Your experiences with deer quality and time

roymunson

5 year old buck +
This is simply anecdotal evidence, but in taking an inventory of the deer this summer, we're seeing a noticable uptick in health of deer and size of racks. Which is kind of the goal.

When we started hunting this area it was 2013. there were some nice deer, but not anything like the overall quality we have now. In 2014 we started with habitat work. Food plots, bedding cover, less pressure on deer, sanctuary, hinge cutting, TSI work, etc. We've focused on different things at different times, but overall, have tried to make the ground the deer are living on, more conducive to deer health.

Here's the crux of my point/question. If you have a deer that's spent its entire 5 year life in prime habitat, with the exact same genetic makeup, will it out perform a deer that has only been in that prime habitat for the last 2-3 years of it's life?

We've noticed our yearling and younger deer having bigger bodies and larger 1st and second year racks. We're finally getting some of the deer that were born after we started hunting the land to maturity. And we're starting to see a noticeable uptick in the body size, antler size, antler points, etc on our bucks. Does are better fed when they're pregnant, and the whole deal.

When I type it out, it seems pretty obvious, but I guess I just didn't expect to see such a noticeable difference once some of those deer born into the good habitat reached maturity. Or is it something that cycles from year to year?
 
This is my first year really diving into habitat work. So i cannot speak to the question directly. However, you are limited to genetics to a degree. The part that i think applies to your question is that even though the bucks that have been there might not be great or even have the potential to be great what you are doing is making a place that more deer, thus more genetics, have the ability to express themselves. Can you kill a 1 off giant every 10 years during the rut... sure almost any place can if the dice fall the right way. But, if you have a place that is drawing deer that already have the potential to be great that are then passing on those genetics your chances go way up to not only killing a great buck but holding the other deer that share that awesome booner genetics. That is how i see it, and the plan that i am personally trying to execute.
 
Roymunson, guessing you may have seen this? If not, very interesting read.

Paraphrasing it a bit, when deer have faced poor to mediocre nutrition for several generations there are "genetic switches" that reduce size of deer and horn growth. This mechanism is nature's way of helping the deer survive as otherwise they'd be more likely to starve. Fascinatingly (at least to me) when deer are given great nutrition only a moderate amount of body growth / horn growth for bucks is seen in the first generation that receive the benefit, with more dramatic improvements being seen in the 2nd generation receiving good nutrition, as the "genetic switches" are triggered among the offspring of the 1st generation to allow the newly born 2nd generation deer to grow larger / benifit from the good nutrition to the maximum amount possible.

The Role of Genetics and Nutrition in Deer Management
 
I believe it is a combination of two things - both already mentioned in above posts. Epigenetics due to better habitat showing up in generations down the road, and an increased number of deer using your place means, just by luck or odds, there are likely to be more quality deer.
Back when we had a lot of deer - and I am not speaking of overpopulated numbers - just a lot of deer - widespread - compared to now - we had some good bucks just because there were more bucks, thus more bucks reaching maturity. Now, the decent populations are only on private and you dont pull multiple bucks from far off.

In addition, many consecutive years of improved habitat conditions - and in particular - improved nutrition - will also increase the quality of you local deer. I am starting to see 8 pt, 1.5 yr old deer. Those used to be outliers. Now I am seeing one or more every year.
 
Last edited:
There were studies in Germany by Dr. Vogt showing continual improvement in Red Deer generationally from an elevated nutritional plane. This pointed to the epigenetic response to the environment that genes do actually change based on environmental conditions. The study was terminated by WW2 but whats interesting is we do not know if or when those improvements ever stop. My experience from keeping the nutritional plane highly elevated for 30 years or 3 full generations is that the improvements seem to continue on a linear scale.
 
Really good overall nutrition available in my region. Genetics are good, especially for the south. Just in my observations I find that most bucks in my area will reach 70-80% of their overall potential by year 2-3. Very few deer live longer than 2 and even fewer beyond 3. That being said, the nutrition and genetics are strong enough that most of the harvested bucks are still over 120".

My project this weekend (to start at daylight tomorrow am) is to go in and cut some very specific hinge cut bedding areas to try and extend the lives of a few of these deer.

Last year on my 200 acres I made a rule that other than a kids first deer we would not shoot any bucks (regardless of legality) that were less than 2 years old. That meant letting a lot of legal bucks walk, which was foreign for several family members that hunt on the farm. This year the game cam pics are already showing results.

