Are we supposed to be impressed by that? Bow-hunting is certainly more difficult, and the result is many more animals suffering from non-lethal injuries or those that cause a slow death. Because of this, bow-hunting is illegal in many countries that allow hunting with rifles.
While I don’t like any form of recreational hunting, if you must do it at least choose an efficient weapon that minimizes suffering.
The chimp would probably handle a gun with a lot more care than some of the drunken rednecks out in the bush.
Well, except for the obvious way.
Guess I’ll have to take your word on it, since Adobe says that file is corrupted and can’t be opened. I’m sure it totally supported your position, though.
I never said it was about to die. I said that albinism comes with a variety of health problems that affect long term survivability, and for that reason, it’s to the benefit of the species that the albinism gene be removed from the gene pool. That this buck was apparently able to escape those effects does not impact this argument. As you correctly pointed out, not all forms of albinism have serious health consequences, and I was mistaken in thinking that such problems were the rule. But they’re hardly non-existent, and it remains possible that despite having a less-debilitating form of albinism, that this buck’s offspring might have one of the more-debilitating forms, and for that reason, it’s to the good of the species that this one be removed from the breeding pool.
Or luckier. At least, up to a point.
I don’t think her attitude needs justification. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with sport hunting, and it’s understandable, if you’re a hunting enthusiast, to get excited about a rare trophy that very few other people will have even seen, let alone possess themselves.
Correct: he was talking about the effect of albinism on populations of deer. And so was I.
As always, I take the tone of my posts from the tone of your posts. If you can refrain from making cheap shots from here on out, then so will I.
It worked fine for me.
I fixed it.
The woman involved does come across as a rather distasteful, classless bint. But going on about the joys of killing for the sake of killing would be just as oogy if she were talking about a regular deer.
I don’t see anything morally wrong with killing a member of an utterly un-endangered species just because it has a color variation.
Arigato.
I think if the albinism were a detriment to the animal and thus the species, the defect would have caused his death before he could reproduce. It didn’t, thus it didn’t come with the “variety of health problems” that you thought albinism entailed. It can entail those defects, which natural selection would take care of. It didn’t, in this case. If the deer can survive to have antlers that size and have babies, then it’s fit enough. Period. End of story. If his offspring are unfit because of his albinism, they won’t survive.
That makes no sense. Kill the father because the offspring might be unfit? I don’t think so. If the offspring are unfit, they will die. You have this sort of “master plan” attitude, as if hunters are trying to improve the deer gene pool. They’re not. They are, in fact, trying to hunt the most ostentatiously antlered, largest, most successful members of the deer species. They want trophies and they are not operating on the same level as a pack of wolves, who would be trying to get the weakest, oldest, least viable deer. So I don’t see how “the benefit of the species” comes into play with hunting. Overpopulation is a problem that hunting addresses, but IMO not in the most positive way, for reasons I’ve just stated.
I don’t think that luck would cause that deer to survive that long if it were so unfit.
That’s where I disagree and this is a matter of personal opinion. I do see a problem with it, but then again, I have a problem with eating animals in general, not the subject of this thread.
And I’m talking about this specific deer. I also think it’s a specious argument to try to claim that hunters in general, or this one in particular, is doing anything much for “the benefit of the species.”
Whatever. Let it drop already.
Actually searching ‘albino deer’ on the Minnesota legislatures archives shows that they passed an omnibus game and fish bill on 5/19/2004 that included a prohibition on taking albino deer that came effective 8/1/2004.
big pdf’s: Journal of the Senate
New Laws 2004
text search on albino.
I should also note that the handbook that QED Googled up, despite including “full regs” in its url, states quite loudly before the intro that it is a summary of regulations. I think it may be forgiven for omitting the 1/30,000 case of albino deer ban enacted only 3 years previous. Unless someone can cite the law being repealed it would seem to me the ban is still in effect.
The fact that none of the newscasters mentioned anything gives me pause though. But I guess it’s not exactly an investigative report.
Does it matter to anyone that the white deer do have cultural significance for some Native Americans? Here isis one story, and an encyclopedia article about it. I’m not saying it should matter to any of you, just wondering if that were a motivation for the protection laws, rather than genetic diversity, would that be more compelling?
