Antler Genetics (Long Post)

P

pinenut

Guest
I took some time tonight to write some thoughts about the great question posed by the "Old Man". It got really long but I strongly believe in what I wrote, so I wanted to create an original post so more people would view it.

Thank you old man of the hills for asking your question.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are "screwing ourselves" by selecting to harvest the bucks with the biggest antlers.

Before I talk about genetics, let me say that I fully understand the factor that age has to play, a very small percentage of bucks at 3 years of age will grow as large of antlers as the average 6 year old. I fully agree with the other writers about how we would all be surprised if we didn't hunt a herd for 5 or 6 years what type of bucks would be produced. I believe our deer herds are way too overhunted and it is too many permits combined with far too much access and killing technology that has led to the sad state that most deer hunting has become. If management strategies were put in place to allow for many 3 year olds up to some 6-7 year old deer, there would simply be more nice looking bucks around. It is lack of older bucks that is the biggest problem in most deer units, but we are slowly but surely also diminishing the genetics in these herds.

The way i see it, genetics are like slots of a roulette wheel. A buck that grows a huge rack likely has more slots on his genetic wheel that if landed on will produce another big buck. If this buck breeds a doe that also has a high percentage of slots with big buck genes, the offspring is more likely to grow big antlers. If a 6 year old 2x3 breeds a doe whose mom and dad both carried inferior antlered genes, the fawn is far more likely to grow lesser antlers. It is not a guarantee of course, just more likely. This is how genes and evolution work, yes there are exceptions, but over many generations the "superior" genes get passed on and the inferior genes get weeded out.

I don't think growing 16 inch G4's or a bunch of extra points has ever affected a bucks chance of being preyed upon (therefore removed from the breeding pool) until the last 50 years or so, and this pressure is being ramped up every year. I have no doubt that when you choose to shoot a 4 year old 7x5 that scores 190 instead of the 6 year old 3x4 that scores 160 you are forever causing a decrease in the genetic potential of that deer herd to grow big antlers. I think we are currently causing a rapid reverse evolution in our deer herds in terms of antler size by the way we choose which bucks to kill. Yes there will still be big non-typical bucks, but the percentage of fawns born with the genetic potential to grow this rack will continue to decline as we choose to kill the adults with this characteristic over ones that don't carry it. On all deer units across the country, from a survival point of view for bucks, it has become very, very beneficial to grow lesser antlers because of the hunting styles of man. Never before has a predator chosen to pick the biggest and most healthy (from an antler point of view) members of the prey population to kill. Never before has a predator had the ability to do this. We are indeed "screwing ourselves" forever in terms on the antler size potential of adult bucks.

I understand that a son (or daughter) of Popeye had the exact same likelihood of receiving the massive antler genes when Popeye fathered him as a 22 inch 4x4 when 2 years old, or during the four years he was a giant. However, "Popeye's" are far more likely to be killed as a 3 or 4 year old than a lesser buck. When the big 3 points get an extra year or two to pass on their genes, they will surely father more fawns, and their fawns are indeed more likely to grow up to be big 3's than Popeye's kids were. If a buck with the ability to grow a monster rack gets killed as a 4 year old after fathering 18 fawns his first 3 breeding seasons, whereas a buck without G3's because of genetics gets to live to 6 years in the same unit solely because of this genetic defect gets to father 34 fawns because he got to see 2 more breeding seasons as a massive bodied adult buck, the genetic pool is declined in that herd.

Genetics are not just being killed on the limited entry units, it happens on the extremely overhunted units as well. There are many units were a buck has a very small chance of reaching 4 years of age, eliminating the bigger antlered genes deer from ever growing their large racks. However, a buck with the potential to grow a B & C rack at 6 will likely grow a bigger rack as a two year old too. There are many hunters who would pass on a 2 year old 16 inch 2-point but shoot a 2 year old buck with a spread in the low 20's and 6 inch forks front and back. Every time that happens the genetic potential for the herd is cut back, forever.

That is how i view genetics to work. As we choose to remove the bucks with the biggest antlers over bucks with lesser, we are removing "likely" to grow buck antler genes. As more and more deer with a higher percentage chance to pass on these genes to their offspring are removed leaving more and more lesser bucks to do the breeding, more and more lesser bucks will be fathered. This has already happened, I am certain of that too. With all other factors being equal (weather, etc.) I am certain the average B&C score of all 6 year old bucks alive today in the West is less than it was 50 years ago, solely because we have been killing the best genetic deer at a more frequent pace than the others. Of course I have no data to prove this, but I strongly believe this to be the case.

I also strongly believe that the average antler size in mature bucks will continue to decline as we develop more and more means to find and remove the better antler genetics from the breeding pool. With every technology that allows us to get closer and closer to a situation where it is possible to view every buck in the herd equally and then allows us to kill the biggest, we forever ?screw ourselves?. By allowing hunters to access nearly every canyon in the West on ATV?s, we both reduce the average age class of bucks, but also cause the death of superior antlered bucks to become more likely. As aerial scouting gets more and more popular, this will further accelerate this trend.

As an example, think about what would happen if we were to kill the biggest bucks in a deer herd while every deer is equally vulnerable. Say the Wyoming Game & Fish gave out an unlimited number of tags valid for mule deer with at least 6 points on a side for the months of Nov-Jan. in a couple of counties in Western Wyoming for the next 20 years (where every deer in the herd is equally vulnerable to be viewed and killed in this example). Then, because of this, nearly every buck that came in with 6 points on a side was shot every year, do you really think that after 20 years there would be the same number of bucks with multi non-typical points as today? No way! and there never would be again. This is what is occurring on all units across the West, just on a slower (but over time as equally destructive) scale.

This is one of the reasons why I do not support the ridiculous amount of access by motorized vehicles we currently have in the West. Any tool that allows us to view many animals and kill the best is destructive. This is a huge reason why I do not support aerial scouting. This takes our ability as a predator to kill the biggest bucks to an unprecedented level, and further accelerates the demise of the genetic potential of the mule deer to grow the big antlers we are all after. I do not support selling hundreds of tags to people who then hire many guides to look at hundreds of bucks just to kill the best, this is harmful. Even the couple of early/late season tags that are given are extremely harmful to our herds. By viewing many and killing the best, we reduce the genetic potential of the next generation (a common theme in this article). For example, I have no doubt that there would be more bigger four points in Spanish Fork Canyon today if that buck killed in 2000 would have been able to breed one more year. How many 6 year old weak fork bucks are viewed each year in Utah that would get killed by the auction tag if they were instead a 260 inch buck? I would guess the number approaches a thousand. No I am not saying that in 10 years there will be no big bucks, but I am saying there will be less because of the issues discussed above.

One thing I can't figure out is how I feel about myself and the way I hunt. I have on several occasions passed on inferior antlered bucks to later remove superior antlered bucks from the gene pool. This was accomplished without an ATV or airplane, but I still did it nonetheless. I would like to think this method of hunting is not nearly as destructive as the guy flying a plane to locate the biggest deer in the unit and then killing it, but I am certain it does harm the herds at least some. I guess this is something further to think about.

I hope I am way off base and completely clueless with these thoughts, and that a fawn born in 2050 years after 10 generations of bucks have been subjected to $2000 spotting scopes, 1 ATV per hunter, extensive aerial scouting, 500+ yard rifles/scopes, etc., etc., etc. will be just as likely to be given the genetic potential to grow a 220 inch rack as a buck born in 1950, but I think there is no way that could be true. We are screwing ourselves, and this ?screwing of ourselves? will continue to accelerate, period.

Thanks for taking the time to read that, feel free to disagree.

-RPinenut
 
With regards to genetics and your idea that killing bigger inferior bucks has a drastic effect could probably hold true on a very small scale. If, say you had a very small population with a very low buck to doe ratio. (single digits) But, on a large, overall scale I would say not.

You must also remember that in most cases deer tend to congregate on the winter range, bringing deer together from scattered summer ranges. Also, bucks breed multiple does during the rut. And also, for every big buck that is killed there are a few that aren't.

"I am certain the average B&C score of all 6 year old bucks alive today in the West is less than it was 50 years ago, solely because we have been killing the best genetic deer at a more frequent pace than the others. Of course I have no data to prove this, but I strongly believe this to be the case."

I'm sure you could compare scores between now and then, but also remember that deer populations were much larger back then, then they are today.


Are there fewer big bucks today than there used to be, yes...without a doubt. But, populations are no where near where they used to be. Mainly due the huge amount of overharvesting that took place in the past, increasing levels of lost habitat, the catastrophic winter of 92-93, stretches of drought, and so on.

So, are we "screwing oursevles?" I would go to long lengths to say that we are not.
 
I tend to agree with exactly what Pinenut has posted.

I can show you the proof thru the cattle industry. When "new" breeds were created, the best offspring were allowed to breed and continue to improve the quality characteristics of the herd. This selective breeding allowed for the cattle to yield and produce higher quality beef at a lower cost. The best were kept and the herds improved. Now look at it from a deer perspective: The best are shot, leaving the lesser bucks to breed. The herd then would loose the quality and produce an inferior product. That ain't rocket science.

