the country?
Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand all the elements of
our problem before setting out to "control" it.
sb> You insist that
sb> sport hunting is never justified, yet Dr. McCullough (BTW, it
sb> is rude on your part to call him 'Dale' when you are definitely
sb> not on first name basis with him...) is definite in saying in
sb> his book and articles that hunting is the main control on the
sb> deer herds, even though you have tried to prove otherwise by
sb> selective quoting.
McCullough clearly states that hunting isn't always necessary,
and his papers explain some of the principles that could be put
to use in stabilizing deer environments without resort to hunting.
sb> For example, you have repeatedly quoted one short section out
sb> of a larger section where he definitely says that hunting IS
sb> necessary but your selection is out of context. This is a
sb> tactic that is commonly used by fundamentalist Christians to
sb> try to bolster their 'emotional agenda' against science.
In the passage that you're designating, McCullough explicitly states
that hunting isn't always necessary.
"Is Hunting Necessary"
"To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an
article of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That
a hunting harvest is sustainable is not the same thing as being
necessary. Certainly, the damage to vegetation that results in
lowering K and the productivity curve of a given management unit
is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the George
Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area
is managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population
is harvested only because of the destruction that resulted when
it was not controlled. Deer are the only animals (or plants) on
the Reserve that are artificially controlled."
"However, it does not follow that all deer populations should
be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
deer populations have no problem."
From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
_White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
Readers will notice that McCullough refers to the environmental
damage on the George Reserve that occurred in the absence of
hunting. Elsewhere in his papers, McCullough explains that this
damage was caused by a destructive population overshoot that
occurred as a direct result of excessive exploitation (ie hunting).
In one sense, culling was clearly necessary, but in another sense,
most of the culling could have been avoided. (references on request)
Sue Bishop
> Russell Lawrence writes:
> rl> Let's reiterate:
> rl>
> rl> Contrary to your previous statements, including one comment
> rl> that you attributed to McCullough, the graphs of recruitment
> rl> rates presented in figures 1 and 2 of McCullough's 1987 paper
> rl> show that both net recruitment and net recruitment rates of
> rl> whitetail deer decline to zero as populations approach "carrying
> rl> capacity" (aka K).
> rl>
> rl> See McCullough, Dale. "The Theory and Management of Odocoileus
> rl> Populations", in Wemmer, C, ed. _Biology and Management of the
> rl> Cervidae_. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington, 1987.
> rl> p 537.
>
> From article <1993Dec23.2...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
> sb> Go ahead, post this again and again and again and ......
>
> These graphs represent an important body of facts, as you know
> quite well. They not only show wildlife managers that herd
> increases can be maximized but they demonstrate that herd increases
> can be minimized as well, right down to the zero point.
>
And once again, you are ignoring that in a low plane of nutrition, Verme
and Ullrey say that production averages 54% for does. You keep insisting
that herd increases 'can be minimized down to zero'. No where in the
literature does it EVER say that production (otherwise known as herd
increase) is zero. In fact, it says that doe production is 54%. That's
herd increase of 27%. Yet you keep insisting that it is zero. Make up
your mind! To get to a recruitment point of zero, when production is
27% per herd, you have to have a mortality of 27%. You keep ignoring that.
> rl> My hat's off to Jeff Achenbach for taking the time to read the
> rl> article. If we've heard the last word from you on this
> rl> subject, perhaps Jeff and I can now pursue this topic in greater
> rl> detail.
>
> sb> Oh, I think that Jeff is doing this for the same reason I am
> sb> doing it... entertainment value. And to see how many ways we
> sb> can ask you questions that you refuse to answer.
>
> Thanks for mentioning this. I've suspected for quite some time
> that education wasn't your goal, and your use of the word "bimbo"
> to label a new tpa participant yesterday further confirmed my
> suspicions. However, I suspect that you're misjudging Jeff.
>
I do NOTHING, unless I 'have to do it or it gives me entertainment value'.
Obviously, you haven't learned this very essential fact about how to
enjoy life.
It's a good philosophy to live by. Reduces stress, improves life quality.
> sb> Are you going to keep refusing to go back to the very original
> sb> start of this whole discussion which was how to control the
> sb> vast deer herds that are exploding in population all over the
> sb> midwest and various other areas of the country?
>
> Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand all the elements of
> our problem before setting out to "control" it.
Russell, you NEVER will understand all the elements of the problem until
you get over your emotional attachment to your fixation on the one particular
sentence and the one particular graph.
Actually, I have very little confidence that you will EVER understand all
the elements of the problem. You don't live with the problem, you live
in a very isolated world, as anyone who lives in the city does.
>
> sb> You insist that
> sb> sport hunting is never justified, yet Dr. McCullough (BTW, it
> sb> is rude on your part to call him 'Dale' when you are definitely
> sb> not on first name basis with him...) is definite in saying in
> sb> his book and articles that hunting is the main control on the
> sb> deer herds, even though you have tried to prove otherwise by
> sb> selective quoting.
>
> McCullough clearly states that hunting isn't always necessary,
> and his papers explain some of the principles that could be put
> to use in stabilizing deer environments without resort to hunting.
>
That's DR. McCullough! Why don't you call him and ask him? I did. I asked
him if deer herds can easily be stabilized without hunting. He said, that
for the most part, the white-tailed deer just doesn't stabilize without
hunting. They almost always tend to do into overshoot of K, cause serious
environmental damage and start starving. He also referred to the white-tailed
as 'The Forest Weed'. Go ahead, anyone on the group is encouraged to call
Dr. McCullough and ask him if this is true or not.
An article that documents destructive overshoots is his fairly lengthy
article on the deer population on North Manitou Island in Michigan.
