- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The intelligence of deer from different areas
Posted on 1/4/17 at 12:47 pm to Scrowe
Posted on 1/4/17 at 12:47 pm to Scrowe
quote:
So instead of taking them out the population at 3-4 years old, let mother nature take them out at 7 giving them 3-4 more years of negative impact? Please tell me how this isn't a net positive.
If a deer is mature, then shoot it.
It's not a net positive when you or the other guys on your lease get in the mindset to shoot "culls" and most of what starts hitting the ground are actually younger than you could guess them on the hoof, or actually have fine genetics and have just been injured, were late drops, or don't have proper nutrition.
Some one else said it best, it's not that removing bad genes does NOTHING, its that the practice of culling is a lot better on paper than in practice. It depends on you and everyone within 15 miles to all be on the same page and to have wildlife biologist level skills at gauging a deer through a scope, or else you're pissing in the wind.
By the same logic you're using, are you gonna let every deer you deem perfect genetically to live to be 8 years old to maximize his breeding potential?
quote:
The removal of unwanted genetics is applied by breeders yet you say it doesn't matter.
All bets are off inside a pen. Completely apples to oranges. This entire notion of controlling genetics in a specific area breaks down precisely because deer don't recognize property lines and bucks are hard wired to spread their seed by traveling long distances both during the rut and in their first year.
1
Posted on 1/4/17 at 12:51 pm to Ron Cheramie
quote:
but the typical hunting club/lease/peepaws back 40 in Louisiana absolutely not.
If you don't have a big chunk of land management isn't possible anyhow so that doesn't apply. We have about 9000 acres of clubs and private land all doing pretty much the same thing trying to shoot mature deer and weed out inferior genetics and through our efforts we've seen drastic improvements.
You can't completely eliminate the gene as you said but you reduce the chance of it showing up which is all you are trying to do while managing anyhow. With any free range property you will have will always have outside variables come into play it's why management is never complete and an ongoing task.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 12:54 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:You're using examples of people doing it wrong. Of course wrong is not positive.
It's not a net positive when you or the other guys on your lease get in the mindset to shoot "culls" and most of what starts hitting the ground are actually younger than you could guess them on the hoof, or actually have fine genetics and have just been injured, were late drops, or don't have proper nutrition.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 12:56 pm to Scrowe
agree with you on all the above
this is what I was getting at and that 99% of hunters in Louisiana dont need to worry about the word "cull"
quote:
You can't completely eliminate the gene
this is what I was getting at and that 99% of hunters in Louisiana dont need to worry about the word "cull"
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:02 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
You're using examples of people doing it wrong. Of course wrong is not positive.
Fair enough, but it's like anything else. If just telling people how to do it was all it takes then it would be a no brainer.
I've hunted a company club that forbid anything less than 18" inside to be shot on certain areas. Sat everyone down on friday night, guys who hunted for years, told them the deal. Pointed to dozens of racks on the wall that were right at or over 18" inside. Not so subtly let them know if they fricked up they weren't going to be invited back.
Like clockwork, every weekend I was there at least one 16" inside deer took a ride back to the camp with some sad son of a bitch hat in hand with a story about how the blood got pumping and that was it.
For the majority of clubs, "culling" is gonna get more good deer shot than bad ones.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:12 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
For the majority of clubs, "culling" is gonna get more good deer shot than bad ones.
That is why I haven't recommended it yet. I'm not against it in theory, but I'm skeptical in application. If you have huge fields where you get to scope the deer for 20 minutes, I can see it being easier. In hardwood bottoms where the deer make 5 second appearances, its much tougher to make an evaluation of the genetic superiority/inferiority of the deer before taking the time to shoot it. Plus relying on hunter judgement, regardless of your ability to teach them how to judge a deer on the hoof, is a recipe for issues. I know several clubs that preach the same thing and every year they get into a big brew ha ha over someone using the cull excuse for taking a 2.5 YO 8 point.
ETA: Another thing. IMO, the most protected deer on a piece of property is the 2.5 YO buck with a nice 8+ rack. But, those seem to be the ones that are more often mistaken for cull bucks. I'd rather someone shoot a spike than a buck that is a year away from being a shooter. Seems like the potential reward carries added risk as well.
This post was edited on 1/4/17 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:16 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:Meh, culling implies that there is something in place at least. Those deer are getting shot otherwise. Again, those you are talking about are not culls are they?
For the majority of clubs, "culling" is gonna get more good deer shot than bad ones.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:25 pm to EarlyBird
quote:
In hardwood bottoms where the deer make 5 second appearances, its much tougher to make an evaluation of the genetic superiority/inferiority of the deer before taking the time to shoot it. Plus relying on hunter judgement, regardless of your ability to teach them how to judge a deer on the hoof, is a recipe for issues. I know several clubs that preach the same thing and every year they get into a big brew ha ha over someone using the cull excuse for taking a 2.5 YO 8 point.