You can not select the best from a herd every year and expect that herd can maintain the same quality over an extended period of time. That is exactly why I don't like the "3 Point or better" antler restrictions. You can have a 1 year old 2 point standing next to a 1 year old 3 point. The 3 point (with the best genetics) gets killed and the 2 point lives. There is a 4 year old 2 point standing next to a 2 year old 4 point and the 4 point gets killed leaving the lesser gentics to continue to passing on the lesser genes. Simply look at Utah's Book Cliffs for proof. There are many, many mature 2x2, 2x3, and weak 3x4. I believe that is the result of the Books having a 3 point or better antler restriction for 10(?) years with heavy hunting pressure. The best genetics were shot out of the herd every year.
 
I agree with pine nut and packout. It makes sense to me. Why don't we have 3 point management hunts in limited entry units to take out some inferior genes???? The Desert and many CWMU'S have them to help maintain or improve genetics of the herd. Paunsugunt, henrys, book cliffs, San Juan, all should have management hunts in my opinion.
 
I posted on a post awhile back that we should give out x amount of late archery tags in nov. or even dec. to cull out some of the big 2xs and 3xs. The reason I said archery hunt is because it will be less likely for a bow hunter to shoot the wrong deer (a buck bigger than he was suposed to shoot) because he will have to be much closer than someone with a rifle or even a Muzz. I also think that for this to work that it should be manditory for every deer harvested to be checked by the dwr. Now my Idea came from going out to the Book Cliffs alot over the past 6 years, this idea might not work as well in some other units. What do you guys think.



MM Member since 1999. Jake H
 
If that were the case then there wouldn't be any pheasants left that could fly as Most hunters won't shoot one running on the ground. they have been doing this for a lot longer years than we have been harvesting just the best horned bucks.
I still kind of agree with your logic but then....
driftersifter
 
A pheasant that cannot fly is not even comparable to a large mule deer in this issue, because it would not be the strongest genetically. And for your info, there are plenty of people who fill their limits by driving around and shooting roosters that sit in the ditch, so you cannot say that hunters won't shoot them on the ground. A pheasant that won't fly, on the other hand, is a different story...
 
pheasants dont just fly from humans ether. considering they only get hunted about 2 weeks out of the year.(in utah)


MM Member since 1999. Jake H
 
I would support a 3 point only management plan that would allow some of the mature 3 points to be removed from herds where there is an over abundance. Let the Youth have 1st crack at these management tags. The only way it would work is to take the amount of tags issued for a given area and instead of increasing the number of tags to accomodate management tags,you would keep the amount of tags the same, but would allocate 40% of those tags to be any buck tags and 60% to be 3 point only tags.
The process of genetics are really no different in Deer than in Humans.Some people are tall, while some are short.Some people have blue eyes, some have brown. With genetics your spinning the great wheel with a million different combinations possible. How many humans are over 7 ft tall. Very very few. The same applys to bucks. The truth is, most bucks don't have the genetic make up to grow record book antlers, just like most humans don't have the genetics to grow 7 ft tall. 200 inch deer are rare because it is a rare genetic trait. And don't forget about does. Many Does and inferior bucks are the carriers of recessive genes that can produce big antlers. I think if there was less pressure on Trophy bucks we could grow more of them, but I don't believe we will ever eliminate the potential to grow a few monster bucks.

Mike
 
My observation has been that most does are bred by the younger bucks. I would say 2-3 year olds do more than half of the breeding. This would be well before they "max-out" antler potential. We can't assume That all large racked mature bucks are dominant. Body size in my opinion is more important when mature bucks are competing for a doe. 95% of the bucks harvested each year in the west are between 1-3 years old. Areas that are over hunted and all they have left is to breed is are the young forked horns still have the genetics that were there before. If given the opertunity to mature we would see the same amount of monsters produced as it did before. The gene for abnormally large antlers is a recessive one and can be passed from a doe as well as a buck and can re-appear after many years of not being seen. Also 95% of bucks would die of old age with 20-23" racks, which proves nontypical or monster buck genes have always been rare and seldom seen. In my belief for all these reasons we have not seen the disappearance of the trophy bucks. I also think the ratio is relatively unchanged since the "Hay Days".

The logic you use makes sence, but I do not think the numbers will back it. At least I hope you are wrong.

Thanks for for the post, Mike
 
I like the fact that these posts are thoughtful and carefully written. I would have to agree with many of the points that have been presented in the previous paragraphs.
Pinenut's view is very well put, and is very convincing, although I don't want it to be true.
I think the ace in the hole for our deer herds is the fact that genes are in fact dominant, and or recessive. Which means that they can be manifest in a son of a certain buck, and they can also be manifest in a great grandson of the same buck. This in my opinion will be the one thing that will keep some good genes in the pool.

The real tragedy is that there ain't a darned thing we can do about it. Not because we can't, but because the "powers that be" won't allow simple minded folk to influence management practices.

I do have one suggestion that may indirectly save more deer.
I propose that the Fish and Game conduct a statewide drawing for coyotes, with limited entry units, bonus points, and the whole nine yards. Within 5 to 10 years the coyote population will be struggling, and they would be so sought after that the big time hunters would be hiring guides to make sure they got their coyote, so as not to waste their bonus points.
The mule deer would flourish because most of the fawns would survive. Then we...... well, never mind.

On a serious note, the "cull bucks" are dying of old age on the limited entry units. I believe that is what old timers call a waste of resources. When will we begin to utilize a resource that is virtually untapped?
 
I think pinenut makes some great points, but I think the problem is somewhat different in my opinion. I think he has a valid point about a possible genetic weakening of antler size, but I do not think it is possible to achieve this regressive antler growth in just 20 or 30 years. The obsession with antler size really got going in the early 80's or so. I think that also if you hang out at this site long enough, you start to think that everybody is going for big, high scoring, bucks. But, the statistics do not bear this out;

I believe that there are three types of mule deer hunters, the first shoots the first buck he sees and it is usually a 1.5 or 2.5 yr old deer, and if you look at the statisict across all the states, that is by far the biggest portion of the buck harvest. The second class is looking for a mature animal, something 3.5 yrs old or older. This group will hold out, but will shoot the first 24" crab clawed buck with decent mass, they see. They are "mainframe" hunters, and can live with 3x4, 2x4, etc. I believe that these two groups make up for 90% of deer hunters and probably account for 95% of the harvest. The third group is the group that truly is looking for something in the 180 class or better, but this makes up a very small % of hunters and a very small % of the harvest.

So, the single biggest reason antler size (IMO) has seemed to go down is that there just aren't the numbers of mature bucks in the population base due to the only predator that primarily preys just on bucks (man). We simply shoot to many of them before they get old enough to grow. The single biggest correlation to antler size is age. My guess is that there are plenty of "big rack" genes in the population base, it is just that they never get a chance to reach maturity.

My next point would also be that, if we assumed man did not hunt, and we could observe mule deer in a totally natural state, my guess is that the high scoring B&C bucks would still not be doing all the breeding (although they would certainly be getting their fair share) because the dominant bucks in nature are not necissarily the highest scoring bucks. A six year old, heavy horned, crab clawed, 23" , 2x4 who was a heavy bodied deer might very well be tougher and more dominant than a six year old 4x4 with deep forks who is 27".

Antler size does not determine what bucks breed in nature, age structure, body mass, aggressiveness, etc does. It just so happens that older bucks tend to have larger antlers, so we assume that antler size is one of the primary drivers of it. There is no way a buck can determine if his antlers are bigger than his competitors antlers, unless they have invented mirrors! So, my belief is that attributes like age and aggresiveness are what determine the dominant bucks in a given area.

What we are really talking about is fiddling with genetics of the population base to try and achieve an objective that is desirable to what mans "view" of what makes up a good buck is. What is a good buck?? A good buck to me is one that makes it to 5.5 yrs or older; I think trying to micromanage deer herds to grow high B&C scoring racks is futile. It is the obsession with score that is the problem. Maybe the crab clawed, heavy horned 3x4 buck is imparting other desirable traits (predator escapement, twin births, etc) that we do not even fully understand. Practically, it will be almost impossible to make harvest rules that get rid of these "inferior" bucks on public ground because everybody has different definition of what is a good buck.

I think the bigger problem with mule deer herds is the horrible age structure in most herds. There are plenty of studies that show that when does are bred by older, mature bucks, that the fawns have a much better chance of survival. I think we need to focus on rules that will ensure a proper age structure in the population. There are lots and lots of mule deer does being bred by 1.5 and 2.5 yr old deer, in many areas it is truly pathetic.

If we can get the herds back to the proper age structure, than I believe antler size will follow because more of the "good" genetic bucks will survive when they are younger. I do believe, as pinenut does, that the technological advances over the alst 20 yrs (including this site) have proven to be devastating on mature bucks.

So, how do you get the age structure back? There are lots of people smarter than me, but, look at what they have done to the age structure in some of the elk herds in different states, to get mature branch antlered bulls back to doing the bulk of the breeding. They have gone to spike only rules, and then hand out a few branch antlered tags each year. This has proven to be phenomonaly succussfull at solving the problem of age structure. Anybody who has had experience with elk herds before and after this can attest to how well it works.

The same thing could be applied to mule deer harvests; have a 2 point or less rule and then give out an appropriate number of "any buck" tags. Get rid of all these 3 pt or 4pt or better rules because all they do is shift the harvest up one age class or two. These rules actually tend to further decrease mature bucks because it keeps people out in the field longer, increaseing the chances that they might stumble across a truly mature deer.

As counterintuitive as it seems, you need to restrict the harvest to the smaller deer, not the larger ones, let the base of mature bucks grow, then give out as many "any buck" tags as the population base will allow, while still maintaining the proper amount of mature animals in the population.