It seems somewhat irrelevant to me whether or not the hunter in the OP inadvertently may have helped the local deer gene pool, because that wasn’t her intent. She was after the healthiest trophy she could find and she got lucky and found a particularly rare, healthy trophy. She’s proud she killed it, not proud she managed to videotape it.
What sort of selection pressure are humans putting on deer when we preferentially cull the strongest and healthiest?
Look at it this way. This buck was perfectly healthy, aside from its odd color. Next mating season, it gets with a doe, and has a litter of albino fauns. (I know, this is pretty unlikely because albinism is recessive etc. Just roll with it for now.) Some of those fauns are perfectly healthy, like their father. Some of them have a more severe form of albinism, and don’t survive their first winter. I don’t know how many fauns a deer usually has at a time. Let’s say four, and two of them are too sick to survive. But because this buck is now dead, he won’t mate with that doe. Some other buck will, one that doesn’t have the albino gene, and it sires four perfectly healthy fauns. Isn’t that (absent other factors, like overcrowding) to the ultimate benefit of the deer population as a whole?
Now, like I said, the effects of this buck passing it’s genes aren’t going to be anything like that immediate. But since it’s bred, and assuming that the different strains of albinism are not all completely genetically distinct, over the course of centuries, there are going to be some fauns that will be unable to survive because they’ve got this buck’s genes. By killing it now, those fauns will never be born, and their dams will be impregnated by some other, hopefully healthy, buck instead, which means a net gain for the size and health of the Minnesota deer population in general.
And I said just as much in my very first post to this thread. I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m presenting the hunter’s point of view in this thread. I’m not talking about their motivations at all. I’m talking about the practical effects of killing this particular buck on the population of deer as a whole. Which, admittedly, is incredibly minor. But assuming you don’t have a problem with hunting in general, then killing a deer that could pass on defective, debilitating genes is better than killing a deer with entirely normal, healthy genes.
I wouldn’t underestimate the effects of random chance on this sort of thing. But it’s certainly not anything quantifiable, so there’s not really much to argue over on this score.
I’m sure, Rubystreak, the legislation was passed for a combination of reasons other than genetic diversity/endangerment. Eco tourism, misplaced maternalism, and maybe a dash of respect to native traditions.
eta: levdragon that was brought up earlier and it was pointed out that hunters don’t generally get to pick and choose so much as to truly “weed out the good”
A lot can happen in three years. Here are the current statutes; I’ve read as much as I can stand in one sitting and find no mention of any prohibition against taking albino deer. Not to say it isn’t in there somewhere, but it’s appearing less and less likely.
As far as I can see, they don’t have any value with regard to preservation of the species. They seem to be mostly for the benefit of some people’s sensibilities, mainly the fact that white deer are regarded as pretty.
I was not commenting on that part of the issue, merely the conservation side of things. I have nothing against hunting per se, in particular for food or as part of a necessary culling program, but personally have little sympathy for trophy hunting. I prefer not to kill animals without need, but don’t have compunctions about doing so if necessary.
I think it probably would. Under natural conditions, with predators around, the animal probably would never have reached adulthood. Better that it doesn’t stick around to pass on its defective genes. If I were in charge of a local herd as a wildlife manager, I would probably pick such an animal to cull out first. Better to take it out in preference to a normal individual.
Again, I was not speaking about the attitude or motivation of the person involved, which could well be questionable, merely the conservation value of the animal under discussion. With regard to the human value, as you note the particular value of this animal is subjective, whether you want to see it alive or have it as a trophy.
Thank you. I didn’t regard your OP as completely without justification with regard to the attitude of the person involved. As I said, I was mostly commenting on the issue of the conservation value of the animal itself.
I can get behind this OP. Guess what happened when a rare huge moth that was usually found in Central america was blown off course and ends up in the midwest USA. SOme hobbyist identifies it as rare and unique and then promptly captured and killed it for posterity. SO he could add it to his collection. The dweeb, I thought that was assholish of him to kill the thing just so he could mount it under glass.
Doesn’t the fact that this buck was so mature indicate that he was quite fit in all the ways that count? Would you cull a perfectly healthy, successful buck just because it was white? From a conservation angle? The albinism is a defect but it might be outweighed by other positive qualities of various kinds that this animal had that helped him survive that long, no?
A hunting story isn’t a hunting story if it doesn’t end wiith Dick Cheney shooting someone in the face.