Antler Conformation

To answer the question, "Why do I not include some ranches?" It is because some "ranches" are breeding facilities where various growth enhancing drugs are administered. There is even a TV show about one of them. Penned deer or "canned" operations are taken into consideration. As for an ignore link, yes there is one. It is called personal decision. No one is required to read any post I make. My posts are designed to make people discuss and think. I realize, many are incapable of both.
I do think everyone on here is quite capable of listening to various opinions. But when they are expressed as facts then it does start to get deep. Heaven knows we all sometimes base our thinking on here with anecdotal observations of just random thinking. But we acknowledge that and throw it out for discussion, trying to give some basis for such and hopefully even research to back up our initial hypothesis. Sometimes what we think is pretty accurate then other times not so much.
I haven’t seen much open ended thinking or discussion thus far from the OP so perhaps it not be the reader that is coming up short. You could be correct, and thru millions of years animals do adapte. But I would think that change would be a lifetime spent in impenetrable jungles to force such a change. As asked before, show some studies that support your narrow rack theory. Otherwise, we will accept is as just a personal belief. A list of accomplishments past ones name doesn’t mean much on here, only the test of fire. But if you are going to throw chit, expect to get chit back especially when you do in a condescending way as you did in the first few posts of this thread. But what do I know, just an inbred lost in these hills?
As for the ignore button, that would be no fun,as humans love watching a train wreck. As I said, carry on.
 
I'm still trying to figure out what I'm reading here... I "think" Bowriter made a post claiming to know for fact the evolutionary driver for narrow antlers in a state where dense brush habitat is prevalent, then mid thread agreed with statements posted otherwise, then return to disagreeing when evidence is posted that is contrary... stating that that evidence doesn't count (which I still don't know why Okie's or Baker's farms and statements shouldn't be taken into account with this). All the while throwing out little insults at others and justifications for himself. Of course I may be one who is incapable of thinking and discussing. Maybe my reading comprehension is suffering and I don't have this right (I have been on the road a lot and only reading when I get a few minutes here and there). Am I reading this wrong guys?

Just to be clear; I strongly believe that genetic changes can happen through environmental drivers. There are 2 main drivers; survival and reproductive advantage. A 3rd driver is random genetic drift. I entertained the idea that brush density could affect antler genetics, but several people gave evidence that suggested brush density wasn't a factor in antler width. Why call people incapable of "discuss and think" if they disagree with you? Isn't disagreeing the foundation of a productive discussion? I'm pretty sure insults aren't a healthy part of being productive.
 
To answer the question, "Why do I not include some ranches?" It is because some "ranches" are breeding facilities where various growth enhancing drugs are administered. There is even a TV show about one of them. Penned deer or "canned" operations are taken into consideration. As for an ignore link, yes there is one. It is called personal decision. No one is required to read any post I make. My posts are designed to make people discuss and think. I realize, many are incapable of both.
Thanks for answering the question. I am in total agreement that breeding facilities and properties where deer from other locales are introduced should not be included in as relevant in a discussion about genetic adaptation to habitat. Knowing my ranch as you say you do then you may want to add that you know that we have never introduced genetics nor manipulated genetics in any way other than enhancing nutrition.Our herd is 100% native. As you are also aware that we have a vast expanse of low fenced country that the genetic adaptation on the ranch is completely natural to whatever nature wanted to have happen. Thanks for the clarity
 
Yep, Baker.
Catscratch- when people...never mind. Goodbye
Don’t want to see you go. I enjoy the conversation and the fact that you have brought “thinking” to the table...

As was said by dogghr above having an opinion is fine and even stating your opinion is fine but to just throw it out there as the end all be all fact of whitetail evolution is going to come with some pushback...

Having said that folks have been killing high tight racks in Places like South Dakota, Iowa, and Wyoming for as long as deer have roamed there and other folks have killed exceptionally wide bucks in underrated states such as West Virginia, hills of eastern Oklahoma, low fence ranches in Texas and Mexico for just as long...

Antler characteristics would be more along the line of what helps in establishing herd dominance in order to be able to breed and I would go so far as to say if only wide bucks were shot and tall narrow bucks were passed then the local genetic might start showing that in a few generations...that will make you “think” about what the “width” rule could do in some states and on some larger properties...but that is just my opinion.
 
Bowrite you need to stay on this forum - as I know you and know you have much to add. There are two types of thing I read in your posts. The things I read that help me learn and I agree with. The second is the things I read that I have doubts about. Those two types of things can be said about my posts and others that contribute to this forum.

I sure am glad for all the time I have listened to at seminars, read your threads and shared time one on one.