You can only do so much on public land; you want to manage for maximum carrying capacity of deer, good buck to doe rations, and maintain good age structure. If game depts focused on those three objectives we would see a vast improvement. I have no doubt that an intensive program to cull "inferior" bucks can be achieved, but it is really the domain of people and outfitters who have access to large tracts of private ground, which is just fine, because you can manage the deer on your own land any way you want to (as long as you are following the game laws).

The problem all across the West is that the game depts are trying to manage the deer herds to appease everybody, and in the process is appeases no one. Do what is right by the deer herds first; achieve those three objectives I stated above, at whatever management they have to do to get there, THEN start layering in the opportunities to the hunters. Instead of doing right by the hunters first, do right by the herd first.
 
Without going int a long drawn out post. I too completley agree with Muleyguy.
Age is, in my opinion the #1 determining factor in determining a trophy for most hunters.
Not neccessarily in the production of B&C class antlers, but in the eyes of most hunters.
If we want bigger bucks, we MUST reduce tag numbers.
Ain't a real popular idea.
I'm all for road closues during the hunting season too.
Anything that will protect and increase the age structure of a herd will be a positive thing for trophy hunters.

One more thing I've never understood.
I hear this genetics issue brought up all the time.
Can someone please explain how if a young two or three point buck breeds a doe, that it is passing on "bad genetics"????
If the "Burris buck" or the "Broder buck" bred a doe when they were two or three years old and still had willowy immature antlers at the time, you think they would be passing on "Bad Genetics"???
HH
 
One last thing...
I can remember a time back when it was a big deal to kill a 300" 6x6 bull elk in Utah.
Now with the severley limited tags in the LE units, well the rest is history.
All of us want to hunt, but you can't have your cake and eat it tooo...
Again, I think age is more to blame for small bucks than genetics.
HH
 
I think that the theory is that the "Burris buck" or the "Broder buck" most likely did not have willowy antlers when they were 3 years old, therefore superior bucks are more likely to be shot at a younger ages by a hunter like me (and most of us), that sets his standard at say 160 or 170. If these superior bucks are less likely to be shot at younger ages, they have less time to pass on their genetics. I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is.
 
Excellent comments. Pinenut and Muleyguy I think you are both correct. Age, deer herds reaching carrying capacity, good buck to doe ratios, and good age structure with in herds are very important for healthy herd and big bucks. On most GENERAL SEASON HUNTS in Utah we don't have great buck to doe ratios, and age structure. Deer are below carrying capacity in many places in Utah and the West. On many LIMITED ENTRY UNITS it's a different story. Lots of bucks. Harvests are limited. Most trophy hunters are not shooting, old 3x3's, 2x3's, 3x4's, and crab claw 4x4's. Look at San Juan, Henry's, Paunsaugunt, Book Cliffs, Wyoming 102, etc. You will see ALOT of these inferior antler bucks. WAY TOO MANY. I strongly believe they are making the genetic component of the big buck equation worse. I believe the Fish and Game (Biologist) should have some management buck hunts with manditory harvest reports to help out this problem.
 
I would like to add that I do not totally disagree that there could be some limited entry units where the harvest patterns are so skewed towards the higher scoring bucks that what is left is the "inferior" 3x4, 2x4, etc. And, that some managment technique could be employed to reduce these.

But once again, I think you would have to look at the statistics, and my guess is that even in the limited entry hunts, the vast majority of bucks shot are still what is being referred here to as an inferior buck.

I have hunted a number of limited entry units, and my experience is that most of the bucks I see harvested are what these posts refer to as inferior. The majority of hunters (not all) in the limited draw hunts are completely satistifed with a heavy, crab clawed, 25" 3x4. I have seen countless of them in the back of trucks in these limited draw units.

And, in fact, we see the evidence right here on MM, which arguably has a higher % of trophy hunters than the general hunting population. If you look at the pictures of what is harvested out of many of these units, what you see is that a majority of them are not perfect genetic specimens.

An argument could be made that this is the result of excess harvest of better genetic animals in the past, and so the reason we are harvesting so many of those is that is all that is left so to speak. But, once again, I think you have to go back to the statistics to see, and from my experience from about 1980 or so, I have not seen much change in hunters. The vast majority of hunters in the 70's, 80's, and 90's would all be perfectly happy, and would shoot the first crab clawed 25" buck they saw, in general draw as well as LE hunts. So, that tells me that the harvests over all these years has not been totally skewed towards just the genetically superior bucks.

I think we have to keep in mind that the natural order of things in mule deer bucks is not to be a perfect, high scoring buck. I would go so far as to say that those bucks, in a totally natural system, without man, are still the minority. So, when we take a hunting unit to a LE system, and the age class of the bucks rises, so does the amount of inferior bucks, that is just the natural order of things. So, there is the appearance of a large increase in these bucks. When in reality, they have always been the majority.

anyway, just my .02 cents worth, great discussion though.
 
Right on Muleyguy. I agree with you. I could go for a two point only harvest, with a few big buck tags. It really does work on the elk, and it should work the same way on the deer. If a deer makes it past the first season with his two point antlers he is safe for several more years.
I like this idea for several reasons.
1. It gives the average hunter and the novice hunters a chance to hunt and harvest every year.
2. It allows a select number of bucks to advance out of the two point class and into the "safe zone" for a few more years. (this means some better shed antlers to pick up, and more nice bucks to watch in the summer, fall, and winter. I like that!
3. It gives real trophy hunters a chance to hunt big bucks. And if you are a real true trophy hunter, you can patiently wait until the big bucks are thriving, so you can take some of the cream off the top, without whining about not getting to hunt.
I would go for that right away.
Travis
 
I think were on to something with this 2 point only harvest, however, mule deer are not as resilient as elk, so we would have to limit the 2 point harvest (not over the counter like Utah spike elk).It would reduce oppurtunity, but I'm more for a quality hunt every few years.
Muleyguy has some very valid points and I agree with most of them. One thing genetics can not be blamed for is todays "new breed" of trophy hunter. In the last two decades, trophy hunters have become much more efficent at killing trophy bucks.In contrast to the hunters in the 60's thru the 80's, todays trophy hunter has so many advantages with laser range finders, long range tack driving rifles, the finest spotting scopes and binoculars in the world. They have internet sites, like this one, where we can swap stratagies and info on areas through out the west.In addition, there are countless magazines and hunting services that offer advanced info on the best units for a price. And than there are the much debated auction tags, that allow the rich that special advantage over everyone else. And than there's the ATV's (hope I don't get bobcatbess started). ATV's, like them or hate them, are allowing the old, the young, and the lazy and even the trophy hunter to get to places they would otherwise not hunt. Lets face it guys, we are well oiled killing machines, and there is alot of pressure on trophy bucks. The reason the hunting for big bucks was so good in the 60's-80's is because we had a lot less of the resources and equipment I mentioned above. I may be wrong and have nothing to back this up, but I suspect there may be more trophy bucks hitting the dirt today than 20 years ago.

Mike
 
Good post pinenut.

Congrats on a great year! I hear you nailed another good one!

Back to the genetics......
 
I don't see how having a two point only harvest will help recruit more larger, older trophy bucks with improved genetics. In most general hunts the majority of deer harvested (65%)are yearling bucks. I think management of general season and limited entry hunting areas need to be looked at differently. They have different objectives. Just because a 2 point makes it through his first year, dose'nt mean he will be safe for a few years. I can tell you from a lot of experience in the field. Many limited entry deer units in Utah have a lot of 4-6 year old 2x3's, 3x3's, and 3x4's. The vast majority of these deer are being passed on. These deer are passing on their genes, every year. It would be much better, genetically for a two or three year old small four point to breed does, that has good or excellent potiential. Than these larger bodied more dominant three points, that will likly always be a three point. We need age and genetics, for big bucks. Both are critical. We can limit tags and get age. (If not living in a winter kill area, or large Lion population.) The only way to help out genetics is to have some management hunts. This is important for limited entry units especially, when you have 25% of mature bucks having inferior antlers. Thats a lot of does being bred by inferior antler bucks. my opinion. Greg
 
Thanks guys (and gals) for this post. This is the best post I've read on here the past couple of years. I know Idaho has had some two point or smaller hunts in some units, however, I don't know the results. Does anybody out there know the results of this type of hunt in other states?
 
Very good post! Makes alot of sense and is concerning towards our deer herds. However, in order for a trophy buck to get big he has to live for a few years and during those years he is passing on his genetics. Say someone shoots a young buck that would have turned into a trophy. They just x'ed a buck that could have passed on his trophy caliber genes for a few more years. It doesn't necessarily matter how big a bucks antlers are now its what his genetics are. However, Im not sure if a little buck ever turns into a trophy class buck. Ill have to do some research. Maybe all trophy class or even just good bucks are nice 3s or 4s their 2nd year. Maybe the chances of a 1 1/2 year old forkie turning into a good buck are extremely slim.
On a diffent note, we need to stop building roads! Plain and simple. There are already too many of them. I know here in idaho, now lt. governor, Risch, had pushed for a "management plan" to let the state "regulate" its wilderness areas. One of his main staples was that roads needed to be built into roadless areas so that we could "manage the forest for optimum heath" by designating perscribed burns to improve forest health and limit major forest fires which cause too much smoke for the poor Boiseans. How sad? Hello, can anyone recall a road being built that actually helped to improve forest health or big game herds. Furthermore forest fires are good and occur naturally, we dont need to build roads to start them. Anyways I hope this plan doesnt pass. Just my two cents.
 
