Bassattackr
5 year old buck +
Craig Harper disagrees…but what does he know!
As does Dr. Grant Woods. That was the whole purpose of the "Proving Grounds"..
Craig Harper disagrees…but what does he know!
And there are many many examples that soil and location are not limiting factors in antler growth. It’s all habitat. Well and ageAs does Dr. Grant Woods. That was the whole purpose of the "Proving Grounds"..
Craig Harper disagrees…but what does he know!
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 droppingVery 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!
Yep, I remember when I first saw that, and it started changing a lot of my thoughts.It was literally the most impressionable presentation I’ve ever seen in regards to my knowledge on Whitetails!
looks like i'm gonna have some watching and learning to do...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
This video is along the same lines demonstrating just how valuable native habitat manipulation is.Craig Harper disagrees…but what does he know!
Thanks don’t think I’ve seen this. Now I have something to watch tonightThis video is along the same lines demonstrating just how valuable native habitat manipulation is.
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.Thanks don’t think I’ve seen this. Now I have something to watch tonight
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 heard a MeatEater podcast on deer and how there seems to be a genetic switch that does can flip when they go from well nourished to "survival" mode. This gene tells the fawns to either put all their energy into body mass and health or tells the fawns "there is enough food to sustain your body, go ahead and put on antlers".
They took deer from different areas of the country known for differing body sizes and within 2-3 generations there was no difference between say a small bodied virginian or Georgian deer and a Midwest corn fed deer. It was interesting.
I think our farm is starting to turn that corner and run the snowball downhill. Better forage, better food, lower stress, etc
Its not accident that the tv hunters with tons of acreage always have a bunch of deer 160+ to hunt. It's their job to up the quality of life for those deer.
Jack - You purchased a disc?!?
*clunk (Me passing out)![]()
Craig Harper disagrees…but what does he know!
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.View attachment 38009
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.
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.View attachment 38009
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.
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 feedingRight 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.
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.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
I would stop sharing information with any of the neighbors of the deer we're harvesting. It seems to me this would be a way of ending the aggravation for everyone.
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.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