|
Post by swilk on May 26, 2015 7:49:53 GMT -5
Was down at my buddys house yesterday doing some work on treestands and tree ladders .... replacing all the old cables and bolts with new chain and grade 8 stuff with locking washers and loc-tite .....
His dad is a federal wildlife rehabilitator ... same guy who got the eagle Woody posted on FB not to long ago ... anyway, he comes down and said he just had two fawns brought in that were born without lower jaws. Anyone ever hear of anything like that?
|
|
|
Post by parson on May 26, 2015 9:20:19 GMT -5
Never heard of that. When I saw the title of your post I thought that it would reference the bad results of someone attempting a head shot on a deer.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 26, 2015 9:36:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 26, 2015 9:38:48 GMT -5
Never heard of that. When I saw the title of your post I thought that it would reference the bad results of someone attempting a head shot on a deer. hhmm ... I will change the title. Good point.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 26, 2015 9:40:09 GMT -5
The assumption is it was two fawns from the same doe but I am not 100% sure .... but whatever the case it is strange having two born the same way.
|
|
|
Post by parson on May 26, 2015 9:45:09 GMT -5
The article certainly presents some points worth pondering.
|
|
|
Post by boonechaser on May 26, 2015 9:49:48 GMT -5
I use roundup ready corn seed for my corn plot but do not spray. Definitely a good article and am sure not the last we will hear on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on May 26, 2015 13:24:41 GMT -5
Jaw defects of all sorts are a trait that occurs with some frequency in sheep and goats and have a high degree of heritability. It would not surprise me if deer were the same way.
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 26, 2015 16:22:27 GMT -5
There are two sides, or more, to every claim: gmoanswers.com/studies/what-can-we-say-about-exposure-glyphosate?gclid=CNqihJuo4MUCFZOFaQodIUoAWQThe preponderance of the evidence is that glyphosate is not a human or animal carcinogen. When sprayed, it has no residual effect. This means that once sprayed and absorbed, the ground can be plowed without future herbicide caused damage to the crop. To me it is a huge leap to blame GMO's and glyphosate for deer fawn defects. In fact, unless you want to pay a lot more for your grocery bill, be thankful for these agricultural advances.
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on May 26, 2015 17:27:05 GMT -5
It's got to be global warming.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on May 26, 2015 18:45:14 GMT -5
I don't think anyone is "blaming" what may be birth defects of a couple of deer on roundup or gmo crops. But the article in NAW and other sources do raise some interesting questions.
Now whether a person wants to keep an open mind, ponder the question(s) and see what (if any) other data is presented over time before making up their minds is one choice. But if a person would rather just immediately "pooh-pooh" the idea as worthless, that is obviously up to them as well.
As for me....I'll wait for more data before saying yea or nay on this one......
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on May 27, 2015 0:32:33 GMT -5
I would blame it on poor genetics due to over population long before GMOs and round up
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 27, 2015 4:42:19 GMT -5
I would blame it on poor genetics due to over population long before GMOs and round up I agree, it due to to much inbreeding and passing on of poor genetics. I've harvested a couple of mature Bucks that had only one antler. More studies need to be done on GMOs effect on Wildlife too.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 27, 2015 5:30:00 GMT -5
I'm a little amazed that someone said poor genetics. Believe it or not, we are destroying our deer herd over time simply because we as humans think we can do a better job than mother nature. Especially since we keep moving farther and farther to being exactly opposite of natural selection.
Oh wait. We've been doing that with humans for centuries, and that has worked out so well.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on May 27, 2015 5:40:10 GMT -5
I'm a little amazed that someone said poor genetics. Believe it or not, we are destroying our deer herd over time simply because we as humans think we can do a better job than mother nature. Especially since we keep moving farther and farther to being exactly opposite of natural selection. Oh wait. We've been doing that with humans for centuries, and that has worked out so well. I believe it! We are greedy if we go in the woods and don't see 20 deer its a problem If we only shoot the biggest and most mature of bucks and does its because we are looking out for the herds betterment but when we don't shoot the cull deer because of their poor trophy value we start having things like piebald deer and mature bucks with 6 point basket racks because we have essentially removed the best genetics from the herd and leave the poor ones to produce and have basically reduced natural selection for our own egos and in turn produced a herd of minimal quality. P.s. original poster are they culling the fawns or trying to find a way to keep them alive?
