lol im not stupid, I know its just a line on a map! but to say the genes are the same or the old strain isn't there is stupidTheLBLman":1gpxnahy said:
-
Help Support TNDeer:
Crossing the Campbell County Line . . . . .
- Thread starter TheLBLman
- Start date
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
No one has said the original strains aren't there.knightrider":3u5fxumg said:
What's being said is that bucks buck around, and they have so mixed and bred to the point there is now no significant difference between these two counties' current deer genetics, nor is there any significant genetic difference between ANY two adjoining counties anywhere in either TN or KY UNLESS there is some major physical barrier between them.
IMO, it's reasonable to expect there "might" be some genetic differences between the deer of Henry County, TN vs. Stewart County, TN because of the very wide Kentucky Lake/TN River separating them. (I'm not aware of any there, but it seems more plausible.) But there is no significant barrier between most adjoining counties. Bucks buck around, and spread their genes.
TheLBLman":2q5k2b6c said:
x2 The genetic differences in those herds have been diluted for a long time with the movement of bucks between the different stockings.
AXL78":2neafnmu said:
Interesting points, AXL78. You "get it" better than most any other poster on this thread
I was surprised at the quality of the Whitley County soils vs Campbell Co. The difference in TN and KY soils west of the plateau to LBL are quite obvious when one is familiar with them. I've never been in Whitley or Campbell, but after looking at the soil types, there is more difference than I expected to see.
Whitley has several thousand acres of soil types that are also found in the Ohio River bottoms, and were once found in (now submerged) Tennessee River bottom fields. Campbell has none of those soils. .It's not just the bottoms...The upland soils are better quality as well.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
If I'm overlooking evidence of significant differences in Whitley vs. Campbell County's soil, I'd appreciate seeing it, as nothing of significance appears to be showing on these so-often touted soil maps produced by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
We have been told for years that the main reason KY produces more larger antlered bucks than TN is
because KY (at least on a "statewide" basis) has more of these "alfisols".
I believe that has been a true statement, and may still be.
ALFISOL Map
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_M ... 237724.jpg
Note the area on this map encompassing both Whitley & Campbell counties. (Click on a map area to zoom in.)
Does this mean our nation's leading soil scientists made a mistake when they didn't show better soils in Whitley County?
Notice all those alfisols, just not as much in TN as we see in KY. Again, how could a single Appalchacian county in East KY be producing more larger antlered bucks than ALL of West TN, much of which is rich these alfisols?
There is also the issue of "Mollisols".
For years I've been told the main reason some mid-western states grow such large antlered bucks regularly is because they are rich in these mollisols. I have no doubt this is a major factor, and may very well be THE main factor, there.
MOLLISOL Map . . . . .
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_M ... 237740.jpg
Note all those vast areas of these mollisols in places such as Central Illinois, Iowa, and the "Great Plains" States.
But do you see any mollisols in Kentucky?
Isn't Kentucky now producing more larger antlered bucks than most (if not all) of these states so rich in mollisols?
This seems to contradict much of what we've been thinking about the soil being the most important factor?
Could it be that in the presence of either "decent" or just "similar" soils, AGE becomes the most important factor?
We have been told for years that the main reason KY produces more larger antlered bucks than TN is
because KY (at least on a "statewide" basis) has more of these "alfisols".
I believe that has been a true statement, and may still be.
ALFISOL Map
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_M ... 237724.jpg
Note the area on this map encompassing both Whitley & Campbell counties. (Click on a map area to zoom in.)
Does this mean our nation's leading soil scientists made a mistake when they didn't show better soils in Whitley County?
Notice all those alfisols, just not as much in TN as we see in KY. Again, how could a single Appalchacian county in East KY be producing more larger antlered bucks than ALL of West TN, much of which is rich these alfisols?
There is also the issue of "Mollisols".
For years I've been told the main reason some mid-western states grow such large antlered bucks regularly is because they are rich in these mollisols. I have no doubt this is a major factor, and may very well be THE main factor, there.
