culling

[powderburner]

I hear people talking about Culling deer. I shot this spike because he was a spike. I shot this buck because he had no brow tines. I shot this buck because he had short tines. I shot this buck because of........

I have been guilty of all of these excuses........

If all the "management" minded hunters really did this for herd management then we would have more B&C bucks than anywhere in the nation.

I think that we use this reason as a justification for doing what we are living and dreaming to do... Kill Deer...

Why do we do it? Why do we make and excuse? Why can we not just say I killed that deer. And the rest of the hunters say congrats?

[Kdog]

This is a can of worms and it seems in the deer hunting world there are some real believers in this practice. I personally don't like calling a deer trash and I don't think in a free range situation you have a prayer of changing the overall genetic make up of your deer herd.

As a more practical matter deer need to be killed in order to keep your habitat at carrying capacity. In other words you need to remove a certain number of mouths. You have to keep your doe numbers in check first. Once you have your buck/doe ratio where it needs to be you have to kill bucks too. Taking out ones that have reached a certain age is a good thing. The devil is in the details. In the end as a hunter I will celebrate in any clean kill that puts meat in the freezer.

By the way I am not a biologist or deer manager, but sometimes I play one on internet forums .

[kineticcowboy]

I agree with you, but I also believe that culling works. Free range just makes it more difficult, but a few here and there can make a small difference in your genetics. The main thing I see most is when a deer with horrible genetics walks out, he's gotta go. Age structure, and nutrition are equally as important as genetics. 2 out of 3 aint bad though. You also have to keep in mind that each whitetail will eat roughly 3% of their body weight a day, so which deer would u like the food to go to?

[kineticcowboy]

it can also be relative to what kind of bucks you want on the place.

[Cody Malone]

This ^

[Txdeerhunter243]

I agree with you, but I also believe that culling works. Free range just makes it more difficult, but a few here and there can make a small difference in your genetics. The main thing I see most is when a deer with horrible genetics walks out, he's gotta go. Age structure, and nutrition are equally as important as genetics. 2 out of 3 aint bad though. You also have to keep in mind that each whitetail will eat roughly 3% of their body weight a day, so which deer would u like the food to go to?

^This

[DuramaxDude]

I agree with you, but I also believe that culling works. Free range just makes it more difficult, but a few here and there can make a small difference in your genetics. The main thing I see most is when a deer with horrible genetics walks out, he's gotta go. Age structure, and nutrition are equally as important as genetics. 2 out of 3 aint bad though. You also have to keep in mind that each whitetail will eat roughly 3% of their body weight a day, so which deer would u like the food to go to?

Agreed. One man's management buck or cull whichever you choose to say can be another man's trophy. I mean theres a big difference between a big East Texas deer and big deer from the midwest or Canada. I to believe in "culling" and in supplementing in certain times of the year can make a difference. I worked and did research on a ranch that properly managed heards of sheep, goats, and cattle. They also managed their deer heard with spot light counts and aerial counts, "culling" and buck:doe ratio control efforts, supplemental feeding after season until first green up and at the end of the summer when its dry and hot. They feed protien not corn during these times and during season. The data they have from when they first started to present day is pretty obvious. Body weights of doe/bucks and B&C scores high (191 from 120 something) and average scores (115 to 136) have drasticly increased, buck:doe ratio, age distribution, and fawn crops are all much more ideal also. Another place I ran all we did was try and regulate doe numbers, and "cull" bucks. There were tons of 8s but not many 10s 12s etc.. The land owner said management bucks where anything 3yrs of age and older that wasn't a substancial 8pt or bigger. After a few years of this and multiple 10 12 13 14 points began showing up, from 165" 8pt to 160'-170" 10s 12s 13s and 14s.

I personally really like big spikes 4pt 6pts etc.. and freaky looking racks that are deamed as culls. My first buck ever was a "cull".

[Encinal]

Most people have limited time.

