The 4.5 year old buck

[Wind Gypsy]

Takeaways from the recent MN DNR collaring study in SE MN were covered in the last issue of outdoor news:

• 26% of does and 43% of bucks moved away from their birthplaces to establish a new adult home range.
• On average, does moved about 12 miles from their birthplaces and bucks dispersed 14 miles away from their birthplaces.
• A few deer appeared to move back and forth between winter and summer home ranges.
  • Deer that migrated between summer and winter ranges moved shorter distances; on average does and bucks moved 8 miles and 11 miles, respectively.
• Legal harvest and vehicle collisions were the main causes of death for young deer (1- to 3-year-olds) in our study.

Things that stuck out to me:
- Over half of the bucks stayed in their "birthplaces" (i'm not sure how they define birthplace, will look into that)
- I was surprised by average distance of dispersal, that's a long ways
- Didn't know does dispersed that much

From listening to the various results from Dr. Bronson Strickland and others, the health of pregnant does seems to have the largest impact on buck potential. Significantly more so than nutrition after birth. So it seems like in level of importance is Pregnant doe health > age > nutrition > genetics. For us folks with harsh winters, it seems like good thermal cover, food, and lack of predator/human caused stress through the winter would be the key to minimizing the decline of pregnant doe health. In wolf country I feel like setting up all of that is just asking them to be focused on by wolves throughout the winter..

 

[PrairieShadow]

IMO, there's still sisters and aunts to deal with.

This was going to be my response in a nutshell.

 

[PrairieShadow]

Takeaways from the recent MN DNR collaring study in SE MN were covered in the last issue of outdoor news:

• 26% of does and 43% of bucks moved away from their birthplaces to establish a new adult home range.
• On average, does moved about 12 miles from their birthplaces and bucks dispersed 14 miles away from their birthplaces.
• A few deer appeared to move back and forth between winter and summer home ranges.
  • Deer that migrated between summer and winter ranges moved shorter distances; on average does and bucks moved 8 miles and 11 miles, respectively.
• Legal harvest and vehicle collisions were the main causes of death for young deer (1- to 3-year-olds) in our study.

Things that stuck out to me:
- Over half of the bucks stayed in their "birthplaces"] (i'm not sure how they define birthplace, will look into that)
- I was surprised by average distance of dispersal, that's a long ways
- Didn't know does dispersed that much

From listening to the various results from Dr. Bronson Strickland and others, the health of pregnant does seems to have the largest impact on buck potential. Significantly more so than nutrition after birth. So it seems like in level of importance is Pregnant doe health > age > nutrition > genetics. For us folks with harsh winters, it seems like good thermal cover, food, and lack of predator/human caused stress through the winter would be the key to minimizing the decline of pregnant doe health. In wolf country I feel like setting up all of that is just asking them to be focused on by wolves throughout the winter..

Again, this is probably very regional. The deer wintering at my place right now are a lot of the same ones I've identified all summer/fall long.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

so it's genetics. and if that's the case, its not WAY down the list as stated earlier. I understand that I cannot viably control genetics. I'm ok with that. but if I'm told age and nutrition are the primary things for big mature deer, then I'm missing something because that's something we have in spades at our place.

My understanding is - they haven't really proven the genetics to be main drivers of antler quality in different areas. There is going to be a bell curve of high potential and low potential everywhere. When trying to transport "good genetics" to an area with "bad genetics" the differences over generations basically disappear and instead correlate to health of the pregnant does/nutrition, and age.

More likely is that the low genetic potential bucks don't get shot as 1/2/3 year olds because they are still not impressive. Might be a spike at 1 YO so someone might feel better about a basket rack 6/8 1 YO, at 2 might be an ugly forky or basket 6, vs a pretty 8 or 10, and so on. Where as the high genetic potential bucks look nicer all along and get whacked early.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Again, this is probably very regional. The deer wintering at my place right now are a lot of the same ones I've identified all summer/fall long.

