Bassattackr
5 year old buck +
As does Dr. Grant Woods. That was the whole purpose of the "Proving Grounds"..
Let him go so he can grow…
- Thread starter Howboutthemdawgs
- Start date
As does Dr. Grant Woods. That was the whole purpose of the "Proving Grounds"..
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
And there are many many examples that soil and location are not limiting factors in antler growth. It’s all habitat. Well and age
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Very good science and well presented. Enough to begin changing my perspective! Turns out, we are doing the right stuff, but I didn't realize just how much impact it could have!
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
It was literally the most impressionable presentation I’ve ever seen in regards to my knowledge on Whitetails! The North Carolina property example is jaw dropping
BenAllgood
5 year old buck +
Yep, I remember when I first saw that, and it started changing a lot of my thoughts.
roymunson
5 year old buck +
looks like i'm gonna have some watching and learning to do...
BenAllgood
5 year old buck +
This video is along the same lines demonstrating just how valuable native habitat manipulation is.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Thanks don’t think I’ve seen this. Now I have something to watch tonight
BenAllgood
5 year old buck +
It's good, and Dr. Lashley talks about having one of those Aha! moments. It deals with fire, but is applicable to any type of beneficial native habitat manipulation strategies.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Fire has been our most productive tool in terms of habitat. We've clear-cut low quality hardwoods and thinned pines. Fortunately, one of our owners is friends with a wildlife biologist for the wildlife department who is a certified prescribed burner. We purchased a heavy disc to maintain firebreaks. On our next contract, we are doing a first thinning of about 1/2 our pines and a heavy second thinning of the other half. We will be clear-cutting some small 5 acre sections of pines to maintain in early succession with fire. We got into a USDA program for the extra heavy thinning (near savannah rates) as well as for firebreaks and controlled burns.
We have spent much more over the years on food plots but created more food and habitat with timber management with positive cash flow.
Thanks,
Jack
We have spent much more over the years on food plots but created more food and habitat with timber management with positive cash flow.
Thanks,
Jack
Bassattackr
5 year old buck +
Jack - You purchased a disc?!?
*clunk (Me passing out)
*clunk (Me passing out)
Catscratch
5 year old buck +
The genetic switch that is influenced by environmental factors and generational health is epigenetics. There is a lot of interesting info about it out there on not just animals but also Olympians and whatnot. Different but along the same lines... anyone interested in how a rough survival period vs a soft one can affect development should research ACEs score and diseases such as diabetes and cardiac problems.
I've had some fairly long conversations on various forums in the past about our ability to increase soil health on a large scale. I'm not into trying to convince anyone into anything but I firmly believe most everything needed for fertile soils are already there and just need released into usable form. It's not us that need to place inputs, it's the plant/microbe community that does it.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Jack - You purchased a disc?!?
*clunk (Me passing out)
Yes, Why does that seem odd? I've talked about using both a tiller and light disc for min-till in crusted clay soil. This is a heavy disc. I did try it on food plots once set very straight, but it went deeper than I wanted. It was purchased for firebreak maintenance.
Thanks,
Jack
This chart indicates the counties in my home state of AR with the most B&C bucks. All of those counties in the top ten - are delta counties. Prime soil and prime ag ground. Mostly row crop and wood lots - nothing like the south AR piney woods, the west AR Ouachita Mountains, and the North AR ozark mountains. Yes, the Mississippi River alluvial delta supports great habitat - because it has great soil. The reason they dont farm other parts of the state is because that soil will not support commercial ag. Even on large NWR’s in the Mississippi River Delta- like White River - where a deer never sees an ag field - the bucks grow larger than other areas of the state. Call it what you want - but good soil makes good habitat. Not one county in the state outside of the delta cracks the top ten list. If you want to hunt the biggest bucks in AR - you hunt in the Mississippi River Alluvial Delta - where the soils are the most fertile in the state.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Right but as dr Harper explains it’s not the soil “growing” big deer it’s the habitat. It’s fragmented landscape with food (obviously), and edge and cover, etc. Poorer soils are generally left fallow therefore overgrown choked out wastelands or planted pines as an ag crop which obviously are worthless. With proper habitat management those areas have been proven to grow big deer. Obviously you aren’t going to grow deer on iowa level in southeast Georgia but you can certainly grown some very big specimens if you manage enough acres and that is some piss poor soil. He can explain it a lot better than me obviously, but he puts to rest the notion that soil is THE facilitator for big antlers.
