Some interesting hunting related science...

[Born Hunter 17,798]

A couple of things I've come across this week that have made me question what I thought I knew.

First off that the father contributes more to the offspring than the mother. That is, a study on mice showed that although mother and father contribute an equal proportion of nuclear DNA to their offspring, the fathers genes were seen to dominate significantly in the expression of those genes.

Quote

Overall, they found that most genes showed parent-of-origin effects in their levels of expression, and that paternal genes consistently won out. For up to 60 percent of the mouse’s genes, the copy from dad was more active than the copy from mom. This imbalance resulted in mice babies whose brains were significantly more like dad’s, genetically speaking.

The researchers believe the same is likely true in all mammals. “We now know that mammals express more genetic variance from the father,” says Pardo-Manuel de Villena. “So imagine that a certain kind of mutation is bad. If inherited from the mother, the gene wouldn’t be expressed as much as it would be if it were inherited from the father. So, the same bad mutation would have different consequences in disease if it were inherited from the mother or from the father.”

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/03/03/genetically-more-like-dad/#.XYy2rShKjct

This has obvious potential implication on the breeding of working animals. Perhaps not so much in practice as in understanding.

 

Secondly, that fish do indeed experience pain, or at least suffering.

I remembered being told as a kid that fish cant feel pain and was a bit sceptical even then. A few years ago I quickly looked this up and got the usual "fish don't have the developed nervous system to feel pain". But I was sent this link last night off the back of the sort of nonsense discussions I get into with people. 

Quote

The collective evidence is now robust enough that biologists and veterinarians increasingly accept fish pain as a reality. “It’s changed so much,” Sneddon says, reflecting on her experiences speaking to both scientists and the general public. “Back in 2003, when I gave talks, I would ask, ‘Who believes fish can feel pain?’ Just one or two hands would go up. Now you ask the room and pretty much everyone puts their hands up.” In 2013, the American Veterinary Medical Association published new guidelines for the euthanasia of animals, which included the following statements: “Suggestions that finfish responses to pain merely represent simple reflexes have been refuted. … the preponderance of accumulated evidence supports the position that finfish should be accorded the same considerations as terrestrial vertebrates in regard to relief from pain.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fish-feel-pain-180967764/

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Born Hunter

[shaaark 10,906]

Not interested

[shaaark 10,906]

Only messing mate lol .

Yeah, I find myself reading more research than I used to. Certainly gets you questioning things

[WILF 47,452]

15 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

A couple of things I've come across this week that have made me question what I thought I knew.

First off that the father contributes more to the offspring than the mother. That is, a study on mice showed that although mother and father contribute an equal proportion of nuclear DNA to their offspring, the fathers genes were seen to dominate significantly in the expression of those genes.

This has obvious potential implication on the breeding of working animals. Perhaps not so much in practice as in understanding.

 

Secondly, that fish do indeed experience pain, or at least suffering.

I remembered being told as a kid that fish cant feel pain and was a bit sceptical even then. A few years ago I quickly looked this up and got the usual "fish don't have the developed nervous system to feel pain". But I was sent this link last night off the back of the sort of nonsense discussions I get into with people. 

 

Fish I know a little bit about.

You have to think of a fishes mouth like your fingers, it’s the fish equivalent of your hand.

They use the mouth to touch and explore.

The mouth can detect resistance (from say a baited line) and it also feels the prick of a hook (which is what many anglers rely on for efficient terminal rigs in static bait fishing)

However, the mouth is also a pretty hardy tool in as much as it can deal with sucking up gravel etc........it’s like the hard hand of a bloke who has done hard manual labour all his life, tough but still sensitive to stimulus.

 

[Born Hunter 17,798]

10 minutes ago, WILF said:

Fish I know a little bit about.

You have to think of a fishes mouth like your fingers, it’s the fish equivalent of your hand.

They use the mouth to touch and explore.

The mouth can detect resistance (from say a baited line) and it also feels the prick of a hook (which is what many anglers rely on for efficient terminal rigs in static bait fishing)

However, the mouth is also a pretty hardy tool in as much as it can deal with sucking up gravel etc........it’s like the hard hand of a bloke who has done hard manual labour all his life, tough but still sensitive to stimulus.