(McCullough, 'The White-tailed Deer of North Manitou Island', Hilgardia,
Vol 55, No. 9, Dec. 1987)
A quote from the article...
'Although the results obtained on NMI represent an extreme case
of prolonged overbrowsing and overpopulation, they illustrate the potential
of white-tailed deer to influence forest vegetation.'....
'Similarly, Marquis (1981) found that high deer populations over
several decades had resulted in the complete elimination of understory
vegetation in uncut northern hardwoods stands on the Allegheny Plateau
of Pennsylvania.'....
'Deer will continue to affect the vegetation on NMI as long as the
size of the herd is determined by winter mortality. If the deer population
is reduced and THEN MAINTAINED AT A LOW LEVEL BY HUNTING OR OTHER HUMAN
INTERVENTION, changes in the structure and composition of vegetation
on the island could be expected.'.....
'The changes brought by 40 years' deer overpopulation on NMI will
BE EVIDENT FOR MANY YEARS, even if managers achieve effective deer herd
control.'
> sb> For example, you have repeatedly quoted one short section out
> sb> of a larger section where he definitely says that hunting IS
> sb> necessary but your selection is out of context. This is a
> sb> tactic that is commonly used by fundamentalist Christians to
> sb> try to bolster their 'emotional agenda' against science.
>
> In the passage that you're designating, McCullough explicitly states
> that hunting isn't always necessary.
>
> "Is Hunting Necessary"
>
> "To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an
> article of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That
> a hunting harvest is sustainable is not the same thing as being
> necessary. Certainly, the damage to vegetation that results in
> lowering K and the productivity curve of a given management unit
> is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the George
> Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area
> is managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population
> is harvested only because of the destruction that resulted when
> it was not controlled. Deer are the only animals (or plants) on
> the Reserve that are artificially controlled."
>
And WHY are the deer controlled by hunting? Could it be that they don't
stabilize WITHOUT hunting?
> "However, it does not follow that all deer populations should
> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
> deer populations have no problem."
>
Readers of the article will also note that Russell omits the following
paragraphs which state that hunting is often necessary and that 'wildlife
biologists and managers must distinguish between cases where hunting is
necessary and where it is not.'
Russell has gone on record for saying that he considers hunting to
'never be necessary'. In this area, he disagrees with Dr. McCullough who
is a world expert on deer.
> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
> Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
>
> Readers will notice that McCullough refers to the environmental
> damage on the George Reserve that occurred in the absence of
> hunting. Elsewhere in his papers, McCullough explains that this
> damage was caused by a destructive population overshoot that
> occurred as a direct result of excessive exploitation (ie hunting).
> In one sense, culling was clearly necessary, but in another sense,
> most of the culling could have been avoided. (references on request)
>
Russell again refuses to understand that in many, many areas of the country,
deer herds are recovering from being extremely depressed in the early
part of this century. He also refuses to understand that predation of
some kind is necessary to control these burgeoning herds. He insists
that fertility limitations alone will control them BEFORE they destroy
their environment. No one else who has read the literature, seen the
vast numbers of deer that are rapidly increasing, and been able to understand
the amount of damage that the herds are capable of causing agrees with
Russell.
Sue
Russell Lawrence
rl> quite well. They not only show wildlife managers that herd
rl> increases can be maximized but they demonstrate that herd increases
rl> can be minimized as well, right down to the zero point.
From article <1993Dec24.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> And once again, you are ignoring that in a low plane of
sb> nutrition, Verme and Ullrey say that production averages 54%
sb> for does. You keep insisting that herd increases 'can be
sb> minimized down to zero'. No where in the literature does it
sb> EVER say that production (otherwise known as herd increase)
sb> is zero...
The graphs that you've refused to discuss (since Jeff Achenbach
contradicted your claims) clearly show that net recruitment rate, aka
productivity, declines to zero as populations approach K.
Let's define "production":
"Production is the number of fawns born minus the combined
mortality of all three kinds at a given residual population
size."
From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
_White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p. 218
BTW, the three kinds of mortality are: prerecruitment, chronic (old
age, disease, malnutrition, etc), and traumatic (accidents,
predation, etc).
sb> In fact, it says that doe production is 54%. That's herd increase
sb> of 27%.
Not really.
Verme showed that does consuming 3,125 calories in the critical
period prior to mating produced 0.54 fawns per doe, wherease
does consuming 4,375 calories produced 1.50 fawns per doe. This
doesn't mean that the herds containing such does would have
increased by 27%. To calculate herd increase, we'd need to
know the number of females of reproductive age. And,
we'd need to know the post-recruitment mortality figures.
Incidently, it's worth mentioning, once again, how low calorie
diets affect the sexual distributions of deer herds. On the
high calorie diet, the does in Verme's studies produced an
average of 0.85 female fawns and 0.65 male fawns per doe.
By contrast, the does on the low calorie diet produced an
average of 0.15 female fawns and 0.39 male fawns. You'll
notice that female fawn production declines substantially more
than male fawn production. Such skewing would further reduce
fertility in subsequent years.
sb> Yet you keep insisting that it is zero. Make up your mind!
You're confused, Sue.
sb> To get to a recruitment point of zero, when production is
sb> 27% per herd, you have to have a mortality of 27%. You keep
sb> ignoring that.
No, I haven't ignored that at all.
sb> Oh, I think that Jeff is doing this for the same reason I am
sb> doing it... entertainment value. And to see how many ways we
sb> can ask you questions that you refuse to answer.
rl> Thanks for mentioning this. I've suspected for quite some time
rl> that education wasn't your goal, and your use of the word "bimbo"
rl> to label a new tpa participant yesterday further confirmed my
rl> suspicions. However, I suspect that you're misjudging Jeff.
sb> I do NOTHING, unless I 'have to do it or it gives me
sb> entertainment value'. Obviously, you haven't learned this very
sb> essential fact about how to enjoy life. It's a good philosophy
sb> to live by. Reduces stress, improves life quality.
