I had intended to be done with this thread, but now another angle has presented itself. I will be the first to admit that I know next to nothing about genetics, but something mentioned earlier has really stuck with me. That being the notion that trophy deer genetics are "already in the herd" if nature has run her course, thereby eliminating the need to keep the biggest and best trophy deer alive.
I'm not always real clear at trying to explain what I'm thinking, so I often tend to use an example to illustrate where I'm going with a topic. Please bear with me.
Let's say you raise racehorses. And you get the chance to utilize the stud of all studs in your breeding program....this guy is a proven champion, multiple winner. Obviously you want those genetics, if at all possible.
So you show up at the farm, and are given a choice: You can have Mr. perfect, with his established track record, OR, you can utilize one of his offspring, a young horse, new to the racing circuit, unproven but hey, he's got those genetics, right? The costs are the same for either one.
Which one do you choose? I'm pretty sure I know where I want my money spent. On the horse who obviously has good genetics, and has proven that on the track. Maybe junior would work just as well, but why chance it? The big boy is standing right here, why would I choose to eliminate him from the picture? I KNOW he has the right stuff.
So using that line of admittedly, possibly flawed logic, how is removing a trophy deer with excellent genetics deemed acceptable? Sure, it might open the door for another buck to come in, but how do you know his genetics aren't worse than the ones from the animal you now have on the wall?
I'm not arguing, simply questioning.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
