Lets talk deer herd genetics.

[Southern Man]

How do you gauge genetics? Genetics in a deer herd are kind of a complex quantity rather than perceptible substance. Do you look for symmetry? Do you look for big body size? Do you look for number of points? Do you look for mass?

In areas I hunt you can see a difference in bucks. Some areas have bucks that tend to be wider, some areas heavier, some areas the bucks grow racks with more points, and some areas that bucks never really grow a decent rack. Is that genetics? Might be, I dunno. Could be nutrition, could be an over population, could be ageclass. There's a world of different answers that could be responsible for that. One thing for sure, bucks can and will vary from area to area. I really believe it's a combination of all the factors including chance. That's on a local level. But look at a larger picture. We don't grow the size of bucks you guys shoot in Wisconsin, or Illinois, or Iowa. We know there's a difference somewhere along the way, more than likely genetics.

Me personally, I don't worry about genetics. It's an uncontrollable factor. I don't have the time to chase whitetails in areas that grow the largest bucks, such as Wisconsin, Illinois, or Iowa, where I think genetics make the difference. But even still, I bet these areas will have the same tendencies where the bucks vary in size from area to area (as Stanley said), the same as it does here local. And I believe this is due to a variety of reasons, not just genetics. Judging genetics seems easy on a larger scale looking at geographical areas as opposed to variations in the local deer herd from farm to farm.

What I look for, being a local hunter, is age class, hunter pressure (and the quality of hunters). Food here is everywhere. It really doesn't matter to me if the bucks grow wide racks, lots of points, or heavier racks (although I really like mass). I think most all bucks, if allowed to age will grow a unique rack and achieve what I think is a trophy. Separating typical from non typical in rack formation is ridiculous as far as quality of a trophy is concerned in my opinion.

[headgear]

Ultimately, in a free ranging herd, I think age is the most important, nutrition is number two and genetics are last. Especially here in the Midwest where I think almost all bucks have the genetic ability to at least reach P&Y status with most of those being able to hit the 140" mark or better. In a perfect world genetics would come first, but of course we don't live in a perfect world. Give me both age and nutrition and I will have big antlered bucks. Genetics will take care of themselves.

Very much agree slayer, where I hunt the nutrition and genes are good enough but if I don't get a deer with age then I am screwed. That is the single biggest limiting factor in the area I hunt. Again we are just talking bucks in general, in the other thread the focus was world class deer, without world class genetics you don't get a world class deer.

[JakeJD]

Here are my hunting observations:

The river bottom that I grew up hunting (have hunted for nearly 20 years now) is divided south of town by a State highway. The first half of my hunting life, we hunted on the west side of the highway. This section of the river had great habitat and was pretty thick with cedars / russian olive / cottonwood. This section of the river produced some great bucks.

The last 8 years, we have hunted a few miles downstream on the east side of the highway. This section of the river is more open with less cedars and less russian olives. The vast majority of the bucks on this side of the highway are scrub 8 points with no mass, 1 inch brow tines, and 4-6" tines. We have killed a couple of nice bucks and found one nice 10 point dead, but the majority of mature bucks that we see are small little 8 points. I have killed a couple of 3 y/o bucks that wouldn't score over 100". My dad shot a pig of a buck (broke our gambrel) 3 years ago that wouldn't score over 100".

Just this year, I was setup just off a doe bedding area. A hot doe happened to bed there that morning. The mature buck that was with her was a 3 y/o+ scrub 8 point. I had a few nice 2 y/o bucks (one 120-130" 9 / 10 point) come through and check out the doe, but as soon as the old buck would show himself the younger bucks would go around the area and leave. I have seen this more than once through the years in this section of the river.

The deer numbers are similar. The deer have access to the same nutrition. We hunted more and killed more bucks growing up on the west side of the highway. The east side of the highway receives less pressure and we kill way less bucks, but the bucks are inferior.

The only answer that I have is genetics.

[headgear]

I guess I kind of see it like this, again this is only if you have to pick one trait to be the key to reaching what you are after.

