Skip to comments.
Starvation 'wiped out' giant deer
BBC ^
| 16 Nov 2009
| Matt Walker
Posted on 11/16/2009 9:47:20 AM PST by BGHater
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
1
posted on
11/16/2009 9:47:21 AM PST
by
BGHater
To: SunkenCiv
‘the deer couldn’t cope with climate change.’
SUV ping.
2
posted on
11/16/2009 9:49:03 AM PST
by
BGHater
("real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it")
To: BGHater
I believe this makes more sense than the silly theory that man wiped out the Wooly Mammoth - even though North America was sparsely populated by humans at the time.
3
posted on
11/16/2009 9:49:38 AM PST
by
ohioman
To: BGHater
4
posted on
11/16/2009 9:51:08 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Seniors, the new shovel ready project under socialized medicine.)
To: ohioman
5
posted on
11/16/2009 9:51:26 AM PST
by
Scythian
To: BGHater
I'm thinking .375 H&H as the minimum...
6
posted on
11/16/2009 9:52:06 AM PST
by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: BGHater
Initial ideas ranged from the Biblical flood described by Genesis, Missed the boat?
7
posted on
11/16/2009 9:52:37 AM PST
by
Doomonyou
(Let them eat Lead. Bonus tag line: FAIL 246, Obama 0)
To: BGHater
I don't think a .410 slug is gonna do much to that fella
8
posted on
11/16/2009 9:54:11 AM PST
by
digger48
To: BGHater
Females became attracted to and mated with males with ever larger antlers,
Thus the beginning of the term "horney"........
To: BGHater; tx_eggman
So... wait.
It was warmer, which the giant deer liked, then it got colder, but then man started driving cars and now it got warmer again, just before it will get colder again, despite our continued driving.
De deer cain’t hold dey smoke. Dat’s what it is!
10
posted on
11/16/2009 9:58:09 AM PST
by
SpinnerWebb
(mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves)
To: Joe 6-pack
11
posted on
11/16/2009 9:58:43 AM PST
by
digger48
To: digger48
Very nice! Is that yours?
12
posted on
11/16/2009 9:59:39 AM PST
by
Joe 6-pack
(Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
To: BGHater
Yet why this giant animal, which had massive antlers spanning 3.6m, suddenly went extinct some 10,600 years ago has remained a mystery. Now a study of its teeth is producing tantalising answers, suggesting the deer couldn't cope with climate change. This type of lifestyle is NOT sustainable. It is KILLING the planet and has been for thousands and thousands of years!!!
13
posted on
11/16/2009 10:00:04 AM PST
by
a fool in paradise
(I refuse to "reduce my carbon footprint" all while Lenin remains in an airconditioned shrine)
To: BGHater
My money is extinction induced by either a large meteor strike or volcanic activity.
To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Polar shift or something of amazing force. During this same time frame, parts of the Sahara was covered with water.
15
posted on
11/16/2009 10:02:43 AM PST
by
BGHater
("real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it")
To: BGHater
One of those bad boys bites your sister and it’s all over.
16
posted on
11/16/2009 10:09:57 AM PST
by
Tijeras_Slim
(Live jubtabulously!)
To: BGHater; All
"...Females became attracted to and mated with males with ever larger antlers, according to the idea, and eventually the antlers became so unwieldy that the deer became mired in clay soils, where they perished."...
That's ludicrous. Female deer or elk do not "become attracted" to a Buck or Bull because of their "antler size". The males compete (sometimes to the death) by using their antlers, physical size, and sheer strength as weapons to dominate the other males, and keep "their" herd in line. The winner gets to rut - it's that simple.
The females don't "become attracted to" any males in the sense that they suggest. They are simply ready to breed and the males vie for the winner's choice. It's more likely that they just kept breeding with the dominant males, who were dominant by virtue of larger antlers and body size.
Although, there is now evidence (supported by DNA analysis) from Penn. game & fish that proves that Does will accept multiple bucks in one rut, even to the point where multiple birth fawns can have completely different sires. Winning the antler fight doesn't guaranteed monogamy, nor mean that another buck won't sneak in behind his back (hmmmmm, kind of like humans in that regard......).
But to suggest that female deer/elk have the capacity to "select a mate based on the size of its antlers" is preposterous. Oh, and the "their antlers got so big that their feet got stuck... so they all died off" is pretty dumb too.
Impressive rack though. Imagine the "trophy fees" on that thing.
To: BGHater
I think it was because the English deer took all the Irish deer’s food and didn’t leave them enough to survive on.
18
posted on
11/16/2009 10:22:48 AM PST
by
Tanniker Smith
(Obi-Wan Palin: Strike her down and she shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.)
To: BGHater
Females became attracted to and mated with males with ever larger antlers... size does matter. lol
To: conservativeharleyguy
‘Oh, and the “their antlers got so big that their feet got stuck... so they all died off” is pretty dumb too.’
Quick, better tell that to the moose in Maine and Alaska.
20
posted on
11/16/2009 10:25:40 AM PST
by
BGHater
("real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson