Do Hunters Effect Antler Genetics

[EdP]

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

But doesn't generational health and nutrition apply equally to all members of the herd, including both those bucks with large and small antlers? If so, within a herd, generational health and nutrition would not be influencing factors in the natural selection for antler size.

I think the real question is does nature favor larger antlered deer. Given deer behavior it would appear to be the case, but there are factors at play other than one buck winning a fight to breed one doe. Do the bigger antlers actually result in that buck breeding more does in it's livetime? I think bigger antlered deer do actually breed more does in their lifetime and tend to increase the herd antler size over time, but I am not a wildlife biologist. One data point is Ky where a one buck per year limit has significantly improved the quality of bucks taken over the course of 25 years or so.

 

[mt terry d]

Genetics:

Does a 2 year old typical 120 not have the same genetics as his 7 year old 220 NonTypical father?

If I'm a 127# weakling do I not have the 50% genetics of my Champion Bodybuilder father?

Without a safe and experimental vaccine I don't understand how one can alter genetics.

 

[EdP]

Does a 2 year old typical 120 not have the same genetics as his 7 year old 220 NonTypical father?

If I'm a 127# weakling do I not have the 50% genetics of my Champion Bodybuilder father?

The next generation is influenced by the genetics of both parents of the previous, but generally not equally. Also, the presence of certain genes does not mean those genes are expressed to the same extent. However, a 2 y/o 120 inch buck has the same genetics at 6 yrs and 180 inches that it had at 2. I think the question is whether or not that buck in it's lifetime breeds more does in the herd than a buck that had a peak antler growth of 140 inches.

 

[wesfromky]

NDA has a bunch of posts/videos on this, here are two to get you started.

Strike 3 for the Myth of the Genetic “Cull Buck”

The facts have been thoroughly checked: We can’t manage genetics of wild deer and produce measurable change. A new study help bury an old myth about cull bucks.

deerassociation.com

Why We Can’t Manage Deer Genetics | National Deer Association

deerassociation.com

 

[mt terry d]

The next generation is influenced by the genetics of both parents of the previous, but generally not equally. Also, the presence of certain genes does not mean those genes are expressed to the same extent. However, a 2 y/o 120 inch buck has the same genetics at 6 yrs and 180 inches that it had at 2. I think the question is whether or not that buck in it's lifetime breeds more does in the herd than a buck that had a peak antler growth of 140 inches.

Just so i understand correctly, the genetic influence of that 2YO on his offspring is the same whether he breeds at 2YO or at 7YO, correct?

 

[wind gypsy]

But doesn't generational health and nutrition apply equally to all members of the herd, including both those bucks with large and small antlers? If so, within a herd, generational health and nutrition would not be influencing factors in the natural selection for antler size.

The benefits and constraints of habitat conditions maybe, but not all fawns are born to equally healthy mothers.

I think the real question is does nature favor larger antlered deer. Given deer behavior it would appear to be the case, but there are factors at play other than one buck winning a fight to breed one doe. Do the bigger antlers actually result in that buck breeding more does in it's livetime? I think bigger antlered deer do actually breed more does in their lifetime and tend to increase the herd antler size over time, but I am not a wildlife biologist. One data point is Ky where a one buck per year limit has significantly improved the quality of bucks taken over the course of 25 years or so.

Naturally without human intervention, probably. With high grading in much of the range, probably not.

 

[EdP]

Just so i understand correctly, the genetic influence of that 2YO on his offspring is the same whether he breeds at 2YO or at 7YO, correct?

Yes, his genes don't change throughout his life.

The benefits and constraints of habitat conditions maybe, but not all fawns are born to equally healthy mothers.

That's certainly true. I think it would average out over time for the herd.

Naturally without human intervention, probably. With high grading in much of the range, probably not.

That's what I think too. Essentially that nature selects for antler size within a herd and that hunter practices (often driven by wildlife management practices/regulations) can have either a positive or negative influence.