Good Buck = Age will get you there and is often the limiting factor in a lot of places that mow down young deer.
Great Buck = Nutrition is probably the most important to help a buck reach his potential, age and genes of course play a big roll too.
World Class Buck = Genetics is the limiting factor, without them no amount of age or nutrition will make up the difference.

[Southern Man]

Ultimately, in a free ranging herd, I think age is the most important, nutrition is number two and genetics are last. Especially here in the Midwest where I think almost all bucks have the genetic ability to at least reach P&Y status with most of those being able to hit the 140" mark or better. In a perfect world genetics would come first, but of course we don't live in a perfect world. Give me both age and nutrition and I will have big antlered bucks. Genetics will take care of themselves.

Very much agree slayer, where I hunt the nutrition and genes are good enough but if I don't get a deer with age then I am screwed. That is the single biggest limiting factor in the area I hunt. Again we are just talking bucks in general, in the other thread the focus was world class deer, without world class genetics you don't get a world class deer.

Very much agree.

[Bowhunting Brian]

as far as shooting certain deer to promote genetics. isn't it true that does kick their male offspring off after the first year? so killing the "inferior" buck on your land and not letting him breed would really be helping your neighbor a few miles down the road? also, one thing I noticed so far is most the posts are about rack size. what about other characteristics. we are all different as humans. height. body shape and such. all genetics. does genetics play a role "like Stanley said" in being better at survival, less prone to disease, bigger body mass, and maybe other things as well?

[Stanley]

I would say it depends on the parents involved, but from the studies I have read I would say it's roughly 50/50 overall.

That's not where I was headed with this. If you think about it, the doe contributes more than 50% of the herd genetics.

Let's look at it this way.....

A single doe can drop twin fawns by two different sires.

Wouldn't that make this correct?

Yes, but a buck can also breed multiple does, or all of them for that matter. Because yearling bucks disperse from their birthplace in distances measured in miles there is absolutely no way to influence a wild herd's genetics. None of the antlered bucks on your property were born there (excluding the theory that if you kill the mother the buck fawn will not disperse). You are stuck with whatever genetics you have. Biologically, the doe contributes 50% of the genes to the fawn and the buck the other 50%, right down the middle. Every trait the offspring display is a combination of both parents.

Having more bucks is like having more lottery tickets even though the genetics are no different. It would take thousands of years to see a significant genetic change in the wild from a "survival of the fittest" selection trend.

How did Iowa evolve in 50 years from almost no big bucks to the bucks in today's herd? The younger guys only see the herd as it is today. I remember very well what the herd was like 50 years ago. There were very few deer period. I think I was 10 when I saw my first deer in Iowa. That would be unheard of today not seeing some deer just about any day you drive around. So where and how did the genetics come from, with such few deer to spread those genetics?

[Stanley]

...Do you really know for sure what genetics are good and what genetics are poor? I have never been able to put any sense in what genetics are good in a deer herd. I know I don't know, that much I do know. I have some ideas/opinions but so does everyone else...

ALL genetics are good. If a buck has a small rack it doesn't make him inferior. Just inferior to you. He may in fact be superior due to body size for the climate, disease resistance, etc.

...So lets hear your interpretation of what genetics it takes to grow a big racked buck.

Now you have specified a specific trait as superior. The simple answer is the genetics that put the most bone on their head, but genetics for good health would also be desirable.

There are other important factors of course like age, nutrition and overall health caused by outside sources. The proper development of the mother while growing up and the overall health of the mother before and during pregnancy can also have an impact. The timing of birth and weather (especially during the first year of life) can affect ultimate antler size too. Because of these other influences a buck could be stunted early in life to the point it never achieves it's genetic potential.

...I don't believe in killing spikes. I don't think they are inferior who will only grow 100 inch racks. I've seen studies they can grow into 140 inch deer...

I can remember a study where a yearling buck had a spindley 3" spike on one side and a 2" spike with a 1" brow tine on the other. Technically he wasn't a spike but close enough in my mind. At 5.5 he scored 201 and some change.

B&C has some bucks with awesome mass but a lot of them don't. Some bucks have real tall racks but a lot if them don't. Some bucks are very wide but a lot of them aren't. Some bucks have a lot of points while others don't. But.....

