Deer University - Culling

[BrokenJ]

Originally Posted by Gclyde28

Its important to note that they said culling does not work on free range properties and that allowing deer to age to 6-7+ along with habitat/rainfall/range conditions were the most important factors in antler growth.

Its very evident that culling/selective breeding works on high fence properties because otherwise 300"+ deer wouldn't exist.

Why does everyone think on a population basis? Think individual basis. Kill the inferior. If that cull is dead that opens up more resources for the remaining deer bucks and does both. Also eliminating the trash doesn't help the genetic pool in the field, but it also doesn't hurt.

[Throwin Darts]

Shooting young bucks in a low fence setting is going to do absolutely nothing to change the genetics on the place.

Culling should be more about taking mouths off the ranch vs shooting young inferior deer. Taking mouths off the food source will help the herd overall.

My strategy is to take a certain number of mouths off the ranch each year. We don't shoot immature bucks. Period. I don't care what their head gear looks like. If a buck isn't mature it doesn't get shot. If we decide to take 5 mouths off the place we take 5 mature mouths off the place.

Food + Age = Better Deer Herd

[txwhitetail]

Originally Posted by Throwin Darts

Food + Age = Better Deer Herd

Does it really? If you shoot junk bucks at 3 and 4 instead of 5 or 6 you will have a better average set of 5 and 6 year olds.

[Aggie PhD]

As a card carrying geneticist, I love me a discussion about population genetics, "culling" and it's affect on altering the genetics...... If you think you are changing genetic frequencies in a low fence, you need to read some about "genetic drift"

There are quite a few here that are spot on

[HighwayHunter]

Originally Posted by Aggie PhD

As a card carrying geneticist, I love me a discussion about population genetics, "culling" and it's affect on altering the genetics...... If you think you are changing genetic frequencies in a low fence, you need to read some about "genetic drift"

There are quite a few here that are spot on

Do you agree with some of the sentient shared on this thread, that there is a need to remove all mouths eating corn and protein that aren’t up to par with the lease standards of “good “bucks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Throwin Darts]

Originally Posted by txwhitetail

Does it really? If you shoot junk bucks at 3 and 4 instead of 5 or 6 you will have a better average set of 5 and 6 year olds.

I want to shoot 5 and 6 year old junk bucks because at 5 and 6 I can actually know if they are junk or not. If I need to take some mouths off and I have a mature junk buck out in front of me I can confirm with my eyes that he's near his full potential and not make a guess like I would be shooting them young.

[txwhitetail]

Originally Posted by Throwin Darts

I want to shoot 5 and 6 year old junk bucks because at 5 and 6 I can actually know if they are junk or not.

Hey its your place you can do as you wish. Was just curious.

On our place some at 3 and for sure by 4 it is very evident what kind of deer they are going to be.

[Aggie PhD]

Originally Posted by HighwayHunter

Do you agree with some of the sentient shared on this thread, that there is a need to remove all mouths eating corn and protein that aren’t up to par with the lease standards of “good “bucks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It comes down to carrying capacity of the land. Reducing the number of mouths will have reduce the pressure on the habitat. There are some confused that culling of bucks at 4 and under is making bigger bucks genetically and improving the herd. It is reducing the population of animals on the range, and the benefits of increased antler size is more likely due to more available resources for the remaining herd.

Also a lot of people don't shoot enough does and have an imbalance of bucks to does. An over abundance of does leads to a longer breeding season, which increases the likelihood of late fawns. Late fawns are behind on the nutritional plane and it takes them years to catch up. Also there is more nutritional stress put on the doe that has a late fawn, since the range conditions in the summer are usually worse than late spring. There is a lot of research in cattle on maternal affects related to the amount/quality of milk produced relative to the performance of their offspring.

Lastly, research has shown that a deer puts more nutrition into their antlers at 5+, since the majority of nutrition before that is put into body growth. If a buck is shot at 4, they don't survive to 5+

Granted there are a lot of variable in play here, but people often conflict the benefits they are seeing by shooting "culls" as genetic when in fact it is a pure nutrition and age play.