 

[Skerhunter]

habitat/feed quality due to location/weather/competition for the herd is the main driver based on the studies I have seen. It also takes YEARS of a healthy herd to produce high numbers of “trophy deer”.

I think of it as follows - Every buck has a “max potential” based on genes alone. Consider just two deer - one buck having the max potential of 180-200” and the other only 150-160” by age 5/6. To reach their max the mother needs to be in perfect health. Any drought/illness/injury through the bucks life reduces the odds of reaching their max.

By age 5/6 the deer with better genetics could be a 3x3 because overall health was poor throughout his life vs the smaller deer got lucky and is a 160” 4x4.

Only thing we can control is what age of bucks we shoot (unless you can control diet/health). Obviously shooting all the 2-3 year olds isn’t a good idea because you won’t have many mature deer reaching their max potential.

With domestic animals we play this game using AI/ET targeting desirable genetics and the same factors still come into play.

 

[passinggas33]

If I remember listening to the researchers correctly, hunter harvest accounts for a very small percentage of deer mortality, even in bucks. I would venture a guess that even with our harvesting of the big 7yo or small 2yo deer, we are having minimal impact on genetics in the overall herd, as we are hardly impacting the overall mortality and breeding of the herd.

The research suggests that a “trophy unit” only needs 10-15 bucks per 100 does. So if we truly wanted to have trophy bucks and control the genetics you would have to “control” it by controlling buck numbers. And then selectively leaving only the biggest bucks (and healthiest does) on that landscape to breed. It would take numerous years of concerted effort to actually get a unit to these numbers, and then have the restraint to just shoot the smallest during that time. I don’t think hunters as a whole would be willing to accept this idea.

Generally speaking most units are way above these buck numbers. So it probably doesn’t matter which deer we shoot, as one of the other bucks in the unit will get the breeding done. And thereby impacting the genetics.

Just my thoughts…for now.

 

[AHayes111]

Interesting discussion. I tend to agree with wind gypsy.

While it is true that a young buck with great antler potential has the same genes as he does when he is older, I question just how much he gets to spread his genes if he fails to see the rut in year three or even four. With his competition having a few more years of experience and a big advantage in body size, the young buck with great antler potential is probably not getting lucky very often before he is shot.
People tend to push nutrition and health of the mother/fawn over antler genetics as more important. I think this is true if you only focus on antler genetics. What people tend to over look is there is also a genetic component to nutrition and health. Milk production in does and lots of other stuff related to nutrition and the heath of bucks, does and fawns can be effected by genetics. You can have all the great feed in the world, but if you don't have the genes to turn that feed into milk, muscle, fat and antlers you are not going to grow big deer. If quality feed was all you needed every buck fawn raised on my irrigated alfalfa would turn in to a whopper. Sadly that is just not the case. I raise cows for a living. Doesn't take long and you realize that some cows are just better. They constantly wean a large calf year after year no matter how good a year it was in terms of the feed. Tough years might knock as much as 50lb off the calf, but that calf is still above the average calf on good years. On the other hand other cows will struggle to wean an average calf even on good years. It is all related to genetics. If you want a high preforming cow herd you buy the best bulls you can afford. I have seen what happens to a cow herd where the owner has the philosophy of any thing with a set of nuts will do. When you go cheep on you bulls, you mother cow herd suffers. I see no reason why the same principles would not apply to the deer herd too.
A well known and respected mule deer biologist once sad that it doesn't matter because the mule deer harvest is too random, you can not select mule deer like you can cattle in a corral. There is some truth to that, but not nearly as much today as when he said it. As technology continues to get better and better we as hunter get better and better at selecting the best bucks from the herd. With MT's long rut season and today's technology I could select the best bucks from the herd nearly as effectively as I select cows in the corral. I am a firm believer that hunters should be able to select any buck that they want, but game departments are going to have come to grips with we can not have regulations that allow us as hunters to be selective.

 

[justin davis]

I listened to the rokslide podcast on this very subject. Very interesting and changed my
Mind on what I thought was absolute.