Measuring Deer Antler Volume

[DaveC426913]

I doubt that dominance is decided by symmetry, or minor imperfections.
Nutrition decides antler mass or volume, and so in a head-to-head conflict, the best fed buck, with the best healthy genetics will dominate.

Right. So it is apparent that the fitness/robustness of the animal and the anesthetic preference of the judges are not in alignment.

 

[renormalize]

Right. So it is apparent that the fitness/robustness of the animal and the anesthetic preference of the judges are not in alignment.

But whenever the judges aren't unconscious they likely have aesthetic preferences.

 

[JT Smith]

Right. So it is apparent that the fitness/robustness of the animal and the anesthetic [sic] preference of the judges are not in alignment.

I don't think it is well understood what the preferences of female white-tailed deer are exactly. I found one paper where they studied the behavior of female deer toward males of different size, age, and antler size, with the other variables controlled (they actually fitted the males with a means of changing antlers). They found that the size or age of the animal didn't matter, only the antler size. But they only compared large antlers versus small ones so it isn't possible from this study to say whether the females had an aesthetic appreciation for a nice set of antlers versus simply big ones, never mind if volume mattered instead of spread or height.

I think the notion of trying to intuit or deduce the factors that affect sexual attraction of female deer in order to score antlers is amusing. Why not just measure their size objectively in some agreed upon fashion?

 

[sophiecentaur]

In the B&C system, asymmetry is punished, as the "Total of Lengths of Abnormal Points" is subtracted from the score. A volume measurement would not distinguish between good and evil without additional complexity.

Analysis of (standard) photos could give degree of symmetry for the two sides and relative brightness density over the silhouette etc. etc. would be easily standardised for comparison and awarding marks. Computers are excellent at this sort of thing. Looks like a great job for AI. In fact, you could just leave it to AI to find the best parameters of photos to agree with years of humans awarding marks and take it from there. Losers would complain, winners would feel good about the system.
Not as much fun though, for enthusiasts.

If we just measure volume and assume a common density,

But that's just the equivalent of mass, if you assume uniform density. Only meeds a spring balance; simples.

 

[DaveC426913]

Looks like a great job for AI. In fact, you could just leave it to AI to find the best parameters of photos to agree with years of humans awarding marks and take it from there.

That is both cool and alarming in the same breath.

 

[erobz]

I don't think it is well understood what the preferences of female white-tailed deer are exactly. I found one paper where they studied the behavior of female deer toward males of different size, age, and antler size, with the other variables controlled (they actually fitted the males with a means of changing antlers). They found that the size or age of the animal didn't matter, only the antler size. But they only compared large antlers versus small ones so it isn't possible from this study to say whether the females had an aesthetic appreciation for a nice set of antlers versus simply big ones, never mind if volume mattered instead of spread or height.

I think the notion of trying to intuit or deduce the factors that affect sexual attraction of female deer in order to score antlers is amusing. Why not just measure their size objectively in some agreed upon fashion?

I never assumed the females had a preference. As far as I can tell it is the competition of males that makes the losers fearful of approaching receptive females while the champion is around. If a female in heat is left in unattended, smaller (defeated) competitors will also breed them while the does are receptive.

 

[256bits]

I never assumed the females had a preference. As far as I can tell it is the competition of males that makes the losers fearful of approaching receptive females while the champion is around. If a female in heat is left in unattended, smaller (defeated) competitors will also breed them while the does are receptive.

A female indiscriminate in choosing a partner could be at risk of not-maximizing the return on her energy input for reproduction. Can it be said that the female hooking up outside of the 'harem' is making a selection on a secondary dominant partner based upon some criteria to her liking?
The congregating female model allows the more sexually fit male(s) access to more females. The territory model can allow the sexually fit male access to females that wander into his area while at the same time signaling competitors to avoid the marked area.
What role the antlers play in sexual selection seems to be up for study, in that to what extent the energy that the male has invested for reproduction is for intrasexual selection ( competition ), or for intersexual selection ( selection between sexes ).

 

[JT Smith]

I never assumed the females had a preference. As far as I can tell it is the competition of males that makes the losers fearful of approaching receptive females while the champion is around. If a female in heat is left in unattended, smaller (defeated) competitors will also breed them while the does are receptive.

I was responding a post from someone else but fair enough. I really don't know to what degree, if any, female white-tailed deer choose their partners.

Let's suppose you're right and it comes down to which male is the champion. Can that really be measured reliably by looking solely at the antlers? Wouldn't age, animal size and health, and other factors be important? Maybe you end up with huge antlers from a losersaurus of a deer.

