Lightning rod

[Fishbonker]

I hate being a lightening rod, but it seems any more I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame. I used to post what I thought were humorous anecdotes about my daily life, but in more recent times I have become somewhat of a militant. No apologies, it is what it is. It is me trying to support and foster the issues I believe in and trying to raise awareness thereto.

You will remember last year’s posts about wildlife feeding and the DNR attempting to ban wildlife feeding on what I felt were legitimate scientific terms. So let me draw the following analogy, it will be a stretch for the vast majority of members, but it is an analogy nonetheless.

Who thinks Barry Bonds should be in the baseball hall of fame? Arod? Rodger Clemmons? Sammy Sosa? Mark Mc Gwire? Yes it was the baseball steroid era where muscles, strike outs and home runs were achieved through uptake of substances that made the players bigger, stronger and faster.

So how do you compare the bucks of today that have mineral supplements made available to them and the bucks of yesteryear who grew inches strictly on available biomass? Should there be asterisks in the record books denoting pre and post mineral supplements? Where do you draw the line? Bucks pre 1995 before the mineral craze are different that the bucks post 1995 because they had access to antler growing enhancements? If you feel the baseball players who used stats enhancing supplements should be banned from the hall of fame shouldn’t bucks that have had antler growing enhancements be banned from the record books too?

An argument could be made that “I just put out salt so I could get trail cam pics” but where do you draw the line? A few trace minerals like one shot in the butt of steroids is OK? All or none? I don’t know but it seems like a good topic for debate.

The ‘Bonker

 

[flugge]

Well if we put an asterik next to the mineral lick, we better make sure we do it with food plots to, because that is giving them more nutrition.

 

[dedgeez]

One can not deny the fact the people are managing their properties much better these days and the nutrients sold on the market are becoming better each year with scientific research, BUT Milo Hansens WR has stood the test of time, and along with his almost all of the "headliners" in the whitetail world are from long before the "whitetail steroid era". With that said we are producing more record class deer now without question, but it has to do with more than just putting out mineral and high protein feed. People are managing for big whitetails now like never before in history, and the phenomenon has swept through the US like wildfire in the past 10 years. The birth of QDMA and so many other organizations along with 24 hour hunting channels has revolutionized our sport whether we like it or not. There are alot of old school mentalities and alot of new age mentalities that clash, but at the end of the day no one can argue that the opportunity to shoot a "world class" buck has never been better. As far as whether or not a deer should have an asterick by it in the book is not for me to say, nor do I really care. As long as I can keep killing bucks big enough to qualify, and have a chance to watch my kids enjoy this sport that is truly all I care about.

I cant wait to hear the responses to this one. Great post Bonker!

 

[JakeWym]

I think you bring up some great points. I think you got the lightning rod title from the tin foil hat that you were trying to patent last year . In my opinion, It still is a fair chase issue. I would have to guess that the majority of bucks out there are more the product of great Iowa genetics than anything else. No gun seasons during the rut have helped allow greater genetics to win. I am no expert, but myself on steroids will not look anything like Barry Bonds on steroids. My point is, that the potential still has to be there. I am sure that mineral and other things have made a difference in some cases, but I bet the vast majority are unaffected. Good post.

 

[dedgeez]

I think you bring up some great points. I think you got the lightning rod title from the tin foil hat that you were trying to patent last year . In my opinion, It still is a fair chase issue. I would have to guess that the majority of bucks out there are more the product of great Iowa genetics than anything else. No gun seasons during the rut have helped allow greater genetics to win. I am no expert, but myself on steroids will not look anything like Barry Bonds on steroids. My point is, that the potential still has to be there. I am sure that mineral and other things have made a difference in some cases, but I bet the vast majority are unaffected. Good post.

I agree, steroids or no steroids you still have to be able to hit the ball. Mineral or no mineral you still have to be able to kill the deer. In both cases some people are just better than others :drink2:

 

[Critter]

I guess you'd have to care about record books in the first place to have an opinion...........

 

[NWBuck]

I guess you'd have to care about record books in the first place to have an opinion...........

Amen to that one Critter :way:

NWBuck

 

[nannyslayer]

I'm not sure that, this is a fair compairson. If we could put mineral out and grow world class deer, I think half of Iowa would be covered in mineral. Minerals help promote, again "Promote" antler growth, doesn't mean its going to. Minerals can be used up in the muscle mass, fat tissue, as well as the skeletal structure of the animal. Steriods on the other hand, go straight to building muscle.

