What do you figured happened, Q.E.D? I submit to you that if a law was passed it is still in effect. I don’t notice right off the bat anything in that last link that say it supersedes and nullifies previous fish and game laws. But what do I know? I just think your blunt dismissal of SmartAleq’s links was pretty ridiculous coming off as it did from a <30 minute google hunt.
eta: Rubystreak, there is no reason to think that this buck was “so mature”. It is a myth that deer can be aged from there rack size. IIRC.
Would have made much more sense for the rare moth that was hundreds or thousands of miles away from any possibility of mating to be left alone, where it may have lived a few more days (maybe even weeks!) while it frantically tried to learn how to avoid predators in an enivronment that was pretty much the opposite of it’s normal habitat.
What else could he have done with it? Let it go? It would have been dead in a few days anyway; I rather doubt its native Central American diet would be readily available in the midwestern US. And with its nearest mate several thousand miles away, passing on its genes was a moot point, as well.
No, you are correct, I basically agree with you. I think the albinism gene in general is detrimental when expressed. Since it is recessive it’s not a bad idea to eliminate it when it appears in homozygous individuals. I thought your use of the word “sick” was distracting the discussion a bit, since it implies that the animal was likely to die on its own. Better to stick to “defective.”
How can that be true? Would never have reached adulthood? I simply can’t believe that, considering that there are myths in several indigenous cultures (Chickasaw, Dakota are the ones I found in a quick search) about white deer being sacred, albino skins being used in dances, etc. Some of them must have reached adulthood.
I’d think a deer who could overcome the defect of albinism to thrive into mature, breeding adulthood must be rather above average in other ways to compensate, and who knows what you’d be taking out of the gene pool by killing him in his prime? Culling him might be the right thing to do, and it might not be. I’m not sure there’s a right answer here, because apparently some F&WS people thought the albino deer were worth protecting. In any case, humans don’t know everything and their decisions about how to manage wildlife have therefore not always been smashingly successful. I wish we could just leave it to the professionals (aka, the animals’ natural predators). Ah well.
Ok, very rarely reach adulthood, if you must nitpick.
Even without the other detrimental effects of albinism, the trait makes the animal more visible to predators. Even if the animal has some positive traits, since it is double recessive it will pass at least on the recessive gene to all its offspring. If it mates with a female with the recessive gene, half of their offspring will be albinos and under natural conditions much more vulnerable to predation. If any of its offspring mate with other individuals with the recessive gene, they also have a higher probability of being albinos and being predated.
We know very well that under natural conditions that the albino trait is detrimental exactly because it is so rare. Your speculation that this individual might have some positive traits to outweigh this is just that, speculation. Deer populations with a high rate of albinism have it so because they are living under highly artificial conditions.
I have been trying to wrap my mind around this since I read it this afternoon.
How is buying meat at a supermarket a morally superior choice? Does it give you some type of to ability to deny that you were responsible for the death of an animal? Frankly to my mind, it rates up there with a vegetarian wearing a leather coat, and telling me I am evil for eating meat. (My response is always: Nice coat, did the cow leave to you in her will?)
FTR, I am not a hunter, but I have no beef with hunters.
I can certainly appreciate the extra degree of difficulty in shooting while keeping one gloved fist in the air, but is that really respecting the basics of gun safety?
No. Where the heck did that come from? I’m saying that
I guess the first nine words really sum it up. The rest was just for emphasis. I see nothing about right or wrong, or the pointlessness of dialogue. Can you point out where you see it?
It’s also unlikely because deer don’t have litters. Most of the time they have singletons, with the occasional set of twins. There’s no way that a doe is going to have four fawns at once. Triplets would be extremely rare. Also, ‘fauns’ are fictional creatures from The Chronicles of Narnia, not baby deer. Baby deer are either called fawns or calves.
Fauns predate Narnia by a long time, but you’re broadly speaking right.
What the heck, an albino buck isn’t fit to survive, so waste it, already. Similarly, if you stumble across an Asiatic lion or a mountain gorilla, burn it - the fact that there are hardly any left is evidence that it needs a dose of evolution in action. Also you get to exhibit a really rare animal head on your wall.
When albino-deer hunting is made a crime, only criminals will hunt albino deer.
The overall rarity of albino deer has nothing to do with their decline as a species, they aren’t a species but a genetic defect in an increadibly overpopulated species.
Also, if I were to come across an Asiatic lion while out hunting in the woods of Minnesota you can bet that I’m shooting the damned thing.
It’s not a nitpick. Albinic deer are very rarely occurring naturally, and the ones who make it to mature adulthood are rarer still. However, some do survive and succeed, and they did so even when natural predators were still active and thriving. I cite indigenous myths about albino animals such as deer, buffalo, etc. and the use of albino animal skins in ritual. There must have been enough to cause them to be noted repeatedly in folklore and incorporated into the culture. This idea that they never survived, and only could or would under artificial circumstances, is not supported by evidence.
Then let the predators sort it out, eh? If possible. There are active wolf populations in Minnesota, where the OP’s story took place. In fact, in Mille Lacs County, where the deer was shot, there are wolves living in the Mille Lacs Wildlife Management Area and the Rum River State Forest. The wolves’ primary diet is of deer. Your contention that this deer was living in an artificially protected, safe environment might be true, but seems less likely in Minnesota, which has the largest wolf population in the lower 48, and in that county particularly.
Are they living under highly artificial conditions? Cite? I think MN is about as “natural” a habitat as you’re going to find in the CONUS. Of course I’m speculating about this deer’s fitness, though I do have one very compelling piece of evidence: the deer’s survival to adulthood, esp. when there are wolves around.
First of all, talk of “culling the herd” of a perfectly viable animal for the goal of getting rid of a genetic anomaly is not the same as natural predation. Wolves don’t care if the deer is white or not, or what the albino gene is theoretically going to do to the species. They only care that they can catch it and eat it. If they can, it dies. If they can’t (and in this situation it seems they didn’t), it survives and breeds. Trophy hunting for the biggest, best developed, and most unique animals for bragging rights is also not the way of natural predation.