It's possible to enjoy life without insulting people, Sue. And
it's also possible to enjoy life without adopting a frivolous
approach to topics that some people take seriously.
sb> Are you going to keep refusing to go back to the very original
sb> start of this whole discussion which was how to control the
sb> vast deer herds that are exploding in population all over the
sb> midwest and various other areas of the country?
rl> Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand all the elements of
rl> our problem before setting out to "control" it.
sb> Russell, you NEVER will understand all the elements of the
sb> problem until you get over your emotional attachment to your
sb> fixation on the one particular sentence and the one particular
sb> graph.
sb>
sb> Actually, I have very little confidence that you will EVER
sb> understand all the elements of the problem. You don't live with
sb> the problem, you live in a very isolated world, as anyone who
sb> lives in the city does.
You're invoking another an 'ad hominem' fallacy, Sue.
rl> McCullough clearly states that hunting isn't always necessary,
rl> and his papers explain some of the principles that could be put
rl> to use in stabilizing deer environments without resort to hunting.
sb> That's DR. McCullough! Why don't you call him and ask him? I
sb> did. I asked him if deer herds can easily be stabilized without
sb> hunting. He said, that for the most part, the white-tailed deer
sb> just doesn't stabilize without hunting.
This would contradict his published statements, Sue. (read on)
sb> They almost always tend to do into overshoot of K, cause
sb> serious environmental damage and start starving.
This would also contradict his published statements, Sue.
sb> He also referred to the white-tailed as
sb> 'The Forest Weed'. Go ahead, anyone on the group is encouraged
sb> to call Dr. McCullough and ask him if this is true or not.
You're being inconsiderate with his time, don't you think?
rl> Quoting McCullough (1984)
rl>
rl> "Is Hunting Necessary"
rl>
rl> "To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an
rl> article of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That
rl> a hunting harvest is sustainable is not the same thing as being
rl> necessary. Certainly, the damage to vegetation that results in
rl> lowering K and the productivity curve of a given management unit
rl> is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the George
rl> Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area
rl> is managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population
rl> is harvested only because of the destruction that resulted when
rl> it was not controlled. Deer are the only animals (or plants) on
rl> the Reserve that are artificially controlled."
sb> And WHY are the deer controlled by hunting? Could it be that
sb> they don't stabilize WITHOUT hunting?
This hasn't been clearly established. There have been two documented
population overshoots on the George Reserve, and both of these were
attributed to accumulated resources that had developed as a direct
consequence of over-exploitation (ie excessive hunting).
rl> "However, it does not follow that all deer populations should
rl> be or need to be hunted. First, environments that are stable
rl> can sustain equilibrium relationships between residual
rl> populations and K. Most wildlife biologists and managers can
rl> point to situations where deer populations have not been hunted
rl> yet do not fluctuate greatly or cause damage to vegetation.
rl> Certainly deer reach overpopulation status in some park
rl> situations, but the surprising thing is how many parks containing
rl> deer populations have no problem."
sb> Readers of the article will also note that Russell omits
sb> the following paragraphs which state that hunting is often
sb> necessary and that 'wildlife biologists and managers must
sb> distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and
sb> where it is not.'
Here are the paragraphs that were omitted. You'll be hardpressed
to find a passage where McCullough states that hunting is often
necessary:
"Second, in extremely fluctuating environments, hunting is
NOT necessary because environmental variation regularly
results in the population being below K. The very
characteristics that make ad hoc management for hunting
necessary in such environments make it UNNECESSARY to hunt
at all.
"Third, hunting in moderately fluctuating environments is
not necessary if a good complement of effective natural
predators is present. The selectivity of natural predators
(more correctly stated as the vulnerability of the prey) is
a more exact way to retain equilibrium values of residual
populations. Hunting can accomplish the same end, but
because of its lack of selectivity, a higher kill is
required than for natural predation to achieve the same end.
Stated another way, natural predators are better at reducing
chronic mortality than are human hunters, because the former
remove the vulnerable individuals most likely to succomb
to chronic mortality factors. Thus there is very high
substitutability of predator kills for chronic mortality,
while for human hunting, chronic mortality is somewhat more
additive, although still substitutable to a considerable
extent.
"As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must
distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and
where it is not. It is possible to recognize the legitimate
interests and necessary roles of human hunters without
becoming apologists or advocates for the recreation. Bias
toward hunting in situations where hunting is not necessary
can only result in loss of credibility. Professional
integrity demands that no side of a controversy be given
favor on biological grounds that cannot be justified by the
biology of the case under review. If hunters are favored
because they pay the costs of management through license
fees and special taxes, let that be the justification, and
not an INDEFENSIBLE position that hunting is necessary in
cases where it is not.
sb> Russell has gone on record for saying that he considers
sb> hunting to 'never be necessary'. In this area, he disagrees
sb> with Dr. McCullough who is a world expert on deer.
