Confusing Genetics With Maturity.......................

[huntnphool]

I have read a lot of posts lately where some of you are confusing genetics with maturity. My intentions are not to belittle or disparage anyone on this list, nor sound condescending but I would like to point out a couple things.

Animals genetics are passed on from generation to generation regardless of the age they live to. I mean, are we to be led to believe that a monster bucks genes, take "Popeye" for example, can only be passed on from him after he reaches 8 years old? Or, that his genes for a large rack change from year to year because they have increased in size each of those years? No, actually his genes for that increadible rack would be ingrained in the very genes of his offspring from day one.

Here in Washington, our deer produce a lot of first year spikes. Thats not to say that they dont have the "genes" to reach Pope&Young or Boone&Crocket size, its just their genes are different from other area deer. Obviously there are other determining factors that shouldn't be over looked, minerals in the food, drought and so on, will help determine how large or fast a deers antlers will grow, but just because a deer is a spike his first year, doesn't mean that if you let him pass, he is never going to get a nice rack. You can be sure that Popeye sired offspring that were harvested before maturity. Its possible the hunter that harvested one of them looked at the rack and thought the same thing, "nice buck but he just didn't have the genetics to be a "Booner". If he only knew..............................rf

 

[HunterHarry]

I am totally with you on this one!
I think that if left to become mature,and achieve their total antler potential,that most all bucks would be considered "Trophies" that anyone would be proud to hang on the wall!! Maybe not perfectly conforming to B&C standards,but a Trophy nonetheless.
I also have a problem with the theory that a buck has to be old to pass on "Trophy" genetics.
If a buck that was going to mature into a 38" non-typical breeds a doe while still a 3 point doesn't he pass the same genes? Or do his genes change every year? (not)
There seems to be a lot of confusion between hunters on this issue.

 

[bobcatbess]

THATS RIGHT

BACK WHEN THE GENETICS WERE GOOD,IT WASN'T A BIG DEAL TO HAVE A 2 POINT RUTTING!!!

NOW DAYS,WHEN YOU HAVE RUN DOWN DOES THAT DON'T WEIGH 1/2 WHAT THEY USED TO AND THE FAWN DOING THE BREEDING,WHAT DO YOU END UP WITH???A BUCK THAT EVEN IF HE LIVED TO BE 10 YEARS OLD IS STILL 'JUNK'!!!

REMEMBER:THE TRUTH HURTS,THE UTAH DEER HERD IS IN TROUBLE,THE UDWR WON'T LIKE ME FOR ADVERTISING IT BUT REMEMBER:THE TRUTH HURTS!!!

THE GENETICS IN SEVERAL L.E. UNITS HAVE BEEN DECIMATED,WHEN THEY ARE GONE DO YOU THINK THEY ARE JUST GONNA SHOW UP OUT OF NOWHERE???

THE ONLY bobcat THAT BETTER SHUT UP BEFORE I MAKE SOMEBODY ELSE MAD FOR STATING THE 'COLD HARD TRUTH'!!!

 

[supersider34]

The only other thing to remember is what is in the gene's of the doe already. If she has gene's that are trash a buck will not grow them as big as the sire. The gene's have to be compatible and upgradeable. All it takes is one bad genes to screw it all up and have to start over. Look at dog breeders or whatever. They get the top dogs to mix and they upgrade not just throw in any other dog.
Yes the good genes are there in there and might throw off a few of the sire's gene's for antler growth. But if they are breeding dozens then only 1 or 2 might go. Then you have to consider how many he is breeding, feed, water, other bucks he has to fight, fatigue and so on. If he is throw out alot then might make him throw offspring in the bad direction. So just because you throw a good buck in with a bunch of doe's will not mean they will all come out great. Have to remeber what gene's are in the doe. Have to have lots of time to breed bad gene's out of the gene pool. All it takes is 1 bad gene.
I have one area I hunt that has very bad gene's in there and have seen a bunch of bucks all the way back 10 yrs ago. The bucks have 1 side that grows down toward the face and under the jaw. Even heard of a guy shooting 1 15 yrs ago like that.
Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Blanding_Boy]

Way to go Strider...

