It's the sheep
Cliff
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-small-sheep3-2009jul03,0,4671661.story
Sheep getting smaller in Scotland due to climate change, study says
[
The average weight and size of sheep on a remote island have been falling in
small but steady increments since 1985. Milder winters mean smaller animals but
a larger herd.
...
The average weight of sheep in the feral flock has been falling nearly 3 ounces
per year since 1985, the researchers reported. The cumulative effect has been a
5% reduction in total body size.
...
That trend had puzzled scientists because they knew that evolution clearly
favored larger sheep that are better equipped to survive the harsh winters of
Hirta, a rocky outpost more than 100 miles west of mainland Scotland.
Now, using a sophisticated mathematical model, British and American researchers
have concluded that warming temperatures have made it easier for scrawnier sheep
to survive, thus reducing the average size of animals in the herd.
]
James
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sp2t45dlt6ha11htv...@4ax.com...
other flock instead of turning them loose on a remote island they
wouldn't need a model. Probably the model was formulated on the results
of the sheep rather than the other way round.
What A. Fool
In populations with limited resources, food is the big factor,
so both body weight and numbers can be affected.
And that is the very factor that wildlife management is
based on, where harsh winters occur, the White Tail Deer
can run out of food and many perish, so controlling the
size of the population is critical.
Pig Brick
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:sp2t45dlt6ha11htv...@4ax.com...
>
It's not climate change. The brits prefer the younger sheep with the tighter
muttons, and they are naturally smaller. The older sheep with the stretched
out muttons are understandably overlooked by the horny brits. The brits
already had their fill of used mutton on the Falklands, where the Argentines
had stretched them out really good for the small peckered brits.
CanopyCo
>
> In populations with limited resources, food is the big factor,
> so both body weight and numbers can be affected.
>
> And that is the very factor that wildlife management is
> based on, where harsh winters occur, the White Tail Deer
> can run out of food and many perish, so controlling the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Speaking of white tail deer, I seen a thing that stated that white
tail deer are getting smaller due to the culling of the largest by
hunters.
Apparently, hunters try to get the biggest one in the bunch.
Thus the smaller ones get to live and breed while the big ones get
taken out of the equation.
This is making the entire herd tent to be smaller sized deer each
year.
Just like the opposite is true in cattle.
You breed the two biggest ones to get more big ones.
Now we are killing off the biggest ones and breeding the smaller ones.
Apparently happening to all sport hunted animals that get hunted
heavily.
Animals in areas where there is a large wild population that never
sees man is not effected as much.
Cliff
Population genetics models probably.
>>Maybe if they fed them like any
>>other flock instead of turning them loose on a remote island they
>>wouldn't need a model.
Sheep in a $$$$ feed lot ... and the owners probably
live there too.
>>Probably the model was formulated on the results
>>of the sheep rather than the other way round.
>
> In populations with limited resources, food is the big factor,
>so both body weight and numbers can be affected.
Square-cube law issues.
Mass with the cube & surface area (heat loss) with the square.
> And that is the very factor that wildlife management is
>based on, where harsh winters occur, the White Tail Deer
>can run out of food and many perish, so controlling the
>size of the population is critical.
And the end product is probably wool ...
--
Cliff
Last Post
> "Cliff" <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:sp2t45dlt6ha11htv...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-small-sheep3-20...
•• Too true!!
Pig Brick
"CanopyCo" <Junk...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c9c0b7a3-32ef-41d2...@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I dunno. By the time they have gotten to be so big, I'll bet they have had
multiple opportunities to reproduce and pass on their their bigness genes.
However, I can see a smaller species if they were culled before getting big
and before having a chance to reproduce.
CanopyCo
> "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
They don’t live all that long in the wild, with a lifespan of 2 – 3
years being normal with a rare exception making 10 years (likely a
runt buck).
Up to 20 in captivity, but not in the wild.
Now, if it has the genetics that makes a nice, multiple point rack on
that buck, he is going to be a target every year.
The bigger he is, the more likely the target as well.
And genetics does that just like in humans that are larger or smaller
then most.
Like the kid that was 6 foot tall and started shaving in Jr High,
compared to the kid that looked like he was is Jr High when he
graduated.
Like the Karate Kid.
;-)
So, the big buck may get lucky and get to breed one or two years, but
the odds are that he is a target for every hunter each year and he is
likely the 2 year lifespan deer.
On the other hand, there is the little runt buck never gets shot at
unless there is just nothing else walking on closing day.
So he may manage to pass on his genetics for the entire 6 years or
longer.
And yes, his size would normally prevent him getting a girl, except
that we kill off his big buck competition and leave that dears harem
to be taken up by the first runt buck that comes along.
Boon and Crockett keeps a record of the biggest of anything shot, and
it has noticed a decline in the size of entrees over the years.