Yeah, i think it's extremely regional. The outdoor news article compared it to other gps studies where the rate of dispersal was much higher.

 

[PrairieShadow]

My understanding is - they haven't really proven the genetics to be main drivers of antler quality in different areas. There is going to be a bell curve of high potential and low potential everywhere. When trying to transport "good genetics" to an area with "bad genetics" the differences over generations basically disappear and instead correlate to health of the pregnant does/nutrition, and age.

More likely is that the low genetic potential bucks don't get shot as 1/2/3 year olds because they are still not impressive. Might be a spike at 1 YO so someone might feel better about a basket rack 6/8 1 YO, at 2 might be an ugly forky or basket 6, vs a pretty 8 or 10, and so on. Where as the high genetic potential bucks look nicer all along and get whacked early.

This happens for sure but you can also find studies showing that a buck as spike/forky explodes to 160" as 4.5yr old. Once again ruling out the "Cull" theory.

 

[MN Slick]

This book is a good read: Strategic Harvest System: How to Break Through the Buck Management Glass Ceiling

Cliffnotes: Roughly 33% of bucks have below average genetics, 33% have average genetics, and 33% have above average genetics. The key is get the top 33% to 5 plus years of age. On farms with adequate buck numbers you have to identify and take out, cull if you will, the lower 33% perhaps some average bucks at a younger age, not for genetics but to make room for the top 33% as Bill mentioned above. Simple right? haha!!!

Where I hunt in North MO there are plenty of bucks older than 3 but many of them are mediocre at best. These are often mistaken for young up and comers so they get passed, but the first 145 inch 3 year old that comes by gets shot and there goes one of the top 33%. This year we had one in the mid 150's we are 100% certain wasn't older than 4, and quite possibly 3. My brother and I agreed to pass him as he has Booner written all over him. Of course, he dissapeared during gun season while all his lesser frat brothers are still running around.

 

[Brian662]

Again, this is probably very regional. The deer wintering at my place right now are a lot of the same ones I've identified all summer/fall long.

I'd guess that the deer you've identified aren't the issue. The deer that disperse are the young bucks entering the fall of their 1.5 year old age class. Basically their mom is ready to drop another (set) fawn and kicks them out. At the time, they may just be starting to grow their first rack, so there isn't any clear way to "identify" them without a radio collar or very very clearly distinct body markings.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

This happens for sure but you can also find studies showing that a buck as spike/forky explodes to 160" as 4.5yr old. Once again ruling out the "Cull" theory.

Just regurgitating what ive read / heard on podcasts again here but i think people always want to look at things in absolutes rather than likelihoods. There are exceptions to everything but I think it's pretty well agreed that you don't know enough with a 1 YO rack to be culling spikes. There are outliers on when bucks have their biggest growth jumps in both directions, at young age vs old age but still statistical correlation showing a spike is less likely get to a certain size than 1 YO with a nicer 6 or 8 point rack.

Based on the factors at play discussed the following scenario might be possible - 2 bucks with same genetic potential.
-One's mother is of marginal health when pregnant but is the first to get impregnated and give birth that season. Because this buck was an early born buck he is more likely to have a numerous points and a decent basket rack as a 1.5 YO.
-Second's mother is of great health while pregnant but is of the last to get pregnant/give birth that season. Because of late birth, that buck is more likely to have a little spike or fork horned antler.
If we believe the studies concluding that mother's health is the biggest factor allowing bucks to express potential, with age, the second buck should grow more impressive antlers than the first buck because of it's mother's health.

@MN Slick just posted the book that relates to this that I've heard discussed by Higgins and Dr Bronson Strickland. Nice in theory but there's a very small percentage of us in situations where we could actually make a difference with those tactics. But passing the 120" 2 YO and trying to shoot the 115" 4 YO seems like a good goal.

 

[Brian662]

IMO, there's still sisters and aunts to deal with.