You're misquoting me. I've stated that sport hunting is never
necessary. The fact that I wouldn't approve of the practice of
hunting homeless dogs and cats with bows and arrows doesn't mean
that I don't approve of euthanasia for homeless animals. And the
fact that I don't approve of sport hunting doesn't mean that I
wouldn't sanction killing deer if/when it can be established that
such killing would serve their best interests as individuals.
rl> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve",
rl> LK Halls, ed, _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_.
rl> Stackpole Books: Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
rl>
rl> Readers will notice that McCullough refers to the
rl> environmental damage on the George Reserve that occurred in
rl> the absence of hunting. Elsewhere in his papers, McCullough
rl> explains that this damage was caused by a destructive
rl> population overshoot that occurred as a direct result of
rl> excessive exploitation (ie hunting). In one sense, culling
rl> was clearly necessary, but in another sense, most of the
rl> culling could have been avoided. (references on request)
sb> Russell again refuses to understand that in many, many
sb> areas of the country, deer herds are recovering from being
sb> extremely depressed in the early part of this century.
I understand this quite well.
sb> He also refuses to understand that predation of some kind is
sb> necessary to control these burgeoning herds. He insists that
sb> fertility limitations alone will control them BEFORE they
sb> destroy their environment.
Once again, you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting my views.
Why don't you debate me, rather than debating a strawman?
Russell Lawrence
From article <CIKA6...@wpg.com>, by ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
> Verme showed that does consuming 3,125 calories in the critical
> period prior to mating produced 0.54 fawns per doe, wherease
> does consuming 4,375 calories produced 1.50 fawns per doe. This
> doesn't mean that the herds containing such does would have
> increased by 27%. To calculate herd increase, we'd need to
> know the number of females of reproductive age. And,
> we'd need to know the post-recruitment mortality figures.
To calculate herd increases, we would need to know both
pre-recruitment and post-recruitment mortality figures.
Leor H Jacobi
Sue Bishop <sbi...@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>I do NOTHING, unless I 'have to do it or it gives me entertainment value'.
>Obviously, you haven't learned this very essential fact about how to
>enjoy life.
>It's a good philosophy to live by. Reduces stress, improves life quality.
What a horribly repugnant self-centered personal philosophy.
Your calling that woman a bimbo also warrants an apology on your part. It
was uncalled for.
>Actually, I have very little confidence that you will EVER understand all
>the elements of the problem. You don't live with the problem, you live
>in a very isolated world, as anyone who lives in the city does.
Yep. Us city-slickers sure are ignorant.
Being so isolated and all. Would you have everyone who lives in a city
excluded from the hunting issue?
Sue Bishop
> In article <1993Dec24.0...@desire.wright.edu>,
> Sue Bishop <sbi...@desire.wright.edu> wrote:
>
>>I do NOTHING, unless I 'have to do it or it gives me entertainment value'.
>>Obviously, you haven't learned this very essential fact about how to
>>enjoy life.
>>It's a good philosophy to live by. Reduces stress, improves life quality.
>
> What a horribly repugnant self-centered personal philosophy.
>
Hey, you live your life your way, I'll live mine the way I want. BTW, I
find enjoyment in many different areas, including raising children,
rescuing starving horses, doing volunteer work as an adocate for teens
at our local juvenile court, collecting warm clothing for the local battered
womens's shelter and various other community activities. What are YOU
doing for your entertainment? I got royally flamed for suggesting that
a few of the AR supporters in this group might find some personal satisfaction
in taking in an abandoned and neglected child as a foster child. I was
told repeatedly by the group that it was 'irrelevant to the group's discussion
and purpose'. I also found that no one in this group had any interest in
abandoned children.......
Wanna talk about self-centered?
> Your calling that woman a bimbo also warrants an apology on your part. It
> was uncalled for.
>
Bobbi and I have exchanged e-mail. Take my word for it..... I can tell a
bimbo when I correspond with one!
>>Actually, I have very little confidence that you will EVER understand all
>>the elements of the problem. You don't live with the problem, you live
>>in a very isolated world, as anyone who lives in the city does.
>
> Yep. Us city-slickers sure are ignorant.
> Being so isolated and all. Would you have everyone who lives in a city
> excluded from the hunting issue?
>
I really don't see where it affects your life in any way. Or has any thing
to do with you at all. You don't have to worry about your livelihood being
affected, or your life endangered by hitting a deer. BTW, in my family
alone, there have been three deer/car collisions in the past month. My
son also came very close to plowing into a herd of about 20 within the last
week. Luckily no one was injured except one deer which got knocked about
20 feet after colliding with our very heavy pickup truck.
Too many city folk read distorted information about animals from their local
AR group and then think they 'know it all'. Sorta like the woman who showed
up on the doorstep of a friend of mine to scream at her, accusing her of
blindfolding her horses in the pasture. She was very embarrassed when my
friend gently explained the horses were wearing gauze fly masks to keep
flies off their faces.
Sue
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sue Bishop
>
> In article <CIIx5...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
> rl> These graphs represent an important body of facts, as you know
> rl> quite well. They not only show wildlife managers that herd
> rl> increases can be maximized but they demonstrate that herd increases
> rl> can be minimized as well, right down to the zero point.
>
> From article <1993Dec24.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
> sb> And once again, you are ignoring that in a low plane of
> sb> nutrition, Verme and Ullrey say that production averages 54%
> sb> for does. You keep insisting that herd increases 'can be
> sb> minimized down to zero'. No where in the literature does it
> sb> EVER say that production (otherwise known as herd increase)
> sb> is zero...
>
> The graphs that you've refused to discuss (since Jeff Achenbach
> contradicted your claims) clearly show that net recruitment rate, aka
> productivity, declines to zero as populations approach K.
>
> Let's define "production":
>
> "Production is the number of fawns born minus the combined
> mortality of all three kinds at a given residual population
> size."
>
(Once again, Russell is selectively quoting one sentence out
of a paragraph. And, not surprisingly, he has altered the
sentence, probably deliberately, to change the meaning.
Let's post the CORRECT word in the sentence.)
'PRODUCTIVITY is the number of fawns born minus the combined
mortality of all three kinds at a given residual population size.'