Jessica Wabbit
I was under the impression that deer moved around alone and hunters
will generally shot the first one they find.
HH&C
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-small-sheep3-20...
Sounds like more junk science.
Like bluegills in a pond, if you let them over-populate they'll all be
smaller.
Sorry to bust your AGW bubble.
HH&C
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:34:08 -0400, "James" <kingko...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
> >"Cliff" <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:sp2t45dlt6ha11htv...@4ax.com...
>
> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-small-sheep3-20...
...unless you belong to PETA. Then starvation and disease are
preferable to wildlife management.
HH&C
> "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote in message
There are trophy hunters, some who practice QDM.
There are meat hunters who prefer to harvest younger deer.
Probably works out OK.
HH&C
> "Cliff" <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:sp2t45dlt6ha11htv...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-small-sheep3-20...
People wondered why Princess Dianna went Greek. Wonder no longer.
What A. Fool
wrote:
A good theory, but in humans, diet and availability of food
makes a big difference in size, perhaps a study of Japan would
enlighten.
It only takes a few big bucks to cut out harems and
chase the rest away. And the more deer, the less food
in winter, in some areas they may have trouble finding
the bark and other things they eat, especially in snow
country.
I have never met a hunter that would turn down
a shot at any legal deer, most hunters go for the meat,
all are not big city slickers only out for sport.
Cliff
You don't understand how any of this works, eh?
Try a HS biology class.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
From the scientists, not you or other wingers.
>
>Like bluegills in a pond, if you let them over-populate they'll all be
>smaller.
Who said the sheep were overpopuated?
>Sorry to bust your AGW bubble.
Know-nothing.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>
>...unless you belong to PETA. Then starvation and disease are
>preferable to wildlife management.
SureShot is good at that IIRC.
Hunting in zoos, .....
--
Cliff
Pig Brick
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nk935595ns804dn4m...@4ax.com...
If your parents understood how biology worked, they would have democratted
you while you were still an embryo.
CanopyCo
>
> I was under the impression that deer moved around alone and hunters
> will generally shot the first one they find.
Depends on the hunter.
Trophy hunters will hold out to get the big buck that they can brag
about to there buddies, or even mount on the wall.
Then there is the fact of doe or buck tags.
If you bought a buck tag, you can’t shoot a doe.
Watch some of the hunting shows on TV to get a better idea of the
trophy hunter mentality.
Not the same as a sustenance hunter who hunts for food.
He wants the young, tender one instead of the old, tough one.
And as for running alone, not white tail deer.
They run in small herds with a few fawns, mostly does, and one buck.
In Oklahoma they are a real problem on the roads.
If you see a deer cross in front of you, slow down and look out for
the rest of the herd.
CanopyCo
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo <Junk74...@aol.com>
No shortage of food for deer in Oklahoma.
Plenty of wild forage as well as cow food to mooch.
And as to hunter preference, it is about a toss up around here.
Plenty of them wanting to brag about the big buck, but still several
that hunt just for food.
Even the food hunters will go for the biggest that they can get often
enough.
You see, it costs $200 to process a deer at a butcher shop.
Deer only give about 100 pounds of meat, if the deer is a big one.
That puts the meat at $2 a pound plus, so it is cheaper to just buy
meat at the store.
On top of that, you only get to shoot one deer per tag.
The tag costs money, so the bigger the deer the more meat you get.
If you shoot a little bitty 50 pound deer, you spent all that tag
money, missed work, and walked all over the woods, butchered it out
yourself after dragging it for miles out of the woods, just to get
about 25 pounds of meet.
BTW
This trend has been noticed in all sport hunted species all over the
world.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>On Jul 5, 3:35 pm, What A. Fool <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
Many hunters hang the deer in a shed and butcher it
themselves.
While a big rack is wanted, I never knew a hunter to
turn down a shot at a legal adult deer.
Some states have too many deer now, game wardens
have organized charity hunts in areas where deer were
messing up gardens or crops too bad.
In Pennsylvania about 35 years ago I had to wait
for a single file line of 31 crossed the road.
Pig Brick
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:l3m45515gv64tplmg...@4ax.com...
One time I was visiting a customer in Pennsylvania and we took a tour of the
manufacturing plant. One of the mechanics was performing some maintenance on
a machine and we stopped to chat with him. He had his toolbox on a wheelie
cart, and as he reached for a wrench I noticed that he had some pictures
taped to the inside lid, it acted as a display when the lid was open. I took
a closer look at one of the pictures and had to exclaim, "OMG you shot
Bambi!". The guy couldn't understand and said "That's a ten pointer!" The
thing was pretty tiny. In the Midwest where I'm from, the deer are easily as
tall as we are.
What A. Fool
wrote:
>"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
??? Did Bambi have a rack?
Pig Brick
"What A. Fool" <Wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:359555dgnmcfs4b87...@4ax.com...