Nutrition is important. Genetics are important. Nothing is more important than age. That's the story in my area.
 
Really good overall nutrition available in my region. Genetics are good, especially for the south. Just in my observations I find that most bucks in my area will reach 70-80% of their overall potential by year 2-3. Very few deer live longer than 2 and even fewer beyond 3. That being said, the nutrition and genetics are strong enough that most of the harvested bucks are still over 120".

My project this weekend (to start at daylight tomorrow am) is to go in and cut some very specific hinge cut bedding areas to try and extend the lives of a few of these deer.

Last year on my 200 acres I made a rule that other than a kids first deer we would not shoot any bucks (regardless of legality) that were less than 2 years old. That meant letting a lot of legal bucks walk, which was foreign for several family members that hunt on the farm. This year the game cam pics are already showing results.

Nutrition is important. Genetics are important. Nothing is more important than age. That's the story in my area.
I'd completely agree. If your deer are only reaching 2 and 3, its hard to tell what their potential actually is.

What state/region are you in? Just outta curiosity.
 
Big Bend, I listened to a Meateater podcast that kind of followed this logic but it was regarding mule deer and had some migration stuff mixed in too. But it boiled down to how healthy the doe was when pregnant as to how high the buck's potential would be.

I didn't really know about the triggers and epigenetics, but I'll have to read that article.

We only control about 300 acres, so it's gonna be hard to do what you'd love to do on the macro scale, but I am just seeing this year, we have more 140" deer to hunt than any other year I can remember, and it's about 5-6 years since we've started really getting serious about habitat, and about 3 since we've really started adding acreage to the plan/co-op.

Baker, love to hear that it's linear. That means we can keep climbing the ladder and if we can get these deer into high quality habitat and nutrition, it'll just keep going up.
 
I'd completely agree. If your deer are only reaching 2 and 3, its hard to tell what their potential actually is.

What state/region are you in? Just outta curiosity.

I'm in northeast Arkansas. My property sits on Crowley's Ridge which is a long (200 miles) narrow (~10 miles) rolling hills. Surrounded on both sides by nothing but miles of flat ground agriculture.

The habitat is good but even in the rural areas (like my place) there's inhabitants / hunters on every "40". We have previously been blessed with very little gun hunting (shotgun only) but over the past few years more and more days have been added. Last year our gun season was two weekends only (first two weekends in November (don't get me started)). Change for this year is to keep gun season open that entire week (9 straight days).

So in my area it is extremely hard to get deer to live very long. They've got the food and the genetics but our game and fish wants us to kill more.

Unfortunately as an owner of 200 acres I'm one of the bigger landowners in the area. That might kind of give you an idea of what I'm up against.

I can pass up really nice 2 year old deer all year but a lot of my neighbors won't. All I can do is continue to work on habitat and food... and keep what I can on the farm.

I'm not a big gun hunter and my plan is to really try hard to minimize the pressure during those gun hunting days to give them no reason to leave. If I can grow the greens and have 30-40+ doe spending all day eating greens through November I think I can keep some bucks from straying too far.
 
Breddick, sounds like you have some of the issues we all have. Just had this conversation this week with my partner. Worst thing going on for big bucks in Ohio is baiting. I'm not morally opposed to it, and have done it. But anyone who owns 20 acres and can buy 200# of corn will be able to hunt their land like its a big farm. So you either compete and do the same, or you let your neighbors shoot the deer you've been trying to get to maturity. We're spoiled in that we have enough acreage that we could plant to feed, but I get a feeling in the pit of my stomach guarding a corn pile and seeing a new generation not know any woodsmanship to hunt the deer.

Sounds like you have a nice little piece to work with tho.
 
Breddick, sounds like you have some of the issues we all have. Just had this conversation this week with my partner. Worst thing going on for big bucks in Ohio is baiting. I'm not morally opposed to it, and have done it. But anyone who owns 20 acres and can buy 200# of corn will be able to hunt their land like its a big farm. So you either compete and do the same, or you let your neighbors shoot the deer you've been trying to get to maturity. We're spoiled in that we have enough acreage that we could plant to feed, but I get a feeling in the pit of my stomach guarding a corn pile and seeing a new generation not know any woodsmanship to hunt the deer.

Sounds like you have a nice little piece to work with tho.

