MANAGEMENT?

gb22

Very Active Member
Messages
1,526
This will do little to "change the world" but sometimes you've just got to SAY IT OUT LOUD and there are guys on TV saying this crap as I'm typing!!!

You've all seen programs in which they say they got the "ol buck going down him out of the gene pool" so "them young bucks" can pass on their genes.

OR

When someone suggests hunting older age-class deer ruins the gene pool.......

REMEMBER, the deer passes along the same genes when he's 1 1/2 years old (if he gets the chance) as he does when he's 3 1/2 to 8 1/2 years of age (if he's still able).

If hunters shoot 6 1/2 year old deer, we do indeed keep THAT deer from reproducing for another season. However, the genes he passed on for the last 4 seasons are the same ones he would have had NEXT year.

OK....I'll take a deep breath now.


Within the shadows, go quietly.
 
I'm with you! They say he is 5 or 6 years old so he is now longer a viable breeder and needs to be taken out. I don't think a buck "is no longer a breeder" until he's dead.
 
I don't know at what age they need Viagra but I know their genetics do not change with age.


Within the shadows, go quietly.
 
Interesting, I have done a ton of research and talked to many biologist on the same subject. I (we)have been trying to work up information to present a plan to the DWR on this type of subject with some others from around the country who have been preparing info at universities. So according to statistics 85%- 90% of the breeding is done by the dominant buck within a certain area of coverage. Most of the breeding is being done by the 4-6 year old buck to begin with. It also seems that once bucks get past their prime, whatever their age may be they do little if any breeding at all. So to say that a buck has been passing on his genes for 4 or 5 years is not necessarily true. I know there are some little bucks that do sneak in, but for the most part the breeding is being done by mature deer, if there are any in the area that is. So logically to produce good genentics year after year the 5-6 old buck with great genetics should not be killed!!! The 5-6 old deer with bad genetics should be the ones taken out. There is the female genetics that plays a part in the whole deal also. Science has also proven that a deer gene code can be made up of 70% of the female genetic code. It is interesting to know that in an elk herd only 50% of the breeding is done by the dominant bull and the rest done by immature bulls. The studies have been compiled for the last 6 years by 4 different states and a great plan is in the works for our great mule deer. I really think in the next 5 years we as hunters will see some changes that in the long run will help our children. Some of today's hunters will really gripe when they are limited to what kind of buck they can shoot. IMO we need to save a few good prime bucks and let them do their work so we can ensure the health of our mule deer. So realistically if you have killed an 3 year old or less buck, he probably hasn't had much breeding action in his life unless their are no other bucks around to contend with him, which is what we see happening. Im interested to hear what people say about this. Keep them coming!!
Curtis Wilson
 
What I said....the genetics don't change IS true. Anything is simply silly.

I said, I don't know how often the young get a chance, nor how often the old buck still can/gets a chance.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the genetics don't change....from a two point through the dominant stage to past-their-prime. Any genetics passed on remain the same.

Within the shadows, go quietly.
 
If a buck has the POTENTIAL to grow a 202 B&C rack, but is only 2 1/2 year old, it was poor feed year and he's only wearing a 135 rack, he passes the same genes as he does when he's 6 1/2 and it's a GREAT feed year or if there is a shortage of bucks, it's only 7 more weeks until he dies in a tough winter when he's 8 1/2 and he's only sporting a raggedy-looking 3-point set. (Hope the poor ol' guy gets a chance in his old age.)

I'm NOT against shooting old deer...they have cooler antlers. I simply said how dumb it is to think the genetics change due to the age of the animal, feed supply or....well, anything.

The ABILITY to breed changes, the OPPORTUNITY changes....genes do not.


Within the shadows, go quietly.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-07-11 AT 04:24PM (MST)[p]For what it's worth.

Back in the 1980's during Central Utah's 3 point restriction days I called a Dr. of biology from the University of Montana at Missoula because the professors at Utah State told me he had done more research on mule deer that any one they knew, (Of course I don't recall his name any more).

My concern was the older 2 point bucks that were starting to show up on the antler restriction units because they were illegal to kill, even though some of them, after 3 or 4 years where huge, they were still just 2x2 so had to be left in the field. Everyone was panicking that they were altering the gene pool. I was prepared to ask the DWR to ask their CO's to kill these deer on sight. I asked him if sportsmen should be concerned over these bucks breeding inferior (non-4x4 genes) into the gene pool.

He took ten minutes and gave me a little lecture and a better education. He said, "let them live, they can't possible hurt anything", and then went on to explain the mixing on genes in wild, un-fenced animals and how the natural breeding works and how many times a 2 point would have to breed a doe and then another 2 point breed the female fawn of the first doe and a third 2 point breed the fawn of the second doe for generations before a herd of deer would be influenced. His claim was, it would be nearly mathematically impossible to alter deer genes a wild deer herd and would take centuries of 2 point breeding.

Dr. Jacobson out of Mississippi State Univ. studied captive whitetail deer for over 20 years. Artificial insemination was used to control which bucks were breed to which does and proved that the doe carries the dominate gene for antler growth. Of course, every doe has a male father so male genes have an influence but they are not the dominate influence.

Therefore, I agree, the age at which we kill deer does not alter antler genetics however, the does built in instinct to breed with the dominate buck (and I think antler size has something to do with dominance or at least perceived dominance (can deer precieve?)). So allowing buck ratios to get too low can mean the doe cannot breed with a dominate buck, which may in time have some negative impact but it would take a long long time to happen. I believe we have proven that because we have units in the State that have, at times, had buck doe ratios of under 5 and these unit still grow large antlered deer, if they are fortunate to life to maturity, mean, as you say, their genes are still in good shape.

