Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Culling Info

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Originally posted by Jake View Post
    Funny how there is always two sides on all topics and people have made up their mind and they are not changing it. I rarely get pulled into these back and forth discussions, I just have seen the results of proper culling.
    At the end of the day, I am a fan of all hunters and think deer hunting needs to be more about the experience and less about the size of antlers.

    Of the many ranches I have been on over the years. Everyone that consistantly produces big deer has some sort of culling program for what they call an inferior deer on their ranch.
    If allowing the best deer to breed and not allowing the subpar deer to breed, did not manipulate the herd, then Texas would not have so many ranches with deer that scored over 250.

    But if you don't agree, we can still be buddies.
    Texas doesn't have many ranches at all that produce deer that score over 250.

    Deer herds that have the potential to throw 250's have been produced and put on a lot of Texas Ranches.
    Last edited by Encinal; 05-18-2018, 03:57 PM.

    Comment


      #92
      Originally posted by Encinal View Post
      Texas doesn't have many ranches at all that produce deer that score over 250.

      Deer herds that have the potential to throw 250's have been produced and put on a lot of Texas Ranches.
      I have to agree - 250 inch deer on TRUE LF ranches are very rare if at all

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by elgato View Post
        Dr. Harry Jacobson had a buck in his pens at Ms. State...Charlie was his name though don't trust my memory.....that at the time had sired most of the biggest bucks in the country. He was a legend and many breeders bought his off spring. Whats interesting is that the buck was just an 'average' 150" class 8 pt most of his life.Yes, genetics are a complex matrix especially when you consider how few legitimate clues we have from only observation of antlers and no insight into the mother.

        I continue to propose that enhanced nutrition is the reason we have seen the dramatic increase in deer quality from the early days of buck mania . Culling does contribute to that.
        This is very interesting to me. That deer would have been "culled" on most big buck ranches.

        Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by Encinal View Post
          Texas doesn't have many ranches at all that produce deer that score over 250.

          Deer herds that have the potential to throw 250's have been produced and put on a lot of Texas Ranches.
          Texas has easily over 1,000 ranches with deer over 250. Yes, they are ranches that have manipulated the herd by ensuring that big deer only breed with other big deer.

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by Jake View Post
            Texas has easily over 1,000 ranches with deer over 250. Yes, they are ranches that have manipulated the herd by ensuring that big deer only breed with other big deer.
            Texas does have over 1,000 ranches with deer scoring over 250 when they kick them out of the breeder pens. That’s the only way to have big deer guaranteed to breed with big deer period.

            Comment


              #96
              Originally posted by Big Mike M View Post
              Texas does have over 1,000 ranches with deer scoring over 250 when they kick them out of the breeder pens. That’s the only way to have big deer guaranteed to breed with big deer period.
              Agreed.
              So it is GENETICS?. From putting a big buck on big does, then taking their biggest offspring buck and putting them back on big blooded does, then taking the biggest offspring buck and putting them back on daughters to these big bucks, etc etc. Etc.
              Over and over and over and over and over, year in and year out.
              Lol

              I will admit, it is a little strange that these studies show No improvement at all in antler quality from culling. But yet in the pens we have made huge strides from controlling breeding. Wierd! !!!
              Last edited by bukkskin; 05-18-2018, 10:18 PM.

              Comment


                #97
                Originally posted by bukkskin View Post
                Agreed.
                So it is GENETICS?. From putting a big buck on big does, then taking their biggest offspring buck and putting them back on big blooded does, then taking the biggest offspring buck and putting them back on daughters to these big bucks, etc etc. Etc.
                Over and over and over and over and over, year in and year out.
                Lol

                I will admit, it is a little strange that these studies show No improvement at all in antler quality from culling. But yet in the pens we have made huge strides from controlling breeding. Wierd! !!!
                Give the man a cigar! The key word - CONTROL

                In a pen the manager has control of:
                1. Who breeds who
                2. How many get bred by who
                3. Where the offspring go

                No such control outside of a pen. That's why the scientific studies all continue to show no improvements in a natural situation.

                By the way, I do not condone breeding and growing deer in pens. Not to condemn, just don't want my recognition of facts to be misconstrued as support.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by elgato View Post
                  Dr. Harry Jacobson had a buck in his pens at Ms. State...Charlie was his name though don't trust my memory.....that at the time had sired most of the biggest bucks in the country. He was a legend and many breeders bought his off spring. Whats interesting is that the buck was just an 'average' 150" class 8 pt most of his life.Yes, genetics are a complex matrix especially when you consider how few legitimate clues we have from only observation of antlers and no insight into the mother.