I have been on a lease for 14+ years. We had people that would shoot Every. Single. Spike.... and a "mature" trophy buck was 3.5. We never saw a 5.5 to 6.5 year old deer.
We put some basic rules, no spikes for two years, shoot more does, and we reduced the overall buck harvest. We still have little 1.5 year old spikes, and we shoot some "feeder bullies" as management deer at 5.5+. But in the last 4 years we are killing ( or seeing) 145-160" deer. I let a 4.5 year old deer that was 155 this year, and killed an old 8pt that was running some of the younger deer off (he was 6.5)

For us it is about making sure that bucks survive to 5.5 to reach some of their potential before removing their mouth.

My thoughts are worry about deer density, buck:doe ratio, and age structure of bucks (you need bucks of all age classes) first. Then IF you have that in line you can start shooting some older bucks

Just my opinions........

[Beargrasstx]

Spot on

[HighwayHunter]

Originally Posted by Aggie PhD

It comes down to carrying capacity of the land. Reducing the number of mouths will have reduce the pressure on the habitat. There are some confused that culling of bucks at 4 and under is making bigger bucks genetically and improving the herd. It is reducing the population of animals on the range, and the benefits of increased antler size is more likely due to more available resources for the remaining herd.

Also a lot of people don't shoot enough does and have an imbalance of bucks to does. An over abundance of does leads to a longer breeding season, which increases the likelihood of late fawns. Late fawns are behind on the nutritional plane and it takes them years to catch up. Also there is more nutritional stress put on the doe that has a late fawn, since the range conditions in the summer are usually worse than late spring. There is a lot of research in cattle on maternal affects related to the amount/quality of milk produced relative to the performance of their offspring.

Lastly, research has shown that a deer puts more nutrition into their antlers at 5+, since the majority of nutrition before that is put into body growth. If a buck is shot at 4, they don't survive to 5+

Granted there are a lot of variable in play here, but people often conflict the benefits they are seeing by shooting "culls" as genetic when in fact it is a pure nutrition and age play.

I have been on a lease for 14+ years. We had people that would shoot Every. Single. Spike.... and a "mature" trophy buck was 3.5. We never saw a 5.5 to 6.5 year old deer.
We put some basic rules, no spikes for two years, shoot more does, and we reduced the overall buck harvest. We still have little 1.5 year old spikes, and we shoot some "feeder bullies" as management deer at 5.5+. But in the last 4 years we are killing ( or seeing) 145-160" deer. I let a 4.5 year old deer that was 155 this year, and killed an old 8pt that was running some of the younger deer off (he was 6.5)

For us it is about making sure that bucks survive to 5.5 to reach some of their potential before removing their mouth.

My thoughts are worry about deer density, buck:doe ratio, and age structure of bucks (you need bucks of all age classes) first. Then IF you have that in line you can start shooting some older bucks

Just my opinions........

Well said my friend!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tx_Wader]

Culling = Population control.

In a high fence environment it's necessary but then I guess those people who spend millions on their 10,000 acre high fence operation don't know what they're doing.

[bloodtrailer28]

Originally Posted by Aggie PhD

It comes down to carrying capacity of the land. Reducing the number of mouths will have reduce the pressure on the habitat. There are some confused that culling of bucks at 4 and under is making bigger bucks genetically and improving the herd. It is reducing the population of animals on the range, and the benefits of increased antler size is more likely due to more available resources for the remaining herd.

Also a lot of people don't shoot enough does and have an imbalance of bucks to does. An over abundance of does leads to a longer breeding season, which increases the likelihood of late fawns. Late fawns are behind on the nutritional plane and it takes them years to catch up. Also there is more nutritional stress put on the doe that has a late fawn, since the range conditions in the summer are usually worse than late spring. There is a lot of research in cattle on maternal affects related to the amount/quality of milk produced relative to the performance of their offspring.