My little slice of heaven isn't what you would call well managed, but I'm usually the one bitching at everyone else about shooting 2.5 year old deer.
I blasted a 2.5 year old six point this year. Had a split second decision when he trotted across a powerline. I told people if he had come out and fed he would still be breathing.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:29 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
We're trying to do the right thing to grow bucks. But for now it'll just be by waiting for the appropriate age. I've already passed two bucks I would have pounded in years past. Hopefully they make it. I figure, in the long run (3+ years) the differences will show.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:33 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:Good cull
I blasted a 2.5 year old six point this year.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:50 pm to AlxTgr
First of all, cull is an excellent word that should be used more often than less often.
The evolution of this thread, has gone from intelligence of deer, to intelligence of hunters.
The evolution of this thread, has gone from intelligence of deer, to intelligence of hunters.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:51 pm to Ron Cheramie
quote:
both those deer have skeeted all up in many a doe before you shot them Those genetics are all up in the population still
Unless you can tell they are gonna turn out to be a "cull" before they get a chance to breed you aren't doing anything
Kill it because you want to, just don't pretend you are doing any real management with it
I dont agree with this at all. A 'cull' is limiting the genetics you dont like from breeding with future does, which they would do if they weren't dead. So sure, you can't do anything about the previous sex, but you can stop that 1 buck from doing it again.
The result on a 300 acre lease is probably more than you think.
The last 15 years on our 400 acre lease proves it to me. When we first got out there, we killed 10+ jacked up 6,7,8 points, about 8 inches wide and 12 inches tall, and all mangled looking. We made it a task to rid the property of those genetics. And we haven't seen another one in 6-7 years at least.
It's a long slow process, but progress can be made taking 'undesirables' out of the herd. But your definition of undesirable and mine can definitely be different.
NOW, we still have very few mature bucks, because the older guys like to shoot 2 year olds and tell people they killed an 8 point. BUT at least we have better young bucks.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:52 pm to AlxTgr
I'm just doing my part
Posted on 1/4/17 at 1:59 pm to AlxTgr
This is also interesting,
So, let the good ones walk and age. Cull those you don't want as early as you can.
quote:
Fortunately, Randy’s and Anna Bess’s research also revealed that even though young bucks do some of the breeding, mature bucks do most of it in populations with good age structure. Their research showed bucks 3½ years of age and older sired 70 and 85 percent of fawns, respectively, in populations with reasonable age structure and sex ratios. Thus, all yearlings and 2½-year-olds collectively only sired 15 to 30 percent of the fawns. This is much better than when yearlings and 2½-year-olds comprise 80 to 90 percent of the buck population, such as under many traditional deer management programs, and would thus sire nearly all fawns.
So, let the good ones walk and age. Cull those you don't want as early as you can.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 2:10 pm to AlxTgr
I'd like to know how they get that data. Ole boy on QDMA quoted entirely different numbers in another article but didn't go into the specifics of it.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 2:18 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
I would imagine the buck to doe ratio plays into that.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 2:22 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
I'd like to know how they get that data.
They first obtained an exact count of the number of does on the property, then recruited the same amount of skilled trackers, whom each followed their respective doe around very stealthily up until she was bred by a buck, then after she was bred, right at his last pump, they shot the buck with a tranquilizer, followed him till he went to sleep, documented his teeth, went back and compared those teeth to all the other sets from deer that were tranquilized to get a consensus on the deer's ages by comparison to rule out food and genetic variations as much as possible in regard to tooth wear, then did the math. Simple actually.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 2:29 pm to tenfoe
The ole two minute Cherokee method. Should have known.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 2:35 pm to EarlyBird
quote:
I would imagine the buck to doe ratio plays into that.
Absolutely. Too many does and it's a free for all. This is the article I remembered having numbers that seemed different.
LINK
quote:
Age does appear to be an important factor in breeding success. In all populations, bucks > 3.5 years old accounted for a disproportionate amount of the breeding. They did not, however, completely dominate the breeding. Even in the "trophy management" population, it appears that almost 1/3 of the breeding is being done by younger age-class bucks.
Additionally, our data indicate that, in all populations, more bucks are breeding than was previously thought. No individual dominates breeding. This suggests that selective harvest or introduction strategies will be inefficient at producing genetic changes at the population level because too many bucks are breeding and exactly which individuals are breeding is unpredictable.
Posted on 1/4/17 at 3:07 pm to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:Keep in mind this part,
Ole boy on QDMA quoted entirely different numbers in another article but didn't go into the specifics of it.
quote:
in populations with good age structure
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News