Backyard bucks....

[RB]

I didn't know mountain lions wore panties.

Not the lion doofus, you.

[SAMCRO]

Yes, Dave, these concepts have already been proven. Who came up with these concepts, though, and how did they become fact? I'd wager it wasn't people who simply accept what's in front of them, but instead come up with theories and test them. Maybe guys like Woods.

No sense bashing him. He's just proving a point and testing things out. Does he have a Gremlin? I'll take that car, if it has 15 bucks, including some Booners running around. We don't know all there is to know yet. We don't know the role of genetics in the face of habitat improvement, for example.

Guys like Woods can help us understand that by doing out of the ordinary chit. I doubt a guy like that really cares what you think, and I imagine it makes him smile at the thought that you're using facts that he helped generate to prove your point.

Growing Booners in Taney is flat cool, and I like a thinking man.

[Triton X2]

No I think he gives them PED'S Makes em perform better

[Warmouth]

I could argue on this all week.

Considering that states like LA, AR, MS, OK and TN, have all produced booners, already shows that genetics for horns are in the dna throughout the whitetail's entire range.

Woods has taken a TX high fence ranch mentality, and put it in the chat hills of MO. Feed, minerals, age structure, controlled human access, forest manipulation, etc.

Woods has proven that deer do well in a tailor made deer haven. If you build it they will grow. Hello TX high fence studies.

I guess I'm just not as impressed as others are as I don't see how he could have failed in this experiment other than to run out of funds, but I do agree that booner's are cool wherever you find them.

[SAMCRO]

It's about options, Dave, and it's about science. You state we "know" the genetics for superior antlers exist in essentially all of the sub-strains. I agree with that. We know that, because they appear. We don't know the full implications, though. We certainly didn't know that an area like the Ozarks could be taken to a level where superior bucks could be expected on a regular basis. What I'm seeing, Woods' isn't yet proving that point with any real data.

You seem satisfied with what you already know, although you or I didn't contribute anything to the efforts to "know" these things. My point is simply that you have yet to realize that work like this is why you "know" what you know. In 10 years you'll "know" more, and if you or others had the same attitude, you'd put down the next researcher attempting to bring more data to the knowledge table.

Fail to be impressed all you want. I have no agenda here, and I doubt being impressed is Woods goal, let alone mine. I do like the idea, and I doubt you or I know all of the work he's doing, or the implications of it. There's another area just like this he's set up in a southern state.

I could go out and spend money on a ZR1 Corvette, and bring home a factory car with known performance numbers that top most of it's peers. Other people developed it using principles that were learned through trial and error and research and data to get where they are. Sure, some folks are simple-minded and just know it's "purty quick" and burns it's tires if you want it to. Others like to dig a little deeper, and get into the "why" in terms of how it's able to put down that power, the technology behind the tires that were developed for it, and how it is exactly that it pulls more than a G on a skid-pad while others of it's ilk can't get there. Some have an appetite for details, others find it easier to just go to the showroom and buy it. Neither approach is right or wrong, they're just different.

Some folks would go so far as to buy an old Gremlin, and push known enginering until they took that car to the level of a ZR1. There's a lot to be learned from these folks, as well. How did they take that cars platform on the track to a new handling level? Not with old technology, probably not with known technology. Aside from a new heart, why is it that this car can actually do 0-60 in 4 seconds, when psychics tells you it should just sit there and spin tires? Same answer. Guys who can do this put a lot of thought into it, and others can learn from it if they want. This is the reason a lot of manufacturers, like GM for instance, hold engineering contests for students - they're encouraging thought, asking questions, and not accepting norms as the final answer. They ultimately, of course, want to learn and profit.

Or, they can just go the showroom and buy something somebody else designed. Again, not right or wrong, just appetites for different things.

You say you can argue this all day long, but I don't think there's much of an arguement. You think Grant's work is futile and you're suggesting he's just exploiting already-known variables. I say the jury is still out, and who really knows what will be learned, or how this might help Joe Average in 25 years. Who really cares? I guess I do. I just like a thinking approach to things, and I guess I'm usually not satisfied that any concept or product is fully fleshed-out.

[PoisonSnake]

OK CRO, you lost me when you began speaking of corvettes and all the like. All that other chit you said I enjoyed reading.

[RB]

OK CRO, you lost me when you began speaking of corvettes and all the like. All that other chit you said I enjoyed reading.

Me too..............butwhat happened to the forkin Gremlin?

[RB]

Speaking of old cars here is my latest projest.



1949 Ford F1 with 85 h.p. flathead

[PoisonSnake]

OK CRO, you lost me when you began speaking of corvettes and all the like. All that other chit you said I enjoyed reading.

Me too..............butwhat happened to the forkin Gremlin?