 

[256bits]

Maybe you end up with huge antlers from a losersaurus of a deer.

Like the Irish Elk ( of the moose family ) ie huge antlers, not sure about the loser part.
Something drove the large antler selection.
Perhaps larger antlers mean better health in carrying that thing around.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_elk

 

[Baluncore]

Let's suppose you're right and it comes down to which male is the champion.
Can that really be measured reliably by looking solely at the antlers? Wouldn't age, animal size and health, and other factors be important?

Antlers are the fastest growing tissue known, and that repeats every year, so no loser-of-an-animal will be able to grow big antlers with substance.

The head-to-head selection challenges involve getting past the antlers of another, so longer and multibranched antlers offer better head protection.

The fight takes energy, so presumably there will be a runner-up who turns tail. His antlers, if they are collected by humans, may be judged by B&C for display, as higher aesthetically than those of the dominant male, based on the human's appreciation of symmetry, rather than function, mass or volume.

Under hunting pressure, a symmetrical head of antlers may be a death sentence. We should expect maximum annual B&C scores to fall over the coming years, as symmetry is selectively removed from the gene pool by hunters.

 

[DaveC426913]

Under hunting pressure, a symmetrical head of antlers may be a death sentence.

This assumes hunters make the symmetry call before they shoot, as in: "Those antlers look asymmetrical. Let it go."

 

[JT Smith]

...may be judged by B&C for display, as higher aesthetically than those of the dominant male, based on the human's appreciation of symmetry, rather than function, mass or volume.

Why not judge the antlers based on human measures? Trying to score based on whether you think the buck would have won out in competition is what seems odd to me. It's the the trophy that counts. Who cares if he would've succeeded had he not been shot dead?

 

[Baluncore]

This assumes hunters make the symmetry call before they shoot, as in: "Those antlers look asymmetrical. Let it go."

You assume the deer run across the gun sight, and that the hunter must make a snap decision. I would stalk the best set of antlers in the valley all day, if that is what it took to remove the genes for symmetry from the population.

The venison at the end-of-year barbecue this week was excellent, the by-product of FIFO trophy hunting tourists. Just thinking about it again makes me salivate, without any Christmas bells being rung.

 

[JT Smith]

Trophy hunting isn't new. Wouldn't an equilibrium size and symmetry have been reached by now?

 

[DaveC426913]

You assume the deer run across the gun sight, and that the hunter must make a snap decision.

Not at all. I simply assume hunters don't look in their sights and decide "nah. Not symmetrical enough. Let it go."

I would stalk the best set of antlers in the valley all day, if that is what it took to remove the genes for symmetry from the population.

But it's not a matter of stalking the best set, so much as making that decision everytime you see any buck, and then letting a significant number of them go.

A buck is grazing at 400yds. You sight it and see it is not completely symmetrical. Are buck sightings so common that you can afford to let one or three go past until you spot one that is more symmetrical? Is that the best one you'll see, or will the next one be better?

I do not know how many hunters expect to see several bucks in a day, such that they can afford to be selective, nor do I know if they do so. Honestly don't know.

 

[Baluncore]

Trophy hunting isn't new. Wouldn't an equilibrium size and symmetry have been reached by now?

That is a matter of geography, seasons, and the number of hunters. Equilibria in natural populations tend to cycle as boom-bust oscillations.

On behalf of all the asymmetric deer out there, I would like to thank the B&C club for the little protection it offers.

 

[sophiecentaur]

if any, female white-tailed deer choose their partners.

They'd be crazy to waste their resources on some lop-sided loser. A whole year's investment of time and energy would be wasted if her son was going to die from a predator or be pushed out of the gene pool.

It's not too surprising that hunters and does make the same sort of judgements for likely candidates.

There's a lot of impregnation of does by 'smooth talking' chancers who sneak in when the big boy's not looking but reproduction is like that all over the animal kingdom. Darwinism selects on all sorts of factors which is why our artificial forms of selection don't always take us in the right direction.

I realise hunting is great fun and it has its upsides but I do wonder about the consequences of the sport on the rest of our life - what with guns and all. But this is not on topic, I realise.