Russell has repeatedly claimed that there is minimal mortality involved
at low nutritional values. Since Verme and Ullrey give productivity
figures as 54% at the low nutritional value, I wonder why Russell ignores
this. Russell is also trying to equate Recruitment and Productivity. They
are not the same. In the same paragraph as Russell's altered sentence,
the definition of recruitment is given.
'Net Recruitment rate - called 'population change' in McCullough (1979)
- is defined as the NUMBER OF RECRUITS minus MORTALITY of animals of
RECRUITMENT AGE and OLDER divided by the residual population (Figure 50a).
PRODUCTIVITY is the number of fawns born minus the combined mortality of
ALL THREE KINDS at a given residual population size.'
It is very evident that these two figures are NOT the same. The recruitment
figure does not include prerecruitment mortality. And productivity is
generally figured using birth dates as a calculation point. Verme and Ullrey
make this clear in their article since they have a whole section on neonatal
mortality which is a major mortality factor at low nutritional planes.
'There is a close relationship between maternal nutrition and
neonatal mortality (Verme 1962, 1963). When pregnant does are
well fed, fawning loss averaged 7 and birth weight averaged 3.5 k.
At a LOW PLANE OF NUTRITION, MORTALITY WAS 93% and birth weight
averaged 1.9 k.' (Verme and Ullrey, 1984)
> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve", LK Halls, ed,
> _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_. Stackpole Books:
> Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p. 218
>
> BTW, the three kinds of mortality are: prerecruitment, chronic (old
> age, disease, malnutrition, etc), and traumatic (accidents,
> predation, etc).
>
> sb> In fact, it says that doe production is 54%. That's herd increase
> sb> of 27%.
>
> Not really.
>
> Verme showed that does consuming 3,125 calories in the critical
> period prior to mating produced 0.54 fawns per doe, wherease
> does consuming 4,375 calories produced 1.50 fawns per doe. This
> doesn't mean that the herds containing such does would have
> increased by 27%. To calculate herd increase, we'd need to
> know the number of females of reproductive age. And,
> we'd need to know the post-recruitment mortality figures.
>
While it is true that the doe numbers are not known in calculating
27% as herd increase, it is also true that you are ignoring all mortality
figures in saying that fertility alone will limit herd increase.
> Incidently, it's worth mentioning, once again, how low calorie
> diets affect the sexual distributions of deer herds. On the
> high calorie diet, the does in Verme's studies produced an
> average of 0.85 female fawns and 0.65 male fawns per doe.
> By contrast, the does on the low calorie diet produced an
> average of 0.15 female fawns and 0.39 male fawns. You'll
> notice that female fawn production declines substantially more
> than male fawn production. Such skewing would further reduce
> fertility in subsequent years.
>
This still doesn't put production of fawns at zero.
> sb> Yet you keep insisting that it is zero. Make up your mind!
>
> You're confused, Sue.
>
> sb> To get to a recruitment point of zero, when production is
> sb> 27% per herd, you have to have a mortality of 27%. You keep
> sb> ignoring that.
>
> No, I haven't ignored that at all.
Yet you have repeatedly insisted that fertility limitations alone will
set herd increase to zero.
>
> sb> Oh, I think that Jeff is doing this for the same reason I am
> sb> doing it... entertainment value. And to see how many ways we
> sb> can ask you questions that you refuse to answer.
>
> rl> Thanks for mentioning this. I've suspected for quite some time
> rl> that education wasn't your goal, and your use of the word "bimbo"
> rl> to label a new tpa participant yesterday further confirmed my
> rl> suspicions. However, I suspect that you're misjudging Jeff.
>
Well, Jeff, are you doing this for any particular reason?
> sb> I do NOTHING, unless I 'have to do it or it gives me
> sb> entertainment value'. Obviously, you haven't learned this very
> sb> essential fact about how to enjoy life. It's a good philosophy
> sb> to live by. Reduces stress, improves life quality.
>
> It's possible to enjoy life without insulting people, Sue. And
> it's also possible to enjoy life without adopting a frivolous
> approach to topics that some people take seriously.
>
Russell, you take too many things too seriously. In my case, I've decided
that since life is short, why not enjoy it? Anyway, since I've stared
my mortality in the face more times recently than I'd care to remember,
I have learned that being too serious just is too depressing.
> sb> Are you going to keep refusing to go back to the very original
> sb> start of this whole discussion which was how to control the
> sb> vast deer herds that are exploding in population all over the
> sb> midwest and various other areas of the country?
>
> rl> Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand all the elements of
> rl> our problem before setting out to "control" it.
>
> sb> Russell, you NEVER will understand all the elements of the
> sb> problem until you get over your emotional attachment to your
> sb> fixation on the one particular sentence and the one particular
> sb> graph.
> sb>
> sb> Actually, I have very little confidence that you will EVER
> sb> understand all the elements of the problem. You don't live with
> sb> the problem, you live in a very isolated world, as anyone who
> sb> lives in the city does.
>
> You're invoking another an 'ad hominem' fallacy, Sue.
Saying you live in the city is 'ad hominem'? That's funny, I thought
you DID live in the city. When did you move?
>
> rl> McCullough clearly states that hunting isn't always necessary,
> rl> and his papers explain some of the principles that could be put
> rl> to use in stabilizing deer environments without resort to hunting.
>
> sb> That's DR. McCullough! Why don't you call him and ask him? I
> sb> did. I asked him if deer herds can easily be stabilized without
> sb> hunting. He said, that for the most part, the white-tailed deer
> sb> just doesn't stabilize without hunting.
