Do Hunters Effect Antler Genetics

[WRO]

I was making an example of confirmation bias.

You could reference the studies that show antler point restrictions don't do anything. "Cull breeders" aren't a thing.

States issue "management hunts" to increase opportunity.

Exhibit A : cull breeder.

9 year old Buck that’s never been anything but a fork.

How many mule deer have you been a part of? How many states? How much long term private mule deer management have you been a part of?

You obviously know Google, but do you have much real experience?

 

[S.Clancy]

Exhibit A : cull breeder.

9 year old Buck that’s never been anything but a fork.

How many mule deer have you been a part of? How many states? How much long term private mule deer management have you been a part of?

You obviously know Google, but do you have much real experience?

I know data and science.

Mule deer bucks, IDK, 50, prob more, I would have to sit down and count.

Here is the difference between your personal experience and actual data. Are you counting total number of deer every year and getting a reasonable population estimate? Are you doing seasonal habitat production estimates to get a sense of available nutrition? Transects for plant diversity and classifying all those as preferred forage? Are you aging every single deer? Etc, etc....

There are so many confounding variables that you are unlikely to control them all which makes any data you are observing (that also likely has personal bias from you) not statistically relevant.

You may be observing a genetic pattern where you are. I'm just saying there is no data, outside of anecdotal, that supports those claims.

 

[WRO]

I know data and science.

Mule deer bucks, IDK, 50, prob more, I would have to sit down and count.

Here is the difference between your personal experience and actual data. Are you counting total number of deer every year and getting a reasonable population estimate? Are you doing seasonal habitat production estimates to get a sense of available nutrition? Transects for plant diversity and classifying all those as preferred forage? Are you aging every single deer? Etc, etc....

There are so many confounding variables that you are unlikely to control them all which makes any data you are observing (that also likely has personal bias from you) not statistically relevant.

You may be observing a genetic pattern where you are. I'm just saying there is no data, outside of anecdotal, that supports those claims.

Yes, not an exact count but a reasonable estimate.

No, habitat has been stable and improving with controlled burns and juniper removal, beyond that there’s 600 acres of alfalfa which is relatively stable food source.

The ones that die get aged, beyond that there’s shed history on some deer that’s over a decade long.

You’re entitled to your religions opinion, I’m not arrogant enough to think that if it’s not from the cult of science to not think it’s real.

I’ve seen enough junk peer reviewed papers that I have little faith in most of it.

I’ve seen enough science papers saying predators aren’t the issue, then seeing the results when control is cut vs where it’s not I’d pretty stark on population trends.

 

[AHayes111]

Here are two sheds from bucks that lived on the hill behind where I grew up. The old gray antler is from the late 50's and the other is from 2004. The buck from the 50's had a typical frame that netted over 200 inches. I am confident that the other buck would have also had a 200 inch frame if he had lived past the age of four. I don't think it is coincidence that the two biggest bucks to ever come off of that hill in the last 60+ years have antler characteristics that are so similar. These are not the only examples of the same characteristics showing up in the same place from the biggest deer I have seen in the area.

 

[S.Clancy]

Yes, not an exact count but a reasonable estimate.

No, habitat has been stable and improving with controlled burns and juniper removal, beyond that there’s 600 acres of alfalfa which is relatively stable food source.

The ones that die get aged, beyond that there’s shed history on some deer that’s over a decade long.

You’re entitled to your religions opinion, I’m not arrogant enough to think that if it’s not from the cult of science to not think it’s real.

I’ve seen enough junk peer reviewed papers that I have little faith in most of it.

I’ve seen enough science papers saying predators aren’t the issue, then seeing the results when control is cut vs where it’s not I’d pretty stark on population trends.

So you are improving habitat and seeing deer with improved antler configurations.....

You can see how the habitat improvement confounds your "culling" results, right?

 

[chicoredneck]

Data has shown in both whitetail and mule deer that "antler genetics" are primarily related to in vitro and maternal condition. Kevin Monteith has a great study on whitetail in South Dakota. Whether you want to believe it or not, genetics play little role.

Tell that to the guys breeding and raising giant deer on deer farms.

It has been scientifically proven that good feed and a healthy fawn at birth do contribute to larger antler growth, but that’s one piece of many factors. Genetics is still a major factor.

Deer farms have shown that genetic selection absolutely affects antler size, but your ability to achieve a bucks full potential can be hampered by poor nutrition.

 

[WRO]

So you are improving habitat and seeing deer with improved antler configurations.....

You can see how the habitat improvement confounds your "culling" results, right?

