From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat May 10 2003 - 22:17:25 MDT
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> Peter C. McCluskey wrote,
> >
> > jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu (Greg Jordan) writes:
> > >So you are telling me all hunters deliberately try to catch the
> most
> > >inferior animals?
> >
> > If hunters spend 5% more effort on catching the strongest deer, and
> > the strongest deer are able to devote 30% more effort to avoiding
> > hunters than the weakest deer, won't most hunters end up catching
> > weak deer?
>
> Mathematically speaking, only if the hunter and deer are not too
> unevenly matched. However, if the hunter has a vastly superior
> brain, vastly superior technology, and vastly superior firepower,
> there is no contest between the two. The hunter's 5% easily
> overcomes a deer's 30%.
This is a rather inane and meaningless question. First off are these
rather unsupported assumptions that hunters:
a) are able to objectively determine which are 'the strongest deer'
b) are so blessed with deer encounters that they can pick and choose
which one to shoot
c) gain some benefit from shooting 'the strongest deer',
among others...
Since it seems I am the only actual deer hunter who is participating in
this discussion, and likely know far more other deer hunters than all
others on this list combined, I'll tell you what motivates deer
hunters:
a) there is a deer to shoot at. Many hunters go for years without
spotting even one deer. With 'bucks only' hunting seasons, the odds are
that most deer a hunter encounters are not legal targets, since they
tend to breed more does than bucks. While deer populations are
generally higher due to wildlife management than even during colonial
times, deer have evolved, due to hunting pressures, to be far smarter
and more sensitive than their ancestors.
b) the hunter is able to get a shot at a deer. Deer, being agile,
camouflaged, and many times more sensitive than humans (they can hear
you walking through dry leaves from several hundred yards away, can
spot the blue dyes in most clothing like neon signs, and can smell
human body and technology odors from dozens of yards or more away), a
hunter rarely has more than a few seconds to get a shot off.
As I have said before, few hunters are so skilled and talented that
they are regularly able to pick and choose their targets. The sort of
hunts you see on the Outdoors Channel are typically on enclosed game
preserves and are not typical of hunting in open wilderness, and the
hunters depicted are typically the most talented around. The odds of
meeting a hunter like this are approximately that of getting a World
Cup soccer player at a pickup game at your local park, perhaps even
worse.
The only time I know of that regular hunters have the opportunity to be
choosy is if the area they hunt in has a part of the hunting season
open to shooting does. In such situations, the hunter would seek to
shoot the largest doe, a doe which has generally already bred for
several seasons and has therefore already spread whatever positive
genetic characteristics she may posess.
This brings my to my last objection to Mr Jordan's rants. Any deer
which he might consider to be a 'trophy' animal is a fully mature
animal, generally about 5 years old. Such an animal has already
reproduced for several seasons and therefore whatever beneficial
genetic characteristics it posesses have been spread to the herd
already. Thus, the claim that hunting trophy animals specifically
somehow dilutes the genetic properties of the herd is patently absurd.
The mere act of predation is the primary mechanism by which evolution
produces more capable, more competetive species. The fossil record
demonstrates this repeatedly, where scientists have measured brain size
of animals over time. Every time a smarter predator appeared in a
habitat and displaced dumber predators, the result for prey species was
that they evolved to be smarter as well. This has been especially true
for prey species exposed to human predation.
Predation is essentially a behavior of opportunity. It is essentially
different from the herbivore behavior pattern of picking food off a
tree or bush or from the ground due to bountiful supply. Because it is
a behavior of opportunity, the predator, even the human predator, does
not generally get the chance to pick and choose their prey, at least
when animals are not herded up into groups.
Because it is so opportunistic, evolution causes the stupid animals to
be preyed, thus creating selective pressure for greater intelligence.
Given this, I think that it could realistically be said that our own
high intelligence is a result of an evolutionary arms race with other
predatory hominids. Homo Erectus, for example, is known to have preyed
on early homo sapiens.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 10 2003 - 22:27:24 MDT