A brawl brewing in spokane?

[Deleted member 28227]

How old ? Past breeding age, past passing on great genes! Good biology. Still of healthy breeding age bad biology.

Don't target the best. Two years I happily shot a fork horn that was in the presence two exceptional older bucks.

Say what you want about me, but i practice what i preach

So you shot out tomorrows great genes?

If you shoot bucks before they reach maturity you never see their "great genes" expressed. Further antler size might be correlated with fitness but it's definitely not causative.

Roosevelt elk are certainly fit but have smaller antlers v. body size than other elk, in certain environments antlers aren't an indication of fitness, and may be detrimental hence the reason barren ground caribou have much larger antlers to body size than other ungulates living in highly forested areas.

Sorry I don't buy this line of thought, and don't think it's supported by science.

 

[Hammsolo]

It sounds like it’s time for a Science lesson, but I’m tired… already taught 3 periods of cell biology today. Genetics stay the same throughout an organisms life, but their epigenetics changes. Epigenetics is kind of the controller of genes. Both are passed to offspring, but some epigenetics tags are pruned early in life.

Generally speaking, a young animal may or may not have “good” genetics and epigenetics. However, in theory animals with physical advantages usually survive. They probably will out compete younger less developed animals in the battle for reproduction. If there aren’t any mature animals that have outlasted less physically advantaged animals of their generation, then reproduction falls to the young, and the young less advantaged critters may get an opportunity to breed when they shouldn’t have.

Imagine what the world may be like if all us stud veterans were all killed off and 13 year olds were doing all the breeding…

A good short video
Epigenetics Crash Course

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin
If you have time I wouldn't mind hearing your thoughts on this article.

Just home from a 36 hour airline experience from Duluth to Bozeman. I didn't have time to read all the comments, but I read Andrew's article. Very good, as expected from him.

Seems the folks in Washington want to focus on the Public Trust Doctrine. And like many folks, on many issues, they are mostly focused on the points and ideas where they feel they have leverage, while disregarding the parts of Trusteeship and Fiduciary duty that don't support their desired outcome.

For me, this Trusteeship and Fiduciary duty is second nature. I've been the Trustee of dozens and dozens of Trusts. I'm currently the Trustee of about ten Trusts. The same principles that govern my duties, responsibilities, and actions are the same principles that courts have applied to Public Trustees.

In a very brief summary of Fiduciary Duty, a Trustee has a Fiduciary duty to manage the Trust assets for all beneficiaries, both current and future. The Trustee's highest priority is to make sure the Trust assets are managed properly, considering all factors, all conditions, all possible future outcomes. Transparency, Reasonable & Prudent Person Test, No Self-Dealing, and many other standards are applied to the Trustees.

How does that apply to the Public Trust Doctrine and wildlife? In a million different ways, but I will point out the important factors that a group like those in Washington is likely to ignore.

To sustain the Trust Corpus, the wildlife, the Trustees must manage for current and future beneficiaries, given all facts and circumstances, using the best possible information as the basis for their decisions. Imagine if a Trustee responsible for your investment portfolio (trust corpus) did not use the best financial and market information to manage your Trust assets. They would be sued into oblivion. You would have grounds to remove them, as they would not meet a "Reasonable & Prudent" standard.

Well, the same applies to wildlife as the Trust Corpus. Hiring the best financial and market expertise is a duty placed on me as a Trustee, which is the equivalent of a Public Trust Trustee needing the best wildlife science and biology. To ignore that science and biology takes the Trustee outside the bounds of their role as Trustee.

And let's get to the real crux. A Trustee is not a "Yes Man" to the beneficiaries. The Trustee is supposed to be the adult in the room, often times telling the beneficiary, "No, I'm not doing that. It is not good for the Trust."

We say that a Trustee duty requires that you protect the Trust Corpus from predators, creditors, and often times you must protect the beneficiary from themselves. Being Trustee is not a popularity contest. It is doing what is Reasonable and Prudent, in the name of the current and future beneficiaries.

And that is where these ideas of managing by social demands or non-science concerns is against the Public Trust Doctrine. Those Public Trustees are supposed to do what is best for the Trust Corpus, not what a certain group of beneficiaries want. They can scream and yell, but the Trustee must protect all classes of Beneficiaries from the demands of a few. And that can be applied to the fringes who want to kill every predator, have hunting seasons last four months, and have low license fees as a birthright.

I see so many wildlife arguments using "The Public Trust Doctrine" (PTD) as a tool or a weapon and most often the person knows little, or maybe nothing, about how Trusts work and what the Trustee Duties are. That is exactly the case being made by the two groups in Washington.

They are demanding the Trustees ignore science. They are demanding that the funding sources that keep the Trust Corpus in tact be changed or removed. They are stating that a class of Beneficiaries they claim to represent be given control of the Trust Assets for the benefit of their demands.

I could go on and on. This is a classic example for elected and appointed officials being asked to serve as Trustees, when they have almost zero training or expertise in how Trusts work and what Duties and Responsibilities they are beholden to as part of their Trusteeship. It happens in most all of our public bodies. I would advocate that every public servant, whether elected or appointed, especially those serving as Trustees over wildlife, be required to take a week of instruction about Trusteeship, Trust Principles, and what Duties and Responsibilities they have signed up for.

I'll leave it at that, with so much more to this topic. Hunters and anglers must also beware of their own tendencies to ask Trustees to operate for their sole benefit. That is no more acceptable than these two Washington groups asking that the Trustees of Washington wildlife to manage for a distinct class of beneficiaries, of which they happen to be the self-appointed voice for.

Probably more than you wanted to know about Trusts. But, if we're gonna use the PTD for the basis of these debates, whether to change or keep the status quo, a better understanding of Trusts is going to be required.

 

[BrentD]

Just home from a 36 hour airline experience from Duluth to Bozeman. I didn't have time to read all the comments, but I read Andrew's article. Very good, as expected from him.

Seems the folks in Washington want to focus on the Public Trust Doctrine. And like many folks, on many issues, they are mostly focused on the points and ideas where they feel they have leverage, while disregarding the parts of Trusteeship and Fiduciary duty that don't support their desired outcome.

For me, this Trusteeship and Fiduciary duty is second nature. I've been the Trustee of dozens and dozens of Trusts. I'm currently the Trustee of about ten Trusts. The same principles that govern my duties, responsibilities, and actions are the same principles that courts have applied to Public Trustees.

In a very brief summary of Fiduciary Duty, a Trustee has a Fiduciary duty to manage the Trust assets for all beneficiaries, both current and future. The Trustee's highest priority is to make sure the Trust assets are managed properly, considering all factors, all conditions, all possible future outcomes. Transparency, Reasonable & Prudent Person Test, No Self-Dealing, and many other standards are applied to the Trustees.

How does that apply to the Public Trust Doctrine and wildlife? In a million different ways, but I will point out the important factors that a group like those in Washington is likely to ignore.

To sustain the Trust Corpus, the wildlife, the Trustees must manage for current and future beneficiaries, given all facts and circumstances, using the best possible information as the basis for their decisions. Imagine if a Trustee responsible for your investment portfolio (trust corpus) did not use the best financial and market information to manage your Trust assets. They would be sued into oblivion. You would have grounds to remove them, as they would not meet a "Reasonable & Prudent" standard.

Well, the same applies to wildlife as the Trust Corpus. Hiring the best financial and market expertise is a duty placed on me as a Trustee, which is the equivalent of a Public Trust Trustee needing the best wildlife science and biology. To ignore that science and biology takes the Trustee outside the bounds of their role as Trustee.

And let's get to the real crux. A Trustee is not a "Yes Man" to the beneficiaries. The Trustee is supposed to be the adult in the room, often times telling the beneficiary, "No, I'm not doing that. It is not good for the Trust."

We say that a Trustee duty requires that you protect the Trust Corpus from predators, creditors, and often times you must protect the beneficiary from themselves. Being Trustee is not a popularity contest. It is doing what is Reasonable and Prudent, in the name of the current and future beneficiaries.

And that is where these ideas of managing by social demands or non-science concerns is against the Public Trust Doctrine. Those Public Trustees are supposed to do what is best for the Trust Corpus, not what a certain group of beneficiaries want. They can scream and yell, but the Trustee must protect all classes of Beneficiaries from the demands of a few. And that can be applied to the fringes who want to kill every predator, have hunting seasons last four months, and have low license fees as a birthright.

I see so many wildlife arguments using "The Public Trust Doctrine" (PTD) as a tool or a weapon and most often the person knows little, or maybe nothing, about how Trusts work and what the Trustee Duties are. That is exactly the case being made by the two groups in Washington.

They are demanding the Trustees ignore science. They are demanding that the funding sources that keep the Trust Corpus in tact be changed or removed. They are stating that a class of Beneficiaries they claim to represent be given control of the Trust Assets for the benefit of their demands.

I could go on and on. This is a classic example for elected and appointed officials being asked to serve as Trustees, when they have almost zero training or expertise in how Trusts work and what Duties and Responsibilities they are beholden to as part of their Trusteeship. It happens in most all of our public bodies. I would advocate that every public servant, whether elected or appointed, especially those serving as Trustees over wildlife, be required to take a week of instruction about Trusteeship, Trust Principles, and what Duties and Responsibilities they have signed up for.

I'll leave it at that, with so much more to this topic. Hunters and anglers must also beware of their own tendencies to ask Trustees to operate for their sole benefit. That is no more acceptable than these two Washington groups asking that the Trustees of Washington wildlife to manage for a distinct class of beneficiaries, of which they happen to be the self-appointed voice for.

Probably more than you wanted to know about Trusts. But, if we're gonna use the PTD for the basis of these debates, whether to change or keep the status quo, a bis understanding of Trusts is going to be required.

Randy, that is excellent, and right on target. I forget these things myself and I use to teach them...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It sounds like it’s time for a Science lesson, but I’m tired… already taught 3 periods of cell biology today. Genetics stay the same throughout an organisms life, but their epigenetics changes. Epigenetics is kind of the controller of genes. Both are passed to offspring, but some epigenetics tags are pruned early in life.

Generally speaking, a young animal may or may not have “good” genetics and epigenetics. However, in theory animals with physical advantages usually survive. They probably will out compete younger less developed animals in the battle for reproduction. If there aren’t any mature animals that have outlasted less physically advantaged animals of their generation, then reproduction falls to the young, and the young less advantaged critters may get an opportunity to breed when they shouldn’t have.

Imagine what the world may be like if all us stud veterans were all killed off and 13 year olds were doing all the breeding…

A good short video
Epigenetics Crash Course

Can you age ungulates exclusively by antler size?

Does antler size denote fitness?

Imagine if the football team was killed off and the nerds took over.

 

[BrentD]

Can you age ungulates exclusively by antler size?

Does antler size denote fitness?

Imagine if the football team was killed off and the nerds took over.

Will, have you ever heard the story of Irish Deer (elk) and the Theory of Runaway Selection?

Selection is a funny thing and lots of unintuitive things can happen.