Sean, you hit it right on the head with your comment about logic. WE use logic, or like to claim that we do anyway. Yet after all of these well thought out posts by members far more knowledgeable than myself, I still don't believe we have discovered the logic in removing the best genetics from a horse farm, pond, high fence area, or my local deer herd. We advocate LEAVING the best genetics in our ponds, and culling the less desirable fish. And yes, fish may be a little different, or have other influential factors in play, but the core message is still the same. Leave the desirable traits in play.

RAH asked me when I would race that horse... at his prime, after his prime, never? If racing that horse equates to killing that trophy buck as he indicated, then my answer stands. Never. Why would I? it's not logical to remove those genes from the playing field.

We can manage the herd by removing inferior specimens, and we can use those same individuals to feed ourselves and the needy. And if we truly have established that removing trophy genes is not logical, what reasoning are we left with?

I think we're back to pride, once again. "That's the biggest, bestest buck I've seen all season, and I'm going to kill it before somebody else does"

I see a huge difference between hunting vs. trophy hunting, but both are legal, and the decision to participate or not is left to the individual. And I think that's how it should be. But I also think that we owe it to ourselves, and the game we hunt, to be honest with ourselves and to stop and examine our thought processes once in awhile.




"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.