Very thoughtful posts, but I dissagree with much of them. Here is an article I first published in Deer & Deer Hunting Magazine and then adapted it for MULE DEER (MDF). It illustrates how I feel about this topic so I will let it speak for itself. The upshot is that hunters can not be as selective as they would need to be to influence gene frequencies in a population such that antler size actually declined. I have much more about this in my new book "Deer of the Southwest" (see www.deernut.com)

As for the management in western states, remember that our great system of wildlife conservation (the envy of the entire world) is based on providing hunter opportunity to the average person. This not only generates the funds for wildlife conservation but established a huge base of hunting advocates. The attitude of "we should reduce the number of tags and make more hunters stay home so I can kill a big buck" is a dangerous road to go down and I believe will lead to a precipitous decline in general public support (the 92% that don't hunt).


ARE TROPHY HUNTERS DRAINING THE GENE POOL?
By Jim Heffelfinger

Does removing the biggest bucks from the herd cause a long-term decline in the quality of the deer herd?

We live in a world of information overload. We are receiving so much information from so many sources that we scarcely have a chance to absorb any of it. Unfortunately science does not lend itself to a sound-bite society. Those that oppose hunting are often much more successful in swaying public opinion than sound, well-thought out wildlife management principles. As a result, quick, catchy ideas are accepted without much thought as to how reasonable the suggestion is in reality. Trophy hunting is one of those subjects that are judged on a very shallow basis without much thought about the realities of that activity. A recent survey in Arizona showed 85% of respondents opposed trophy hunting. It is unfortunate that the survey did not ask them to define trophy hunting, because it is doubtful most of those respondents were envisioning trophy hunting as I see it actually occurring. The media and anti-hunters have portrayed trophy hunting as a ?shoot ?em and cut the head off? activity. While there are certainly some hunters who are only interested in another head for the wall, most people who consider themselves trophy hunters are a more conscientious hunter who is not interested in shooting the first legal animal they find. They have matured as hunters and have placed further restrictions on themselves and taken sportsmanship to a higher level.

One of the most popular attacks on our hunting heritage by animal rights zealots is the assertion that trophy hunting is morally wrong. Rather than pushing their personal views (which they are entitled to) on the non-hunting public, they try to convince others to oppose trophy hunting by arguing that it is biologically unsound. They fail miserably in this arena. These groups state that by harvesting large bucks each year, trophy hunters are removing the best genes from the breeding population. As a consequence, the smaller bucks are doing the breeding, thereby passing along their inferior genes. This, they say, will lead to a decline in the size of antlers and health of the population over time. The rabidly anti-hunting group "Fund for Animals" even goes as far as to say hunting is "evolution in reverse." This is not consistent with the biological reality when we look at trophy hunting as it is actually practiced.

The trophy hunting argument may seem reasonable on the surface and is apparently very convincing as I have spoke to hunters and even some biologists who believe we are harming the gene pool. However, as we shall see, trophy hunting is not providing the intensive and consistent selective pressures needed to affect the extremely diverse and constantly changing gene pool of the population.

In this age of increasing misinformation we need to question everything we hear and read. We need to just stop and think about it. You won't find much about population-wide genetic influences on antler growth in the scientific journals because there has been no ?antler gene? identified. Without a gene to focus on, it is not possible to conduct a research project to show changes in the relative proportion of good and poor antler genes in a free-ranging deer population.

There are 3 basics of quality antler development. 1.) Good nutrition. Nutrients consumed by bucks go first to body development and maintenance, then to antler growth. This is one reason yearling bucks do not produce much antler growth - their nutrient intake is being used almost entirely for body development. If there is a limited amount of forage available there may not be enough nutrients "left over" for optimal antler development that year. In years of below average rainfall or a widespread mast crop failure, bucks will sport smaller racks than in years of abundant forage quality and quantity. Also, a higher proportion of the yearling bucks will be spikes in poor years. 2.) Age. Antler development in mule deer usually peaks when the bucks reach 5-7 years old. After peaking, a buck's antlers generally lose tine length, number of points, but gain mass. No matter how good the nutrition and genetics of the area, you will not see trophy class bucks unless they are allowed to reach the older age classes. 3.) Genetics. Each buck has a different genetic potential for antler growth. Captive bucks of the same age, fed the same diet, show very different antler conformations. Some bucks will be superior to others the same age and some will never have large antlers just as some humans never reach 6 feet tall. The heritability of antler traits has been shown by various researchers. If we graphed antler quality genes, we would see a bell shaped curve with a few animals possessing exceptional genes and a few with very poor genes, and the rest in between, clustered around some average antler quality. Captive white-tailed deer research in Texas and Mississippi have shown examples of a few individuals which occupy both extremes of this curve even after being raised on identical diets. Whether antler quality is hereditary and whether we can manipulate the gene pool through hunter harvest are two entirely different questions. Antler quality is hereditary but hunters don't affect the proportion of good quality genes in a population and cause a change in antler quality because of the complexity of the antler growth equation. The high genetic diversity in mule deer along with all the other selective pressures work to ?reshuffle? the genetic card deck preventing a unidirectional decline in antler quality in a deer herd.

Biologists wanting to manage for trophy deer can manipulate deer populations and habitat to provide optimal forage conditions (good nutrition), then establish a very light harvest of bucks to allow them to reach the 5-7 year age classes before being harvested (age). Genetics are rarely considered because there is not much we can do to change the overall genetic quality of a population. The gene pool of a population is extremely diverse and constantly changing in response to an infinite number of environmental pressures.

Let's explore several factors that illustrate how ineffective hunters are at actually changing the gene pool.

AGE VS. GENETICS
Many times the effects of age are confused with the effects of genetics. Most "trophy" bucks harvested are simply the oldest bucks in the area, not necessarily the most genetically superior. The other "small bucks" in the area will be trophies in a few years and this year's buck fawns will then be small bucks. Some of these small, young bucks carry better antler genes than the larger, older bucks. These superior genes will be expressed as the buck matures. In other words, if we see young bucks doing much of the breeding we cannot automatically assume they are genetically inferior bucks. Age of a buck and its genetic potential for antler growth are two unrelated factors.

Lowering the age structure (average age of breeding bucks) has no effect on the gene pool. A buck has the same genetic material if it breeds at 1.5 years as it does breeding at 6.5 years. Antler size is less indicative of genetic potential in the younger age classes because so much of the nutritional intake is going to body maturity and development rather than antler growth. Shifting the age structure lower doesn't affect the genes being passed on, just what the "gene passers" look like at the time (small because they aren't old enough to express their own genes physically). If young bucks are doing a majority of the breeding, some are passing on exceptional genes.

In many areas of the country, a small percentage of bucks in the population are 3.5 years old or older. In this situation, those bucks will be doing a majority of the breeding because they are the dominant males, however, they are dominant because of age rather than genetic superiority.

In some areas of the United States, hunters have been harvesting a majority of the big bucks each year for decades with no noticeable change in local antler quality (no decline in the antler sizes of bucks of the same age). Hunters often speak of the higher prevalence of big bucks in "the good ol' days." This was due to a lower overall harvest that allowed more bucks to mature, rather than a higher quality gene pool.

THE DOE'S CONTRIBUTION
For years the doe's contribution to the genetic makeup of her offspring has been overlooked. Research on white-tailed deer by Harry Jacobson at Mississippi State University showed that the doe contributes at least as much to the antler quality of her male offspring as the sire buck. This complicates the issue tremendously because we have no clue of the quality of those genes since the hormonal environment in her body does not allow those genes to be expressed. Experiments have shown that fawns born from the same doe but sired by very different bucks often have antler conformations similar to each other and their mother?s father. In many areas the buck:doe ratio is 1:5 or wider. This means that at least 83.3% of the population is made up of females that are not being subjected to selective pressures related to antler quality. It is ridiculous to think that the quality of the gene pool could be manipulated by light and sporadic removal of 16.7% (percent of males in the population) of the gene pool. Many states have even wider buck:doe ratios, reducing further the percent of genetic material affected.

WHAT IS A TROPHY?
A trophy is in the eye of the beholder. One trophy hunter may be extremely satisfied with a buck that another hunter has already passed up in his search for what he feels is a trophy. If one hunter's trophy is another's reject, we cannot define what a trophy buck is. How can we discuss the effect of removing "trophy" deer when we can't even describe what it is we are actually taking about?

In fact, many "trophy hunters" actually take the first buck they encounter because when the moment of truth comes, they decide they would rather have venison steaks and sausage in the freezer. Any deer population is made up of a mixture of small, medium, and large antlered deer of varying ages. Charlie DeYoung at Texas A&M University ? Kingsville showed that there is too much overlap between whitetail antler size and age class for a hunter to tell what is a 3.5 or a 6.5 year old. Some exceptional 3.5 year olds are indistinguishable from poor 6.5 year olds.

ACTUAL HUNTER DENSITIES
In reality, the density of true trophy hunters is low throughout most of the country. Those hunters actually passing up smaller bucks and only harvesting mature animals are few and far between. In any deer camp there are always many more trophy hunters on opening day than towards the end of the season. If a high density of hunters over a large area were selectively removing the biggest deer in each age class for many years, that would be a much more intensive selection scenario. In reality, trophy hunters are uncommon and do not take the largest buck in each age class, but rather the largest buck they encounter within range, during the season, during daylight hours.