Nope, habitat was done ongoing for the last 20+ years, culling shit bucks the last 10. We would’ve seen habitat have its effect much quicker.

The burn was a decade ago. No change in antler configuration after.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[S.Clancy]

Tell that to the guys breeding and raising giant deer on deer farms.

It has been scientifically proven that good feed and a healthy fawn at birth do contribute to larger antler growth, but that’s one piece of many factors. Genetics is still a major factor.

Deer farms have shown that genetic selection absolutely affects antler size, but your ability to achieve a bucks full potential can be hampered by poor nutrition.

Deer farms are essentially force-feeding deer nutrients, then choosing the highest responders as "breeders".
My point is nutrition is 99% of the outcome, selective breeding maybe 1%. That is just hyperbole math, I'm not sure of the true breakdown obviously, but I would bet my nuts on it being at least 90% to 10%.

 

[wesfromky]

As I posted earlier, the NDA has done multiple studies and even in highly controlled environments, genetics just doesn't make that much difference.

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

 

[S.Clancy]

Nope, habitat was done ongoing for the last 20+ years, culling shit bucks the last 10. We would’ve seen habitat have its effect much quicker.

If your habitat work was effective. Are you also tracking harvested deer BW?

How many deer are you removing in your culling efforts? Just bucks, or also does?

The burn was a decade ago. No change in antler configuration after.

Perhaps your instance is truly genetically limited, but chances are it's not. It is possible tho

 

[WRO]

If your habitat work was effective. Are you also tracking harvested deer BW?

How many deer are you removing in your culling efforts? Just bucks, or also does?

Perhaps your instance is truly genetically limited, but chances are it's not. It is possible tho

Not tracking body weight, it’s more age dependent as the feed is relatively stable.

No does, there’s not enough left to justify killing mule deer does in 99% if their home range.

Genetics make a huge difference in almost every animal in size and traits expressed. If they didn’t matter every mutt could win an all age field trial with the right feed, and that’s not a realistic scenario. So to say that deer antler size and point count have nothing to do with genetics is a laughable stretch at best.

 

[EdP]

So to say that deer antler size and point count have nothing to do with genetics is a laughable stretch at best.

I tend to agree with this. Otherwise, why would bucks have antlers at all? Growing antlers stresses bucks. The more energy diverted to antlers the more stress. If it didn't provide an increased likelihood of breeding, it is not a trait that would be sustained. All the counter arguments seem to be saying that large antlers are totally random rather than genetic. What other species would they make that argument for? Long legs for giraffes is purely by chance? Large size for male lions is just luck?

 

[Touchdown88]

There certainly could be a genetic bottleneck, but there could also be confirmation bias. Just like when you hunt a unit where you can't shoot spikes, you tend to take note of each spike whereas you may not in a unit where any buck/bull is legal. That is the problem with anecdotal data, it is rife with different statistical bias.

We are seeing 40% of the bucks represented by mature 2x3 or 2x2. Here is a buck I killed for example.

 

[S.Clancy]

Not tracking body weight, it’s more age dependent as the feed is relatively stable.

No does, there’s not enough left to justify killing mule deer does in 99% if their home range.

Genetics make a huge difference in almost every animal in size and traits expressed. If they didn’t matter every mutt could win an all age field trial with the right feed, and that’s not a realistic scenario. So to say that deer antler size and point count have nothing to do with genetics is a laughable stretch at best.

I tend to agree with this. Otherwise, why would bucks have antlers at all? Growing antlers stresses bucks. The more energy diverted to antlers the more stress. If it didn't provide an increased likelihood of breeding, it is not a trait that would be sustained. All the counter arguments seem to be saying that large antlers are totally random rather than genetic. What other species would they make that argument for? Long legs for giraffes is purely by chance? Large size for male lions is just luck?

You guys are thinking about genetics over 100's of generations, which is of course, correct. In the long-term certain traits are selected against and selected for is determined by an animal's fecundity, ie the number of young it can produce in a lifetime. Usually this means longer life, but it could select for more young in a shorter life.

Now, what you are describing would be pretty incredible genetic changes in very few generations. In 20 years, how many generations of mature buck to mature buck are there, 4-5, maybe? That's why I am saying nutrition/habitat is 90%+, (prob way closer to 99%) of the equation. The only real benefit to "culling" is you are removing animals from the landscape and giving the remaining animals access to more nutrition.

 

[WRO]

You guys are thinking about genetics over 100's of generations, which is of course, correct. In the long-term certain traits are selected against and selected for is determined by an animal's fecundity, ie the number of young it can produce in a lifetime. Usually this means longer life, but it could select for more young in a shorter life.

