Remember this: Steel has to be tempered to make a
sword that is effective in combat, beautiful to behold, lethal and to be passed
down; much like ancestral DNA.
In the past and present bucks were at liberty to
breed with the doe of their choice in the wild. If the buck could avoid getting
killed to live another season then the antlers picked up more points and size.
The present day doe see a different kettle of fish being served with the
adjunct of farmed hunting preserves where bucks are used as Super Sires to
select herds. What was the nuance of the large antler before these hopefully
‘pre-determined antlers’ came along? What did antlers back in the day represent
to the person that hunts? How has this mentality changed or been redefined? Does
anyone care as long as they have ‘a monster buck with a nice rack’? Questions.
Questions.
Pulling out the old AOFH measuring tape, let’s see
if planned antler size through breeding or genetic modification is different or
the same as Made-In-The-Wild antlers. Could it all be preference, a sign of the
changing times, or just irrelevant in the face of a bullet?
First I would review Made-In-The-Wind antlers:
“Large antlers represent to the hunter the
animal’s success in surviving years of threats, including harsh conditions,
challenges by conspecific males, and the predatory efforts of previous hunters.
The hunter’s sense of being, developed from his exercise of domination, is felt
more fully when the victim is himself imbued with power. The victim must be
seen as powerful for the hunter to feel manly and alive in his conquest; thus
hunters construe it elaborate rules of fair chase to keep the power difference
between hunter and hunted from appearing absolute.” (Luke 94)
Do you really see this when applied to farmed deer for food, agritourism, or trophy hunting? No. That buck lives the life of Riley.
Do you really see this when applied to farmed deer for food, agritourism, or trophy hunting? No. That buck lives the life of Riley.
Luke contends that it’s a series of events that
shapes the ambience of the buck with his antlers as a visible badge of courage
and longevity to adversities that come. These adversities being overcome are a
testament to the power of the buck for his survival skills. I do think Luke
didn’t word the above so well because a victim that is imbued with power will
certainly not make a person feel more powerful. Victim is a poor choice of word
because bucks are not going to come out with a white flag and declare, “Take my
life please.” Worthy opponent might have
been a better option. It would be more substantial if the hunter is working a
fenced farm or totally baiting out the deer. Victim screams unsuspecting. Most
deer suspect something; if they are wild.
This would bring about the sense of power of the buck being on an equal
playing field with the hunter because the squirrelly buck could get away. I do take
into consideration that hunting is filled with technological gadgetry and to some
degree doesn’t make it sporting. In regards to survival the buck could be near
death during ruts, starving and becoming dehydrated while fighting off other males
for a shot at a female. When two bucks fight over a doe and lock horns it gives
new meaning to ‘over my dead body’. Nature
has been on its own for millennia where reproduction is concerned. It’s called evolution and survival dictates life
will find a way as Jeff Goldblum states in Jurassic Park. Impatience and a need to control causes
people to start messing in things, the fact that no cares, or was given how you
now have to figure out a way to save something from extinction. There are other considerations though.
As I gave thoughtful investigation to this a new
issue arose; the manipulation of buck progeny through Super Sires to hopefully
breed impressive antlers within a certain buck score. Also the way in which
these Super Sires and progeny are treated to get the best and desired results
in antler scoring.
Could this be the new Island of Dr. Moreau? Of
course Dr. Moreau was playing God by creating human crosses via vivisection but
the concepts of moral responsibility, hunter identity as it relates to wild versus
domesticated deer stock, and human interference came to mind.
I looked around for some deer breeding farms. I
will admit there are beautiful well-kept bucks with impressive antlers. Doe and
bucks are kept in fenced, covered shelters, handled regularly, fed proper
nutrition, dewormed, and treated like domesticated cattle ear tag and all. Some
of the conversational jargon going on in forums was progeny having a certain
percentage to sire where antler scoring, mass per age, antler expedited growth
in shorter time frames, and character. Of
course the whole push to do this sort of thing is to cast a trophy antler/meat
in the fires of breeding and genetics while slapping a $9000+ price tag on that
fuzzy pointy end. Engineered dream buck of a lifetime carries a hefty price
tag. I wondered if you could get out cheaper hunting public lands with a tag
for a Made-In-The-Wild buck. Which one carries more sentiment? Does this make
me a purist to think maybe this isn’t such a great idea or over the long run
are they really selectively breeding and not for the suppression of disease and
pestilence? Given also the fact that unless you are inserting select alleles
onto a genetic code to get a desired result just performing animal husbandry
through selection of physical desired traits will not always get you what you
desire. It is still a crap shoot.
I guess in the end the question is if you had to
choose between Brawny Buck and Metrosexual Buck; which one would you chose based
on the information the deer are living completely different lifestyles.
In reflection this is one of those strange moments
when a person who hunts is standing at the crossroads of animal activism,
hunting, science, and personal belief. On one hand the huntress can ask herself
would she rather hunt a wild game animal at liberty that was not interfered
directly via humans or hunt a buck that was engineered for certain physical
qualities while being raised in a domesticated situation that lead up to its
death in less than noble fashion. I
would submit on one hand some would argue a buck is a buck. Luke points out
that this engineered buck may make the male hunter feel less than manly due to
the circumstance. Others would say just shoot it already. If science has given
humans the ability to sequence the genome of a deer and it is a reality that
genes can be altered and manipulated for requested outcomes as far as physical
characteristics go (as it pertains to bucks); what are they doing to the doe? Where
is this all leading to? Have we been down this road before with beef, chicken,
and fish? Do we not ever learn? Dr. Moreau used vivisection on animals and
humans. Scientists are using it now on deer and everything else. The only
concern I have with this is the effect it will have on the defining facets of
hunting. Selfishly manipulating the beast can sully the quality of the hunting
act by supplanting domestication with the wild. Does this mean I can walk out
in a field, shoot a cow called Old Bessie, and say it’s the same thing? Is it
worth engineering a deer in captivity for a nice trophy mount on the wall when
you know where that head/buck came from? Certainly not the wild: maybe from a petri
dish or super ovulated ovary.
Written
by: W Harley Bloodworth
~Courtesy
of the AOFH~
Literature
Cited:
Luke,
Brian. Brutal Manhood and the
Exploitation of Animals. Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of
Illinois Press. 2007. Print. Pg. 94.
