Darwinisme
 

Ok,

just something I was wondering about here. I'm not looking to hear excuses from the trophee hunters. And I'm not pointing the finger or blaming anyone.
Darwin's theory of evolution is build on the statement that the fittest animals survive. This means the fittest animals get to reproduce and pass on their genes for future generations, so that the species survives.
If we as hunters only shoot the trophee quality animals, those who are mature and look fit and strong. Would this not upset the balance in genes, because now we take out the best animals fit for reproduction, carriyng the best genes for offspring that in turn will grow to become the fittest of the species.
Making room for the less fit animals to reproduce, thus creating generations of weaker animals.

Or do we like other predators hone the present populations into even more fit animals by culling the less smart subjects of the species ?
In my opinion we do it at a very fast rate, much faster than any other predator.
This does not mean I will give up my dream to bowhunt, it might make me want to change the idea of what I want to hunt.

Frank

You have to much time on your hands!!!!!! :)

This is kind of the theory of QDM though. That big nice mature buck that is 4-5 years old that has very good genetics has bred and produced many offspring that are now 2,3,4 yrs old now and are on there way to becoming nice deer and have also bred and produced offspring. You are almost classifying young to be bad genetics. There is a difference. Where people mess up is by letting that 4-5 yr old 5 pt that is all jacked up walk and shooting the 2-3 yr old 8 pt. I say mess up loosely. I don't know just my opinion, but by taking only mature bucks will make your hunting process harder for a few years and you might not even get to harvest a true mature buck. But, after that there should be lots of mature bucks and a greater likely hood that you get a shot.

For the scientifically and numerically literate, I remember from my undergraduate biology that the 'Hardy Weinberg Principle' illustrates the rate of large genetic changes...Do I consider a hunter allowing a small buck to walk by, only to kill a larger genetically 'superior' buck to be unnatural selection? Of course I do..It is..I'm sure Im going to be the minority on this arguement, but I've seen stacks of data and research to validate my side. Marco Festa-Bianchet of the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec and Doug Chadwick of Nat. Geo have some outstanding literature on the subject. It's not just about subtracting the biggest antlered deer from the equation. The populations actually evolve as genes are removed from the pool.

through management, which is ultimatley selective breeding, we are producing a more fit animal. look at what happen to deer herds since the early 1900's. the population was revived to what it is now, by hunters for the most part! so if your thinking of getting out of hunting i would not reccommend it. we need all the help we can get to maintain what we have, but if you dont enjoy hunting then i dont think you should do it. just dont forget to support us when the argument comes up!

I agree with kldad06. The "trophies" that get harvested are trophies due to their age. QDM allows for us to harvest good mature deer and still allow those deer to breed and disseminate their "trophy" genes. If a trophy hunter lets say shoots and average deer at 4 yrs of age, that deer has probably already bred 40 - 50 does depending on the herd, location, buck:doe ratio, etc. Now when someone shoots a 2 yr old deer with tons of potential before he has been given the chance to breed, you are absolutely diminishing the "good" genes from the pool. I have no knowledge of the research that is referenced above but I would be willing to bet that that data is taken from predominantly publicly hunted areas where no trophy management practices are conducted and many young male animals are harvested which as I described earlier will diminish the genes. I think trophy hunting absolutely promotes good genes because it allows the good deer to live and reproduce before they are killed. Just take a look at south Texas where there are huge mature deer in an abundance because QDM is very prominent in the area.

things that make you go "hmmmmmmmmm?" you maybe onto something here. Quick everyone stop shooting trophies and shoot the spikes and forks! lol....no but really a good question on theory.

How is a deer today more "Fit" than a deer from the early 1900's??? That is about the most ignorant thing I have heard!!!! And when did anyone revive their species lol..... look I agree that deer mangement and selective breeding is a why to keep a certain type of gene passed down to the next generation, thats simple science!!! But honestly, you think that your creating a more "fit" animal?? Come on now. So what the deer are all the suddon working out now or something? They still have the same basic diet and nutrition. And we are specifically talking whitetail deer.. not the Schomburgk's deer which is now extinct and once lived in Laos,Thailand!!!

forgive me my belgian ignorence but what is QDM ?

