Your math is flawed. It's been proven over and over you can't significantly change genetics by culling.

So, you don't know that "improved" is "changed".

Your English is flawed.

And no, you have never "improved" genetics by culling. It is statistically impossible.

another good read that has pros and cons of each side, this one gives suggested scenario's where they suggest culling spikes and not culling in relation to the land you are hunting (hf,lf, big land plots, small plots, etc.)

http://www.tecomate.com/content/index.php/site/comments/spikes_the_debate_continues_part_v/

Does anyone have a link to the King Ranch Study??? I can't seem to find it, all I see are quotes taken from it to support one side of the age old argument. I would like to read it in it's entirety. Thanks!

What do you think about this deer being a "cull" or not? We are on LF with 1100 acres and near Junction.

Keep telling yourself that.

Depends on the rest of your herd, other management practices, ratio, how many bucks you can take, what the other bucks look like, what your end goals are, etc....

Simple answer, yes, that deer would probably die on our ranch.

Thanks for the reply, txhntr. I think we have too many deer, period. We have 6 hunters. We can take a trophy buck (5.5-6.5yr old), axis buck and a cull buck (3.5yr old preferred). I have no idea what our ratio of bucks to does?

I just know we have whitetail and axis deer all over the property. We typically see 20-40 animals each hunt. Typical bucks are in the 120-130" range, but would like to see that bar raised to more 140-150" range. But, I think we need to thin out some of the deer so more of the food and protein is getting to the right animals.

That is the basic idea behind it all, despite the arguing on here about whether it is genetics we are "changing" or just allowing the deer to reach their max genetic potential. Some of us just like to argue

Main factor in my opinion is to determine the ratio of bucks to doe. Most places that are as you describe, the ratio is out of whack and you can lower the number of mouths to feed by taking doe. You can't go by the number you see at a feeder because for the most part, the bucks will take over the feeder and can push the doe out. Not always though.

With 1100 acres, you are going to be dealing with the neighbors deer also. Not much you can do about it, but manage what you have. Areas around Junction are notorious for having too many deer. There are some ranches in that area that produce 150" deer every year, so there is no doubt the genetics are there. For most weekend hunters, it is going to be tough to do what needs to be done to get the numbers and herd where it needs to be and to get all the hunters (and sometimes the LO) on board with the harvest numbers and shooting the "right" deer. Also, being limited by number of tags becomes an issue.

There are a couple of hundred different philosophies, but with only 12 bucks to kill, it sounds like you should look at taking some doe to help bring down the numbers. It is harder than it sounds though, especially with good fawn crops each year. There should be plenty of older bucks if your numbers are that high that need to go first. When a herd is over populated, the body weights will drop on mature deer and it can be difficult to distinguish the older deer from the middle aged deer.

Some will argue with me, but IMO, I wouldn't focus to much on feeding protein until you get the herd and numbers under control. The feed is indiscriminate and with that many mouths to feed, the feed bill to actually see a difference would be significant. Not to say it won't help with holding deer or attracting deer, but you won't see the impact in antlers IME.

Good luck

You use the word significantly., never said it will significantly change.

And who has proven it kroll? LOL. That study doesn't prove anything he missed the most important thing, time. He culls for a few years and then he claims nothing improved,, well of course not, since the culled generations aren't still matured. And it has to be done for years to see a change.

I can see math and statistics are not your thing.

If you're seeing 20-40 animals on each stand per hunt and you are on only 1100 acres you have too many deer. I'm thinking this has a lot to do with the 130" average mature buck. Although it's fun to see that many deer, I would guess that competition for food could be pretty high. Either way it sounds like a fun place to hunt, I consider my ranch to be pretty good and on the best day this year I saw five bucks and three does. I did harvest a 155 5/8 this year during bow season (low fence 800 acres with a fair amount of hunting pressure from neighbors). Sometimes I see no deer, but I would say on my average 3-4 hour sit I see 2-3 deer. From what I've gathered from 8 trail cams running year round for the last 3 years, I think our buck to doe ratio is about 1 to 1. So, if I saw that deer on the land I hunt no, I would not cull it, but it sounds like you have a pretty extreme case of overpopulation and in your case I would probably shoot that deer, but not to improve genetics in anyway but more to simply control the population. And you can't just shoot all does to get your population down or your ratio will get way out of wack, so he may become a casualty of the situation. Especially if you are in an AR county and can't control the herd by taking the inbetweener bucks. Just my thoughts, but it definitely sounds like a fun place to hunt!