Lastly, research has shown that a deer puts more nutrition into their antlers at 5+, since the majority of nutrition before that is put into body growth. If a buck is shot at 4, they don't survive to 5+

Granted there are a lot of variable in play here, but people often conflict the benefits they are seeing by shooting "culls" as genetic when in fact it is a pure nutrition and age play.

I have been on a lease for 14+ years. We had people that would shoot Every. Single. Spike.... and a "mature" trophy buck was 3.5. We never saw a 5.5 to 6.5 year old deer.
We put some basic rules, no spikes for two years, shoot more does, and we reduced the overall buck harvest. We still have little 1.5 year old spikes, and we shoot some "feeder bullies" as management deer at 5.5+. But in the last 4 years we are killing ( or seeing) 145-160" deer. I let a 4.5 year old deer that was 155 this year, and killed an old 8pt that was running some of the younger deer off (he was 6.5)

For us it is about making sure that bucks survive to 5.5 to reach some of their potential before removing their mouth.

My thoughts are worry about deer density, buck:doe ratio, and age structure of bucks (you need bucks of all age classes) first. Then IF you have that in line you can start shooting some older bucks

Just my opinions........

Well said sir and that is an educated opinion unlike most of the other opinions on here mine included

[HighwayHunter]

Originally Posted by Tx_Wader

Culling = Population control.



In a high fence environment it's necessary but then I guess those people who spend millions on their 10,000 acre high fence operation don't know what they're doing.

High fence is a different story. That’s a controlled environment. Low fence is not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BowSlayer]

Culling can be different things for different leases. If you're culling for genetics you're spinning your wheels. If you have WAY too many deer and lots more bucks than does like we do you should be culling some. We cull from yearlings on up because we have too many deer. Too many mouths to feed means none of the deer ever meet their potential. I'd rather eliminate some mouths and see what the better looking young deer do with some age. Not every place is the same. I read on here several times that folks wish they would make every county in Texas an AR county. That would be a terrible idea for our county. We can't keep the numbers in check as it is without those ridiculous rules. Find something that works for you and stick with it and let everyone else do the same and we would all be happier. I hunt in East Texas and West Texas. It's a totally different ball game and you can't manage the same in both areas without doing major damage to one or the other.

[Throwin Darts]

Originally Posted by Aggie PhD

Also a lot of people don't shoot enough does and have an imbalance of bucks to does. An over abundance of does leads to a longer breeding season, which increases the likelihood of late fawns. Late fawns are behind on the nutritional plane and it takes them years to catch up. Also there is more nutritional stress put on the doe that has a late fawn, since the range conditions in the summer are usually worse than late spring. There is a lot of research in cattle on maternal affects related to the amount/quality of milk produced relative to the performance of their offspring.

Great post Aggie PhD.

This is a great point made about doe management as well.

I'll add to this that we are shooting our does each year before the rut. We are taking their mouths off the place before the dead of winter hits and natural browse becomes more scarce. We are also avoiding shooting a bred doe that may be carrying the offspring of our better bucks. So we are shooting does as early as possible.

[HighwayHunter]

Originally Posted by Tx_Wader

Culling = Population control.



In a high fence environment it's necessary but then I guess those people who spend millions on their 10,000 acre high fence operation don't know what they're doing.

High fence is a different story. That’s a controlled environment. Low fence is not


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sunnylab]

Originally Posted by Mexico

Cull= I need an excuse to kill a deer. I've seen it more times then I can count on TBH. It cracks me up! 2 or 3 year old 7 pt dead in a pic and the guy is saying " took out a cull".... uhhhh...no you didn't buddy you shot a young deer.

Now I have nothing against shooting a deer because you want to, just call it what is... killing! And leave the cull word out

My thoughts exactly!!!

[kyle1974]

Culling doesn’t work? Weird. Pretty sure after they’re dead I don’t spend a dime feeding them anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BowSlayer]

Originally Posted by kyle1974

Culling doesn’t work? Weird. Pretty sure after they’re dead I don’t spend a dime feeding them anymore.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Works the same for me too.