F

dont do this
 

the pgc does it this way!!!!!!!!!!!!!it does not work!!!!!!!:party0005:

QDM = Quality Deer Manangement

Yes, that deer's genes are the same from the time he is born, to the time he is the trophy buck everyone is waiting for. He has had his 4,5 years to pass those genes on.

how do you think that a 150 class whitetail gets to be a 150 class whitetail. he is smart enought to elude hunters for a few years to grow that big and every year he breeds does and passes his genes.

The only questionable one lies in those 3-4 year old jacked up 5pts. Those need to be taken out of the equation. Then you are shooting based on age and not on size. That is where I see most people have a problem distinguishing. I have read so many posts on here where people say "how old is this deer?". The answers that come back are amazing. Some people will say that it is 4 or 5 based only on the size of horns. That is determined by the amount of protein and supplements that deer is getting from its environment or other sources. I feel that you need to harvest what you are happy with and that is it. If you want big bucks you have to manage your doe population and old rag heads period. But taking on older "trophy" buck does not hurt the overall gene pool.

a more fit animal, or herd, or species, they are better than they were because we do manage them bud. and i promise you that we changed the landscape of range lands tremendously from what it was then to what it is now (which would change this so called "basic" diet that was spoke of), and they are still here. that change doesnt happen over night. or else they would still be as low in numbers as they were, think before you speak of ignorance BvrHunter, of coarse us hunters played a major part of them not becoming extinct. we imposed regulations and limits, and the herd grew, we managed for more mature animals with more opportunities to breed. we must be doing something right. we are capable of hunting them every year be it for a huge rack or meat in the freezer, or both.

The error of this thought process is believing that only the top buck in any area breeds all the does. He can only breed one at a time and during that time all the other does in heat get bred by other bucks. I even read a study that showed 25% of fawn twins had different fathers. Not only that but whos to say that a spike buck doesn't have better genes. I think it's pretty safe to shoot the big ones. Most of the big ones get away anyway. :)

true story, hunting is good in moderation with any style.

Think before I speak??? If you would have read what I wrote the first time I wouldn't have to reitterate this.. I was commenting on the statement you made about the deer being more "fit" today then the deer in the early 1900's. I'm not talking about numbers of population! Numbers have changed in both directions. From there being plenty hundreds of years ago, to dropping, to upping. We all know that!!! And we know we brought the numbers back up through management!! But if you think the deer are more fit simply because of change in landscaping and range?? You out of your mind!! Deer adapt to there surroundings we all know that as well. They have had the same basic diet since, well since they were put on the earth. You think there was Oak tree's and Corn and Soybeans just a hundered years ago?? Maybe a couple hundered years ago. And what landscape has changed so dramatic in just a hundered years that has caused any of this in your theory?? I'd really like to know. Think before I speak??

Using the above statement, a good argument can be made to cull does so that the strongest bucks breed most of the does. In a lot of areas, doe are so numerous that most every buck gets in on the breeding. A "balanced" herd might have more effect than not shooting "trophies".

boilermaker...being a PA hunter also for 15 some years, i think that Gary Alt must have drank some of this Kool Aid

Magic...QDM = Quality Deer Management

The key to this string is the following, which another individual brought up...it is the hope that we harvest bucks at the "end of the line" and they have bred for a number of years...however, you all know as well as i do, that even the spikers, nub bucks, and the like get in on a bit of the breeding too.

One thing I have often wondered, is the effects of in-breeding within deer populations, especially in subarban settings, how does that affect the genetics of herds? you always seem to see a monster non-typical taken in a housing development, is this the result of the deer getting old and gnarly, or being on the shallow end of the gene pool?

[QUOTE=BvrHunter;3457766] You think there was Oak tree's and Corn and Soybeans just a hundered years ago??QUOTE]


Apology....... I meant WASN"T

First of all deer are plenty smart the way they are and we dont need to allow evolution to let them get any smarter. :wink:

Second areas that produce huge deer consitently (Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Texas etc.) do so because of huge ginormaous pieces of land that see next to no hunting pressure, not QDM.

If i had a 3000 acre ranch in texas, I could shoot spikes and forks and there would still be trophy deer because there is no way I could shoot all the bucks by myself, several would survive to 3.5+.
If you live in one of those states, you have no idea what hunting pressure is, hunt in WI, PA, MI or NY then we'll talk.

Plain & simple, by the time anyone shoots a trophy animal, they've passed on thier genes many, many times over.

NEXT!