The one antler characteristic that nearly all B&C bucks do share is long main beams.

[ Post made via iPod ]

X2! Learned about this from you AJ.

If you think about it, the doe controls more than 50% of the genetics of a herd...

I would say it depends on the parents involved, but from the studies I have read I would say it's roughly 50/50 overall.

...In a free-ranging herd....if you're trying to manage for genetics (and don't know which does are the most genetically superior), you're peeing in the wind.

Pretty much!

Just some food for thought. Are genetics merely a byproduct of survival of the fittest?...

Survival of the fittest for the conditions. That is why it's important to have a diverse gene pool. A buck with small antlers may have the genetics to survive or thrive in a certain environment where a buck with large antlered genetics may not. However, genetics for big antlers are still buried in the DNA somewhere and they will make their way to the surface eventually.

Something other than genetics caused the deer numbers to climb. Once the deer numbers started to climb bigger racked bucks developed. Even today some counties produce very few big racked bucks. Those counties are also counties with sparse deer populations. These counties also have the least amount of agriculture and timber combination. This cant be coincidence.

More deer numbers = higher odds of exceptional genetics for large antlers coming out = more big bucks. Assuming a fair amount of hunting pressure then less cover typically = less bucks making it to older age class = less big bucks.

Ultimately, in a free ranging herd, I think age is the most important, nutrition is number two and genetics are last. Especially here in the Midwest where I think almost all bucks have the genetic ability to at least reach P&Y status with most of those being able to hit the 140" mark or better. In a perfect world genetics would come first, but of course we don't live in a perfect world. Give me both age and nutrition and I will have big antlered bucks. Genetics will take care of themselves.

There is more to this topic, but that is the gist of it IMHO.

I agree with this. All deer carry the genetics to produce good racks. I also think most regions apply. Some regions lack a couple of things for big racked bucks to develop.

[Stanley]

I guess I kind of see it like this, again this is only if you have to pick one trait to be the key to reaching what you are after.

Good Buck = Age will get you there and is often the limiting factor in a lot of places that mow down young deer.
Great Buck = Nutrition is probably the most important to help a buck reach his potential, age and genes of course play a big roll too.
World Class Buck = Genetics is the limiting factor, without them no amount of age or nutrition will make up the difference.

This could be just luck of the draw with the freak factor taking place. I believe the freak factor holds more value than genetics. Like the 5 legged fawn they happen to be born but not the norm.

[headgear]

I guess it depends on your definition of world class. I might call a 30 point 300 inch non-typical a freak of nature. However there are a fair amount of 180+ deer taken every year, nothing freak about them, they just have better genetics for antler growth than the rest of the deer out there. Without the proper genetics in place they don't get that big, I don't consider them accidents or freaks, just the right combo of parents at the right time in the right place.

Bowhunting Brian is right we are only focused on rack size, plenty of other genetic traits out there. I guess we can just more easily identify rack and body size vs other traits.

[headgear]

I believe the freak factor holds more value than genetics.

Or we could come up with a new term, freaky good genetics.

[SamPotter]

I would say it depends on the parents involved, but from the studies I have read I would say it's roughly 50/50 overall.

That's not where I was headed with this. If you think about it, the doe contributes more than 50% of the herd genetics.

Let's look at it this way.....

A single doe can drop twin fawns by two different sires.

Wouldn't that make this correct?

Yes, but a buck can also breed multiple does, or all of them for that matter. Because yearling bucks disperse from their birthplace in distances measured in miles there is absolutely no way to influence a wild herd's genetics. None of the antlered bucks on your property were born there (excluding the theory that if you kill the mother the buck fawn will not disperse). You are stuck with whatever genetics you have. Biologically, the doe contributes 50% of the genes to the fawn and the buck the other 50%, right down the middle. Every trait the offspring display is a combination of both parents.

Having more bucks is like having more lottery tickets even though the genetics are no different. It would take thousands of years to see a significant genetic change in the wild from a "survival of the fittest" selection trend.

How did Iowa evolve in 50 years from almost no big bucks to the bucks in today's herd? The younger guys only see the herd as it is today. I remember very well what the herd was like 50 years ago. There were very few deer period. I think I was 10 when I saw my first deer in Iowa. That would be unheard of today not seeing some deer just about any day you drive around. So where and how did the genetics come from, with such few deer to spread those genetics?