                  I continue to propose that enhanced nutrition is the reason we have seen the dramatic increase in deer quality from the early days of buck mania . Culling does contribute to that.
                  Giddy-up! As well as allowing bucks to reach old age. Take away those 2 items, nutrition and age, and keep culling, and Jake wouldn't be seeing any changes across Texas. Keep nutrition and age, and take away culling, and Jake would still see the change...only our sex ratios would be tighter.

                  There was a Charlie, or "Big Charlie" as he was known, who was the single sire buck from the Kerr WMA pens back when all this crap started.

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                    Giddy-up! As well as allowing bucks to reach old age. Take away those 2 items, nutrition and age, and keep culling, and Jake wouldn't be seeing any changes across Texas. Keep nutrition and age, and take away culling, and Jake would still see the change...only our sex ratios would be tighter.

                    There was a Charlie, or "Big Charlie" as he was known, who was the single sire buck from the Kerr WMA pens back when all this crap started.
                    I wonder if it was the same Charlie though I may have the bucks name wrong from Ms. State. They moved deer around a lot back then so its certainly possible same Charlie. I just got a new puppy from Harry giving me lots of excuses to give him updates. I'll do a name check and see if it offers clarity.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Jake View Post

                      Then I just don't understand how all these giant deer got to these Texas ranches.
                      Outside of introducing breeder deer, the giant deer potential on Texas ranches today is equal to what it was 40 years ago. The difference is that 40 years ago very few people cared. Today, lots of people care, thus the overall increase in antler quality that we all can see, but the science says that culling has not contributed to that increase. Do some literature search (scientific) and you'll see what I'm talking about . If doing a Google search, be sure to use the term "scholarly papers on..."

                      Forty years ago there wasn't a massive market for protein feed and feeders, or food plot seeds, or posters and videos on field aging bucks.

                      Also, Jake, think about some math with regard to your 5 year experience previously mentioned. Let's say we have 10 young bucks, 5 big ones and 5 little ones. All 10 are allowed to reach maturity, so the average of our 10 bucks comes out to be medium. Now, let's say we kill the 5 little ones while they were young and allow the 5 big ones to reach maturity. We have now mathematically increased the average size of our mature bucks. However we did not increase the number of big bucks, it's still just 5.

                      Of course the knee jerk response is to make a statement about 5 big bucks breeding and 5 little bucks not breeding. Unfortunately, that doesn't pan out, and research shows that it doesn't.

                      Question is - why not? The answer is - lack of control. I can expand on that if anyone is interested.

                      If you do follow up and do some literature review (scientific) be sure to also search "Dispersal of young bucks". If you don't, I'll still be your buddy also.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Encinal View Post
                        Most people are claiming you can change genetics.

                        It’s exactly what you said after 3 generations.

                        Problem is the claims you are making coincide with other management practices that cause antlers to get bigger ... so you falsely attribute your observation to shooting work.
                        Ditto!

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                          Outside of introducing breeder deer, the giant deer potential on Texas ranches today is equal to what it was 40 years ago. The difference is that 40 years ago very few people cared. Today, lots of people care, thus the overall increase in antler quality that we all can see, but the science says that culling has not contributed to that increase. Do some literature search (scientific) and you'll see what I'm talking about . If doing a Google search, be sure to use the term "scholarly papers on..."

                          Forty years ago there wasn't a massive market for protein feed and feeders, or food plot seeds, or posters and videos on field aging bucks.

                          Also, Jake, think about some math with regard to your 5 year experience previously mentioned. Let's say we have 10 young bucks, 5 big ones and 5 little ones. All 10 are allowed to reach maturity, so the average of our 10 bucks comes out to be medium. Now, let's say we kill the 5 little ones while they were young and allow the 5 big ones to reach maturity. We have now mathematically increased the average size of our mature bucks. However we did not increase the number of big bucks, it's still just 5.

                          Of course the knee jerk response is to make a statement about 5 big bucks breeding and 5 little bucks not breeding. Unfortunately, that doesn't pan out, and research shows that it doesn't.

                          Question is - why not? The answer is - lack of control. I can expand on that if anyone is interested.

                          If you do follow up and do some literature review (scientific) be sure to also search "Dispersal of young bucks". If you don't, I'll still be your buddy also.
                          I was ready to move on and not get pulled back into this thread, but since you throughout my name on several posts, I guess I will respond one last time.

                          First, please read what I wrote, you are correcting things that I did not say. Also, I think deer hunting should be focused around the experience, not the size of antlers.

