Do Hunters Effect Antler Genetics

[COSA]

Any actual studies (or opinions)? I'm a bit torn between these two schools of thought....
On the one hand, hunters are killing the bucks with the largest antlers. Example would be an average hunter comes across a couple of 3-year old bucks, one having a 3-point frame and the other having a larger 4-point frame. Almost all will shoot the larger 3-year old deer. When the rut comes along the older bucks that survive will breed multiple does. I've heard people say that you can't shoot the genetics out of a herd because the does contribute 50%. But... if that mature 3-point is breeding 5-10 does a season he is a much larger contributor to the herd. Multiply this scenario thousands of times per hunting season, and a generation every year and one would think antler genetics would be on a decreasing trend.

On the other hand, I've read studies that the health of the buck (in the womb, as a fawn, and during the antler growing season) is a larger contributor to antler size than genetics. If this is the case, then I would lean towards the notion that hunters are not affecting antler genetics to a large degree.

 

[Bugger]

Individual deer definitely can transfer interesting antler characteristics, but I’m not aware of anywhere in the country where an irregular configuration is more popular than a standard frame. The standard “typical” as defined by B&C seems to be the strongest genetic trait and all others are recessive and will pass with time or would take hundreds/thousands of years to become more popular for an evolutionary reason or lucky chance. A lot of people forget that the big buck already fathered a bunch of fawns, and a lot of young deer breeding does are passing the same genetics they would in 5 years as a 200” monster.

High fence selective breeding is its own thing entirely though.

 

[EdP]

High fence selective breeding is its own thing entirely though.

Yes, and this is done because of hunters and the desire to shoot deer with big antlers. The breeders breed deer with freakish antlers for this reason alone. To me, the problem is that we can never selectively breed for a single characteristic, genetics just doesn't work that way. With one trait that is selected for comes other traits that are often not desired. Hip dysplasia in dogs is an example as is susceptibility of Rottweilers and Dobermans to cancer. As yet I don't think we know what other traits deer will exhibit when selectively bred for antler growth.

 

[Braaap]

Check out the Rokcast episode Robby did with Kevin Monteith. They go into this a bit, great episode.

 

[Marble]

The few things that affect antler growth, coming from biologists that I have listened to remover the last year, are the mothers' health during pregnancy, weight of fawn/Calf at birth and available habitat.

Genetics seem to play a role, but not as large as I thought.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[passinggas33]

Also listen to the Rokcast (and GoHunt podcast, though not as good ) with Brock McMillan from BYU. He mentions in the podcast that the average antler size of the vast majority of mature deer will never break 165-170” or something like that (if I understood him right). Even with good habitat, mom’s health at birth, etc. Those 200” deer are truly bucking (pun intended) the trend of the average and truly are rare, statistically an anomaly. I think he said it’s less than 1% will ever achieve this size. He also mentioned the idea of “letting them grow another year” will likely only cause a buck to grow maybe 5” more, until they hit 5-6 years old, and then they will stop or regress. So shooting a 3 year old deer vs a 5 year old deer will at most mean the difference of 5-10” (on average). Again, I’m going off memory so please forgive me if this information is incorrect or poorly worded.

He mentioned that there is so much interbreeding between the herd that it’s hard for genetic prevalence to take place. So I would say genetics don’t have much to do with it and “luck” has more to do with it than anything else.

 

[EdP]

He mentioned that there is so much interbreeding between the herd that it’s hard for genetic prevalence to take place. So I would say genetics don’t have much to do with it and “luck” has more to do with it than anything else.

This makes sense to me regarding individuals in a particular population/herd but not when comparing one population to another. Different populations have different characteristics depending on a number of environmental and other factors. Texas deer, for example, tend to exhibit much larger antlers relative to body weight than do the deer in western Kentucky. Given the available food sources in western Ky, I think that difference is due to genetics rather than nutrition.

 

[wind gypsy]

I believe hunter "high grading" absolutely can and does impact genetics. When the poorest of antlered bucks are the most likely to make it to maturity and thus do more breeding over a lifetime, i don't know how one could argue against it having an impact. That said, it'd be hard to say how much or little of an impact there really is.

The results from studies on whitetails is clear on generational health and nutrition contributing more to antler size than genetics.

 

[Bugger]

I believe hunter "high grading" absolutely can and does impact genetics. When the poorest of antlered bucks are the most likely to make it to maturity and thus do more breeding over a lifetime, i don't know how one could argue against it having an impact. That said, it'd be hard to say how much or little of an impact there really is.

The results from studies on whitetails is clear on generational health and nutrition contributing more to antler size than genetics.