In contrast, most hunters in areas of trophy deer management will hold out for a mature buck. However, the buck harvest rates in these areas are extremely low in order to maintain an older age structure and thus a very small proportion of bucks are actually removed.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES
Even if selective removal of genetically superior individuals did occur in a population, it would not be the only selection taking place. Many other factors remove deer from the population irrespective of genetic potential for quality antlers. In many areas of the west, malnutrition, coyotes, and disease take more than half of each year's fawn crop. In some areas mountain lions remove a large number of adult deer from localized areas. These predators are removing individuals (male and female) for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with their antler quality genes. Collisions with automobiles remove thousands of deer annually; again, these mortalities are unrelated to antler quality. We must keep in mind the multitude of selective pressures on every population.

This is not to say the laws of natural selection are not taking place in areas where several mature bucks battle for dominance; only that trophy hunters have a negligible effect because of the great many factors involved.

In trophy whitetail areas of South Texas, the most dominant bucks suffer a substantially higher mortality rate than other bucks in the population. With close buck:doe ratios and a mature age structure, there is tremendous competition for does during the rut. This intense fighting, limited feeding, and constant doe tending causes mature bucks to lose 20-25% of their body weight which contributes to this high mortality during and after rut. I see nothing genetically, biologically, or morally wrong with harvesting these older bucks; many will die anyway. Mule deer research shows that even if a buck survives to age 8 or 9 he may be replaced in the hierarchy by a younger buck in his prime. When this happens the defeated mature trophy buck is not contributing genetic material to the population anyway. One ranch I am familiar with in South Texas has had a deer proof fence for 35 years and has trophy hunted exclusively. This fence has prevented the exchange of genes with the surrounding deer populations since its installation. This genetic isolation would intensify the effects of removing high quality antler genes, because no new genes would enter the gene pool. This ranch has kept meticulous records of antler sizes by age class and bucks of the same age have not shown any decline in antler quality.

I am not a proponent of trophy hunting everywhere. As a statewide policy, it reduces hunter opportunity because to produce an older age structured deer population you must reduce the buck harvest substantially. At a time when mule deer populations are at extremely low levels, I think it does agencies, hunters, and all mule deer enthusiasts a disservice to let fewer people hunt mature deer. The danger of reduced hunting opportunity for mule deer is not only the loss of revenue for state agencies, but more importantly, the loss of an interested and active constituency that is in tune with the issues that affect mule deer. Hunters have lead the conservation movement because we care about the animals we pursue. A reduction in mule deer hunters equates to fewer constituents and supporters working on habitat projects and fighting against the forces that would like to turn winter range into oil fields and subdivisions. Trophy management is one of many options that should be available to hunters to provide a diverse array of hunting opportunities. Most states have recognized this and established particular areas that are managed for the harvest of trophy quality animals or a more enjoyable hunt experience.

Regardless of discussions of supply and demand and sociological issues, trophy hunting stands on solid biological ground. When someone talks about the trophy hunters' negative effect on genetics, remind them to think about the details. Think about the actual density of trophy hunters throughout the country. Think about the actual proportion of the gene pool affected. Think about the doe's contribution. Think about the young animals breeding that are not yet old enough to show their superior genetics. Think about the multitude of environmental forces acting on that gene pool irrespective of antler quality. Genetic changes are the result of consistent natural selection occurring over a very long period of time. We need to keep things in perspective.




Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
 
"Some of these small, young bucks carry better antler genes than the larger, older bucks. These superior genes will be expressed as the buck matures. In other words, if we see young bucks doing much of the breeding we cannot automatically assume they are genetically inferior bucks."

"Lowering the age structure (average age of breeding bucks) has no effect on the gene pool. A buck has the same genetic material if it breeds at 1.5 years as it does breeding at 6.5 years".

My thoughts exactly....
thumbsup.gif


Another issue Mr.Heffelfinger brings up is does.
I rarley hear hunters mention when speaking of genetics, is of the importance of "trophy does".
A doe sired by a buck with great genetics is every bit as important as the trophy buck when it comes to a quality deer herd.

Great post Jim!
appl.gif

HH
 
"Charlie DeYoung at Texas A&M University ? Kingsville showed that there is too much overlap between whitetail antler size and age class for a hunter to tell what is a 3.5 or a 6.5 year old. Some exceptional 3.5 year olds are indistinguishable from poor 6.5 year olds."

Great article Jim . Thanks
I'm afraid cull hunts on public units by public hunters are a mistake. IMO
 
That paper by DeYoung was from a large South Texas, multi-year, study that was part of my Master's Degree at Texas A&M - Kingsville. I helped capture many of those bucks.

JIM
Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
 
Great info Jim. Thanks! One bottom line question. In a limited entry unit, where you see an unusual number (approx 25% of buck population) of 3-6 year old 2x3's, 3x3's and 3x4's. Would it be helpful to herd genetics to have a management hunt?? I now it will provide more opportunity to hunters who would be happy with such deer. Many of the trophy hunters pass on such deer, when it takes 10+ years to draw the tag. They would rather shoot a 3.5 yr old four point, than a 5-6 year old 3x3. Thanks again. Greg
 
deerofthesouthwest,

thanks for the post, you were able to say what I was trying to say much more eloquently and with actual science to back it up.

I do think I disagree with a little of what you are saying, not about the genetic argument, but rather about the level of opportunities game departments should offer.

I agree that is dangerous to manage mule deer just for trophy animals, as it really only appeals to a small sub-set of all the mule deer hunters; and you are correct that a large numbers of hunters makes for a much stronger wildlife coalition not only financially but also politically.

I think having a limited number of limited entry hunts, where a higher % of mature bucks are in the population is just fine. I think trying to micro-manage these to produce high scoring B&C bucks is way off base though. But, these hunts are wildly popular with the general hunting public because of the high level of people who put in for these special draws; so I don't not see any real problem.

I think the bigger issue is on the general hunts. I would agree that you want to give out as many opportunities as you can, but the problem I see is that at the end of the day, what happens is the game depts will keep giving out unlimited opportunities even though in many (most) of their units they are not at population objectives or buck to doe ratio objectives. In addition, I think game depts need to also manage for a healthy number of mature bucks, even in the general draw areas. I have read many studies that indicate that the older the bucks are that do the breeding, the healthier the fawns are. I was curious if you believe in this also?

The main issue I have is that in most of the areas in the west, mule deer are below game dept population objectives, have lower than desired buck to doe ratio's, and have horrible age structure in their buck populations. And, this has been going on really since the horrible winter of 1992/1993. There are also drought issues, increased predation, also going on, but at the end of the day, there is nothing you can do to change that, the only control you have is over harvest levels. But, yet, year in and year out, most game depts will not curtail the tag levels to achieve their population and buck ratio goals. They are still giving out doe tags, you see archery and muzzleloaders being able to shoot "any" deer, etc.

It seems to me the mule deer just haven't been able to get "over the hump" so to speak since 92/93; I would argue that the game depts need to curtail the hunting opportunities to get these herds back up to where the need to be, and to improve the buck numbers and age structures of the population, and then start layering in the extra opportunites. This could be achieved in my opinion in a very short time frame through tag restrictions. Or could be achieved through innovative regulations (like 2 pt or less) that still allow for lots of opportunities.

I think one problem that game dept all over the west are going to face in the future is that the costs of operating the game depts is always on a march upwards, so there are always budget problems going on. And, the hunting demographic is changing, the baby boomer generation made for a lot of hunters, so there will probably be fewer hunters in the years to come, or at leaest a stagnant amount. So, the budget constraints are going to be very difficult because you have ever rising costs, but a stagnant income source.

As it is now, in general, hunters are not very tolerant of increases in tag and license fees. I think the primary problem is that hunters see increased tag fees, but the quality of the hunting only seems to get worse, or at the very least, never seems to improve. The game depts are going to have to manage for a higher quality experience in the field if they want to keep raising tag fees. If the quality of hunting does not increase, and the tag fees keep marching up, at some point, you will see a large drop off in hunters.

Hunter like to complain about tag fees, but it is my guess that the average hunter would not have any problem paying $50 or $60 for a tag if when they went out they saw good numbers of deer and had a reasonable chance of shooting a mature animal.

my main problem is that it is obvious to all that the mule deer herds in most of the general draw units in the west are not healthy; they are marked by low deer densities, poor buck to doe ratio's and almost no 5.5 yr old or older bucks. And, this has been going on for some time, so I would like the game depts to somehow constrict the opportunies in the short run to get them healthy again, and then layer in as much opportunity as they can, while still mainating objectives. I think if they did this, the depts could raise their tag fees, and people would be ok with it. I think the reality of it is that game depts are so scrapped for money that they are not willing to cut opportunities because they will also have a cut in funding from it. But, I think this is somewhat shortsighted because, just like any business, if you put out a higher product, then you can charge more for it. Personally, what bothers me financially about hunting a general draw unit is that I have to buy the tag, pay for the gas to get there, camp, eat, buy shells, etc, etc. Just for a weekend I will have $300 to $500 into it, and then I hike my butt off, and I see 30 other hunters, 3 does, and one spike. In my world, I look at that, and think what a friggin' waste of money....now if I had to pay $30 more for my tag, but I had a great experience, I wouldn't even think twice about the cost of tag.

anyway, rambling on here, but I think it is important to the deer herds and to the future of hunting to raise the bar a little bit in these general draw units
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-13-06 AT 04:05PM (MST)[p]"As for the management in western states, remember that our great system of wildlife conservation (the envy of the entire world) is based on providing hunter opportunity to the average person. This not only generates the funds for wildlife conservation but established a huge base of hunting advocates. The attitude of "we should reduce the number of tags and make more hunters stay home so I can kill a big buck" is a dangerous road to go down and I believe will lead to a precipitous decline in general public support (the 92% that don't hunt)."