[Silentnight]

You should definitely be able to tell if a buck is junk before they hit 5 or 6 years old unless you have a mess load of deer and they don't have enough food or if you have a bad growing season for native vegitation. Also if you are overpopulated the older bucks can and will keep the smaller, younger bucks from the feed. This can hurt potential for young deer if not getting proper nutrition.

If you have 2 deer at 3 years old that are similar frame, one scores 100 and the other scores 130, cull the smaller one because the larger deer has more potential. It really comes down to numbers though. If you don't have a bunch of deer in your area you might want to let smaller deer go to boost population numbers.

I hunt on family high fence land most of the time and it took years of culling (like 10 plus) but now we are up to culling 4 point and under unless they are unique for some reason. Call it crazy but we grow 150"+ typical 8 point and everything else needs to mature around the 170+ mark, unless the rack is unique for some reason. All native genetics also

[Mexico]

Originally Posted by BrokenJ

Beating a dead horse. Its about removing mouths from range. Especially in high fences. You expect ranches to feed all bucks to 5 yrs old before killing? Not happening. Deer must die. Every ranch has different criteria for culling, removing, decreasing population, ect. It's ludicrous to think every buck should get a pass till maturity. It's also obvious that letting the cull reach maturity will increase his score.

Guess I'm ludicrous...

[Gclyde28]

Originally Posted by Silentnight

You should definitely be able to tell if a buck is junk before they hit 5 or 6 years old unless you have a mess load of deer and they don't have enough food or if you have a bad growing season for native vegitation. Also if you are overpopulated the older bucks can and will keep the smaller, younger bucks from the feed. This can hurt potential for young deer if not getting proper nutrition.

If you have 2 deer at 3 years old that are similar frame, one scores 100 and the other scores 130, cull the smaller one because the larger deer has more potential. It really comes down to numbers though. If you don't have a bunch of deer in your area you might want to let smaller deer go to boost population numbers.

I hunt on family high fence land most of the time and it took years of culling (like 10 plus) but now we are up to culling 4 point and under unless they are unique for some reason. Call it crazy but we grow 150"+ typical 8 point and everything else needs to mature around the 170+ mark, unless the rack is unique for some reason. All native genetics also

This debate was intended for low fence deer. Obviously in a high fence situation genetics can be much more easily influenced since it is a controlled scenario.

[Aggie PhD]

Originally Posted by Silentnight

You should definitely be able to tell if a buck is junk before they hit 5 or 6 years old unless you have a mess load of deer and they don't have enough food or if you have a bad growing season for native vegitation. Also if you are overpopulated the older bucks can and will keep the smaller, younger bucks from the feed. This can hurt potential for young deer if not getting proper nutrition.

If you have 2 deer at 3 years old that are similar frame, one scores 100 and the other scores 130, cull the smaller one because the larger deer has more potential. It really comes down to numbers though. If you don't have a bunch of deer in your area you might want to let smaller deer go to boost population numbers.

I hunt on family high fence land most of the time and it took years of culling (like 10 plus) but now we are up to culling 4 point and under unless they are unique for some reason. Call it crazy but we grow 150"+ typical 8 point and everything else needs to mature around the 170+ mark, unless the rack is unique for some reason. All native genetics also

Unless you are hunting a 200 acre place with a small population or have introduced deer, I would argue that the majority of your goals have been achieved through reducing the population size to a sustainable level and not through genetic improvements of said herd.

One of the things to take into consideration with a high fence is that animals are unable to disperse when densities get high or range conditions are poor. Have friends with a high fence place and when they started they were killing 100-150 does and 75 bucks a year. They did this for several years and now have some absolute toads inside their fence.
Now that the population is sustainable they don't have to shoot that many, but still have to harvest a bunch every year. If I recall the calculations based upon a fawn crop, if they didn't harvest for 2 years they would be back in the same spot as they started.
In these instances, it can make sense to shoot smaller younger bucks that appear to have less potential. Why? Because you need to get rid of a mouths because of the limited resources inside the fence

[lovemylegacy]

Hmmmm, good read.