>
> This would contradict his published statements, Sue. (read on)
>
But Dr. McCullough does consider hunting to be necessary quite often.
That IS published over and over again in his articles. You just keep
selectively taking out sentences (out of context) and trying to say
otherwise.
> sb> They almost always tend to do into overshoot of K, cause
> sb> serious environmental damage and start starving.
>
> This would also contradict his published statements, Sue.
>
Once again, this is an accurate quote from Dr. McCullough. Ask him, if you
dare.
> sb> He also referred to the white-tailed as
> sb> 'The Forest Weed'. Go ahead, anyone on the group is encouraged
> sb> to call Dr. McCullough and ask him if this is true or not.
>
> You're being inconsiderate with his time, don't you think?
>
I really liked talking to Dr. McCullough. He's a very nice and informative
person. And he has no problem (at least he told me to call him again some
time) with answering serious questions about the white-tailed deer. I've
quoted him accurately as to his comments on the deer and on AR activists.
I've noticed that nothing you have posted about your conversation with him
contradicts anything I've posted about my conversations. BTW, one conversation
with him, HE called ME!
> rl> Quoting McCullough (1984)
> rl>
> rl> "Is Hunting Necessary"
> rl>
> rl> "To many wildlife biologists and resource managers, it is an
> rl> article of faith that deer populations need to be hunted. That
> rl> a hunting harvest is sustainable is not the same thing as being
> rl> necessary. Certainly, the damage to vegetation that results in
> rl> lowering K and the productivity curve of a given management unit
> rl> is a good argument in favor of hunting. Indeed, the George
> rl> Reserve deer population is a classic case. This research area
> rl> is managed as a natural area for research, and the deer population
> rl> is harvested only because of the destruction that resulted when
> rl> it was not controlled. Deer are the only animals (or plants) on
> rl> the Reserve that are artificially controlled."
>
> sb> And WHY are the deer controlled by hunting? Could it be that
> sb> they don't stabilize WITHOUT hunting?
>
> This hasn't been clearly established. There have been two documented
> population overshoots on the George Reserve, and both of these were
> attributed to accumulated resources that had developed as a direct
> consequence of over-exploitation (ie excessive hunting).
Dr. McCullough also wrote an article about deer on North Manitou Island
in Michigan, documenting several overshoots caused by deer over-population.
The first overshoot in the George Reserve was not due to hunting at all.
Read the literature. Besides, the deer are the only species in the George
Reserve that are controlled by hunting. You've repeatedly said that once
the population has consumed the accumulated resources then it will stabilize.
Why, then, does the population have to be hunted every year to control its
numbers?
Please explain where that there are natural predators (other than man)
available in the vast majority of deer herds.
> "As professionals, wildlife biologists and managers must
> distinguish between cases where hunting is necessary and
> where it is not. It is possible to recognize the legitimate
> interests and necessary roles of human hunters without
> becoming apologists or advocates for the recreation. Bias
> toward hunting in situations where hunting is not necessary
> can only result in loss of credibility. Professional
> integrity demands that no side of a controversy be given
> favor on biological grounds that cannot be justified by the
> biology of the case under review. If hunters are favored
> because they pay the costs of management through license
> fees and special taxes, let that be the justification, and
> not an INDEFENSIBLE position that hunting is necessary in
> cases where it is not.
>
Yet you are favoring just one side of a controversy by saying that hunting
is not necessary, a statement you have made repeatedly.
> sb> Russell has gone on record for saying that he considers
> sb> hunting to 'never be necessary'. In this area, he disagrees
> sb> with Dr. McCullough who is a world expert on deer.
>
> You're misquoting me. I've stated that sport hunting is never
> necessary. The fact that I wouldn't approve of the practice of
> hunting homeless dogs and cats with bows and arrows doesn't mean
> that I don't approve of euthanasia for homeless animals. And the
> fact that I don't approve of sport hunting doesn't mean that I
> wouldn't sanction killing deer if/when it can be established that
> such killing would serve their best interests as individuals.
>
This is a switch from your previous positions. You've often argued that
hunting is NEVER necessary. So glad to see you coming around to our
way of thinking on this matter. However, you have never come up with
any viable and non-expensive alternative to sport hunting. Since sport
hunting adds money to state treasuries and the alternatives you suggest
COST money to state treasuries, I'm really surprised that you think you
are going to get much support from governments on your stance.
> rl> From McCullough, Dale. "Lessons from the George Reserve",
> rl> LK Halls, ed, _White-Tailed Deer: Ecology and Management_.
> rl> Stackpole Books: Harrisburg, PA, 1984. p 239-240
> rl>
> rl> Readers will notice that McCullough refers to the
> rl> environmental damage on the George Reserve that occurred in
> rl> the absence of hunting. Elsewhere in his papers, McCullough
> rl> explains that this damage was caused by a destructive
> rl> population overshoot that occurred as a direct result of
> rl> excessive exploitation (ie hunting). In one sense, culling
> rl> was clearly necessary, but in another sense, most of the
> rl> culling could have been avoided. (references on request)
>
The first destructive overshoot had nothing to do with hunting at all,
something Russell repeatedly ignores. The original owner introduced six
deer into an enclosed area. These deer increased rapidly and it became
very evident to the university that the population would have to be controlled.
The original introduction was in 1928, hunting to control the population was
started in 1933, just five years later. Deer are very productive animals.
While nominally considered K selected animals, due to their high productivity,
they really tend toward the r selection end of the scale.
> sb> Russell again refuses to understand that in many, many
> sb> areas of the country, deer herds are recovering from being
> sb> extremely depressed in the early part of this century.
>
> I understand this quite well.