I think genetic mutations in wild animals from would drop significantly once you branch out on the tree a little. I could be wrong.

 

[Tree Spud]

I actually disagree with the two factors. It’s nutrition and AGE. Genetics cannot be expressed without the other two being met. Genetics (or the perceived short straw) is the boogeyman thrown around when people want to shoot smaller bucks…I heard it all the time in Georgia. Oh so and so area just doesn’t have good genetics, well could it be the fact that it’s a 2000 acre pine plantation with no sunlight and a brown it’s down mentality maybe?
I think there has been more than a sufficient amount of studies that show a) we can’t control genetics on free range deer so don’t even bother and b) given proper age and nutrition deer can release their potential and do amazing things.

You may disagree, but nutrition and age are environmental variables, genetics is the physiological base you start from.

If nutrition and age are omnipotent, and genetics are low, then in a area say 1000-1500 acres, all deer in each age class would have the same size antlers because they all have the same sources of nutrition ... correct? Well we should know that is not the case by simple observation. In many areas of species development, bloodlines or genetics are what drives superior specimens ... horse & cattle breeding, deer farms, athletics, etc. Antler development has many studies that support genetics being a critical factor as without it age & nutrition cannot exploit genetics. Deer farms are a good example of selective breeding that allows nutrition and age to produce superior antler development.

I agree with you that saying genetics can be an excuse for not seeing large antlered deer when overhunting of bucks regardless of age is more the issue. Regarding age, by passing and allowing deer to get beyond 3.5 yo means that all of those animals, including the superior class to pass on their genetic traits. When folks hammer everything with a horn it's no wonder they aren't seeing big bucks.

There are 17 sub-species of whitetail in north america ... http://www.whitetailsunlimited.com/i/p/bk_distribution.pdf . Odocoileus virginianus borealis is the largest of the whitetail subspecies and is found in central to eastern Canada south through Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois with the key buck in Florida being the smallest..

To some extent the argument is the chicken and the egg. Age, nutrition, and genetics are all tied together; however, genetics is the foundation that allows for exploiting antler growth.

 

[Brian662]

so it's genetics. and if that's the case, its not WAY down the list as stated earlier. I understand that I cannot viably control genetics. I'm ok with that. but if I'm told age and nutrition are the primary things for big mature deer, then I'm missing something because that's something we have in spades at our place.

It is way down the list, in my opinion, because you can't control it and will never be able to do anything to change it.
Basically genetics are white noise in the background of a habitat managers priorities. It'll always be there, no matter if you try to drown out the noise or ignore it altogether.

 

[Brian662]

Great conversation, I really enjoy it. Probably my favorite thread on this site, so far.

 

[Mortenson]

Best bang for your buck is trying to get a few neighbors on board. I have a few I can very gently discuss things with, and a few others that weren't receptive. Same as everyone it seems.

 

[Brian662]

Are the genetics different in the Mississippi Valley region, or is nutrition(soil) and bluff land the reason for these maps to look like they do?

My guess and opinion is probably a combination of all three, but two are far more important.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

You may disagree, but nutrition and age are environmental variables, genetics is the physiological base you start from.

If nutrition and age are omnipotent, and genetics are low, then in a area say 1000-1500 acres, all deer in each age class would have the same size antlers because they all have the same sources of nutrition ... correct? Well we should know that is not the case by simple observation. In many areas of species development, bloodlines or genetics are what drives superior specimens ... horse & cattle breeding, deer farms, athletics, etc. Antler development has many studies that support genetics being a critical factor as without it age & nutrition cannot exploit genetics. Deer farms are a good example of selective breeding that allows nutrition and age to produce superior antler development.

I agree with you that saying genetics can be an excuse for not seeing large antlered deer when overhunting of bucks regardless of age is more the issue. Regarding age, by passing and allowing deer to get beyond 3.5 yo means that all of those animals, including the superior class to pass on their genetic traits. When folks hammer everything with a horn it's no wonder they aren't seeing big bucks.