The number one reason for having so many large whitetails is, Iowa natural food source and enriched soils, and the age class of bucks. Plant takes up the nutrition, animal eats plant, animal gets all the nutrients it needs to grow that 250 inch rack right from the soybean plant.

Look at the number of 2 and 3 year old bucks killed 15 years ago to the amount killed today. Everyone wants to shoot a booner, and there isn't going to be more than a hand full of 3 year olds reach boone and crocket status. In order to kill a deer of that caliber, you must pass the 2 and 3 year olds, and start looking at an older age class of bucks.

As far as the steroids and baseball comparison, I think its too far off to really compair. Now if we were implanting whitetails in the wild with growth hormones or testosterone through mineral and they were pumping out 285-315 inch racks, then we would have a comparison to look at.

 

[Bill Hartzell]

Interesting post no doubt. Between this one and Ted Nugen'ts post I've been entertained for about a week now. I hunt public ground only and have been fortunate enough to kill a 142 inch 8 ptr. How would that compare to those who are fortunate enough to have their own QDM private ground? 170's--180's? Maybe a double asterisks then. Maybe a little sarcastic on my part but trophies are still in the eye of the beholder. We are definately blessed with some great bucks in this state.
Anxious to hear some more opinions.

 

[Tim Hull]

Also, more bucks have the chance to grow older especially in areas near cities where there is no gun hunting allowed due to being so close to houses.

 

[WhitetailWarrior]

I understand where you are coming from Bonker but the increase in widespread qdm has much more to do with the caliber of todays bucks than does mineral. I worked with a wildlife biologist last year on how to improve my farms and he flat out told me there is no hard sceintific data that shows a direct correlation between increased antler size and feeding mineral or supplemental feeding in a wild deer herd. I put mineral out to get pics and increase overall herd health but not for more inches on antlers.
A closer comparison to your baseball analagy would be like the steer that won the Iowa State Fair Market Beef show... He was a clone of the same steer the family won the State Fair with a couple of years back... Now that may be asterik worthy.

 

[Thinkin Rut]

I would say there are very few wild deer in Iowa that benifit from additional minerals. It's all about age and genetics. It's nice for pics though. JMO

Bonker...you thrive on being the lightning rod.

 

[loneranger]

Yes,,,I think Suburbia has a bigger impact than minerals.

 

[moosehunter]

Fishbonker. I think you bring on all your problems all by yourself....................and enjoy the attention.:drink2:

 

[bowmaker]

I am going to agree with Bonker. I have compared the "RAISING" of trophy deer under our current craze of QDM to raising Herefords or Angus. We try to control habitat, food plots, mineral sites, and even supplemental feeding of high protein easily digestible man made feeds. We even try to control genetics by "CULLING" undesirable bucks, even though we have no idea what their genetics will actually produce, just that they don't meet our arbitrary guide lines. When the average buck killed was an 8 point 120" deer, a 140 or 150 10 point was a trophy because it was way above the norm. Now that those 140" or 150" bucks have become more the norm, at least here in Iowa, shouldn't that mean that a trophy should now be defined at 180" or 190". If the 150" was a real trophy when they represented maybe 10 percent or less of the bucks harvested, shouldn't a real trophy now be represented by the 180"s which are 10 percent or less of the bucks harvested. Going back to the baseball analogy, was Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris better hitters because they set their records before the days of steroids and improved equipment. Could McGuire have hit as many with out the drugs or Sosa with out the doctored bats? Maybe, but we will never have the chance to compare because these players chose to take the easier route and short cut the system and then want to be compared equally to those who did not cheat. How can we compare today's trophy deer to those trophies of the past because the current ones have many many advantages that those trophy bucks of years ago did not have.

This whole thing has evolved because of the way deer hunting has been allowed to be commercialized over the last 20 years. Now every EXPERT has their own secret scent, or camo, or food plot clover, or muzzleloader or bow, or deer calls, and all kinds of other stuff that they promote on their TV shows and tell us that we can never hope to kill a "DEER OF A LIFE TIME" without.:thrwrck: With our diminishing buck harvest, only 47,000 antlered bucks last year, many hunters feel that they need that little EDGE just like the baseball players needed. My real question is "Why should we deer hunters feel so compelled to compete so strongly for those bucks that we are willing to do about any thing to kill Mr. Big so we can brag about it?" If we create the perfect habitat, and feed the best commercial and food plot high nutrition foods, and watch bucks on trail cams and keep them safe from the just average hunters, on large sections of land where only we can get to them, and then kill them when we feel that they have reached their full trophy potential, how is that much different than doing that same thing to an Angus bull? At least with the Angus we do it because we want the best quality meat to eat, not just for a set of horns to nail on the wall.