>
> sb> He also refuses to understand that predation of some kind is
> sb> necessary to control these burgeoning herds. He insists that
> sb> fertility limitations alone will control them BEFORE they
> sb> destroy their environment.
>
> Once again, you're oversimplifying and misrepresenting my views.
> Why don't you debate me, rather than debating a strawman?
>
Russell, you have repeatedly stated that fertility alone will limit the
numbers of deer. Why do you keep changing your position?
Why don't you admit that deer DO destroy their environment when not controlled
by either starvation or hunting?
Sue
Sue Bishop
>
> From article <CIKA6...@wpg.com>, by ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence):
>> Verme showed that does consuming 3,125 calories in the critical
>> period prior to mating produced 0.54 fawns per doe, wherease
>> does consuming 4,375 calories produced 1.50 fawns per doe. This
>> doesn't mean that the herds containing such does would have
>> increased by 27%. To calculate herd increase, we'd need to
>> know the number of females of reproductive age. And,
>> we'd need to know the post-recruitment mortality figures.
>
> To calculate herd increases, we would need to know both
> pre-recruitment and post-recruitment mortality figures.
>
Since you have repeatedly claimed that fertility alone will limit herd
growth, then why do you need to figure in deaths?
Sue
Russell Lawrence
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> These graphs represent an important body of facts, as you know
rl> quite well. They not only show wildlife managers that herd
rl> increases can be maximized but they demonstrate that herd increases
rl> can be minimized as well, right down to the zero point.
Sue Bishop writes:
sb> And once again, you are ignoring that in a low plane of
sb> nutrition, Verme and Ullrey say that production averages 54%
sb> for does. You keep insisting that herd increases 'can be
sb> minimized down to zero'. No where in the literature does it
sb> EVER say that production (otherwise known as herd increase)
sb> is zero...
Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> The graphs that you've refused to discuss (since Jeff
rl> Achenbach contradicted your claims) clearly show that net
rl> recruitment rate, aka productivity, declines to zero as
rl> populations approach K.
rl>
rl> Let's define "production":
rl>
rl> "Production is the number of fawns born minus the combined
rl> mortality of all three kinds at a given residual population
rl> size."
From article <1993Dec26.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> (Once again, Russell is selectively quoting one sentence out
sb> of a paragraph. And, not surprisingly, he has altered the
sb> sentence, probably deliberately, to change the meaning.
sb> Let's post the CORRECT word in the sentence.)
sb>
sb> 'PRODUCTIVITY is the number of fawns born minus the combined
sb> mortality of all three kinds at a given residual population size.'
As I said before, the graphs that you now refuse to discuss
show that net recruitment, aka productivity, declines to zero
as populations approach K. The caption on one such graph reads
"Net recruitment numbers (productivity) for white-tailed
deer and mule deer depending on residual population size."
See McCullough (1987). p 537.
sb> Russell has repeatedly claimed that there is minimal
sb> mortality involved at low nutritional values.
Cite one such passage.
sb> Since Verme and Ullrey give productivity figures as 54% at
sb> the low nutritional value, I wonder why Russell ignores this.
Verme and Ullrey show that does on a low plane of nutrition
produce 0.54 fawns per doe. This doesn't mean that herd
productivity amounts to 54% or even 27%. To calculate
productivity, you'd need to know the mortality figures as well as
the ratio of fawn-bearing does to total herd size.
sb> Russell is also trying to equate Recruitment and Productivity.
sb> They are not the same. In the same paragraph as Russell's
sb> altered sentence, the definition of recruitment is given.
sb>
sb> 'Net Recruitment rate - called 'population change' in
sb> McCullough (1979) is defined as the NUMBER OF RECRUITS minus
sb> MORTALITY of animals of RECRUITMENT AGE and OLDER divided by
sb> the residual population (Figure 50a). PRODUCTIVITY is the
sb> number of fawns born minus the combined mortality of ALL THREE
sb> KINDS at a given residual population size.'
sb>
sb> It is very evident that these two figures are NOT the same.
I agree with you that recruitment rate isn't the same as
recruitment. However, McCullough uses the terms recruitment and
productivity almost synonomously. The only difference between
these two measurements stems with the way mortality is tabulated
among animals younger than the age of recruitment (6 months).
sb> The recruitment figure does not include prerecruitment
sb> mortality. And productivity is generally figured using birth
sb> dates as a calculation point. Verme and Ullrey make this
sb> clear in their article since they have a whole section on
sb> neonatal mortality which is a major mortality factor at low
sb> nutritional planes.
This doesn't make sense, Sue. Please explain.
sb> 'There is a close relationship between maternal nutrition and
sb> neonatal mortality (Verme 1962, 1963). When pregnant does are
sb> well fed, fawning loss averaged 7 and birth weight averaged 3.5 k.
sb> At a LOW PLANE OF NUTRITION, MORTALITY WAS 93% and birth weight
sb> averaged 1.9 k.' (Verme and Ullrey, 1984)
Please explain how the term "low plane of nutrition" was defined in
this context.
sb> In fact, it says that doe production is 54%. That's herd increase
sb> of 27%.
rl> Not really.
rl>
rl> Verme showed that does consuming 3,125 calories in the critical
rl> period prior to mating produced 0.54 fawns per doe, wherease
rl> does consuming 4,375 calories produced 1.50 fawns per doe. This
rl> doesn't mean that the herds containing such does would have
rl> increased by 27%. To calculate herd increase, we'd need to
rl> know the number of females of reproductive age. And,
rl> we'd need to know the post-recruitment mortality figures.
sb> While it is true that the doe numbers are not known in
sb> calculating 27% as herd increase, it is also true that you
sb> are ignoring all mortality figures in saying that fertility
sb> alone will limit herd increase.