MOLLISOL Map . . . . .
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_M ... 237740.jpg
Note all those vast areas of these mollisols in places such as Central Illinois, Iowa, and the "Great Plains" States.
But do you see any mollisols in Kentucky?
Isn't Kentucky now producing more larger antlered bucks than most (if not all) of these states so rich in mollisols?
This seems to contradict much of what we've been thinking about the soil being the most important factor?
Could it be that in the presence of either "decent" or just "similar" soils, AGE becomes the most important factor?
op: waiting on farmin68........Roost 1":3a7rlimx said:
Wait all you want . He's not your errand boy.
Alfisols, Mollisols, and Ultisols are 3 of 12 soil orders. The classification system branches out from there..eventually intro over 14,000 soil types.
You and the other trophy Kool-aid drinkers on this site are so smart, y'all continue trying to figure it out for yourselves. I'm returning to the sidelines, but I'll be reading...the theories and excuses are quite entertaining. :mrgreen:
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
True, but what does that statement have to do with the price of beans? :|farmin68":1soa495q said:Roost 1":1soa495q said:
Alfisols, Mollisols, and Ultisols are 3 of 12 soil orders.
Alfisols and Mollisols have long been credited as being the "best" for growing the largest deer antlers?
Here's the Ultisol map, and it does appear that both Whitley and Campbell counties are composed mostly of the poorer Ultisols?
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_M ... 237746.jpg
How is it that Whitley County (with it's predominance of Ultisols) is producing more large antlered bucks
than ALL those predominately Alfisol counties of West TN COMBINED?
Surely, there must be some factors at play more important than these soil differences?
I think someone is going to have to do some research on the micro level of the soils in those two regions. The type of information that the average or above average person can't decipher, but makes sense to a scientist. There is a difference, it's on your map of Boone and Crockett bucks too.
How is Whitley one of the better producers of record bucks in the entire state of Kentucky??????
It is well above the middle of the pack if you ranked counties. Probably one of the better counties in the nation.
How is Whitley one of the better producers of record bucks in the entire state of Kentucky??????
It is well above the middle of the pack if you ranked counties. Probably one of the better counties in the nation.
If you want a real comparison, look to the east of Whitley. That county, and the one to the North, has 4 entries. That is realistic when comparing to Campbell. You could maybe have an argument that those extra entries could be attributable to seasons or mindset. Comparing Whitley, at 16:1, is unrealistic.
.TheLBLman":it3ie35y said:True, but what does that statement have to do with the price of beans? :|farmin68":it3ie35y said:Roost 1":it3ie35y said:
Alfisols, Mollisols, and Ultisols are 3 of 12 soil orders.
Alfisols and Mollisols have long been credited as being the "best" for growing the largest deer antlers?
Here's the Ultisol map, and it does appear that both Whitley and Campbell counties are composed mostly of the poorer Ultisols?
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_M ... 237746.jpg
How is it that Whitley County (with it's predominance of Ultisols) is producing more large antlered bucks
than ALL those predominately Alfisol counties of West TN COMBINED?
Surely, there must be some factors at play more important than these soil differences?
.
LBLMan, Find it yourself. I've never been in either county, but it took me less than a half hour to see the differences. Besides, there's no sense in me adding it. You've proven many times that you are quick to ignore any scientific data that might get in the way of your theories.
There was a time, when you went by Wes Parrish (the reason for the name change has become quite obvious), that I had a lot of respect for you, your posts and would have gladly answered any question you had. However, ever since you chugged the trophy Kool Aid,... I gotta be honest... You turned into a smartazz who is quick to ridicule and bash anyone who has an opinion that isn't in line with yours.... And that includes two of the most informed people who have ever posted In any hunting forum. That respect is gone. That may sound harsh, but I can assure you that I'm not at all alone in this observation.
Yours is the shining example of the attitude that is destroying this website. So...you're so friggin smart... Dig up the info you're looking for on your own.