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 27, 2015 6:13:23 GMT -5
I'm a little amazed that someone said poor genetics. Believe it or not, we are destroying our deer herd over time simply because we as humans think we can do a better job than mother nature. Especially since we keep moving farther and farther to being exactly opposite of natural selection. Oh wait. We've been doing that with humans for centuries, and that has worked out so well. Genetics has everything to do when dealing or establishing a superior species. Inbreeding can cause many bad traits to appear, thus causing these "bad traits" to establish themselves well within the species. As for Humans, we are becoming weaker than our ancestors were several years ago. More cases of Cancer, and other diseases are on the rise.
|
|
|
Post by jimstc on May 27, 2015 6:45:48 GMT -5
I'm a little amazed that someone said poor genetics. Believe it or not, we are destroying our deer herd over time simply because we as humans think we can do a better job than mother nature. Especially since we keep moving farther and farther to being exactly opposite of natural selection. Oh wait. We've been doing that with humans for centuries, and that has worked out so well. I believe it! We are greedy if we go in the woods and don't see 20 deer its a problem If we only shoot the biggest and most mature of bucks and does its because we are looking out for the herds betterment but when we don't shoot the cull deer because of their poor trophy value we start having things like piebald deer and mature bucks with 6 point basket racks because we have essentially removed the best genetics from the herd and leave the poor ones to produce and have basically reduced natural selection for our own egos and in turn produced a herd of minimal quality. P.s. original poster are they culling the fawns or trying to find a way to keep them alive? I don't hunt for trophy caliber deer. I hunt for food and the enjoyment of being in the woods. If I get a shot at a nice buck I will definitely take it but that is not my goal. I am going to take the first harvest quality deer, meaning large enough to put meat in the freezer. Also, in my experience, I have never been so fortunate to see a 20 deer herd during season. Now out of season, that is a different discussion. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 27, 2015 7:37:07 GMT -5
I'm a little amazed that someone said poor genetics. Believe it or not, we are destroying our deer herd over time simply because we as humans think we can do a better job than mother nature. Especially since we keep moving farther and farther to being exactly opposite of natural selection. Oh wait. We've been doing that with humans for centuries, and that has worked out so well. Genetics has everything to do when dealing or establishing a superior species. Inbreeding can cause many bad traits to appear, thus causing these "bad traits" to establish themselves well within the species. As for Humans, we are becoming weaker than our ancestors were several years ago. More cases of Cancer, and other diseases are on the rise. What was the life expectancy of a human being 200 years ago? What is it now? When was cancer first discovered? What was the population of earth 200 years ago? Did people die of cancer before it was "discovered? We, as a species, are bigger, stronger, faster and live longer than at any time in our history. Im sure our weakest is on par with the weakest of any generation but our strongest, are by far stronger than any in history. And by "strong" I am not talking just strength. I am talking the whole package.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on May 27, 2015 7:39:23 GMT -5
P.s. original poster are they culling the fawns or trying to find a way to keep them alive? When I left there on Monday he was waiting on a call to see what their fate would be .... we assumed it would be putting them down but I have not spoken to him since then. No doubt they could be kept alive for a period of time but there is now way they could sustain life on their own over time ....
|
|
|
Post by drs on May 27, 2015 8:29:33 GMT -5
Genetics has everything to do when dealing or establishing a superior species. Inbreeding can cause many bad traits to appear, thus causing these "bad traits" to establish themselves well within the species. As for Humans, we are becoming weaker than our ancestors were several years ago. More cases of Cancer, and other diseases are on the rise. What was the life expectancy of a human being 200 years ago? What is it now? When was cancer first discovered? What was the population of earth 200 years ago? Did people die of cancer before it was "discovered? We, as a species, are bigger, stronger, faster and live longer than at any time in our history. Im sure our weakest is on par with the weakest of any generation but our strongest, are by far stronger than any in history. And by "strong" I am not talking just strength. I am talking the whole package. I knew, when I posted, that I would receive such a response. Life expectancy was something like 60 years two hundred years ago. Due mainly there were no antibiotics existed as there is today. Only problem we not only created great and useful antibiotics; the problem is that some of these old diseases have become resistant to these antibiotics, thus becoming "Super Bacterium". We didn't have "flesh eating" Bacteria back 200 years ago, Swilk. As for Cancer I believe it was known way back sometime in the past several centuries, and yes individuals died of Cancer just as they do today, without (todays) prudent treatment. We, as a species, are not anymore healthier or better than those of the past. However today, we are exposed to chemicals, pollution, GMOs, Stress, and a host of other things that affect our everyday life. People, 200 years ago, didn't have these factors or issues to contend with, and the population was 1/3 of what it is now. True, life span has increased, but at what cost??
|
|