"Culling" is a lot of work for VERY little observable result. There is entirely too much noise in the system with variable rain falls, fawn crops and harvest age on smaller properties to TRULY see a benefit from it.

I cannot see a benefit in 20 years of culling on our ranch that is distinguishable from nutritional and age structure improvement.

It probably makes a very very small difference... but we can statistically measure improvements in nutrition due to feed (15%) and improvements in age structure (200%++) so when people focus on culling... which when all other things are in balance and done correctly may shift a curve 2-5% over decades??? they are probably wasting their valuable time on something that isn't going to show fruit.

[powderburner]

Most people have limited time.

"Culling" is a lot of work for VERY little observable result. There is entirely too much noise in the system with variable rain falls, fawn crops and harvest age on smaller properties to TRULY see a benefit from it.

I cannot see a benefit in 20 years of culling on our ranch that is distinguishable from nutritional and age structure improvement.

It probably makes a very very small difference... but we can statistically measure improvements in nutrition due to feed (15%) and improvements in age structure (200%++) so when people focus on culling... which when all other things are in balance and done correctly may shift a curve 2-5% over decades??? they are probably wasting their valuable time on something that isn't going to show fruit.

This was my real reason for the post. With all the research that is out there nutrition and age class are the best ways to improve the herd.

Age Class Let them walk. No matter what you "think" others will do.

Nutrition. Easiest known way with proven results.
Corn has no benefit. We know that, but what keeps people from doing this?
Cost?
Availability?
Knowledge of products?

[DuramaxDude]

$$$$$$$$$ drives everything.

[BIG BONE]

most people have limited time.

"culling" is a lot of work for very little observable result. There is entirely too much noise in the system with variable rain falls, fawn crops and harvest age on smaller properties to truly see a benefit from it.

I cannot see a benefit in 20 years of culling on our ranch that is distinguishable from nutritional and age structure improvement.

It probably makes a very very small difference... But we can statistically measure improvements in nutrition due to feed (15%) and improvements in age structure (200%++) so when people focus on culling... Which when all other things are in balance and done correctly may shift a curve 2-5% over decades??? They are probably wasting their valuable time on something that isn't going to show fruit.

thx for sharin
i agree with this

[SwampRabbit]

I asked a similar question not too long ago, and I came to the conclusion that alot of folks use the label "cull" inappropriately. That being said, the word "cull" does apply appropriately to certain situations.

[ItsLeo]

Feed them high protein nutritious food. Let them get older than 3 1/2. Get the population to the carrying capacity of your land. And finally get the doe ratio as even as possible to maximize the number of bucks on your land.

Then people will ask how you got such good genetics on your property

[jpatton80]

I agree with you, but I also believe that culling works. Free range just makes it more difficult, but a few here and there can make a small difference in your genetics. The main thing I see most is when a deer with horrible genetics walks out, he's gotta go. Age structure, and nutrition are equally as important as genetics. 2 out of 3 aint bad though. You also have to keep in mind that each whitetail will eat roughly 3% of their body weight a day, so which deer would u like the food to go to?

agree

[rtp]

This is a can of worms and it seems in the deer hunting world there are some real believers in this practice. I personally don't like calling a deer trash and I don't think in a free range situation you have a prayer of changing the overall genetic make up of your deer herd.

As a more practical matter deer need to be killed in order to keep your habitat at carrying capacity. In other words you need to remove a certain number of mouths. You have to keep your doe numbers in check first. Once you have your buck/doe ratio where it needs to be you have to kill bucks too. Taking out ones that have reached a certain age is a good thing. The devil is in the details. In the end as a hunter I will celebrate in any clean kill that puts meat in the freezer.

By the way I am not a biologist or deer manager, but sometimes I play one on internet forums .

Agree 100%. This is why I hate to see the "should I cull him" threads with 90% of the responses being yes without knowing anything about the buck and the place he resides.