I agree with this guy and his statement!
 
Muleyguy-

Very thoughtful post - I had trouble finding something to disagree with. It is hard to respond to your comments about mule deer management in "the West" because there are so many different management strategies among all the states and provinces (www.muledeernet.org is the best place to go to look at what agencies are doing around the west with mule deer). There are so many differences that we really can't broadbrush it. Removing bucks is not going to affect the density of deer overall - it just affects the buck age structure and the buck:doe ratio. So closing a unit for a few years will not increase deer density and make more deer (just narrower B: D ratios and an older age structure). I know you weren't advocating that, but I hear that too much from fellow hunters ("just close it for 5 years").

If there is a state that is below goals and they are still killing does or allowing primitive weapons hunters to shoot "any" deer, then that will slow their recovery toward the population goal. In some cases though, you may not want the population to respond so rapidly that it over shoots the population goals quickly and then the deer managers are running after it with heavy doe harvests and trying to curtail habitat damage. A gradual increase may be better and may be the reason some states are still allowing some doe harvest even when under the population goals.

In AZ we stopped doe hunting long ago (except where it is needed on the Kaibab to keep the population in check with a reduced winter range). When deer populations dropped in the 1990s, we turned our archery hunts into buck-only. We have some areas that are managed for mature animals, but most are general hunts. Still, these general hunts are limited entry by a draw and the number of permits are regulated carefully each year to make sure it is appropriate for the amount of bucks out there. Our mule deer pops have declined dramatically, but so have our permits. I have a whole chapter on deer management in my book, including a special section on doe hunts (and one of the only accurate accounts of the Kaibab population irruption and decline in the 1920s). Also, there is a very good book for those interested in mule deer management throughout the west written by the leading mule deer biologists (http://www.muledeernet.org/BookOrder.htm).

As for lightening up on harvest to allow herds to recover (in B: D ratios, age structure, or density) that is a reasonable course of action. However, each case is different and so we can't have these kinds of discussions in a general way -- it depends what that state is doing in that area at that time. I don't believe wide B: D ratios are bad from a biological standpoint - research by Gary White showed that there was no effect on reproduction if the number of bucks per 100 does was above about 6:100. Socially, the public does not tolerate B: D ratios that get low enough to be a biological problem. I don't believe herds or fawns are healthier when sired by mature bucks compared to young ones and I'm not aware of any real research that shows that. There is lots of speculation, but I'm talking about research results. In the whitetail world there is research that shows very intensive buck harvest and wide B: D ratios are not a biological problem.

If you have a population where 80%+ of the bucks are yearlings that may be too heavy of a harvest. But, I don't think we want to demand that our state wildlife agencies manage for 80%+ that are 3+yrs because that will erode our hunting heritage. Just where in between those points we should be in any given area is difficult to say.


Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
http://www.deernut.com
 
deerofthesouthwest,

thanks for your comments, I will get the books you recommended. I would agree that getting the overall deer population up to objectives could not be accomplished by just elimination of doe tags and reduced buck harvest. Many units across the west have had their doe tags essentially eliminated, and the units are still not coming up to objectives. So, it is hard to lay the blame at the foot of the game depts over that issue. But, strangely enough, I still see areas that allow doe harvests even though that unit is not at the population objectives, so that is frustrating.

The area where the game depts can have a real impact though is the B:D (nice acronmy by the way, makes it easier) ratio's and the age structure of the bucks. And, that is a very fine line to balance becasue to achieve those goals, you have to restrict opportunties to some degree. And, I know that when game depts ask for input from hunters, they complain about any increased restrictions. So, it ends up being a political decision instead of a biological decision. I would still argue though that the pendulum has swung too far in the general hunts towards low B;D ratios and poor age structure. I would like to see a little more balance in the herds though.

Intuitively, it makes sense to me that since evolution set it up so that the more mature bucks would do the bulk of the breeding, that there must be some fairly important biological reason for this. I will dig up the research that I have read that talks about this to see if it is credible.

I do think moving forward though that game depts across the west are going to have to somehow bring the quality of hunts up because, anymore, it is a small investment to take yourself (or your family) hunting for even just a couple of weekends. There is still decent hunting on general tags in the west, but, you really have to work at it. People that are willing to put their time in, travel, and spend some money can still find consistently good hunting. But I think the typical experience of a young hunter these days is that they go with their dads to the "old hunting area" that their family has gone to for 20 or 30 yrs, and they might see a few does, but almost never any bucks, lots of other hunters, and maybe every other year somebody in camp shoots a small buck. After several years of this, that youngster gets done with high school, has never seen a legal buck to shoot at, and has never really had a good experience hunting, so they kind of give up on it.

Anyway, thanks for your comments, very well said.
 
>
>The area where the game depts
>can have a real impact
>though is the B:D
>(nice acronmy by the way,
>makes it easier) ratio's and
>the age structure of the
>bucks.

I too found that if you type "B : D" without the spaces in this environment, it turns into "B:D = Be Happy" rather than "Buck to Doe Ratio."

>Intuitively, it makes sense to me
>that since evolution set it
>up so that the more
>mature bucks would do the
>bulk of the breeding, that
>there must be some fairly
>important biological reason for this.

There's no question natural selection is in play when most of the breeding is done by the most mature bucks -- those that have what it takes to live 5 years or more. We just have to be careful taking that fact and making the huge jump to say hunters killing the biggest bucks are degrading the gene pool.

Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
 
First, genetics is not the exclusive factor in antler development and antlers don't always develop in a predictable pattern. Nature doesn't understand "normal" - that's a human concept. Therefore, judging the genetics of an animal by its antlers in a given year is a mistake.

Second, hunting causes changes in deer behavior. Mature bucks often exhibit those behaviors which have contributed to their survival. In short - just because you don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there and that's a fact not understood by the general hunting public. As long as there are mule deer hunters who are unwilling to change their hunting strategies, there'll be hunters declaring that there are no more big bucks.

Manage for healthy herds in good numbers and the antlers will take care of themselves.
 
Very true. Biologists managing mammals have a harder time than fisheries biologists. If you go fishing and come home empty-handed "they weren't biting" but if you go deer hunting and come home empty-handed, "they aren't there." In both cases, the big'uns hang deep.

Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
www.deernut.com
 
Jeff could you please answer my question in post number 31. Thanks for your time and eduction. Greg
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-06 AT 08:44PM (MST)[p]>One bottom line question.
>In a limited entry unit,
>where you see an unusual
>number (approx 25% of buck
>population) of 3-6 year old
>2x3's, 3x3's and 3x4's. Would
>it be helpful to herd
>genetics to have a management
>hunt??

I don't believe in management hunts to improve the genetics of the herd. But if you own a high-end trophy operation and have older bucks that are hanging around that no trophy hunter is ever going to shoot, then you could offer opportunity to some hunters, make some more money, and remove deer that are using resources trophies or potential trophies could use. There is nothing wrong with letting people remove "management bucks" in that case, but it is not going to improve the size of antlers in the population (even within age classes). Again, selection is not intensive enough to actually change the genetic make-up. If you have a small high-fenced ranch, you could conceivably exert enough harvest pressure on certain types of deer to change the genetics (they do it in captivity), but that is a different situation than any free-ranging herd or large high-fenced ranch.


Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
www.deernut.com
 
deerofthesouthwest,

I found some of the articles that I was talking about that describe the impacts that can happen from immature bucks doing the bulk of the breeding; in the eyes of these researchers it seems to all revolove around the fact that does will delay their breeding when they are breeding with immature bucks, so this results in fawns being born later in the year, which are less "fit" than a fawn born earlier.

for simplcity sake, I pasted a few lines from each with the authors name, hopefully I do not get in trouble for copyright laws or something:


Todd Black (from an article entitled "Fawns,Bucks,Does Where does it all start?"

"A doe likely won't breed with a scrawny pencil neck buck during her first estrus cycle. However, if she is still 'fit' she will come into estrus again 3-4 weeks later. Now, she may just decide that pencil neck is better than nothing if Goliath is still absent. This really isn"t helping our deer herds. The gestation period of a doe is 200 days give or take a week or so. Given that, lets do some math I know it hurts but it's simple. Lets say doe "A" is bred on November 18th, given a 200 day gestation, the fawn should hit the ground right around the 30th of May. Doe "B" is bred on December 23rd (her second cycle) given the same gestation period, the fawn hits the ground on Independence day. Does anyone see what is happening here. Fawns born in May/June are likely to weigh more, be more "fit", and better to withstand predation and make it through a bad winter than those born in July/August. These fawns go into the winter being less "fit", weighing less, making them more susceptible to disease, predation, and extremes in weather. Which can lead to higher fawn mortality, less recruitment into the population and lower doe to fawn ratios. Ask yourself when the last time you saw a fawn with its spots still in late August/September. This really shouldn't be happening if all the does were bred in late November early December, but I see it with more and more frequency."