Same issue here. I’m personally morally opposed to it but I don’t necessarily judge those who do it (though in my eyes in cheapens the kill). You hit the nail on the head though. I work my ass off year round on my property but the guy with 13 acres next to me can put out 400 lbs of corn November 1st and he has as good, if not a better chance than I do of killing a deer that otherwise has spent a large portion of his life on my land because of my sweat and financial equity. Life isn’t fair and neither is hunting!
 
I certainly don’t want to imply that I have Ill feelings towards adjacent property owners that may reap some of the benefits of my hard work. I simply see it as a challenge. A challenge to keep those deer on me more often. Just this am I went out and hinge cut 3 different spots as bedding areas.
I plan to grow enough greens this fall that honestly most deer wound prefer the good greens over corn anyways.

Another key to to keep pressure low. During the times hunting pressure is high (gun seasons) we tread very lightly around the place. Usually reserve this part of the season for wife / kids / newer guest hunters. We go to lower disturbance stands. Harvest deer and get out. Absolutely NO random walking. Pushing deer around is a mistake.

Today was my first experience with hinge cutting and I’m optimistic it will help. These were areas that already had some beds despite little cover at ground level. Now big chunks of sunshine are hitting a massive hole in the canopy from where I dominoed a bunch of hickory, elm, and a few crooked oaks.
 
I'm in northeast Arkansas. My property sits on Crowley's Ridge which is a long (200 miles) narrow (~10 miles) rolling hills. Surrounded on both sides by nothing but miles of flat ground agriculture.

That is an interesting area of Arkansas. Very different than east and west of that ridge. Used to live in Memphis and made the trip to north of Little Rock on occasion for work. That corridor attracts all kinds of critters think I remember hearing about bear too.

To the question posed by OP, I find with people leasing on 3 sides of me that as the wildlife gets more numerous all of a sudden more/dedicated hunters start showing up and actual hunting opportunities for those on my land has dropped some. Some of that is related to some new younger fellas all full of piss and vinegar and doing the food plot, building box stands, and hanging tree stands all over stuff. Now have bow hunters on two sides vs one before. Point being on really small tracts that your neighbors will help skim off the top on any better hunting opportunities that may start to develop over time.
 
Today was my first experience with hinge cutting and I’m optimistic it will help. These were areas that already had some beds despite little cover at ground level. Now big chunks of sunshine are hitting a massive hole in the canopy from where I dominoed a bunch of hickory, elm, and a few crooked oaks.

we try to do most of ours right after the season. less green and hot temps, but the results are incredible. If nothing else, it gives you a sense of accomplishment knowing big deer could stay there safely if they wanted to.
 
This is simply anecdotal evidence, but in taking an inventory of the deer this summer, we're seeing a noticable uptick in health of deer and size of racks. Which is kind of the goal.

When we started hunting this area it was 2013. there were some nice deer, but not anything like the overall quality we have now. In 2014 we started with habitat work. Food plots, bedding cover, less pressure on deer, sanctuary, hinge cutting, TSI work, etc. We've focused on different things at different times, but overall, have tried to make the ground the deer are living on, more conducive to deer health.

Here's the crux of my point/question. If you have a deer that's spent its entire 5 year life in prime habitat, with the exact same genetic makeup, will it out perform a deer that has only been in that prime habitat for the last 2-3 years of it's life?

We've noticed our yearling and younger deer having bigger bodies and larger 1st and second year racks. We're finally getting some of the deer that were born after we started hunting the land to maturity. And we're starting to see a noticeable uptick in the body size, antler size, antler points, etc on our bucks. Does are better fed when they're pregnant, and the whole deal.

When I type it out, it seems pretty obvious, but I guess I just didn't expect to see such a noticeable difference once some of those deer born into the good habitat reached maturity. Or is it something that cycles from year to year?

I believe that getting started off in life with the best of everything provides greater benefits to deer. I know that since I started my program everything has dramatically changed. I now have deer that I never thought possible after just a few years. Doing the right things has a big impact.
 
Here's the good news. IF...and it is the critical if......you raise the nutritional plane for enough deer year round then you start to get the epigenetic improvement irrespective of what age the bucks get killed. In the mean time the raised nutritional plane improves the quality of all age classes and as native said gets the new born off to a better start. Even the immature bucks on elevated nutrition will be better.