 

That's a good analogy. I actually got onto this with someone regarding spearfishing and how it measures up to line fishing, ethically speaking. We didn't dwell on it for long and moved on to more interesting things but later I was sent the article which I found interesting. In my mind it really brings into question the way we treat fish vs the more charismatic and relate-able animals, like mammals and birds.

ie

Quote

“We have largely thought of fish as very alien and very simple, so we didn’t really care how we killed them,” Braithwaite says. “If we look at trawl netting, that’s a pretty gruesome way for fish to die: the barometric trauma of getting ripped from the ocean into open air, and then slowly suffocating. Can we do that more humanely? Yes. Should we? Probably, yes. We’re mostly not doing it at the moment because it’s more expensive to kill fish humanely, especially in the wild.”

 

Edited September 26, 2019 by Born Hunter

[micky 3,325]

Never saw a Fish on a Hook that  didn't want to get off.

 

Never saw one Sweat either.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

21 minutes ago, W. Katchum said:

Why would a father contribute more? Would it somehow be to make up for the fact the young would prob have more of the mother’s nature throo learned behaviour?? 

I don't think that question has been answered mate. like you, I have ideas but it's really very speculative.

24 minutes ago, W. Katchum said:

m sure folk have said on here before an it’s beem argued about that the dam throws more into pups?

I've seen the same debates which is why I felt it important to post this.

[king 11,984]

do more human son's look like there father/than daughter's look like there mother ?? i would say father/son...

[WILF 47,452]

2 hours ago, Born Hunter said:

That's a good analogy. I actually got onto this with someone regarding spearfishing and how it measures up to line fishing, ethically speaking. We didn't dwell on it for long and moved on to more interesting things but later I was sent the article which I found interesting. In my mind it really brings into question the way we treat fish vs the more charismatic and relate-able animals, like mammals and birds.

ie

 

The lateral line would be a much more sensitive organ than the mouth, but I think we are humanising “pain” and I dont believe fish feel in that way......they just couldn’t function in their environment if they did.

[WILF 47,452]

49 minutes ago, W. Katchum said:

Most breeders do breed to a male Line opposed to the females. Tho I’m sure results have been got both ways, deffo makes you think tho

I have always looked at the sire in dogs and picked a male pup if possible......however the final result is locked away in the blood and most breeding is trying to give the best chances by bringing together the best examples and then hoping for the best.

A male that throws good offspring from one good bitch may throw absolute shite from another good bitch......that bit is out of your hands.

 

You see “most powerful male” natural selection in nature all the time.

[WILF 47,452]

50 minutes ago, king said:

do more human son's look like there father/than daughter's look like there mother ?? i would say father/son...

Depends on the strength of the genetic line, it may be more powerful in the women for some reason.

 

[king 11,984]

1 minute ago, WILF said:

Depends on the strength of the genetic line, it may be more powerful in the women for some reason.

 

but thinking back to the start of human's surely the offspring would benefit from stronger genetic makeup from the man's gene's for sheer survival i would have thought..

[WILF 47,452]

1 minute ago, W. Katchum said:

Iv always been fascinated by the prepotent males, that seem to throw there stamp an work ethic to every bitch thrown under him . even if he wasn’t that good a dog, or like we have all heard not the dog his brother was. An then ye hear is guys with bitches that throw cracking broods everytime an all pups end up bomb proof steady An well up for graft no matter the sire

 

 

id love to know jist how much more it is. I know it don’t work like that but for an dafty like me it’s easier for my mushy brain to digest it

I hear you mate, although I always look at the sire I do think it’s relied on too much......as in, folks may want a big 28 inch stamp of dog and bring in a male of that stamp but breed it to a small bitch.

Imho that makes no sense, you may as well look for everything you want in both dogs to improve your chances (but that’s all very backyard and non scientific)

The science is out there to make it happen (because they do it with beef cattle all the time) but obviously your backyard dog breeder isn’t going to access that type of science......it’s all “on the back of a fag packet” type stuff and always will be.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

24 minutes ago, WILF said:

The lateral line would be a much more sensitive organ than the mouth, but I think we are humanising “pain” and I dont believe fish feel in that way......they just couldn’t function in their environment if they did.

Fair enough mate but I don’t believe that anymore. Too much evidence to suggest they do.

[WILF 47,452]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

Fair enough mate but I don’t believe that anymore. Too much evidence to suggest they do.

I think (in reference to your spear fishing comment) it would feel no more pain than a fallow when you shot it.

In nature, anything killing or catching anything else will involve pain.....after all pain is designed to look after you and that must include not being killed or wounded.