"In summary, I don't think we can continue to allow our immature bucks to do most of the breeding. We need those mature males in the population.We need "fit" healthy fawns to make it through the dry summers and the cold wet winters. We can"t be harvesting 70-80% of our yearling bucks during these harsh times and expect things to recover over night or from year to year. We must manage for an even age distribution of bucks in the population through restrictions and reductions. It's important for us to realize this. We as hunters just can't continue to kill anything that has antlers and expect our mule deer population to increase. I'm not saying we all need to be trophy hunters either. But just maybe we don"t have to kill a deer every year to be a real hunter."


Journal of Animal Ecology (research entitled "The role of males in the dynamics of ungulate populations")


"3.
In general, even in harvested populations with highly skewed sex ratios, males are usually able to fertilize all females, though detailed studies document a lower proportion of younger females breeding when sex ratios are heavily female biased. It is well documented that the presence of males can induce oestrus in females, and that male age may also be a factor. In populations with both a skewed sex ratio and a young male age structure, calving is delayed and less synchronous. We identify several mechanisms that may be responsible for this.

4.
Delayed calving may lower summer survival and autumn masses, which may lead to higher winter mortality. If females are born light, they may require another year of growth before they start reproducing. Delayed calving can reduce future fertility of the mother. As the proportion of calves predated during the first few weeks of life is often very high, calving synchrony may also be an important strategy to lower predation rates.

5.
We argue that the effects of males on population dynamics of ungulates are likely to be non-trivial, and that their potential effects should not be ignored. The mechanisms we discuss may be important ? though much more research is required before we can demonstrate they are."


Texas Parks and Wildlife

"Older bucks grow better antlers, but there's also a biological reason for allowing the deer to live at least 31/2 years before harvest. Mitch Lockwood, TP&W's whitetail deer program leader, said poor age structure results in a longer breeding season.

A longer breeding season means a protracted fawning season and a reduction in fawn survival."


There seems to be quite a bit of research done from credible sources (this was just a few that I found quickly) on this issue. We know that the primary problem across the West in mule deer being unable to reach population objectives is chronically poor fawn recruitment. So, it seems like this could certainly be part of the problem.
 
This is a really complicated topic and it is hard to discuss it in posts like this. I'll make just a few comments. The first piece here is just speculation with no biological or research basis as far as I can see. With all due respect to Todd (who is a friend that produced the range maps for my deer book) he is just rambling here in a popular article (I assume) and not reporting any real research results (sorry Todd).

>
>Journal of Animal Ecology (research
>entitled "The role of
>males in the dynamics of
>ungulate populations")
>
>
>
"3, 4 & 5. listed from this source deal with elk, I think. I would not make the same statements for elk as I did for mule deer. For one, I am not an elk biologist and do not spend much time in the elk scientific literature. And also, because I know there has been some scientific publications that showed a wide Bull:Cow ratio and young age structure did delay breeding and maybe (?) lowered calf survival (I think Lou Bender at NMSU published work to contradict this - no effect on calves). I don't know about the effect on calf survival just because it has been too long since I read those papers. My feeling is that you could make much stronger arguments for elk than you could for deer.


>Texas Parks and Wildlife
>
>"Older bucks grow better antlers, but
>there's also a biological reason
>for allowing the deer to
>live at least 31/2 years
>before harvest. Mitch Lockwood, TP&W's
>whitetail deer program leader, said
>poor age structure results in
>a longer breeding season.

This has been shown in whitetails in Mississippi and apparently TX. I do think a very (very) skewed sex ratio can delay breeding. However,........
>
>A longer breeding season means a
>protracted fawning season and a
>reduction in fawn survival."
>
I want to see the data on this part. I know when Dr. Harry Jacobson presented the MS data at a meeting showing the breeding season for WT was delayed in a heavily exploited population, I raised my hand and pointed out that there was no evidence that was reducing fawn recruitment so my point was "so what?" He conceeded that it didn't seem to be affecting reproduction (they were still killing the snot out of does to keep the population in check). So we need to be careful about making the jump from a delayed breeding season to a reduction in fawn survival. The strongest statement I have heard mule deer biologists make is that a delayed breeding season "could" have a supressing effect on fawn recruitment in cold climates where fawns go into winter smaller. I know many well-respected mule deer guys consider that possible, but I don't think there is much out there research-wise.


>We know that the primary
>problem across the West in
>mule deer being unable to
>reach population objectives is chronically
>poor fawn recruitment. So,
>it seems like this could
>certainly be part of the
>problem.

It may be in northern parts of the range where populations really are hammered. I wouldn't say it is not an issue anywhere - just that is has not been shown in deer to be an effect at the population level.

The Mule Deer Conservation book from Berryman Institute was written by the western states/provinces mule deer working group that I chair and it has a chapter that addresses the "Potential effects of hunting." It has a good overview of this and even mentions the biostimulation (presence of mature bucks inducing estrus). This research came from WTD pens in Michigan that were only 65ft x 65ft so some researchers have pointed out that this was a highly unnatural situation and may not apply to the wild. Nutriiton has been shown to influence the timing of rut and we know we have some huge habitat problems throughout the West. However, you may want to go elsewhere for a second opinion since I wrote that part of the chapter.

Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
www.deernut.com
 
Muleyguy said

"There are plenty of studies that show that when does are bred by older, mature bucks, that the fawns have a much better chance of survival."

Can you please cite some of these studies?
 
I concur with Jim. Elk are a different critter than mule deer. And despite the appealing logic of the late-born calf/fawn has lower survival argument, to my knowledge research/monitoring have not shown significant increases in calf recruitment (elk surviving to breeding age) in areas where bull age structure was improved through spike-only bull harvest. Those management strategies were effective in increasing bull:cow ratios, but except under very poor habitat conditions, it appears the later born, smaller calves can generally "catch up" with the other calves and have similar survival.

That level of research is less common for deer, but the most recent I've heard is from Colorado, where heavy reductions in harvest (and hunter numbers and therefore support for hunting) and subsequent increases in buck ratios were actually followed by lower fawn recruitment. I don't think this was portrayed as a cause and effect relationship, but there certainly wasn't the anticipated improvement in fawn produciton that some believed should happen.
 
Deerofthesouthwest:

I am intrigued by your view that management hunts do not affect the genetics. I hunt a ranch that has offered management hunts for elk for decades. The ranch keeps meticulous records. The number of bulls qualifying as managment bulls (5+ year old 5X5s or 5X6) has come down by a significant margin. I understand deer are not elk--but it strikes me there could be more of an impact with careful management practices of our deer herds, particularly in the LE units. This ranch also makes efforts to offer deer management. I'm not certain as to how effective it has been--they did however kill a 3yr old this year that went 193". I would love to see youth tags offered in the LE units that were targeting the mature 2X3 and 3X3 bucks. I personally believe it would make some difference while offering a quality hunt to the younger generation and hopefully lighting that fire! On a side note, in parts of Europe where herd managment has been practiced for much longer, many hunters consider the best trophy to be the oldest buck or bull, not the biggest antlers. That kind of thinking might be helpful--but a hard sell.
 
deerofthesouthwest,

thanks for your reply,I can see where it is difficult because you do not want to step on anybody's toes. So, thanks for standing up and giving a reply. It sounds like a lot of people highly suspect that age structure is important, but it sounds like no hard, mule deer specific studies have not been done.

no matter what course of action game depts take in managment of the mule deer herds,I do beleive that it must be backed up by scientific evidence.

hopefully you find much success in the field of mule deer biology; we will all be better off for it. Thanks!
 
Pinenut, You are exactly correct and we are affecting evolution. We have been affecting it forever, and it goes in cycles. It can be proven by any breeder when you selectively (like shooting the biggest bucks) pick breeding stock it will tend to resemble the parents. If nothing changed over 100yrs and we only harvested four points you would see some huge three and two points. I can only hope we will keep the harvest mix up enough on mature bucks we don't end up seeing 30" 2 points. Notice I said "Mature Bucks" not some young dinker who still has years of growth potential.
 
I have always wanted to know, will a big 3 point always be a 3 point? Or, should a buck the age of this deer already be a 4 point. So, does this buck have potential to be a nice 4 point next year, or are we screwed?

4583508854ab1822.jpg


458350e357688f15.jpg
 
RPn,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I'm not a biologist and really don't understand genetics. However, I think you are correct about our modern predatory hunting methods.

We have placed such a high price on these mature bucks, they really don't stand a chance. Just look at the posts about the SFW, RMEF, and all of the other fund rasing activities we are asked to support.

I was just looking at the web site for the supposedly "New State Record elk in Utah" Here is a very professional guide and hunter posing with about 6 or 7 guys that made a huge amount of money buy killing this animal.

I don't begrudge anyone making a living, however I wonder how long our game hurds can sustain this type of "technical, over the top hunting"

I can't offer a solution! I believe the "conservation groups" are doing their best to preserve hunting, and once again I don't fault the guides for making a living.

Again, THANKS! for your thoughts. Don't know where this is going to end up.