Everyone seems to forget that you don't know or have anyway of knowing what genes the doe carries and what genes will be expressed by her offspring. A big trophy buck could breed 20+ does and if half of their offspring were bucks, it is possible that none of them would express his antler configuration in any way shape or form.

Todd

 

[NVBighorn]

Hmmm... genetics is a complex issue and I am no expert but I do know a thing er two about it. Real question is, do we really know how heritable the traits for big racks are? In cattle for instance (I know how much some of you love cattle) certain traits are very heritable. Some are also unequally influenced by the sire vs the dam. Some genes are dominant. Some are recessive. An example in cattle is horns. You can have a horned gene carrier bull and a horned gene carrier cow that do not show horns themselves but now and then (theoretically 1 in 4) their offspring will have horns. But if you have the same horn gene carrying cow that is bred to a bull who is polled on both sides (no horned gene carried) the bull's offspring will ALWAYS be without horns (unless there is a mutation of some kind) though they could be horned gene carriers. Another example is udder shape and size. Udder shape and size in cows is VERY predictable and VERY heritable. Good udders spawn good udders. Bad ones spawn bad ones.

So IF having a large set of antlers is genetically dominant you SHOULD have a positive influence from a large antlered buck. However if it is recessive you may or may not have that influence or it may be a negative influence. Point is, unless we know the dominance or lack thereof of antler size we can only theorize about deer genetics. I would theorize that big racks spawn big racks under ideal conditions. But I have no evidence to prove it.

And I have to agree 100% that a buck, doe (or any male or female of any species) has the exact same genetics available the day they are born as they do the day they die. It won't matter if they breed at 1 year or at ten years, one doe or a hundred does, the ones they successfully impregnate will get the same set of genetic contributions from the buck. Cracks me up when guys think an older sire will produce larger or better offspring than young sires. It just ain't so. Now, how they match up with the does genes is another factor. That is not to say that every fawn from that buck will be exactly the same because even though the buck has the same genetics from day one it has many different combinations of genes available. (I have one blonde child and two with darker hair, one with brown eyes, one with green and one with blue, but I think they are all mine ;-) at least I am paying for them anyway)

My point is, let's not over simplify this thing. There are some things that are beyond control of you or me or the game departments.

 

[HunterHarry]

Great Post NV!
I think that the complaints that most hunters have about the areas they hunt not producing big bucks has more to do with the bucks being cropped off before they can mature and reach their potential than with genetics!
There might be some isolated herds that suffer from inbreeding (much like the members on this forum)that you could blame on bad genetics but those are fairly rare.

 

[30plus]

Good post on the gene poolBighorn.
I do not know much about genes but as for big bucks I dont believe it takes that long for a superior Rac to show up if it is going to. I am talking about extra ordinarily big deer.
I will try to give an example of what I am thinking.

In 97 I watched a 3x4 that was very tall and about 28" wide winter did not see anything that resembled that buck the year before. In 98 we figured he would go about 30" and score 195. He stayed high in 99 but would go 32" and break 200". He was taken with the Gov. tag in 2000 and scored 211 typical the sheds from 98 actually score 206. and the 4 point side from 97 only scores a few inches less than the 98 and 2000 horn. (every year I underestimated this buck). This buck was estimated at 6-7 years.
In 2000 I killed a buck that scores 206 typical but was bigger in 99 and 98. The biologist pulled a tooth and the lab aged him at 6 and1/3 years. This buck was on the downhill. He did not live in a drought affected area or have any injuries.

These are just 2 examples of some deer with very good genes and the both came from areas with a history of B&C type bucks.
The thing is they were bucks none of us would have passed on when they were 3 and 4 year olds they were wallhangers from the start. I believe genes are the major factor in large antlers. If they weren't the whitetail ranchers would not be having hunts for cull bucks they would just feed them more protein shakes and sell them all for $20000.
But if either of those deer are killed as yearlings or 2-3 they dont have much chance passing on thier genes or growing much antler. I just wonder how many "good" bucks get taken that if given a year would be "great" bucks.