[El General]

Originally Posted by BrokenJ

Beating a dead horse. Its about removing mouths from range. Especially in high fences. You expect ranches to feed all bucks to 5 yrs old before killing? Not happening. Deer must die. Every ranch has different criteria for culling, removing, decreasing population, ect. It's ludicrous to think every buck should get a pass till maturity. It's also obvious that letting the cull reach maturity will increase his score.

On a free range place, if it was about reducing population, you would shoot a doe over a buck every single time. Male harvest does not effect future population. Female harvest does.

[texas shag]

Originally Posted by El General

On a free range place, if it was about reducing population, you would shoot a doe over a buck every single time. Male harvest does not effect future population. Female harvest does.

They both matter. A mouth is a mouth. That said, shooting a doe ensures that additional fawns aren't born from that animal, which definitely reduces the burden the following year. In reality, trying to keep the sex ratio in check, while also keeping the land at carrying capacity necessitates the killing of both. Supplemental feeding will help you support additional animals so that the males can make it to 4-5 years old before selection needs to take place on the males.

People like to shoot antlers, lets call it what it is. And many people make money off of selling bucks that they dont have interest in to fund their feed bill, and they call it culling. In reality, it is just herd management and land management while allowing the deer you like to get older with less stress/competition.

[WamBow]

I'll shoot a spike that's 2.5+ years old or older. I land in the "let'em age" camp. That said, I hunt on a low or no fence cattle ranch that's free range and only rules are those of the TPWD. Would probably be different if I was on a game ranch that spent lots of money altering the natural genetics of the deer population to raise proper trophies.

[MQ32Shooter]

Originally Posted by Patton

Not true. I took out a 17.5" wide 8pt, 6.5 yrs old in an AR county last weekend and there are probably 5-6 deer on that property that are younger and significantly bigger (antler wise) that we chose to pass. Does taking out that 'cull 8' help the genetics? I wouldn't think so, but it is a mouth that doesn't have to be fed or dominate a protein feeder and helps keep the ratio where it we want it to be after taking a lot of doe this year. We prefer to let deer get to 4.5 before even being considered a 'cull', and if he is that young he better have 7pts or less and a ****ty rack. Don't shoot the big bucks until they reach 6.5

You are by far the exception and not the norm.

[ROBINHOOD11]

Originally Posted by 88 Bound

I heard it too and found it very interesting. While I found a few of the procedures a bit controversial, the main message made sense. I can tell you that our lease is very doe-heavy and we have tons of spikes and raghorn young bucks year over year. Most of the guys want to cull them but we’re chasing our tail by doing so. Until we get the doe population under control, we will always have late breeding which makes late fawns which makes bucks that will forever be behind the curve. Thin out the does and address the issue that way.

We as humans love to cull deer. Why? Because we enjoy the kill. Culling is a justification. I can tell you that in 15 years of moderate to aggressive culling on our 6k acres, the number of cull bucks each year never really changes.

I also do strongly agree with how much they mentioned the weather affects the deer herd. I will definitely be tuning in to a few more of their podcasts to hear some more of their theories.

Also having that many does means your bucks are run down and very unhealthy due to such a prolonged rut. Which means you really don't know what their potential is until they are healthy. Kill the does.

[BrokenJ]

Originally Posted by El General

On a free range place, if it was about reducing population, you would shoot a doe over a buck every single time. Male harvest does not effect future population. Female harvest does.

Future? Focus on current. If population is high kill both. Does need to die as well. I also said above think on an individual basis if he's not making grade, in whatever the criteria makes him a cull, take him out. I would much rather have too much natural resources for the remain herd. Rather than too little for an entire population, including the low end of every younger age class of bucks.

[BrokenJ]

Originally Posted by Mexico

Guess I'm ludicrous...