Yeah. I guess Bambi was the first thinhg I thought of because it was so
small physically. I didn't notice the rack until after he mentioned it and I
took another look. He weas kneeling next to the deer in the picture and it
looked tiny, like one of our fawns would be up here.
HH&C
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:57:39 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >...unless you belong to PETA. Then starvation and disease are
> >preferable to wildlife management.
>
> SureShot is good at that IIRC.
>
> Hunting in zoos, .....
> --
> Cliff
Are you stoopid or something? Didn't Smudge tell you to stop replying
to me?
HH&C
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:56:29 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 3, 6:53 pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-small-sheep3-20...
> >> Sheep getting smaller in Scotland due to climate change, study says
> >> [
> >> The average weight and size of sheep on a remote island have been falling in
> >> small but steady increments since 1985. Milder winters mean smaller animals but
> >> a larger herd.
> >> ...
> >> The average weight of sheep in the feral flock has been falling nearly 3 ounces
> >> per year since 1985, the researchers reported. The cumulative effect has been a
> >> 5% reduction in total body size.
> >> ...
> >> That trend had puzzled scientists because they knew that evolution clearly
> >> favored larger sheep that are better equipped to survive the harsh winters of
> >> Hirta, a rocky outpost more than 100 miles west of mainland Scotland.
>
> >> Now, using a sophisticated mathematical model, British and American researchers
> >> have concluded that warming temperatures have made it easier for scrawnier sheep
> >> to survive, thus reducing the average size of animals in the herd.
> >> ]
>
> >Sounds like more junk science.
>
> From the scientists, not you or other wingers.
Doesn't matter. Scientists are capable of junk science when they get
the mob mentality.
> >Like bluegills in a pond, if you let them over-populate they'll all be
> >smaller.
>
> Who said the sheep were overpopuated?
Who said they weren't?
> >Sorry to bust your AGW bubble.
>
> Know-nothing.
73, Know-something.
Cliff
Try a sixth grade science class.
Several times.
--
Cliff
Cliff
> Many hunters hang the deer in a shed and butcher it
>themselves.
Then you have to buy sheds too.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Jul 6, 3:30�am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
You hunt with SureShot?
Which zoos?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Jul 6, 3:29�am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:56:29 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jul 3, 6:53�pm, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-small-sheep3-20...
>> >> � Sheep getting smaller in Scotland due to climate change, study says
>> >> [
>> >> The average weight and size of sheep on a remote island have been falling in
>> >> small but steady increments since 1985. Milder winters mean smaller animals but
>> >> a larger herd.
>> >> ...
>> >> The average weight of sheep in the feral flock has been falling nearly 3 ounces
>> >> per year since 1985, the researchers reported. The cumulative effect has been a
>> >> 5% reduction in total body size.
>> >> ...
>> >> That trend had puzzled scientists because they knew that evolution clearly
>> >> favored larger sheep that are better equipped to survive the harsh winters of
>> >> Hirta, a rocky outpost more than 100 miles west of mainland Scotland.
>>
>> >> Now, using a sophisticated mathematical model, British and American researchers
>> >> have concluded that warming temperatures have made it easier for scrawnier sheep
>> >> to survive, thus reducing the average size of animals in the herd.
>> >> ]
>>
>> >Sounds like more junk science.
>>
>> � From the scientists, not you or other wingers.
>
>Doesn't matter. Scientists are capable of junk science when they get
>the mob mentality.
So it's all Darwin's fault is it?
>> >Like bluegills in a pond, if you let them over-populate they'll all be
>> >smaller.
>>
>> � Who said the sheep were overpopuated?
>
>Who said they weren't?
You claimed that they were (hence bad management by their owners).
Have any proof?
>
>> >Sorry to bust your AGW bubble.
>>
>> � Know-nothing.
>
>73, Know-something.
Know-nothing for 73 years?
--
Cliff
HH&C
Smudge is gonna get mad...
Cliff
wrote:
>On Jul 6, 10:14�pm, "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
What is mighty DeadEye Dick "hunting" these days?
--
Cliff
HH&C
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 17:12:47 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 6, 10:14 pm, "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 6, 3:30 am, Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:57:39 -0700 (PDT), "HH&C" <hot-ham-and-che...@hotmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > >...unless you belong to PETA. Then starvation and disease are
> >> > >preferable to wildlife management.
>
> >> > SureShot is good at that IIRC.
>
> >> > Hunting in zoos, .....
> >> > --
> >> > Cliff
>
> >> Are you stoopid or something? Didn't Smudge tell you to stop replying
> >> to me?
>
> >Smudge is gonna get mad...
>
> What is mighty DeadEye Dick "hunting" these days?
> --
Maybe Smudge. He shouldn't be too hard to find... says he's on a
list. Or maybe that's just more of the latino machismo in him, like
the time he claimed he broke bread with shining path.