Sunday Morning found me in Chicago reading a Newsweek Magazine at 6:30AM while waiting for my wife to get done with an In Vitro appointment. I was bored out of my mind when I came across an interesting article. The article was talking to our obsession with Antlers and Big game and touched on Teddy Roosevelt and his African hunts of past and our current Obsession with Large Elk out West. The article attacked the hunting community and painted a picture of a dwindling supply of quality trophy animals due to hunters shooting all the Big Deer, Elk, etc. The article also had a hidden message that said we are changing evolution by not allowing the strong the ability to survive. I started thinking about this article and it got me a little steamed, after all 2008 saw some incredible animals taken. We had the Spider Bull taken out West on Public land, this record book Elk was no secret yet grew to epic proportions. WKP laid down to of the largest deer taken on video ever this year and Wisconsin saw to incredible deer from Buffalo County. If we are culling all the big guys and causing the strong and magnificent to die before their time then why are we seeing animals such as the above mentioned being taken? Do writers of these articles not understand that Elk Bulls have herds of Cows that they breed and unless these bulls are taken prior to the rut then they are spreading their glory to the herd? Did anyone else run into this article, it was from January of this year.
I didn't read it, but statistics have shown that there are MORE trophy class animals being taken now than ever before. Our herds are healthier and there are more animals in more areas than ever. With the exception of buffalo of course. We did a pretty good job of wiping them out back in the. In any case - trophy management has allowed the animals we hunt to grow older and have an increased opportunity to spread their genes before being harvested, which is exactly the opposite of what the article you reference is saying. What I've personally found is that unless someone is a hunter, or actually has some intimate knowledge of hunting or animal biology, their articles tend to be extremely opinionated, slanted, and for the most part totally untrue. However, because of their PC viewpoints they will be published in national magazines and exposed to millions of people across the country while struggle to get any press whatsoever in our favor. God Bless America.
I did not read the article, but I can understand why it would have gotten you steamed. As Justin pointed out, non-hunters really have no understanding of the real world. I promise you there are not only more deer now than when I started hunting some 25 years ago, but the quality of the deer are way up. There were 4 200+" deer brought into our little deer show in Collinsville a couple of weeks ago. 20 years ago that would have been unheard of. BTW, sorry you had to go to Chicago, I hope you took a few liberals out on your way home.
Well said Raceway!! It's just uneducated people at there finest Is all. Justin and Jim, Not all deer herds are at the top right now. Minnesota sure Isn't and I'm guessing Michigan Isn't like It once was either. Most other states however have come a long ways from what they use to be.
Schultzy - very true, but those herds are not down in numbers due to trophy hunting as much as mismanagement of the herd as a whole, as well as increased predation.
I read a study that concluded that a buck, on average, sired very few offspring. Even the big boys don't sire many bambinos. (so, at least for whitetails, there's no super buck breeding most of the does) Also, a buck's genetics don't change as he ages. If he's breeds at 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and then gets offed at 4.5.. he still had opportunity to pass on his genes. So, it's a load of hooey. :D
For once.. I agree with Christine.:love: :d I never can understand why anyone in their right mind can believe the genes of a deer will change with age. I got news for them.. if a human has genes for blue eyes.. then as he/she ages they will never have brown eyes.. no matter what. What gives people?
Man articles like that do get under my skin When i usually start reading one like that and see where it is leading, i find myself not finishing it because of said BS it contains.
My eyes were brown as a kid... Now they have as much green in them as brown.... I also had blonde hair as a kid, now it's brown.. But, I 100% agree with Christine's post.
OK, forgive me if someone said it above or mentioned something along these lines; I didn't even read through the thread but hit the reply button right away... Most data shows that it's primarily the 2 1/2 and 3 1/2-year-old bucks which do the majority of the breeding; heck, button bucks have been seen breeding and certainly 1 1/2-year-olds. Now, here's my question.. if available nutrition, genetics and -- certainly age -- play a major role in how big a buck's antlers can grow... doesn't it stand to reason that if a buck with those inherent traits bred a doe WHILE HE WAS YOUNG, then those same traits will be passed on to his offspring -- REGARDLESS if THAT buck gets to live another DAY -- let alone grow old and become a "mature" buck? In other words, his seed is just as potent, carries just as much "potential", and will do the same job as it will if he lives to be a solid 5 1/2-year-old and THEN breeds a doe. Just because you killed a trophy buck from an area doesn't mean his genes haven't already been spread earlier in his youth.
Your late to the party Greg, that has already been stated :d The article seems like just another way for the city dwelling public to look down on the rural "hillbilly".
With every yr, there are those studs out there that hopefully have passed on their genes and those genes will continue to produce those type of animals. As long as we give them time to grow into the trophy animals we all seek. Look at what QDM in Buffalo county wi and Pike co in Ill have produced.
I have no problem with a guy killing any deer because he needs meat - or because he may just not have as much time to put in the woods as some of us are lucky enough to have. I will also say, if guys realized that a "kill" isn't the most important part of the season - they would not only enjoy hunting more - but our herd would have alot bigger and more mature bucks running around. Personally, I'd like to see a ban on deer drives down here in Iowa due to the number of animals that get wounded, and not recovered. That would eliminate 50% of issues with hunting down here. Again, this will never happen. If hunters could only understand that hunting is all about the journey, not the destination; I believe more guys would truly enjoy passing younger bucks and accepting the fact that they don't have to kill a buck to be a "man". Look between your legs, that's the definition of a man! Did the person who wrote this article reference their field experience to come to this conclusion? I'd like to know how many "trophy" animals this person has taken! Impossible to kill all the big deer. They are too difficult to access to start, I won't even get into the rest - that's just stupid!
i heard davidmil say something similar awhile back, and i have used it ever since when talking about my hunting. Here in Ohio, the deer population has skyrocketed. Yesterday my dad and I were talking about deer in the 70's, and he said if you even saw a deer, it was worth mentioning. Also, i have read that Doe's make up like 60% or more of a fawns genes? Any truth to this?