RUS
 
First off there is something that needs to be stated. If you shoot a deer that deer will not be seen again. He or she is gone forever. That applies to trophy bucks as well. If you shoot all of the trophy bucks you will not see them the next day or year. Is this to vague? Let me know and I will try to do better. We complain we want more trophy bucks yet we keep shooting them. Hmmmm I wonder why there aren't very many. Have you ever noticed how many trophy bucks are on the guys property who doesn't shoot them? Hmmmm. I am not very smart but I see the correlation. This is why you see 24" crab claw bucks. The nice looking bucks have been harvested.
Feed and survival, are tied for first as being the most improtant factors in antler size.
Any biologist who's income is derived from hunting fees is going to support more tags. We all know science can be skewed. I am not saying this is the case with Jim but it could influence his judgement. More tags=more money=better life style. So be careful how you interpret what you read.
I wonder how much doe selection is involved? Do does select their mate? I can not breed any female I want. Is this true with deer? It has to be true as a doe would want her part of the genetic makeup to survive therefore selecting the most fit male available to her. Antler size would dictate survival for her offspring as a deer with larger antlers could more easily "bluff" other bucks away therefore allowing those genes to be passed. I contend that an aggresive buck with large antlers would do most of the breeding in an area. This does not necessarily mean high scoring bucks. It simply means the buck who looks the biggest and toughest to other deer would do the most breeding. This is the only reason for antlers. They are pretty much useless to deer other wise, except possibly for the occasional cougar attack in which case the buck who flees rather than fights would stand the better chance of survival.
Bsneekee is off base on the forest management issue. There are dangerous fuel loads in most of the forests in this area. Any fire that starts kills vegetation in a area. Less food=smaller bucks. I have seen areas that have burned 5 or six years ago and still do not grow anything. Logging is good if done carefully and correctly. It will provide food for wild life and lesson the liklihood of hot fires which in turn steralize the ground. Light thinning will allow cool fires.
Lastly hunting back in the 40's to early 80's was done mainly for sustenance. Trophy hunting is the modern mans curse. The old timers could not count or read. They did not know or care about Boone and Crocket. They did at times harvest based on width or heighth but with so many deer and so little people they did not have any influence. We want to much. The buck we killed last year will never be big enough. If we shot a 300" buck we would want to shoot a 301" buck next year. I trophy hunted a few years and developed a respect for big mule deer. I never did harvest one. I do not regret letting big bucks walk off. I picked up their sheds instead. This topic has been very educational for me and I hope that people will continue to educate themselves and form there own opinions based on objectivity.
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-06 AT 01:33AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-15-06 AT 09:34?PM (MST)

The 3 pt pictured is a young adult and will probably be a 4pt next year. This does not look like an old buck that just can't push a fork out due to poor genetics. There are probably deer that never make it to 4, but I think that is uncommon. Sometimes you may see a big ol' heavy horned 3pt but I would surmise that is a deer that has reached its peak in previous years and is now on the downhill slide. These past-prime deer have heavy horns (even a deer biologist likes to call them horns), and fewer, shorter points than it did before when it was at its peak.

One thing to keep in mind when using animal husbandry examples: A rancher in South Texas (Stu Steadman) once wrote and article in TX Trophy Hunters Mag about the "Corral to County Continuum." His point was that there are genetic changes you can make in a corral that you can't make in a free-ranging population (like a County). I thought that was a great catch phrase.

I obviously take offense to the idea that my opinion as a scientist would depend on financial gain (there are people like that - we call them "Biostitutes"). I get the same paycheck each time regardless of how many deer tags we authorize. I'm confident most people reading this forum understand that. My management decisions are rooted in how I can let as many common (not rich) people go deer hunting with their son, or father, or good friend. In AZ half of the people applying for a deer tag don't get one and have to stay home (approximately 45,000 hunters) -- I think that is horrible for the future of hunting. It is that hunting heritage that drives me to offer as much hunting opportunity as the resource will allow in a healthy way. Sure, our state agencies are supported in a huge way by deer tags - that is important and something all hunters should be bragging about (not grousing about).

Check out my son's first mule deer. Three generations of Heffelfingers spending time in the field together - this is what it's all about (not revenue-greedy state agencies).

458376f64342bbed.jpg


Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
 
Deerofthesouthwest, at no time do I want to offend a fellow hunter. My family has been hunting together for a very long time. My anscestors main food source many years ago was deer meat. My goal is to make people remain critical, even biologists, of what they do and read. As an agent of the government it is your job to listen to the people and understand what they want to see in a deer herd. Big bucks or many people drawing tags and going hunting. You have to manage some how and it is not easy because you can not make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time. I am seeing a huge mismanagement of the deer herd in our area where people are still drawing tags even though there are no bucks left off of private ranches and a limited amount on private ranches. It is still becoming a rich mans game. If you can afford the property you can afford to hunt.
Predators are a major factor in my area. That is the main cause of the decline in our deer herd. I have been told that a cat can eat a deer a week. Do you have any evidence to support this, please let me know? The cat is destroying our local deer herds, especially the larger more solitary bucks. Our biologists and management officials are leading people who do not pay attention astray. They report good deer populations when there is a significant decline. I just hope that I can warn people of the dangers of not being critical and aware because it sucks around here. If I seem untrusting it is becaues of experience.
I felt that there were some issues left out of the debate that I felt needed to be brought up. Doe selection, as well as the reason deer have antlers in the first place were left out (to show dominance). No body addressed the reason a buck has antlers. Long points could actually be a disanvantage because they would brake easier. It is possible that a short tined buck would have an advantage and that is why there are so many crab claw bucks out there. It could also be that long tines look more intimidating than short ones.
I believe that we need hunter support, but if the deer continue to decline support will also decline in more ways than one. I know Arizona has good populations of large bucks (compared to here) so you must be doing a few things right.
 
Jeff, Thanks for the info. I appreciate your time. Please answer my question from post number 31. Thanks, Greg
 
he answered it in post #42, here it is:


LAST EDITED ON Dec-14-06 AT 08:44 PM (MST)
>One bottom line question.
>In a limited entry unit,
>where you see an unusual
>number (approx 25% of buck
>population) of 3-6 year old
>2x3's, 3x3's and 3x4's. Would
>it be helpful to herd
>genetics to have a management
>hunt??

I don't believe in management hunts to improve the genetics of the herd. But if you own a high-end trophy operation and have older bucks that are hanging around that no trophy hunter is ever going to shoot, then you could offer opportunity to some hunters, make some more money, and remove deer that are using resources trophies or potential trophies could use. There is nothing wrong with letting people remove "management bucks" in that case, but it is not going to improve the size of antlers in the population (even within age classes). Again, selection is not intensive enough to actually change the genetic make-up. If you have a small high-fenced ranch, you could conceivably exert enough harvest pressure on certain types of deer to change the genetics (they do it in captivity), but that is a different situation than any free-ranging herd or large high-fenced ranch.


Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
 
LAST EDITED ON Dec-16-06 AT 09:30PM (MST)[p]Huntin100-

I left you a personal message saying that my answer to #31 somehow ended up as #42 which follows #36. Don't ask me how - I guess I clicked on something wrong.

G1- You would be very interested in my book. I say that not to sell one (1,700 of the 3,000 sold in the first 2 months), but because I have a whole chapter on antlers and it talks a lot about the "Evolution and Function of Antlers" long spikes vs. large paddles etc. It also has an extensive section on predators and predator/prey relationships. Both of these sections are not specific to the SW but would apply anywhere (like much of the book). I talk about the fallacy of playing the "deer-a-week" card. You won't like the predation section, but one book reviewer called it one of the best discussions of predator-prey relationships out there. The person who wrote that review is thanked in my acknowledgments for instilling in me a stong sense of skepticism. I agree that is very important. Sheep follow each other off cliffs.

You would also be very interested in the Mule Deer Conservation book from Berryman Institute which has a whole chapter on predation. If there's a way to post a PDF file, I have a good one on predation of mule deer and blacktails in western North America.

-JIM

Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author
www.deernut.com
 
Deerofthesouthwest, thanks for the info. I will keep a lookout for those two books as you can never have two much info. People wonder how to grow large antlers, a good corn fed muley will get big. I have had the opportunity to see mule deer that have been fed corn and those who have not been fed corn and there is a differnce. One curiosity is that the deer that get the corn seem to shed later. Especially the larger bucks. Any idea why? I would assume that it is the high level of nutrition. The antlers are heavier even in the young bucks.
I also notice that deer that stay high grow larger. I feel that the feed must stay stronger longer simply because of the receding snow making the forage come later there by sustaining a higher quality source of green feed. Any thoughts on that? I hope this topic is brought up again, there is so much that we don't understand about antlers.
One last question, does magnesium and selenium play a significant role in antler growth? I hunt in an area where the ranchers have to give there cattle magnesium blocks. Could this affect the deer or is the diet of deer varied enough to eliminate this factor?
 

Similar threads

J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
1k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman
D
Beware of Guided Mule Deer Hunts in Huntsville UT
Replies
97
Views
5k
wstrntines
wstrntines
BrowningRage
Recommendation Gen Season Rifle Deer for family?
Replies
1
Views
419
BrowningRage
BrowningRage

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

9E735869-F4E9-4C4C-A531-5FF269CE423F.jpeg
San Carlos Beast
20210727_112152.jpg
C6DC16F1-9B84-4D4D-B2A4-2939F156FB9D.jpeg
05555383-D7D0-46D2-98FA-A5791DB6A625.jpeg
Bulls.jpg
8C13C4F4-752B-4E6F-AE5A-9AA25E2E8C5B.jpeg
854F194A-5647-4E11-8ED2-A427458337B7.png
IMG_2376.jpeg
2052311F-43CA-4F4D-A41E-FAE1E97F4A64.jpeg
CC8F2642-45F1-43B6-81E1-61944E297227.jpeg
IMG_2846.JPG
Back
Top Bottom