Now, what you are describing would be pretty incredible genetic changes in very few generations. In 20 years, how many generations of mature buck to mature buck are there, 4-5, maybe? That's why I am saying nutrition/habitat is 90%+, (prob way closer to 99%) of the equation. The only real benefit to "culling" is you are removing animals from the landscape and giving the remaining animals access to more nutrition.

I’ll go tell all my dog breeding buddies that if they just feed their dogs better they wouldn’t need to worry about pedigrees.

It’s not really incredible, it’s just common sense. When you’re dealing with low buck to doe ratios, typically the oldest and biggest will breed. If it’s a cull, those are the genetics that get passed on, if it’s a good genetic buck those are the genetics that get passed on.

By year 2/3 you can see what a bucks basic frame is going to be, there’s exceptions but a slick fork at 3 is most likely going to be a cull his whole life.

My buddy has around 8000 sets of mule deer horns, many that have multiple years from the same buck. It’s pretty telling, rough years the beams get shorter and the forks pinchy, they will lose extras as well, but the frame remains the frame. If it starts with a shit frame, it dies with a shit frame.

It’s fascinating.

 

[Customweld]

I’ll go tell all my dog breeding buddies that if they just feed their dogs better they wouldn’t need to worry about pedigrees.

It’s not really incredible, it’s just common sense. When you’re dealing with low buck to doe ratios, typically the oldest and biggest will breed. If it’s a cull, those are the genetics that get passed on, if it’s a good genetic buck those are the genetics that get passed on.

By year 2/3 you can see what a bucks basic frame is going to be, there’s exceptions but a slick fork at 3 is most likely going to be a cull his whole life.

My buddy has around 8000 sets of mule deer horns, many that have multiple years from the same buck. It’s pretty telling, rough years the beams get shorter and the forks pinchy, they will lose extras as well, but the frame remains the frame. If it starts with a shit frame, it dies with a shit frame.

It’s fascinating.

I have to agree with this. I think unit 18 in Idaho is a great example for the genetic discussion.
It's been a controlled hunt for muleys as long as I can remember. It borders unit 22 which has produced quite few B and C entries.
You couldn't ask for a better example of habitat than what is in 18. High alpine pastures, winter ground that rarely sees a lasting snow and a huge portion of the unit that is roadless.
On the south end of the unit is a dominant 3 point gene, anybody that has hunted 18 can attest to that.
3 points are all these bucks will ever be, regardless of nutrition. Farther north, the bigger bucks are crab clawed and have shallow front forks. With everything 18 has to offer, very few bucks make it past the 170" range.

 

[S.Clancy]

I’ll go tell all my dog breeding buddies that if they just feed their dogs better they wouldn’t need to worry about pedigrees.

It’s not really incredible, it’s just common sense. When you’re dealing with low buck to doe ratios, typically the oldest and biggest will breed. If it’s a cull, those are the genetics that get passed on, if it’s a good genetic buck those are the genetics that get passed on.

By year 2/3 you can see what a bucks basic frame is going to be, there’s exceptions but a slick fork at 3 is most likely going to be a cull his whole life.

My buddy has around 8000 sets of mule deer horns, many that have multiple years from the same buck. It’s pretty telling, rough years the beams get shorter and the forks pinchy, they will lose extras as well, but the frame remains the frame. If it starts with a shit frame, it dies with a shit frame.

It’s fascinating.

I think we can just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[WRO]

I think we can just agree to disagree at this point.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[EdP]

Now, what you are describing would be pretty incredible genetic changes in very few generations. In 20 years, how many generations of mature buck to mature buck are there, 4-5, maybe? That's why I am saying nutrition/habitat is 90%+, (prob way closer to 99%) of the equation. The only real benefit to "culling" is you are removing animals from the landscape and giving the remaining animals access to more nutrition.

I certainly agree that when comparing a herd with good habitat to one with poor habitat, the effect of nutrition is evident in antler size, but that is independent of genetics. This "nutrition is everything" argument ignores that nutrition/habitat is essentially the same for the entire herd. In a bad year the herd suffers and all the bucks in that herd have smaller antlers but there is still a continuum of antler sizes due to varying genetics and age. Those with the bigger antlers are still going to have a competitive advantage when it comes to breeding that year, just as they do in a good year when all the bucks have larger antlers. As I suggested previously, if antler size didn't contribute to increased fecundity, bucks would not have antlers at all.