Lu Rome wrote:raisins wrote:Lu Rome wrote:stash59 wrote:We like to think that by leaving the immature bucks live, we are only allowing the older bucks to breed, and thus always passing down only the best genes. But if this is the case. Where did all of the exceptional genes we now see present in today's bucks come from? Wouldn't they have been lost/washed out, because for decades deer hunters were killing most of the bucks before they reached maturity. So I ask does it make a difference to the health of the herd. Even to the gene pool. If a buck passes down his genes when he's 1.5YO or 6.5YO?
You can't impact genetics in a wild situation. Not in the slightest. Half the genes are from mom and half are from dad and dad's half are the same no matter his age. And despite what we think, the most successful bucks only breed a few does per year and those young bucks (1-2) get roughly a quarter of the does themselves.
Correct that bucks don't get "big buck" genes simply from age.
The potential is there from birth in their DNA.
However, selectively removing from the gene pool bucks that have bad genetics (if that can be reliably determined) can certainly modify things. And only going after bucks with "big buck" genetics will tend to make the inferior bucks more likely to breed than they would under normal situations. Thankfully, by the time a buck is old enough to express his superior antler genetics, then he has already bred several times as a younger buck.
You need to read what they did on the Comanche Ranch: https://www.qdma.com/qdm-works-culling-doesnt/
I wish they would publish the final findings of that study so I could link that instead of a QDMA article.
You can impact the "standing crop" of buck by removing the lower potential ones, but you aren't impacting the genetics of the herd overall. Quit culling (removing the lower producing bucks) and you'll be right where you were previous to culling.
This might be the case for practical reasons, but it doesn't mesh with the principles of genetics and the long standing practice of artificial selection by humans to impact the genetic diversity of a species.
By definition, if you are able to remove certain genes at a higher rate, then you will make them less common within a population. I don't see anyway around that statement.