Yes, animals have fee-fees too.

[Doublejack]

Perhaps, but in those intervening years if someone is removing the best specimens from the population deliberately, then the population will very quickly deteriorate genetically because those extraordinary specimens are not contributing their DNA to the gene pool leaving the betas to reproduce.

I'm not arguing your point as it's clearly scientifically accurate. I'm just pointing out that the life cycle of the deer is so rapid and nature's violence leaves nothing but tip top specimens.

Have you ever seen a fat/lazy deer? Nature is much better at only allowing the healthiest deer to survive. We don't play a part in that aspect.


Every buck and doe that is involved with reproduction is already the best of the best.

[Dr. Who]

e
You just gave us the logic of eugenics. I mean I really do hope that was just a clumsy dodge. lol

Where have I given the logic of eugenics wrt human kind? Humans do not live in the wild. No doubt survival of the fittest was once a factor in the success of humanity as a species, but since we can manipulate our environment the need to survive naked and afraid is not present as it is for the wild kingdom.

[Dr. Who]

Again false.

Sustained and healthy populations contradict your suggestion.

As was suggested by Doublejack, that is probably because most hunters never get a crack at the best specimens.

[resister]

FYI - It is illegal in most States to shoot an animal and either not take the meat for yourself or donate it. Hell it's even illegal to hit one with your car and not report it...

Was on my way to work one day, two hogs in the road, hit one, damn I'm late to work, gotta run.

Get to work and the game warden is waiting on me, Mr. Johnson, we understand you ran over a wild hog and kept going? Yes Sir, I said "how did you know?"


The survivor, squeeled on you! I was busted!

[Mister D]

Where have I given the logic of eugenics wrt human kind? Humans do not live in the wild. No doubt survival of the fittest was once a factor in the success of humanity as a species, but since we can manipulate our environment the need to survive naked and afraid is not present as it is for the wild kingdom.

"Survival of the fittest" has nothing to do with it. Why should humans be excluded as a population? We're just animals, right? Certainly our naturalists would be inclined to think so. Shouldn't we manage our own species in the same fashion and show the same concerns about our gene pool, inferior DNA etc?

[Doublejack]

As was suggested by Doublejack, that is probably because most hunters never get a crack at the best specimens.

Too much hiking for my taste. You gotta be in tip top shape to hike out the spots where the tip top bucks reside lol

[Dr. Who]

I'm not arguing your point as it's clearly scientifically accurate. I'm just pointing out that the life cycle of the deer is so rapid and nature's violence leaves nothing but tip top specimens.

Have you ever seen a fat/lazy deer? Nature is much better at only allowing the healthiest deer to survive. We don't play a part in that aspect.


Every buck and doe that is involved with reproduction is already the best of the best.

I worry that technological advantages will allow hunters who don't understand the ramifications of taking the most magnificent bucks and does to deteriorate the genetic material in a population. Hunters should be aware of the importance of preserving the best in breed to ensure a vital population that can survive natural reversals. The fact that the life cycle is so short means that removing one or two major genetic contributors in a five-year span could contribute to the demise of a local deer population, which would then have to be deliberately restocked at considerable expense and effort.

[Captain Obvious]

As was suggested by Doublejack, that is probably because most hunters never get a crack at the best specimens.

Balance

[Doublejack]

I worry that technological advantages will allow hunters who don't understand the ramifications of taking the most magnificent bucks and does to deteriorate the genetic material in a population. Hunters should be aware of the importance of preserving the best in breed to ensure a vital population that can survive natural reversals. The fact that the life cycle is so short means that removing one or two major genetic contributors in a five-year span could contribute to the demise of a local deer population, which would then have to be deliberately restocked at considerable expense and effort.

How would a hunter determine a bucks genetic make up without killing it first and sending the blood to a lab?

[Dr. Who]

How would a hunter determine a bucks genetic make up without killing it first and sending the blood to a lab?

I have yet to see an alpha example of any animal species that is not obviously distinguishable from the average. If you had to literally go out of your way to find it, it's probably an alpha, if not the alpha. If you are going to be a hunter and one that endorses conservation, then becoming intimately acquainted with what constitutes the alphas of the species should be a necessary part of your hunting philosophy and education. Undoubtedly there are conservation officers at many national parks etc that can provide that education if it is not offered by your local hunting association. A DNA test is not necessary. If you see a herd of horses, it's never hard to distinguish the alpha stallion. He's always stronger and keeps himself somehow separate from the herd while still overseeing it.

Super bucks behave like trained soldiers, bivouacking in thickets in farmers fields or other isolated places where they can hear any approach and remaining there for the hunting season. They become more nocturnal and feed mostly after dusk. They also tend to live longer than the average of their species.