He talked about those too. I was wondering what happened to the wet panties.

[PoisonSnake]

Oh, and CRO, you spelled physics wrong.

[Warmouth]

He's just using the car analogy to say that we will all benefit from the ongoing study, whether someone understands the details or just likes the results. I agree, Woods may be onto something that genuinely changes the face of deer farming, which is where trophy hunting is at this point for professional operations.

He very well might find a formula of circumstances that kicks certain genetics into hyper drive, by growing them in a haven of supplemental feed and minerals that don't happen in a natural setting. If he finds it, someone else will definitely use it, and expand on it.

My point is that if he is trying to pinpoint what it is feed/genetic/mineral wise that kicks up the horn size, body size, overall health of a deer herd, it seems to me that he would be better off doing the study where deer are already superior like in Buffalo Co WI, or south eastern IA. Those locations already have high quality genetics, and by knowing how to improve top end genetics, I think that would give a better picture of what is needed to improve a herd that is in a low end level. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole thing, and that is what Woods is doing, but it appears to me that he is taking a low end situation and taking up to a mid/high level. I think we learn more by taking a top end situation, blowing out the glass ceiling, and taking it higher yet. How do you get deer to mature faster, have a longer "peak" window for mature bucks, get them specific minerals that are needed at specific times of the year and in what doses, etc?

My other point is that you aren't going to buy a property within 5 miles of him and have similar results at anything close to cost efficiency. He isn't growing deer in a standard southern MO property anymore. He's created a perfect scenario that happens to be in southern MO. Until one of his neighbors cuts down half of the trees on their place, replaced the earth under their feet, and plants feed that isn't naturally occurring, they won't get the same results. Of the lessons to be learned, I think one of them is that it's much easier to start off in the right place, and save yourself unneeded expense of recreating the whole earth in the hope that it will grow deer the type of deer you want. My counter point to his location, is that he could have bought land in a better location, done exactly nothing to it over 5 years, except keep people/hunters out, and have the same chances at killing a booner ( IA and WI type of areas).

Finally, I say he couldn't have failed at this project. It was impossible to fail. He was going to succeed in improving everything about the deer herd, because it was bottom of the barrel. Are there things to learn from that...yeah. Will Woods get notoriety from this...probably, but he was in a win-win situation from the get go, because things were going to get much better even with half of the effort that he ended up putting into it.

[SAMCRO]

Of course, you're making a lot of assumptions and using a lot of conjecture, Dave. Seeing as how you used words like "if he is trying" and "you aren't going to", etc. That's called a straw man, Dave. Look it up. Neither of us know what he's trying to do, or what the outcome might be, or have much more than an inkling of cost. Which generally means we can't comment on those factors, as there's really no point.

In fact, cost doesn't really ever matter much when it comes to an experient, as the final product isn't meant, nor can it, replicate the initial effort. I get your point, kind of, and I don't entirely disagree. It does sound like you have your own theories on how you'd use your own time and resources, based on your own needs and limited understanding of what you might or might not want as an outcome. This is interesting and all, but taking those same, very specific pieces, albeit somewhat rambling and clearly not fleshed out, and trying to make them fit into someone else's scenario isn't typically a recipe for success or understanding.

Snake, I can't type for chit on my iphone. I hope you'll accept my apology for any incorrectly spelled words or phrases. I am thinking of converting one of my ipads to an iphone and just strap that sonuvabitch on my hip so I can at least see the screen.

[Warmouth]

Also, I measured two sheds that were over 60" today. Get looking if you want to find the big ones, because the big ones drop first.

[SAMCRO]

He's created a perfect scenario that happens to be in southern MO. Until one of his neighbors cuts down half of the trees on their place, replaced the earth under their feet, and plants feed that isn't naturally occurring, they won't get the same results. Of the lessons to be learned, I think one of them is that it's much easier to start off in the right place, and save yourself unneeded expense of recreating the whole earth in the hope that it will grow deer the type of deer you want. My counter point to his location, is that he could have bought land in a better location, done exactly nothing to it over 5 years, except keep people/hunters out, and have the same chances at killing a booner ( IA and WI type of areas).

Oh, and no chit. I believe that was the entire point of this project. To reiterate, it doesn't sound like he was after what was easiest. By all means, though, we should all bash him and stand agasp that he's not doing what you would do. Most improvements in life come through that approach.

[Warmouth]

I didn't say you had to join in on the bashing.

On the conjecture...I'm a hell of a good guesser. You know like I do that the costs have been substantial. No reason to be coy about that.

I am surprised that you are interested in Woods finding the top end of chit genetics though, instead of someone finding the top end of the best genetics. First time I've heard of you slumming it second rate style. Congrats??

I will say that if he starts producing top end booners from Taney, that he will have turned the whitetail industry on its ear.