Lot of factors go into it. Some ranches can't cull everything that needs to go, so they don't try. I've been there, big place couldn't do it for various reasons, didn't try. Big low fence your looking for a diamond in the rough. Lay eyes on 75 bucks before one catches your attention. Limited tags, time, man power, season depending on your situation, ect.
Also a lot of places can handle that population so removing those young bucks doesn't really matter. I agree, If you can afford to feed them (natural browse not supplemental) it doesn't matter. If I had to bet your in that boat, so your not crazy lol

[Mexico]

Originally Posted by BrokenJ

Lot of factors go into it. Some ranches can't cull everything that needs to go, so they don't try. I've been there, big place couldn't do it for various reasons, didn't try. Big low fence your looking for a diamond in the rough. Lay eyes on 75 bucks before one catches your attention. Limited tags, time, man power, season depending on your situation, ect.

Also a lot of places can handle that population so removing those young bucks doesn't really matter. I agree, If you can afford to feed them (natural browse not supplemental) it doesn't matter. If I had to bet your in that boat, so your not crazy lol

We don't shoot anything 4 or under and preferably 5. I've seen too many deer "pop" when they hit 5. Their skeletal system is complete by then and they're fully mature so they stop putting nutrients into body growth and start putting it into their horns.
Guess I'm a gambler, I like to at least see the "flop" before I fold even if I hold a bad hand. Same with deer, I'll give them a chance. And when they hit 5 if they're still junk we slam em... but it's crazy how many turn out to be a great deer.
Maybe not 70s or 80s but solid 50s deer. And yes we have plenty of brouse for our deer but also supplement them hard and feed medicated protein. Seems to be working for us.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[trophy8]

Originally Posted by El General

On a free range place, if it was about reducing population, you would shoot a doe over a buck every single time. Male harvest does not effect future population. Female harvest does.

We have way more bucks than does. Every property is different.

[bbqfan5909]

Feel ya on that one, we are probably 6 bucks to 1 doe.

Originally Posted by trophy8

We have way more bucks than does. Every property is different.

[TheHammer]

Originally Posted by Mexico

We don't shoot anything 4 or under and preferably 5. I've seen too many deer "pop" when they hit 5. Their skeletal system is complete by then and they're fully mature so they stop putting nutrients into body growth and start putting it into their horns.
Guess I'm a gambler, I like to at least see the "flop" before I fold even if I hold a bad hand. Same with deer, I'll give them a chance. And when they hit 5 if they're still junk we slam em... but it's crazy how many turn out to be a great deer.
Maybe not 70s or 80s but solid 50s deer. And yes we have plenty of brouse for our deer but also supplement them hard and feed medicated protein. Seems to be working for us.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

I tend to agree with Mexico around “culling.” How can you tell a cull at 3? Do y’all that cull early have a score you’re looking for as a 3 yo? Some places just have a ton of deer, and I understand they have a certain number they need to kill, but I’ve just never been able to call it quits on a deer at 3. I almost always give the deer “one more year” after I notice him not jump like the rest of the deer. This usually happen at 3 or 4. That season I’ll tell myself next year if he doesn’t put on some bone I’ll take him. If he’s marginal, he’ll get another pass. I just don’t think Any bucks should be shot at or before 3 for culling purposes. There’s a lot of people on here that know way more than I ever will, but I don’t think you can ever go wrong with age.

[whakm]

You wanna kill big ,old deer then don't shoot the young,little ones.

[Mexico]

Originally Posted by whakm

You wanna kill big ,old deer then don't shoot the young,little ones.

Whoa bro you really need to calm down on the common sense. This is TBH

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[mudkat]

I think the culling probably not do any thing for the whole herd, but it makes since to take the bucks that are say 3 years old and have small racks for their age ,I think the biggest help of killing those deer are they are usually the most dominate and aggressive bucks that tend to run of the better bucks.
The small rack bucks are like the short guys at the bar very aggressive and ready to fight to prove they're tough , LOL

[Tx_Wader]

high fence is a different story. That’s a controlled environment. Low fence is not

Yes I know that. Low fence or high it's still population control.

[HighwayHunter]

Originally Posted by Tx_Wader

Yes I know that. Low fence or high it's still population control.