                          I agree that culling cannot be successful on most ranches for all the reasons stated on this thread and more.

                          Never said genetics can be changed by culling. I said a herd can be manipulated by culling.

                          Everyone agrees that the two most important factors are age and food. So no need to tell me how important those things are and that deer don't grow big without them.

                          I did enjoy your advice that I use that google thing to look up scientific studies. You should use that google thing to look up the scientific studies on "manmade global warming". Point being I am aware of scientific studies, how they are financed and the numerous flaws and preconceived biases that go into them.

                          What I base by opinion on is visiting a very large number of both high fence and low fence ranches over the last 4 decades that produce big deer every year. I am an inquisitive fellow who has been addicted to large whitetails all my life. Thus I ask a lot of questions and then I listen. I really focus my questions on the people that put the management plans together on ranches that produce large deer year in and year out. You know, the guys that are out in the sun in the middle of august, filling cotton seed feeders, building hog pens and putting out cameras. Not the guys that are paying them to do it. They would all agree that age and food are the two biggest factors, but every single one I have ever spoken to also has a program in place to shoot undesirable bucks and leave the best ones to grow to maturity. These culling plans vary greatly on the specifics, but taking out inferior and leaving the best is the basis of each one. I have never been on a ranch that consistently produces large bucks that does not have a culling plan in place.

                          Now maybe all these guys that have spent a big chunk of their life, day in and day out, are wrong and are wasting their time with this culling thing. But I am going place my bet with them and not with a scientific paper written by someone I have never met, with no idea who funded the study.

                          If you dis-agree, so be it, we can still be friends, but at least disagree with something I actually said.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by lovemylegacy View Post
                            True! The only genetics a hunter can affect, is the buck or doe he is about to shoot. Their genetics will no longer be in the pool
                            Not true. Their momma, daddy, brothers, and sisters are still running around.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Jake View Post
                              I was ready to move on and not get pulled back into this thread, but since you throughout my name on several posts, I guess I will respond one last time.

                              First, please read what I wrote, you are correcting things that I did not say. Also, I think deer hunting should be focused around the experience, not the size of antlers.

                              I agree that culling cannot be successful on most ranches for all the reasons stated on this thread and more.

                              Never said genetics can be changed by culling. I said a herd can be manipulated by culling.

                              Everyone agrees that the two most important factors are age and food. So no need to tell me how important those things are and that deer don't grow big without them.

                              I did enjoy your advice that I use that google thing to look up scientific studies. You should use that google thing to look up the scientific studies on "manmade global warming". Point being I am aware of scientific studies, how they are financed and the numerous flaws and preconceived biases that go into them.

                              What I base by opinion on is visiting a very large number of both high fence and low fence ranches over the last 4 decades that produce big deer every year. I am an inquisitive fellow who has been addicted to large whitetails all my life. Thus I ask a lot of questions and then I listen. I really focus my questions on the people that put the management plans together on ranches that produce large deer year in and year out. You know, the guys that are out in the sun in the middle of august, filling cotton seed feeders, building hog pens and putting out cameras. Not the guys that are paying them to do it. They would all agree that age and food are the two biggest factors, but every single one I have ever spoken to also has a program in place to shoot undesirable bucks and leave the best ones to grow to maturity. These culling plans vary greatly on the specifics, but taking out inferior and leaving the best is the basis of each one. I have never been on a ranch that consistently produces large bucks that does not have a culling plan in place.

                              Now maybe all these guys that have spent a big chunk of their life, day in and day out, are wrong and are wasting their time with this culling thing. But I am going place my bet with them and not with a scientific paper written by someone I have never met, with no idea who funded the study.

                              If you dis-agree, so be it, we can still be friends, but at least disagree with something I actually said.
                              You’re saying absolutely nothing. Of course people shoot smaller deer. They shoot bigger deer too.

                              Did you just say that your experience comes from talking to people that fill feeders... and not actually managing a deer herd?

                              Comment


                                Man how did I miss this.....

                                Regarding changing genetics in a low fence population, you are not going to do it by "culling"
                                The biggest force at play is genetic drift, and will randomly swamp out your attempts at removing (or decreasing/increasing) gene frequencies in a population.

                                Regarding the doe contributing >50% of the genetic effect on offspring this is true. One must take into consideration that the doe contributes the mitochondrial genome, which must play nice with all of the genomic genes that interact with the mitochondrial genome.
                                Second, epigenetics like histone acetylation and methylation are passed through the female side. And these directly influence gene expression. Now granted the epigenetic profile of an animal changes over time, but the original influence is from the dam.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X