Originally Posted by WmHunter
Originally Posted by 280REM


Ummmmm

https://www.mossyoak.com/our-obsession/blogs/deer/improving-antler-genetics-by-culling


You'll have to forgive me if I go with the science and scientist.



That article was scrutinized and digested long ago and it is not real "science" - AND it is more about deer politics then anything.

That article and what you, CNC and others make the basic mistake of using/adopting/adhering to a false straw man argument.
Specifically an all or nothing argument.

Here is the false straw man: you cannot eliminate a bad antler trait from a free range deer herd.

That is a false illogical argument because NO ONE claims that a bad antler trait can be 100% eliminated.

No one ever made that claim.
No one claims 100%.

And the flip side unspoken claim flowing from the first false straw man argument is that culling has a zero percent affect, which is also false.

As a matter of common sense, and I mean common math sense, as in 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 - 1 = 1, the LESS you have of a bearer of
a genetic trait, whatever it is, the less there is of it and the less it will be expressed.

So you CAN visibly REDUCE the prevalence of a genetic trait and therefore its expression.

How much?
Who knows, but this is not a 100% vs. 0% thing.
And that is the crux of the disagreement here - lack of understanding of basic math, the false straw man of 100%, and deer politics.

********

Timbercruiser, for example, shot the heck out of SOOS for years and saw a MAJOR REDUCTION over time.
I did the same thing and had the same result.
Countless others around the State and South have also reported the same result.
And I am just using SOOS here as an example, it could apply to any substantially inferior abnormal antler trait.


We know Mississippi created an antler restriction rule that quickly led to disastrous high grading and messed the herd up in just a few years.

What I am saying is that while nothing is ever going to be 100% outside the big pen, there are things that can be done.
There can be a visible and measurable affect.

We have had 50 years of high grading in Alabama.
What we need is a new version of QDM that involves low grading, do that for the next 10 years and see what happens.
If high grading hurts then low grading certainly can't hurt.




The "claim" is not a straw man claim. The claim is as follows: “You cannot affect genetics as a hunter, and you cannot influence genetics through selective culling in wild deer populations.” and I highlighted that in the article linked above. That article is not a scientific article in terms of showing the research data. The article does say there are a plethora of studies that you can reference that back up the assertions made in the article, and quotes at least 2 of the scientists that conducted such studies. The article is written to debunk the type of thinking you're victim to. I'm certain the writers know that many people will not be swayed by that, and prefer to stick to their own anecdotal confirmation bias. Your "it's a simple math" issue would only hold true in a completely stagnant and sterile environment. Free ranging herd are not that and thus, it's NOT just a simple math issue. Your assertions and comparisons to cow and horse breeding are, to any person that has any research knowledge at all, completely flawed. Your SOOS example is another issue that has been debunked by science/research, and true to form, you've convinced yourself that A: it's a genetic trait despite you having zero evidence that it is AND contrary to geneticist that will tell you that there is no "right and left antler gene", and B: that you can shoot it out of your herd. You can't, but I know there's no convincing you that you have not done it. I know a guy in TX that is convinced he and his buddies hunting land has a bout a 6 to 1 Buck to Doe ratio, and that they have managed to "shoot out" the "no brow tine gene" from their herd. His claims are the equivalent of saying he essentially has the Galapagos Islands of deer habitat right there in TX. And trust me on this, he's only convinced of what he sees, and won't ever be persuaded by any scientific data that contradicts that.