I think in most cases it’s masked as “population control” in the want to just shoot a buck. If you hunt 500 acres low fence I don’t think you can actually control that population unless said 500 acres is surrounded by a high fence or natural borders. The more deer you take off, opens up more food for deer, taunting passer by deer to just stay there. It would be like trying to take water out of a boat with a hole in it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JonW]

I don't hunt anywhere where I feed deer, so that isn't a factor.

If a population reaches carrying capacity, shooting bucks has little to no effect on population-shooting does does.

I quit culling for two main reasons:
1. Does carry as much of the genetics-I can't tell which carry what

2. Fawn buck dispersal

Culling outside of high-fence is Texas' participation trophy in a culture where killing deer for the sake of killing deer isn't cool enough.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El General]

Originally Posted by trophy8

We have way more bucks than does. Every property is different.

Without a high fence? It must be a very large property.

[trophy8]

Originally Posted by El General

Without a high fence? It must be a very large property.

Low fence. 1150 acres. I’ve been on a few different properties that was this way. It’s not uncommon.

[El General]

Originally Posted by BrokenJ

Future? Focus on current. If population is high kill both. Does need to die as well. I also said above think on an individual basis if he's not making grade, in whatever the criteria makes him a cull, take him out. I would much rather have too much natural resources for the remain herd. Rather than too little for an entire population, including the low end of every younger age class of bucks.

How many deer, by percentage, of the current population of a free range ranch can you kill? The answer is normally a very low percentage of the overall herd. Therefore, if you want to effect the overall herd numbers you have to do it by reducing the number of breeding does over a long time period.

[El General]

Originally Posted by trophy8

Low fence. 1150 acres. I’ve been on a few different properties that was this way. It’s not uncommon.

Interesting.

What method are y'all using to establish buck to doe ratio?

I have seen a few places that claimed to have way more bucks than does, but that was only based on what they were observing at feeders and didn't bare out when they used sound survey methods.

[trophy8]

Originally Posted by El General

Interesting.

What method are y'all using to establish buck to doe ratio?

I have seen a few places that claimed to have way more bucks than does, but that was only based on what they were observing at feeders and didn't bare out when they used sound survey methods.

Trail cameras on and off feeders. Visual around property day and night. Annual deer surveys.

[sharpstick35]

ive got a 3:1 buck to doe ratio.
well I did before the season anyway, ill have to see how things pan out over the next couple months

[Kdog]

I just started hunting 13 years ago, and it is interesting to see how this conversation has evolved in that time. I think the general movement these days is away from culling.

I love to keep track of deer from year to year. 6.5 plus years plus seems to be where you need to get the deer for peak antlers. But aging those suckers isn’t an exact science. A lot of times deer go downhill too. Sure is fun to go from year to year and have something to look forward too. Whatever pits antlers on your wall and venison in the ice chest. I don’t think there is a “one size fits all.”

[venado]

In the talk that the OP referenced I really liked the biologist, Donnie Traeger's summary re culling for antlers:'"Stop it, just stop it..!!"

[TXDUCKCUTTER]

Originally Posted by Take Dead Aim

Becuase say you have 10 does standing there ready to breed. How many does get breed by the 130, 140 and 150" deer? If you don't have the 130 and 140 they all get breed by the 150. In this example we are talking same age class. I'm not discrediting the podcast or any research being done but I know a 3000 acre low fence place just outside of Brady that has been leased for 25 years and they cull heavily. They also shoot 160 to 170 inch deer regularly. Every few years they shoot a 180 to 190 inch deer. Not saying it's only from culling as they feed protein heavy too but there aren't a bunch smaller deer eating and breeding.

I agree mostly with this as long as you have a healthy balanced herd with plenty of mature Trophy bucks.I guess what a cull is ,is subjective,you'll never convince me taking a 120" 4yr old isn't doing your herd justice if your trying to improve genetics.My skin crawls when a inferior 3yr old is running does though,I don't understand how someone can say a 160"(at any age) wouldnt better your genetics ,not everytime as the doe is 50% but as a whole,in the long run.To many leases doing this and it produces results.