yoderjac
5 year old buck +
Consider this...I was just pondering the overlap between the BC/PY map over the ag map. It really is a correlation, but that does mean a causal relationship between soil fertility and antler size. It is what we have all assumed given the strong correlation.
So how can we align Harper's research with this? Harper suggests that areas with marginal soil can support deer with antlers just as large, but can support fewer deer. That would mean that high fertility ag soils would support more large antlered deer given equal age and genetics. So, poor soil areas with poorly managed habitat and high deer densities are not going to produce large antlered bucks. Following Harper's idea, poor soil areas that have well managed habitat can produce large antlered bucks provided the deer density is well within the BCC. High fertility soil ag areas produce large antlered deer and all deer in larger numbers.
Poorly managed habitat (from a deer perspective) has a high correlation with non-ag areas from a food perspective simply based on the large amount of closed canopy in non-ag areas.
So, lets say these assumptions are correct. Next you need to add in human behavior. Some hunters are after large antlered bucks while some would love to shoot a wall hanger but are very happy just to harvest deer for food. Would hunters in general be drawn to areas that can support higher deer densities like high fertility ag areas? Would large antlered seeking hunters be even more drawn to these areas? With more deer, more large antlered deer, and more hunters, and more hunters seeking large antlered deer, would it not make sense that more record book bucks were taken from these areas.
As I interpret Harper's assertions, he is not saying that there is no difference between high fertility and low fertility areas. He is saying that soil fertility is generally not the limiting factor for producing some number of large antlered deer. If this works out to be true, it is good news for many folks who own low fertility land.
I'm still mulling this over, but as a scientist, I always have to keep my mind open to change when new data comes to the table.
Thanks,
Jack
That is sort of like which came first, the chicken or the egg. Good soil makes it easier to make good habitat. But, the White River NWR is 100,000 acres basically left to itself to perpetuate bottomland hardwood. That NWR is in the river delta and produces bigger deer with no management directed at deer - than the best managed ground outside the delta - as in Grant Woods property. Not considering protein feeding
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Good thoughts and another, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy to a small extent as well. Money is a lot of time a corollary to growing big mature deer. Not always but more often than not a person dumps money into this endeavor in a place where they are likely to have historic returns. So where does that leave properties in poorer soil areas? Generally neglected from a habitat sense. Habitat work is time consuming and pretty expensive to very expensive. The research and results haven’t made it to the masses or there is still plenty of skepticism to have people take that plunge in “crappy” areas. Those areas are then hunted by people who a) can only afford or chose to hunt a timber lease therefore cannot manipulate the habitat or b) can’t or chose not to throw their hard earned money after a seemingly worthless project(s) if they do happen to own the land.
I don’t think Craig or anyone would say regions are equitable. It’s is certainly a HELL of a lot easier to grow a high scoring rack in the Midwest but he is giving hope, through science, to areas that are historically passed by or overlooked in regards to growing big deer.
4wanderingeyes
5 year old buck +
He drives by everyday and looks over everyone’s hanging posts. My post is visible from the road in one small area, which was the reason I posted about something to plant in a shady area for road screen.
BenAllgood
5 year old buck +
I forgot which podcast he said that on, but, yes, he didn't claim that soils don't make a difference. He said, managed for quantity of quality forage, you could produce top end bucks. Plus, you can have tremendous impacts on that quantity of quality forage with very little money spent.