Course, we're all entitled to our on opinions based on our own research.

DC
 
The genes are definately the same at any age. I wonder if the brew they shoot may be less potent when they get older? That would be the only issue I could think of.
Does a doe stop putting out if she thinks she's already pregnant?
 
A couple random thoughts--

I watched a 190s buck breed a doe last Fall. 100 yards to his left a 2x2 yearling was breeding another doe. 150-200 yards in front of him a 1x2 yearling bred another doe. Then the large buck went to chase off a 2-3 year old competitor and in doing so chased "his" doe over by the 1x2- who then bred her again. Lucky kids... I think we try to make this whole "breeding" thing as some intimate, majestic dance that only the dominate can partake in. I doubt doe deer will reject any buck when they are ready to breed.

With cows, sheep, and horses, the age of the father is not the issue. Yearling mothers on the other hand produce lower-birth weight, less hardy off-spring. The same can be said about females far past their prime. I assume deer would be the same.

Monarch- are these experts from around the country you refer to mule deer experts or do they deal with whitetails? There is a big difference in the behaviors of the two.

As to the "management" of bucks based on antlers, that is a tough one. I was behind the push to allow the harvest of 3 point or less bucks on LTD units in Utah. My goal was to allow hunters to utilize a resource which was not being tapped. Because the "inferior" bucks were not being harvested these "3 point or less" bucks were becoming a burden on the units' habitat. They were also counted in objectives, yet no one was using them. So we placed "Management" hunts on the Henry Mtns and Pauns. I never did like the word "Management", as it refers to using hunters to manage (remove) gene traits. That is not the reason for these hunts.

As to if selected harvest can alter the antler configurations over time, I'd say yes there is a chance of that occurring on a limited basis. I see mule deer bucks return to rut in the same areas year after. I assume the doe do the same. If the area has a large mature 2x2 buck doing the breeding and if the hunting regulations protect 2x2 bucks then the area will see an increase of deer carrying 2x2 genes. I assume the fawns of those 2x2s will return to the same general area and thus have a higher chance of being bred by a 2x2. Of course it would take years, maybe even decades to really engrain the traits, but it is possible though not very likely, as hunting regulations seem to change before those trait carrying deer are in the majority. (I base this off of years of breeding programs we ran on our ranch. In domestic livestock, it only takes 4-8 generations of selected breeding to engrain certain traits into a herd. Wild populations would take much longer)

I sure hope we are not going down the road of using hunters as a gene manipulation tool......
 
Can you send me the info on the studies you talked about where most of the breeding for deer was done by the dominant buck and not so much for the elk. I would be very interested to read those.


Thanks

Joe
 
Yes you are right. Biologically correct!! If I breed at 18, I pass the same genes as i do when I am 30. Same as any mammal. Second, WTF?? This subject is WRONG!!! This is where we lose as hunters. First, there are only so many perfect genetic lines. Second, environment plays a part. Third, is this hunting or ranching? We should be growing more deer period!! Does, fawns, bucks, whatever, we need another 100,000 deer, not genetically perfect 4x4's. In Utah we are cutting tags, cutting seasons, cutting everything because the "trophy hunters" somehow think that fewer people mean more trophy bucks. I have yet to ever hear of anyone passing a 4 point to kill a 2 point. If we had more deer we would then statistically have more big bucks. We would have more bucks in general! We have a deer problem, not a genetic problem and all the "science" going in to big antlers is money wasted when we keep losing deer. Doe to buck ratios are meaningless. If you have 4 deer and a 25% doe to buck ratio, you have one buck!! If you have 400,000 deer and the same ration you have 100,000 bucks, I would prefer the 100,000. I live by Antelope Island, they probably have one of the best 4x4 genetic lines. They are wide, tall, perfect, but there is a 2 point out there that I would thump in a heart beat, and if he breeds some does GREAT, that means more fawns. When we get 1/2 a million deer we can discuss genetics, until then we are wasting time and money, WE NEED MORE DEER!!!!!
 
Was never disagreeing at all with the the main subject. My concern is hunters take the best buck they can every year especially in a limited entry units and leave the 3x3 or 3x4 which we consider less of a trophy to do most of the breeding. It would take years to see but we are seeing it already? Those deer are slowly bringing down genetic potential. SO 200 years from now if we are even hunting, what will a great deer look like. I agree with a gene being passed from a great deer to a young buck and if he can breed then great!!! The problem is in November after hunting is mostly over the bucks we let go are doing most of the breeding. So mathematically can you see what what I am saying? Over time in a limited population it will take it's toll. So I agree with numbers being on of the main goals to help mule deer.
The 4 states involved are wyoming,idaho, utah, montana. All mule deer in the studies. The information will be released this January and will include some great stuff. Videos and all kind of stats, following of deer herds and so forth. The people involved have put forth a ton of money on this issue and if I haven't read and seen the studies I would be skeptical my self. The donors have all been alumni of 12 different universities from those 4 states and all love mule deer and hunting. I am just a guy helping organize all the info to help bring it to life. I was hoping oclorado would join the battle, but it never worked with money and people. I love hunting Colorado, but feel the late rut hunts of today will also have an affect in Colorado in years to come.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom