Sorry Sir, it is not all good.

Gatot was so quick to call me out, yet you are the one making exuses for him.

I do believe that it is the person that calls another person out that should be the one to come back and acknowledge the response, not a moderator.

This is one where we will have to agree to disagree, but, Gato should have been the one to respond as he was the one that questioned my veracity on the subject!

I did as HE requested. You were not involved.

He is really quick to make statements and assumptions, this is one where he was wrong, all I want is for HIM to acknowledge that my source was legitimate.

I am NOT asking for an apology, just a little respect!

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

Source it

Gato, you called me out and I gave my source material. After which you have chosen not to say anything.

Now, I did as you asked, what is your response?

You dumb fuck! Asking for a source is NOT "calling you out". In addition your source contradicted your statement. No where in that source (singular) answer did it indicate that Plains Indians did not consider a white buffalo sacred, which directly contradicts your statement that "Not ALL Plains Indians treated White Buffalo as a sacred animal", which is what I was interested in your confirming. I didn't reply for the perfectly obvious reason that trying to discuss things with you is a waste of time because you're so crazy. Personally I think you skip your meds about half the time, because at times you almost seem lucid. Whitworth had it right, "let it go" and I was going to do the same, but since you can't seem to take yes for an answer, you've got a response.

I should have known better than to try to ask you a question because you have such an inferiority complex (probably well deserved) that you think anytime anyone says anything to you that they are in the attack mode. Finally your "quote" of my response to your post, is misleading, like many of your posts, because my "source it" was not in bold. Calling you out.......... Geesh, you're a real piece of work. Fucking idiot!

quote:

Originally posted by georgeld:
KB:
I'd suggest you contact the local D/Wildlife for their opinion on this deer.
George

I did. It's piebald.

KB

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Sorry Sir, it is not all good.

Gatot was so quick to call me out, yet you are the one making exuses for him.

I do believe that it is the person that calls another person out that should be the one to come back and acknowledge the response, not a moderator.

This is one where we will have to agree to disagree, but, Gato should have been the one to respond as he was the one that questioned my veracity on the subject!

I did as HE requested. You were not involved.

He is really quick to make statements and assumptions, this is one where he was wrong, all I want is for HIM to acknowledge that my source was legitimate.

I am NOT asking for an apology, just a little respect!

You know what, I have about had enough of the sensitivity here. As I read Gato's post, he asked for a source. This is not a "call out" in my very humble opinion. If it is respect you seek, stop getting into dust-ups on this damn site. I see you in frequent verbal conflict with folks here. My take is that you are a good guy, but you like to argue your point. That's okay, but don't cry foul if it gets thrown back at you.

Like I said, it's all good.

quote:

Originally posted by Kabluewy:

quote:

Originally posted by georgeld:
KB:
I'd suggest you contact the local D/Wildlife for their opinion on this deer.
George

I did. It's piebald.

KB

Looks piebald to me.

Its back. I'm wondering if those are antler nubins starting to grow on its head?

I also think the deer in the second picture is a buck.

For comparison, the third picture is surely a doe.

There are maybe two more that seem to show antler nubins. Soon I think it will be clear enough, as they grow more. One is a rather large bodied deer.

It looks like nubs to me. Still really short, but I don't think a doe would have knobby eyebrows. It would be really cool if it is a buck but it will make it harder for it to get to maturity.

Within the county in which this deer lives, the minimum legal antler spread is 15". That doesn't mean it won't be illegally shot, but it does give it a survival edge to live to maturity. This past season I saw lots of immmature bucks. The only time I saw legal bucks was when I was driving and/or at night. I might have seen one from my stand but can't be sure since he stayed in the thicket.

Coincidentally, about an hour ago I was driving a back road and saw a very large bodied deer with what appeared to be antler stubs in velvet, maybe 4"-6" long. Maybe the big boy survived the season.

KB

quote:

You know what, I have about had enough of the sensitivity here. As I read Gato's post, he asked for a source.

This has nothing what so ever to do with sensitivity. If I had not have given those sources Gato would have been all over me and you and he know it.

If someone/ anyone is going to request that someone source something, and the person complies, the person asking for the source should acknowledge it.

That is simple and civil manners.

I do not like arguing with anyone, but I also do not like anyone acting like I do not know what I am talking about.

I really don't notice very many individuals on here, any of the topic areas, backing down from anyone that they believe has called them out.

He did not ASK me to source it, he Told Me To "Source It". I complied, a simple Okay from him would have been sufficient!

As I said earlier, stop and think how different this would have been had I NOT been able to provide evidence.

Sensitivity is not involved here, unless he complained to you to get you involved, and if that is the case, I am not the one being sensitive.

Looks like a buck to me. They must drop faster, or develop sooner in Georgia than they do here. I was at my place in south Mo. on Saturday and the two bucks I saw on the way had not dropped both sides of their racks yet. One side each, just not both sides.

The timing of dropping their antlers is interesting. I was surprised that it was so early here.

My brother in law lives in central Alabama, direct west from here, and he was getting antlered buck on his game camera long after they had dropped here.

I don't know the reason for that, but the rut is also much later in Alabama than here.

Perhaps the old saying is true that when one crossed the state line into Alabama, set your clock back one hour and twenty years.

KB

KB:
Thanks for the update, good to know what you're looking at.
(despite the distractions of the bs going on)
George

We found one shed at the first of Feb. and we are still seeing bucks with their antlers. I believe that it has more to do with the individual buck and less to do with the geographic region.

Have no proof of that other than personal observations over the years.

It appears to me that ALL the bucks in this region have long dropped their antlers. Not one showed up on the game camera since the one-horned. And I've seen lots of deer in the fields, etc. no antlers.

I think it's regional, and if it's individual, then ALL the individuals are included.

I've heard it several times from different sources that when re-populating the regions the deer in Alabama came from different stock compared to those in central Georgia. I think the timing of the rut and the dropping of antlers is embedded or coded in the gene pool.

KB

All I am going by is what I have witness4ed here in Texas, nothing more.

Some nice pictures of walking .223 targets (55 grain Winchester or Remington bulk packed bullet). I'd not shoot the multi colored one.