Buck Before Does

[AlexD]

Male or female sperm? Is that an actual thing?

Er, yes, that is how sex is determined! Nothing to do with the egg: all eggs have X chromosones.

Edit, just read further along the thread, ... should have done that first.

However,

It's 50/50 unless using sexed semen. I've heard farmers say "more bulls with this bull" but I'll bet if you looked at the figures overall, it would be 50/50. I think there is a statistical term for this but that's not my thing at all!

Is not quite true. For example, in humans at conception there are 120 boys for 100 girls, by the time of birth, 102 to 106 boys, by the time they get to adulthood, less than 100 boys -the figures vary a bit from country to country, but that is the pattern assuming no infanticide and no IVF sex selection (a common service in a lot of the world, unfortunately).
The reason for the disparity in the womb is the male sperm swim faster. The reduction by birth is the Y chromosome is attacked (one reason it is very short), and the reduction by adulthood is due to risky things boys did in the past.

 

[weblyish]

Er, yes, that is how sex is determined! Nothing to do with the egg: all eggs have X chromosones.

Edit, just read further along the thread, ... should have done that first.

However,

Is not quite true. For example, in humans at conception there are 120 boys for 100 girls, by the time of birth, 102 to 106 boys, by the time they get to adulthood, less than 100 boys -the figures vary a bit from country to country, but that is the pattern assuming no infanticide and no IVF sex selection (a common service in a lot of the world, unfortunately).
The reason for the disparity in the womb is the male sperm swim faster. The reduction by birth is the Y chromosome is attacked (one reason it is very short), and the reduction by adulthood is due to risky things boys did in the past.

This is an area I happen to know quite a bit about due to a charity I worked with for several years

The 'male sperm swim faster' thing turned out to be a myth and likely due to fraudulent data but is a common misconception that persists as sounds logical.

It is true that male conception is higher and the reason is still fairly unclear

You absolutely can sex sperm and this is common for farm animals - typically this is done one by one by directly observing the larger amount of DNA in an XX sperm fluorescently and directing each sperm into one of two collection vessels (other species can have different sex determinant chromosomes).

However as this is illegal for humans in many countries and the kit is expensive and highly sensitive there is an alternative backroom service offered by many fertility clinics of running the sperm through a gel and picking the fastest ('male') sperm. This does not work but does generate additional paid work for the clinic with confirmatory testing and abortions resulting in an overpopulation of boys of almost 20% in several countries ending in -stan

 

[oneeyedanddeaf]

David, you raise a very interesting question. Estimates suggest there are 500,000 plus roe in GB of which 350,000 are in Scotland. It would be easy therefore to say that the answer to your question must be no, never favour a buck over a doe - we need to shoot many many more does than we do. If only things were that simple. You do not say where exactly your patch is, nor do we know how come the population appears to have fallen - against every trend from elsewhere, where roe (and all other species are increasing year on year). Have they been heavily culled or is it just that the area is not conducive to holding the deer. In any event you have the added pressure from the landowners, who are not alone in wanting to see deer about on their land. As with many questions about the deer population and whether we are in a crisis and need to shoot a great deal more than we are - or are these concerns exagerated? I am quite close to Kielder where the rangers do a fabulous job taking 3000 roe each year and admit that it's 'not enough'.

Personally I agree with a stalker from down south who responded the the last Government consultation on the future of Deer Management saying he had shot 380 deer in the last year and reckoned it hadn't made any difference. The scale of the problem is in my view overwhelming - to put it another way I believe the battle, if that is the right word, just even to maintain the deer population at current levels has been lost. There was a decent article published in the last couple of days by a freelance journalist, NJ Convery on the BBC - check it out and see if it helps you answer your question and good luck with your stalking, and enjoy the wee buck.

 

[Emilio]

The problem can be easily solved in a years time with continuous driven shooting by groups of hunters. Decimating a population for mankind is only a matter of motivation, not a matter of means....

 

[David Barker]

David, you raise a very interesting question. Estimates suggest there are 500,000 plus roe in GB of which 350,000 are in Scotland. It would be easy therefore to say that the answer to your question must be no, never favour a buck over a doe - we need to shoot many many more does than we do. If only things were that simple. You do not say where exactly your patch is, nor do we know how come the population appears to have fallen - against every trend from elsewhere, where roe (and all other species are increasing year on year). Have they been heavily culled or is it just that the area is not conducive to holding the deer. In any event you have the added pressure from the landowners, who are not alone in wanting to see deer about on their land. As with many questions about the deer population and whether we are in a crisis and need to shoot a great deal more than we are - or are these concerns exagerated? I am quite close to Kielder where the rangers do a fabulous job taking 3000 roe each year and admit that it's 'not enough'.

Personally I agree with a stalker from down south who responded the the last Government consultation on the future of Deer Management saying he had shot 380 deer in the last year and reckoned it hadn't made any difference. The scale of the problem is in my view overwhelming - to put it another way I believe the battle, if that is the right word, just even to maintain the deer population at current levels has been lost. There was a decent article published in the last couple of days by a freelance journalist, NJ Convery on the BBC - check it out and see if it helps you answer your question and good luck with your stalking, and enjoy the wee buck.

There are to many deer in parts of scotland and i would suggest the number of Roe deer to be closer to half a million red deer a quarter million and the rest maid up of the invasive species. So if the reds are on the decline from the last big count why are the Scottish government continuing its persecution of red deer only up north. My thoughts are they do not care about any other species than reds and that is why we have high numbers of Roe and Sika. This is not a bad thing just a fact and most red deer managers in the lowlands would like even more deer. I will be out a plenty in the new year and i will always pick a small buck before a doe. This will continue till SG say to me that roe deer are now on the radar and the number needs lowered.