My neighbor and I greatly enhanced the nutritional plane on our cumulative 2500 acres starting over 30 years ago. However with intense hunting pressure and baiting all around the property we rarely got a buck to live past 3. Bucks move a lot more than people want to believe. Then we built a game fence around the entirety of the property and 3 years later grew 2 bucks over 220. One was 5 and one was 6. I believe we captured the 30 years of epigenetic improvement realizing it fully when the bucks were finally allowed to fully mature. No one is doing anything remotely near that quality anywhere around our neighborhood [ or the state for that matter ] even with numerous game fenced properties in the parish.
 
Last edited:
There were studies in Germany by Dr. Vogt showing continual improvement in Red Deer generationally from an elevated nutritional plane. This pointed to the epigenetic response to the environment that genes do actually change based on environmental conditions. The study was terminated by WW2 but whats interesting is we do not know if or when those improvements ever stop. My experience from keeping the nutritional plane highly elevated for 30 years or 3 full generations is that the improvements seem to continue on a linear scale.

Well that's great news for me. I've started some habitat improvement for red deer on a property in Norway. We have some great stags on camera, but they are few and far between. Quality food seems to be lacking in most of the area, so I am focusing on increasing the preferred browse and soft mast on the property. Would be nice to get a big 12 point stag after a few years of effort.
 
I have such a small property that nothing I am doing is making even a slight bit of difference. Keeping a few more deer around? Sure. But we have an abundance of cover and browse, and not enough deer to fill the space. We might be getting closer to carrying capacity, but I still rarely will see multiple adult does during a sit until the late season food sources concentrate activity.

The biggest influence on our herd and overall health and age structure has been increase in time from the last huge EHD outbreak that had a disproportionate effect on the older deer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I feel like Ive seen the quality of our young bucks getting much better over the last 15-20 years. One thing is there are always exceptional bucks and there are always the duds. Like others have said, the tough part is getting the right one to survive past 3 yrs old. It makes me sick as to how often we have 1 or 2 yr old bucks with 10 -15 points and droptines and double rows of tines... and they get killed off, while their little 2x3 brother makes it. The majority of bucks that make it to 4 yrs + get big... but its so rare to see that. Currently in my area it seems its the "duds" that have survived lately. So all the older bucks around currently have the poor genetics. Fortunately, there are so few that i believe the majority of the breeding is done by the younger bucks with good genes anyway... so the cycle goes on.

The bottom line... without age its all for nothing. Grow a deer to 5 or 6 regardless of score and youve got yourself a trophy. If we had even 25% of the bucks make it to 4+ years and I think seeing 200" deer regularly would not be uncommon. Its just not going to happen. We can try, and we can dream though!
 
This is simply anecdotal evidence, but in taking an inventory of the deer this summer, we're seeing a noticable uptick in health of deer and size of racks. Which is kind of the goal.

When we started hunting this area it was 2013. there were some nice deer, but not anything like the overall quality we have now. In 2014 we started with habitat work. Food plots, bedding cover, less pressure on deer, sanctuary, hinge cutting, TSI work, etc. We've focused on different things at different times, but overall, have tried to make the ground the deer are living on, more conducive to deer health.

Here's the crux of my point/question. If you have a deer that's spent its entire 5 year life in prime habitat, with the exact same genetic makeup, will it out perform a deer that has only been in that prime habitat for the last 2-3 years of it's life?

We've noticed our yearling and younger deer having bigger bodies and larger 1st and second year racks. We're finally getting some of the deer that were born after we started hunting the land to maturity. And we're starting to see a noticeable uptick in the body size, antler size, antler points, etc on our bucks. Does are better fed when they're pregnant, and the whole deal.

When I type it out, it seems pretty obvious, but I guess I just didn't expect to see such a noticeable difference once some of those deer born into the good habitat reached maturity. Or is it something that cycles from year to year?


I've been at it for over 10 years with insufficient scale. We've got just under 400 acres with another 400 adjoining that are either wittingly or unwittingly cooperating to some degree. We collect measurements and biological samples from every deer harvested for the game department. We run a wireless network of about 15 cameras 24/7/365. Looking at things anecdotally, it seems like we are making modest progress. Looking at the hard data, the game department biologist says he see some improvement in health based on body weights. When I look at the same data, I'm not convinced teh improvement is statistically significant.

Without a doubt, we have improved hunting!

Thanks,

Jack
 
Top