 

[Hornseeker]

Here's what I think guys are getting at when they talk about needing older bucks around to breed, and a better buck to doe ratio.

If you shoot up a herd pretty good, shoot all the bigger, older bucks out, then you are not having competition for the breeding. If the competition is low or nonexistent, a little forky or spike might breed a bunch of does......NOW, that spike or forky MIGHT have the genes of Popeye, BUT.......HE might not. If there was a better buck to doe ratio and age structure in the population, like a good number of 5-8 year old bucks, there will be NO forkies breeding does, at least not that many. If that wasn't clear, the fact is that, a 2 point buck hasn't "Proven" his genetic success like a 6 year old "Popeye" has.

Its the survival of the fittest theory. If there is a good age structure, only the genetic successes will be doing the breeding and the deer with poor antler genes will not win fights and wont breed. If they are all just 2 or 3 years old, they will all breed cause no ones really dominant over the other in antler growth.

NO, it doesn't matter if Popeye breed does when he was a spike or when he was 7 years old, those does still got the same genetic contribution from him.

 

[NVBighorn]

HS,
True enough. It's not like my cow herd where I can buy a $3000 bull and use him as a yearling because I KNOW what his genetics and EPDs are supposed to be. Theoretically the dominant buck would be the one with the largest rack and he should do the breeding, if he is available, passing on his genes. If he ain't there, someody else will fill in.

It's pretty well known that certain areas have better bucks historically than others, no doubt, because the genetics are there. But sometimes we get carried away blaming the game departments for lack of deer numbers or or lack of trophy quality. It's not just one factor influencing those things. Genetics, range conditions, climatic changes, man's encroachment, competition, etc are all factors along with a bunch of others. And a lot of those factors are out of our control. And others we are not willing to face up to.

It's interesting though, in some areas I can think of that have very low deer densities also produce some excellent bucks. Maybe that's because they don't get hunted as much or maybe it's some other factor. I really don't know.

 

[Hornseeker]

Low densities usually DO produce big racks and horns. ITs very well known that sheep pops produce the biggest horns when the densities are low. I know several areas where elk densities are low, they attract less hunting pressure and the elk have less competition on the winter range and there are some Monster bulls in there. Probably a much higher percentage of big bulls per cow than any area with a high density of elk!

I used to think that I'd just be happy killing any "mature" buck or bull, but over the years I've run into and seen some critters that I really wouldn't want to kill due to bad genetics for the most part. All those crab claw bucks we see. Some are 28 inches wide with good initial forks, then super week crab claw forks. No good. Some elk pops have really weak thirds, some really weak 4ths. Gotta find those spots with the good 3rds to really impress ya!

I think age is a major factor in producing a trophy rack, but genes definitely play a part (as well as many other environmental factors!).

Good Luck All,

HS

 

[BUCKSPY]

There's alot of armchair biology being bantered about here with nothing but conjecture behind it.

Poor antlers gene are poor by what standards? Boone and Crockett score? That idea in and of itself is ludicrous. Just think about the idea that a buck has poor antler genetics because of Boone and Crockett score.

More on this later and I'm just getting started.

 

[BUCKSPY]

LAST EDITED ON Feb-26-04 AT 01:38PM (MST)[p]To finish my points............

"Bucks with poor antler genetics will not win any fights" Really no offense intended here hornseeker but antler genetics really don't have anything to do with winning fights and becoming more successful breeder.

First a buck has no concious awareness of his antler size other than how he percieves how other deer react to him possibly because of his antler size. Last time I checked, there were no mirrors in the wild for bucks to check their antlers with.

To provide a little anecdotal evidence to go along with my point and in the interest of brevity(brevity is the act of being brief for those of you who dropped out of high school early to become governor's tag deer guides) I once saw a 3 point buck that would maybe go 170 acutally kick the crap out of and kill a 204 inch gross typical buck. (My buddy found the buck wounded and then dead the next day.) This year I photographed 3 200 -220 ish bucks on the same mountain and the most dominant buck was a 3x5 27 incher that would maybe go 180 gross.