That might be the case if it’s guaranteed that a deer with unremarkable antlers will never have offspring with large antlers, same as assuming a large deer will always produce offspring with more impressive antlers. I’d be curious to hear from high fence folks if they’ve seen breeder bucks produce unwanted offspring.

But like you said, genetics is always second to nutrition.

 

[BuckRut]

I believe hunter "high grading" absolutely can and does impact genetics. When the poorest of antlered bucks are the most likely to make it to maturity and thus do more breeding over a lifetime, i don't know how one could argue against it having an impact. That said, it'd be hard to say how much or little of an impact there really is.

The results from studies on whitetails is clear on generational health and nutrition contributing more to antler size than genetics.

Remember the buck is only half of the formula. Hard to "high grade" the does carrying the big buck gene. Also just because a buck doesn't express the gene for big antlers doesn't mean he doesn't have it. He can still pass the gene to his offspring.

 

[roadrunner]

A simple Punett Square will show the buck will have a 50% chance to throw a good genetic fawn with a doe that would have the same chance.

However, some areas can be affected by trophy genetics being targeted if smaller genetics are the dominant gene for a buck and doe.

 

[wind gypsy]

If Danny Devito and Lebron James both have daughters, guess which daughter i'm betting on to have a son that is good at basketball?

 

[BuckRut]

If Danny Devito and Lebron James both have daughters, guess which daughter i'm betting on to have a son that is good at basketball?

Again. Part of this depends who the mother is.

 

[wind gypsy]

Again. Part of this depends who the mother is.

Of course.. But in many cases, the mother's average genetic potential is going to balance out between the high genetic potential bucks and the low ones. If half of the genetic component is continually being degraded, the average and range of outcomes is going to be degraded.

And to think in this fictional case that Danny Devito would need Brittney Griner for a baby mama and lebron to have mama June for it to be close haha!

 

[ozyclint]

I've never understood the logic of hunter 'herd management'.

A guy will shoot a buck and call it a 'cull buck'. "I'm managing the herd by culling out inferior genetics". (What he really means is- "I wanted to shoot something and not come home empty handed and when I found the buck he was smaller than I wanted so I'm calling it a cull buck")

....But when the big buck walks by they kill him too. (This is when they are they become trophy hunting legends)

So they 'manage' the herd by killing the 'inferior' small bucks and the big trophy bucks.
Go figure.

 

[BuckRut]

Of course.. But in many cases, the mother's average genetic potential is going to balance out between the high genetic potential bucks and the low ones. If half of the genetic component is continually being degraded, the average and range of outcomes is going to be degraded.

And to think in this fictional case that Danny Devito would need Brittney Griner for a baby mama and lebron to have mama June for it to be close haha!

To each his own. The world just isn't that black and white or that simple. In most places it's age that makes one buck bigger than the rest not genetic superiority. Also by the time he's old enough to show you he is genetically superior he has already bred does. I'm not saying it doesn't affect genetics at all but it's not a statistically significant amount.

 

[Tbone26]

I am in the camp that age class and habitat are the leading factors in producing high scoring animals. This is why I think antler size and limited tag numbers in most limited entry units is a direct correlation.

 

[wind gypsy]

To each his own. The world just isn't that black and white or that simple. In most places it's age that makes one buck bigger than the rest not genetic superiority. Also by the time he's old enough to show you he is genetically superior he has already bred does. I'm not saying it doesn't affect genetics at all but it's not a statistically significant amount.

Perhaps its a regional thing. Where I have hunting land, i'm prone to seeing 3+ YO bucks with mediocre racks and usually 2 YO with promising racks not make it to 3. At least that is exactly what has happened the last few seasons.

 

[BuckRut]

Perhaps its a regional thing. Where I have hunting land, i'm prone to seeing 3+ YO bucks with mediocre racks and usually 2 YO with promising racks not make it to 3. At least that is exactly what has happened the last few seasons.

Just some food for thought. In the scenario you are describing wouldn't the harvest of these bucks be pretty random then? I don't picture the hunter who would shoot mediocre older buck or a promising 2 year old caring which one he shoots. It's just a matter of which one he comes across first.

 

[wind gypsy]

Just some food for thought. In the scenario you are describing wouldn't the harvest of these bucks be pretty random then? I don't picture the hunter who would shoot mediocre older buck or a promising 2 year old caring which one he shoots. It's just a matter of which one he comes across first.

You're correct, they would take either. The pretty 2 YOs are usually the ones running around like idiots and get whacked right away opening weekend of gun season.