You're arguing with your own strawman, Sue. Do you concede the
fact that you were mistaken when you told your readers that
fawn production of 0.54 fawns per doe signifies a herd increase
of 27%? If you're unwilling to concede this point, please
explain why you ignored mortality factors, such as death from
old age in calculating your 27% figure.
Russell Lawrence
rl> period prior to mating produced 0.54 fawns per doe, wherease
rl> does consuming 4,375 calories produced 1.50 fawns per doe. This
rl> doesn't mean that the herds containing such does would have
rl> increased by 27%. To calculate herd increase, we'd need to
rl> know the number of females of reproductive age. And,
rl> we'd need to know the post-recruitment mortality figures.
In article <CIKDo...@wpg.com>, ru...@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> To calculate herd increases, we would need to know both
rl> pre-recruitment and post-recruitment mortality figures.
From article <1993Dec26.0...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Since you have repeatedly claimed that fertility alone will
sb> limit herd growth, then why do you need to figure in deaths?
You're confusing me with your own strawman invention. Is it
necessary for you to misrepresent your opponent by means of
distorted, inventive quotations in order for you to establish your
case?
Do you agree with me that we would need to know both pre-recruitment
and post-recruitment mortality figures in order to calculate herd
productivity?
Christopher Morton
> You're confusing me with your own strawman invention. Is it
> necessary for you to misrepresent your opponent by means of
> distorted, inventive quotations in order for you to establish your
> case?
Hey, if it's good enough for you...?
--
===================================================================
Read my lips, no new Haitians - Bill "Jethro" Clinton
===================================================================
Russell Lawrence
> Stuff about "bimbos" deleted
From article <1993Dec25.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Too many city folk read distorted information about animals
sb> from their local AR group and then think they 'know it all'.
sb> Sorta like the woman who showed up on the doorstep of a friend
sb> of mine to scream at her, accusing her of blindfolding her
sb> horses in the pasture. She was very embarrassed when my friend
sb> gently explained the horses were wearing gauze fly masks to
sb> keep flies off their faces.
Some self-proclaimed country folk can be ignorant as well. To
illustrate, let's read the following exchange:
==================================================================
In article <CEo3v...@wpg.com>, Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> ... In addition to making more food available to
rl> each individual (thereby increasing fertility), hunting can also
rl> increase the fecundity rate by disrupting social bonds in deer
rl> "families".
In article <1993Oct10.1...@desire.wright.edu>, Sue Bishop writes:
sb> Predation keeps populations in control. Hunting is predation.
sb> Social bonds in deer 'families'? You sure don't know much
sb> about deer, do you? They don't live in families.
==================================================================
Were you embarrassed when your opponents posted pointers to peer-
reviewed scientific articles which prove that family bonds do,
indeed, exist among adult deer, and that the disruption of these
bonds can alter reproductive patterns by causing female deer to
breed at an earlier age?
Russell Lawrence
In article <1993Dec21.1...@desire.wright.edu>, sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop) writes:
sb> Yep, sounds like a bimbo type. Can't even use capital letters...
In article <2fgk0n$q...@agate.berkeley.edu>, v...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Leor H Jacobi) writes:
lj> Your calling that woman a bimbo also warrants an apology on
lj> your part. It was uncalled for.
From article <1993Dec25.1...@desire.wright.edu>, by sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
sb> Bobbi and I have exchanged e-mail. Take my word for it..... I
sb> can tell a bimbo when I correspond with one!
Your word isn't worth much, especially when your pronouncements are
as libelous as the ones shown here
Once again, I'd like to remind everyone how you profess to dislike
flames:
In article <1993Oct26.1...@desire.wright.edu>, Sue Bishop writes:
========================================================================
sb> Well, I, for one, am very tired of the flames. Unfortunately,
sb> if I ignore Russell's libelous and bigotted remarks, he will
sb> claim I can't counter them, therefore they are true. Sad, that
sb> seems to be his favorite debate tool, when asked a question, he
sb> resorts to insults and belittleing his opponent.
========================================================================
Do you truly believe that your use of labels like "bimbo" is
justifiable?
Sue Bishop
Since productivity calculations (according to McCullough) include ALL THREE
KINDS of mortality, you are confusing terms again.
Sue
Bob Christ
>sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop) writes:
>sb> Yep, sounds like a bimbo type. Can't even use capital letters...
>
>v...@uclink.berkeley.edu (Leor H Jacobi) writes:
>lj> Your calling that woman a bimbo also warrants an apology on
>lj> your part. It was uncalled for.
Why? The airhead IS a BIMBO.
>sbi...@desire.wright.edu (Sue Bishop):
>sb> Bobbi and I have exchanged e-mail. Take my word for it..... I
>sb> can tell a bimbo when I correspond with one!
>Your word isn't worth much, especially when your pronouncements are
>as libelous as the ones shown here
You mean like the ones YOU made about her calling Dr. McCullough?
Hmmmm, Russell, you've got some nerve.
>Once again, I'd like to remind everyone how you profess to dislike
>flames:
>In article <1993Oct26.1...@desire.wright.edu>, Sue Bishop writes:
>========================================================================
>sb> Well, I, for one, am very tired of the flames. Unfortunately,
>sb> if I ignore Russell's libelous and bigotted remarks, he will
>sb> claim I can't counter them, therefore they are true. Sad, that
>sb> seems to be his favorite debate tool, when asked a question, he
>sb> resorts to insults and belittleing his opponent.
>========================================================================
>Do you truly believe that your use of labels like "bimbo" is
>justifiable?
Trust me Russell, 'she,' or rather 'it,' is a airhaead Bimbo.
Flat-and-simple.
Bob