All of this basically boils down to , "it aint the size of the dog. Its the size of the fight in the dog." This does hold true throughtout the animal kingdom but animals that are bigger and stronger do have an obvious advantage.

Additionally, many of the so-called genetically superior and larger antlered bucks do not seem to rut as hard as some other deer for whatever reason. Some of these bucks seem to work the fringes of traditional rutting areas picking up on individual or small groups of does and do not seem to be attracted to the large groups of does possibly because of the high amount of competition these large groups seem to draw.

To further this point, the largest antlered bucks aren't always the largest bodied bucks. Take the three bucks refered to as Wyoming's Living Legends. Popeye, Morty and Goliath. Both Popeye and Goliath were average body sized bucks while Morty was huge and yet all three were way above average for a mature buck antler wise.

Of course this is just my opinion based on thousands of hours and hundreds of days spent photographing and observing wild deer, but I could be wrong

I'm tired of typing for now.

 

[BigChicken]

Here are couple links to some interesting data:

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/wildlife_management/hillcountry/deer/genetics.phtml

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/wildlife_management/hillcountry/deer/antlers_inherited.phtml

------------------------------------------------------------
This is a selection from one of these sites:

W.A. Armstrong published an excellent article titled "The Management of Spike Bucks" in the spring of 1994 issue of "Making Tracts for Texas Wildlife" in which 10 conclusions based on the deer research at the Kerr Wildlife Management Area were presented. The title could have been "The Management of Whitetail Deer." These conclusions are based on data from 20 years of research records from more than 1,600 total deer, 1,103 sets of antlers from 384 different deer and include the following:

1. Antler development is genetically based. Not all deer have the same genetic potential.
2. Nutrition does affect antler growth.
3. Early or late birth does not affect antler development if deer receive adequate nutrition.
4. The majority of yearling spike bucks will produce smaller and fewer points in following years than will fork-antlered yearlings.
5. You can improve a herd by selectively removing inferior antlered deer and allowing the deer with good antlers to breed.
6. Does provide half of the genetic potential for antler development.
7. Average yearling bucks on good range should have six points.
8. Even when most bucks are spikes, removing them will not endanger the breeding potential.
9. Antler development improves with age up to a point.
10. The best time to manage for genetic improvement is during periods of nutritional stress.
-------------------------------------------------------------

And incidentally BUCKSPY, I agree that perfectly conformed antlers would have nothing to do with dominance and breeding rights. As you witnessed, an aggressive, heavy bodied, 3-point may be the most dangerous buck on the mountain. Take away the G3, and the G2 can go from an eight inch knife to a 20 inch sword, I've seen some scary ones. Heck, maybe that's the spike bucks secret weapon?

 

[oldoregon]

read the genetics post in the general forum.



Later Yall!!!!

 

[TheKnack]

I agree with Buckspy on this one.
I have seen many times where the biggest racked deer gets beaten by a smaller 150" buck.
Usually from what I have seen is the same, in that the bigger trophy by antler standards is interested in breeding at the beginning of the rut then kind of loses interest or finds secluded pockets of a couple does as the rut progresses.


Example may be: I am 36 years old and think I am fairly tough but would get worn out fighting a bunch of 18-24 year olds every day. I think I would hang around the fringes as well.LOL

Best,
Jerry

 

[redrabbit]

There is a theory that I read about recently. I believe it was by Valerus Geist. The thought is that the "trophy" bucks become more reclusive and less involved in the rut. This conserves energy and body fat, which leads to a better chance of surviving the winter. Thus, they enter the next antler growing season in better physical condition to channel the nutition into growing larger antlers than other bucks who are more depleted from the rut and winter. They also have a better chance to reach an older, mature age of larger antlers. If this is true, then their genes would not be passed along as much.

Doug/RedRabbit

 

[Hornseeker]

I agree with what you say, totally Buckspy. That was an oversight on my part. I guess, the strongest bucks will be doing the breeding, whether they have good scoring horns or not. My bad. However, it is ALWAYS better to have a bunch of older age class bucks competing for does than to just have does looking for something to breed them, like the first forky that happens along.

Good point for sure.