Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ho_merjpimpson t1_jd3emyg wrote

A a hunter myself, that is a really cool sight. So... "rare" is relative, but these are not biologically rare. 2 in 100. 2% seems small but there are a ton of deer out there. However what makes the sightings rare is that not many survive, even to hunting season. They are easy to spot by predators, their mutations often don't let them survive past the fawn stage, or even much past birth. Their first winter is a much, much bigger enemy than the hunting season. So really, what is rare about them, is ones that survive.

Lots of hunters will debate on whether or not to shoot an albino deer, etc due to wanting to continue the rarity in the gene pool. That debate isn't really applicable to piebalds because the possibility of the gene mutation exists in all deer. Shooting them doesn't decrease the chance of the gene, be it to decrease the suffering and improve the health of the species, or otherwise... but many hunters will let them walk just for wanting the rare sight continue to be seen by others.

I fall in the latter category. I would not shoot one unless it looked to be suffering/starving, because I'm fortunate enough to be picky when hunting. I'm mostly out there for the experience and the meat, and as long as I'm on track to have my freezer full that year, there is no reason for me to shoot one... And admittedly there is a disadvantage in that I'd want to get the hide tanned, and I have other things I want to spend money on, namely expanding my arsenal of meat processing equipment.

28

Hughgurgle t1_jd3g83y wrote

So I have a fan theory about piebald deer

  • fun fact pie bald is a term that comes from magpies and the way that they are white and black, and in the UK it's reserved for white and black markings, and the brown and black is referred to as skewbald (That also might just be a horse person thing not a UK thing idk)*

So one thing that was learned during the Russian Fox domestication experiments is that selecting for non-aggressive traits (specifically low fear of humans) will coincide with other genetic markers like coat patterning (and with the foxes also floppy ears and barking like behavior) anyway my theory based on the pie bald deer in my neighborhood and the fact that all the old ladies down the street feed the deer by hand (and have for 30-50 years) is that they are basically domesticating the wild deer out there and giving the ones who are brave enough to walk up to a human who has food, a chance to spread their genetic code.

8

ho_merjpimpson t1_jd3k1w6 wrote

i cant comment on that, but I do know that there are a million more reasons to not feed the wild deer than genetics.

In many areas its illegal. Particularly with CWD popping up.

Whats ironic is these old ladies probably vilify hunters. Meanwhile, in their ignorance, they are doing more damage to wildlife than a hunter ever could.

8

Hughgurgle t1_jd4dt16 wrote

I mean I get it, I used to care more-- but CWD is a prion disease, and while feeding any wild animal and getting them to congregate in large groups will spread disease, there's always going to ve people who do it. It's really not at all different from hunters who use feed lots whether they grow the food or are over in New Jersey putting out piles of corn.

Also, it's a strawman argument, assuming they would vilify hunters is wrong, they grew up around hunters and wish the deer luck and reprieve during hunting season-- we live right off the Appalachian trail. They just like feeling like Disney Princesses (just like hunters like feeling like Davey Crockett)

Sometimes you have to let other people live their lives and feed a deer (not that I advocate for it, but I do advocate for a certain level of minding my own damn business)

2

ho_merjpimpson t1_jd4lzv5 wrote

>it's a strawman argument

In order for it to be a strawman argument, one would have to view the discussion as an argument. I was having a discussion. And that statement related to the discussion. If you want to make it an argument, then so be it. Because a whole lot of what you are saying is wrong.

>assuming they would vilify hunters is wrong, they grew up around hunters and wish the deer luck and reprieve during hunting season-- we live right off the Appalachian trail. They just like feeling like Disney Princesses (just like hunters like feeling like Davey Crockett)

Most people that feed deer and treat them like pets are ignorant enough to think that they are doing them good. If these ladies are feeding deer as a favor to the deer, they are ignorant on some level, because it isn't good for the deer. Not shockingly if they are ignorant about that, they will be generally ignorant about other things that have to do with deer. Like hunting.

>there's always going to ve people who do it.

Other people doing it is not a reason to justify doing it. I see people litter all the time and not only do I not do it, I tell others not to do it, and I look down on those who do it knowing its bad.

>It's really not at all different from hunters who use feed lots

in the case of spreading disease, no... It isn't at all. But again, one doesn't excuse the other. I look down at hunters that use feed to attract deer as well and I'm not quiet about that either.

>whether they grow the food or are over in New Jersey putting out piles of corn.

Wrong. Growing food plots to attract deer is not the same as putting out feed. Food plots attract deer but keep them spread out. Piles of feed(which is not called feed plots btw), is bad for the spread of disease.

>Sometimes you have to let other people live their lives and feed a deer

I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't do. Ill leave the lawmakers(who in most cases listen to the experts) for that. But likewise, kindly get bent if you are trying to tell me to keep my mouth shut about having a discussion(or argument, as you seem to want) about how bad it is for the deer.

1

know_it_is t1_jd5yl25 wrote

Or, the grannies are fattening the deer up for the hunt. 😏

2