Why deer have great spreads or narrow racks - to me I believe it nature's way to have it diverse. I do believe if everyone had their nutrition ship shape like Baker and others along with age structure we would see better top end racks.

Wayne
 
Some people are tall, some people are short. Some are fast, some are slow. Some women are beautiful, some are...not.

There is variance in every population within a species.
 
Yep... listen to these guys and ignore me bowriter. I won't step in your business again.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Oh, I'm not going anywhere, just not going to debate. But I do suggest you go back about 100-years or more before man began to manipulate whitetail habitat and understand what "thick" is to a deer and then compare that to antler configuration. Take a close look at the various sub-species and consider how each fits their previous home range. For example, compare the swamp deer of the deep south-LA and MS in particular, back 100-years ago with the deer being killed there, now. Just something to think about. I suggest Dr, Leonard Lee Rue's book, "The Deer of North America." if you can find it.
 
There are three biological laws of natural selection: 1-Bergmann’s Rule. 2-Allen’s Rule. 3-Gloger’s Rule. There are, as far as we now know, 17-sub-species found north of the Mexican border. Each of these, in some way relates to these three rules. It is, in fact, adaptation. Although there is no specific rule dictating antler configuration to a specific habitat…why would there be any reason to think otherwise.

Of course, since man began to alter habitat and open thick areas, there has been sufficient time for inhabitants to adapt…to some degree. Ergo, wide rack in semi-thick cover. But not completely. Add to that, an overlapping of sub-species. Why would we think a mere river would prevent the Kansas sub-specie from inter-breeding with the Northern woodland or Virginia whitetail? Are the deer of IL and IA that different? How is it that LA has three sub-species? Why would the Dakota sub-specie not mix, to some degree with the Northern woodland? The Northern woodland, the largest bodied of all whitetails, is found in a huge area. But only in some areas does it routinely provide large antlers with heavy beams and wide racks. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be adaptation to habitat?Many of the top racks in B&C, are of this sub-specie. But take a look at where they were killed. Then study Gloger's Rule. Does that apply to antlers?
 
There are three biological laws of natural selection: 1-Bergmann’s Rule. 2-Allen’s Rule. 3-Gloger’s Rule. There are, as far as we now know, 17-sub-species found north of the Mexican border. Each of these, in some way relates to these three rules. It is, in fact, adaptation. Although there is no specific rule dictating antler configuration to a specific habitat…why would there be any reason to think otherwise.

Of course, since man began to alter habitat and open thick areas, there has been sufficient time for inhabitants to adapt…to some degree. Ergo, wide rack in semi-thick cover. But not completely. Add to that, an overlapping of sub-species. Why would we think a mere river would prevent the Kansas sub-specie from inter-breeding with the Northern woodland or Virginia whitetail? Are the deer of IL and IA that different? How is it that LA has three sub-species? Why would the Dakota sub-specie not mix, to some degree with the Northern woodland? The Northern woodland, the largest bodied of all whitetails, is found in a huge area. But only in some areas does it routinely provide large antlers with heavy beams and wide racks. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be adaptation to habitat?Many of the top racks in B&C, are of this sub-specie. But take a look at where they were killed. Then study Gloger's Rule. Does that apply to antlers?

Here is my opinion on this post:

It looks to me like you are now just spewing out a bunch of scientific mumbo jumbo because you don't want to admit that you were wrong. Several people here called you out, and it was a horrible embarrassment to your over inflated ego. Now, you are going to prove that you are a highly educated scientist and the people who questioned you are just uneducated idiots who have no comprehension of higher learning.

I happen to have knowledge of all three of those "rules" but even if I didn't, I could spend 15 minutes on the Internet and know more about them than you appear to. Gloger's rule has nothing at all to do with deer antler spread. It has to do with changes in pigmentation based on the environment.

Instead of spending a bunch of your time studying biological laws of natural selection, I would suggest that you take a look into Narcissistic personality disorder and do some self searching.

By the way...I welcome you to the forum.
 
Dang, I gotta run get another bag of popcorn. Thot this movie was over. Haven't seen this much Fake or misdirected news since I last had the TV on. News flash, most us deplorables are quite familiar with those rules and the supported theories behind them. And although Rues writings are amazing, even some of his thots have been changed by some of the studies done over the last 70+ years. I still contend that the original post had some truth, and nutrition and genetics are proponents of antler/body growth, but age can and most places does, Trump shortcomings of the other two.
As for the narrow rack theory which was my original opposition, I've yet to see some supportive study for the idea. It could be accurate, but at least at this point it is but a random musing.
More butter please......
 
Back
Top