Laugh at me. Sue me. Report me. Try pulling some political strings to have me banned. I don't care..If the trophyist-mentality attitudes like yours are the future of this place, it's on its way to becoming a small and somewhat exclusive club that I have no desire to be a part of.
#KentuckyDreamers
I'm renaming this thread "Soiled Genes"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This last post should do it..... In again before the lock is applied.
TboneD":3fse3vfd said:
Like!
Os2 Outdoors
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,804
X3
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
farmin68, I'm not sure, and he can speak for himself, but I don't think LBLMAN is saying that soils don't have any effect on antler size...and I'm not saying that either. What I am saying is that the limits and seasons of Tennessee has a greater effect on the potential for big antlered deer than soil does. Even that MSU article says the same thing. That it "appears" different soil types "may" have a big impact on antler size, however really big deer are a rarity no matter the soil types, and one should manage and expect only the average size deer. I still find it hard to understand how it is that that one county in KY has more BC bucks than not only neighboring counties in the same state, but one of the most in any state. Your position seems to be that Whitley has better soils than most other counties nationwide, and I don't agree. I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong in stating your position. I think there are other factors that play a bigger role than soils...not that soils don't play any role. One factor that I mentioned before about soils is that better soils WILL produce more available food and cover for deer. That is certainly related to more healthy deer. Having a healthier deer may indeed have an impact on how big said deers antlers will grow, but I don't personally believe that there is a direct link of soil to antler growth. If that were the predominate factor, then there wouldn't be such variation between the same aged deer eating the same foods from the same soil. There are many many variables as to why a buck grows bigger antlers...the one constant across all populations of deer no matter the state is that older deer have bigger antlers.
I also would like to ask that you be more gentle in your choice of words to folks that dissagree with you. You have brought many many good thoughts and data to this discussion, and have caused me to think and rethink what I think. I don't think the data is complete though, and that the data needs to answer the question "why" and "so what". How does the better soil effect antler growth? Is it a direct linear effect?
I like to see big deer. I like to see big deer in the back of a pickup. I think it's great when someone gets one. I think it's great when someone targets trophy deer and can get them. I also like the meat hunter. I think there is plenty of room for both. I think a trophy hunter who understands population dynamics isn't a threat to deer hunting not is the meat hunter. I personally think the trophy hunting mentality has overall been good for deer hunting...there have certainty been bad spots and bad apples, but I don't think we should lump them all in one and burn them or ridicule them.
I also would like to ask that you be more gentle in your choice of words to folks that dissagree with you. You have brought many many good thoughts and data to this discussion, and have caused me to think and rethink what I think. I don't think the data is complete though, and that the data needs to answer the question "why" and "so what". How does the better soil effect antler growth? Is it a direct linear effect?
I like to see big deer. I like to see big deer in the back of a pickup. I think it's great when someone gets one. I think it's great when someone targets trophy deer and can get them. I also like the meat hunter. I think there is plenty of room for both. I think a trophy hunter who understands population dynamics isn't a threat to deer hunting not is the meat hunter. I personally think the trophy hunting mentality has overall been good for deer hunting...there have certainty been bad spots and bad apples, but I don't think we should lump them all in one and burn them or ridicule them.
What Campbell vs Whitley illustrate more than anything is the importance of soil to me. I don't care what soil records there are, who says what, etc. If it hasn't been found, someone should keep looking. You can look at that Boone and Crockett map and see right down through the middle of Kentucky is land that produces huge deer. To the east and west doesn't. There obviously is something in that land, or soil, that is not in the counties to the east and west, nor past the state line. Nobody can help it where the line falls, why does it stop where it does to the east and west. That land is good, you can say its not good for agriculture or plants or whatever, and that's fine, but its good for growing deer. Maybe nobody has figured out why that LAND is so good, but it is not seasons, limits, hunter mindset, genetics, etc., cause that land is excellent all the way up through Kentucky, except to the east and west. It only leaves soil to be the major contributor.
Not sure what map you are looking at....
Looks like west Ky is king....