There are 17 sub-species of whitetail in north america ... http://www.whitetailsunlimited.com/i/p/bk_distribution.pdf . Odocoileus virginianus borealis is the largest of the whitetail subspecies and is found in central to eastern Canada south through Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois with the key buck in Florida being the smallest..

To some extent the argument is the chicken and the egg. Age, nutrition, and genetics are all tied together; however, genetics is the foundation that allows for exploiting antler growth.

I think the thought isn't that genetics dont matter but that they contribute less than parental health when it comes to a bucks ability to maximize antler growth. With deer farms, nutrition and lack of stress allows for the offspring to more fully express their genetics. Then those offspring are going to be at even a higher level of health when they go to breed the next offspring who will in turn be able to express their genetic potential even more. Going off memory here but I'm pretty sure studies of introducing "good genetic" midwest deer in the south helped prove out that it wasn't the genetics that made them grow big antlers but the nutrition and habitat over generations that allowed them to better express their genetic potential.

I think the confusing part is people lump nutrition and health together when they are related but not the same. Just because deer live in the same area and generally eat the same stuff, doesn't mean they are all going to have the same level of health. Look at the human population - we all generally have the same food available but genetics, diet, and stress are just some contributing factors when you look at if an individual is healthy or not. I could see the following scenario play out - some does, who were born to the healthiest of moms, have a higher likelihood of also being healthy and expressing the highest genetic potential. They lay claim to the best low stress bedding and feeding scenarios in their home range and are in turn healthier than others and more likely to have offspring that have a higher potential of having large antlers.

 

[PatinPA]

I just can't imagine it would be logistically possible to ever improve the genetics of a wild herd. By the time you determined a buck was substandard, how many does would they have bred? And then the buck is only 50% of the equation. How would you ever tell what does were substandard? Even in known domestic deer it's tough. My uncle wanted to get in to the deer raising game and bought a buck which supposedly had fantastic genetics. At 5.5 it was about a 140" 9 point. He ended up taking a pretty big loss on it.

In my area I'm just happy to see a 3 year old. There is the occasional 4 and 5 year old, but I can probably count on one hand those that I've seen on camera let alone in person.

 

[TWIG]

More likely is that the low genetic potential bucks don't get shot as 1/2/3 year olds because they are still not impressive. Might be a spike at 1 YO so someone might feel better about a basket rack 6/8 1 YO, at 2 might be an ugly forky or basket 6, vs a pretty 8 or 10, and so on. Where as the high genetic potential bucks look nicer all along and get whacked early.

This is the golden nugget of this entire thread. For the majority of us, the mature bucks we pursue are the bottom tier of the genetic makeup in an area and we formulate skewed visions of what the overall genetic quality is. Here in PA, any buck that expresses a glimmer of hope at being a giant is gunned down long before they reach the age of 3 years old.

 

[Bowsnbucks]

What Changed for me was my mindset. I had to become ok with not filling a tag. This was honestly the first year I was ok with that. I let a couple bucks go that year that I'd normally tipped over in a heart beat.

Same with me. I no longer got a thrill from shooting basket-racked, 1.5 to 2.5 year-old bucks. I wanted to take mature bucks - harder - but a challenge for me. That's why I went heavy into bow hunting years ago. Challenge of getting close to a big, mature buck. I've let a number of bucks walk, with the HOPE that they might grow one more year. That's just me - with no second-guessing on my decisions.

Every hunter has to decide for himself/herself what they want, considering what their land and location can provide. Where I hunt, anything 125" and up is a TROPHY - call the taxi-man!!

 

[Bowsnbucks]

Do you have any conifers for thermal cover?

Yep - load up on spruce trees. Superior wind-blocks & bedding cover. HUGE fan of spruce here in Pa. They've proven themselves to me / us at camp.