 

[erobz]

I don't hunt for trophy, but a trophy I'll take! The entire encounter lasted about 5-10 seconds on this last one...so I'm not sitting in the tree stand freezing my ass off saying - is it symmetric? - is it going to score well?... As its 80+ yards away walking quickly through thick brush. Playing around trying to count points is a child's fantasy that (almost always) ends after your first hunting encounter with wild deer in wild areas - you will miss your chance to make an ethical shot very quickly! ( I spent a total of about 30 hrs. hunting this season, of which about 20 seconds was spent in the presence of a deer! )

However, some people might be looking for a trophy, but they are doing that leg work ahead of time with technology (game cameras). My encounters have almost always been - is it of legal size (3 points on one side in my wildlife management unit) to harvest. If I've been having a good string of years, I might get brave enough to let one pass for a chance at a larger set of antlers the following season (or a different buck in the same season - 2 weeks). My family of 4 eat the deer as a replacement/supplement for beef for most of the following year.

As for the scoring, among my friends the saying is "nets are for fishing", meaning the net score of a buck in the B&C is less interesting than the gross score (un-deducted for asymmetry score). This is why I just thought volume is the better measure for our taste.

 

[sophiecentaur]

My family of 4 eat the deer as a replacement/supplement for beef for most of the following year.

Hunting for the pot certainly gets my vote. I also highly approve of fishing with barbless hooks and returning the catch as soon as it's measured / photographed or even just 'appreciated'.. Also, hunting with a camera is to be applauded.

The absence of top predators in many places is a great justification for culling / hunting game. And, as a meat source, venison is better for the planet than many beef farming methods. I imagine that whitetails are in no danger of experiencing what happened to the plains buffalo.

 

[JT Smith]

They'd be crazy to waste their resources on some lop-sided loser. A whole year's investment of time and energy would be wasted if her son was going to die from a predator or be pushed out of the gene pool.

I agree that it seems like that's how it should work. I was just saying that I don't know. Sometimes the facts go counter to our intuition. It wouldn't surprise me if it was more complicated then "the dominant male does all the mating" or "the females choose the buck with the biggest antlers".

I'm not motivated to spend very much time educating myself on this subject. But I would read a well written summary of the current findings with interest.

 

[Baluncore]

They'd be crazy to waste their resources on some lop-sided loser.

"... or the females choose the buck with the biggest antlers".

The males sort it out by fighting amongst themselves, so the females do not need to judge or select the alpha male.

Antlers are both an offensive weapon, and a defensive shield. An asymmetric buck will be blinded, injured, or chased off, by a heavier or more symmetrical buck.

The females remain protected in the herd, accompanied by, and submitting to, the dominant male. The male losers avoid conflict by forming a separate group that grazes elsewhere.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The males sort it out by fighting amongst themselves, so the females do not need to judge or select the alpha male.

Antlers are both an offensive weapon, and a defensive shield. An asymmetric buck will be blinded, injured, or chased off, by a heavier or more symmetrical buck.

The females remain protected in the herd, accompanied by, and submitting to, the dominant male. The male losers avoid conflict by forming a separate group that grazes elsewhere.

That's the received first level appreciation of the system. But there's more to it. The 'beaten' males still have their hormones urging them to mate and they are often on the periphery, waiting for a chance for mating. The gene for doing that well will also survive - as will many others. The dominant male could easily die or become weaker and there needs to be others to take his place. In the end, the highest priority is that all females get pregnant.

We are not dealing with a linear system of interaction like the mainstream Sciences and reproduction is definitely not like car design.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Sometimes the facts go counter to our intuition.

Absolutely. It's a bit like Quantum Theory; if you think you understand it then you don't.

 

[Rive]

The males sort it out by fighting amongst themselves, so the females do not need to judge or select the alpha male.

Erm... May depend on the exact species, but at least some species do declare their presence or standing (both by pheromones and/or by just being really loud). Females prefer to seek/check out more ... well: intensive males (and arenas). So it's not just a one sided story.

 

[JT Smith]

The males sort it out by fighting amongst themselves, so the females do not need to judge or select the alpha male.

You edited my quote in such a way that it appears that I advocated for the position that you then argued against. You included a double quote that belonged to a phrase that you omitted and removed a double quote from the excerpt you included.

"... or the females choose the buck with the biggest antlers".

should have read:

... or "the females choose the buck with the biggest antlers".

Please be more careful.

And it would help greatly if you provided supporting evidence. Otherwise it's just a war of opinions. Granted that's par for the course in internet forums. But we can do better here, at least I hope.

 

[sophiecentaur]

So it's not just a one sided story.

A many faceted story. It's likely, as with young lads and their cars, they are busy showing off their prowess when the girls may be more interested in the 'sensitive' guy over in the corner who writes poetry. Humans may tend to have more complex behaviour but most other creatures have surprisingly complex relationships (take the Praying Mantis, for instance. (Look it up).

By digitising a few parameters, the B&C system has a less subtle appreciation. But, hey, that's sport.