Wouldn't the sheer increase in the number of deer result in more big bucks? Also- the "QDM" movement in the past 15-20 years has to have had some level of influence on how many bucks are getting a chance to reach trophy size.
I'm not saying that genetic pool couldn't have shifted in the past 50 years but I can't think of one reason why a bigger rack would be a beneficial to whether or not a buck survived or bred more often than a smaller rack.

[SamPotter]

It would take thousands of years to see a significant genetic change in the wild from a "survival of the fittest" selection trend.

And to think, I was lucky enough to see it happen over a the last 30 years.

The deer I hunt here in ky. where brought here from Wisconsin. Back in the 70's early 80's a mature buck that would dress 230-240lbs was not uncommon. On avg, the dress weight of a mature buck has dropped about 50lbs.

A mature buck that will dress 200lbs is a giant now.

[ Post made via iPod ]

Interesting point. This could be from a variety of factors. What you are talking about is Bergmann's rule - the farther from the equator the bigger the body size. Less body surface area=better heat retention. It could make sense that "survival of the fittest" would change the genetics a lot faster in a transplanted population that weren't originally designed to live in that climate.

What about deer that are more nocturnal in nature than others? Have we artificially selected the deer that move more during daylight, leaving a population that has more nocturnal tendencies?

[James]

I sure cannot say much about genetics and evaluation. Last year I killed a 130" 3yo buck that was a homebody that we had history with and Arrowbender killed a 166" 3yo buck a few hundred yards away that was also a homebody. Both deer were nearly identical for weight (6 pounds apart dressed). Both had premium nutrition and soil.

If you follow Bill Winke at all, he killed a 120s buck that was, I believe a 6 or 7, and he mentions that it was a buck that never got any bigger thoughout its life. He has also killed 200" deer on that farm that are younger.

I will say this, regardless how big the antlers grow on a farm or general area, they seem to always carry the same traits if you hunt there long enough and see enough big bucks killed. My family farm for example tends to grow all 9 and 10 point frames with brows all being short with beams extending and sweeping out. I can see these traits in almost every buck I have killed there. Of course there are exceptions.

So if it's a goal to kill a typical 6x6 I would talk to a lot of locals and do some research to see if they exist in the area.

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[Stanley]

I would say it depends on the parents involved, but from the studies I have read I would say it's roughly 50/50 overall.

That's not where I was headed with this. If you think about it, the doe contributes more than 50% of the herd genetics.

Let's look at it this way.....

A single doe can drop twin fawns by two different sires.

Wouldn't that make this correct?

Yes, but a buck can also breed multiple does, or all of them for that matter. Because yearling bucks disperse from their birthplace in distances measured in miles there is absolutely no way to influence a wild herd's genetics. None of the antlered bucks on your property were born there (excluding the theory that if you kill the mother the buck fawn will not disperse). You are stuck with whatever genetics you have. Biologically, the doe contributes 50% of the genes to the fawn and the buck the other 50%, right down the middle. Every trait the offspring display is a combination of both parents.

Having more bucks is like having more lottery tickets even though the genetics are no different. It would take thousands of years to see a significant genetic change in the wild from a "survival of the fittest" selection trend.

How did Iowa evolve in 50 years from almost no big bucks to the bucks in today's herd? The younger guys only see the herd as it is today. I remember very well what the herd was like 50 years ago. There were very few deer period. I think I was 10 when I saw my first deer in Iowa. That would be unheard of today not seeing some deer just about any day you drive around. So where and how did the genetics come from, with such few deer to spread those genetics?

Wouldn't the sheer increase in the number of deer result in more big bucks? Also- the "QDM" movement in the past 15-20 years has to have had some level of influence on how many bucks are getting a chance to reach trophy size.
I'm not saying that genetic pool couldn't have shifted in the past 50 years but I can't think of one reason why a bigger rack would be a beneficial to whether or not a buck survived or bred more often than a smaller rack.

In my opinion yes big factor in producing large racked bucks.