I agree - to me the "safest" way to cull is does - but they are 50% of the equation. Problem is there is no way to distinguish the good does from the bad.

If left up to me the number one priority would be to eliminate mouths to feed - the less mouths the more food for those deer that are left to eat. You put X amount of food on a table and let 20 guys share it or you let 10 guys share it? If there are only 10 guys sharing it they are going to gain wait and nutrition much more than if there are 20 guys sharing. Not rocket science -

The ranch we are on has had steady improvement in horn size over the past 20 years and we cull heavily on bucks and does. The buck culling may have no more impact than the doe culling but at the end of the day your are eliminating competition for food. Proof is in the pudding - so despite all the studies it is hard to argue with success -

Well Said

I agree - to me the "safest" way to cull is does - but they are 50% of the equation. Problem is there is no way to distinguish the good does from the bad.

If left up to me the number one priority would be to eliminate mouths to feed - the less mouths the more food for those deer that are left to eat. You put X amount of food on a table and let 20 guys share it or you let 10 guys share it? If there are only 10 guys sharing it they are going to gain wait and nutrition much more than if there are 20 guys sharing. Not rocket science -

The ranch we are on has had steady improvement in horn size over the past 20 years and we cull heavily on bucks and does. The buck culling may have no more impact than the doe culling but at the end of the day your are eliminating competition for food. Proof is in the pudding - so despite all the studies it is hard to argue with success -

The way I look at it on our place is we are low fence, so at best all our culling is doing is population control.

In a controlled environment or hf property both bucks and does cary genetics for antlers, but the only ones that express what they carry are bucks. So manage both bucks and does for the numbers you want to carry and shoot the older does. As time moves on the does that are born will have more and more of the genes that the bucks your seeing have.

A lot will have to do with CC, if you haven't exceeded it, then culling really isn't doing much.

Our browse isn't protein rich like other areas of the state. You aren't going to magically create a natural habitat that is that way and cutting mouths is not going to free up things that don't exist. It's not a genetics issue, it's a nutritional issue that won't allow genetics to be expressed.

Our browse isn't protein rich like other areas of the state. You aren't going to magically create a natural habitat that is that way and cutting mouths is not going to free up things that don't exist. It's not a genetics issue, it's a nutritional issue that won't allow genetics to be expressed.

Even with the limited nutrition, there is still natural food the deer eat. So if there are fewer deer does that not leave more food available for the survivors? It has to help the overall health of the herd does it not?

Even with the limited nutrition, there is still natural food the deer eat. So if there are fewer deer does that not leave more food available for the survivors? It has to help the overall health of the herd does it not?

...researchers collected 4827 capture records from 3098 individual bucks over a 13-year period. About five percent of the unique bucks captured had a gross Boone and Crockett score above 150, two percent were above 160, and only half a percent scored above 170. Four out of 3098 bucks grossed above 180, two out of 3098 grossed above 190, and only one buck in 13 years involving nearly 5000 capture records gross scored above 200.

“That gives you an idea of how rare those really big native deer are in the wild,” Hellickson told listeners. “In fact, the average gross score of the bucks captured in this study that were 5.5 years or older was 130.”

Even with the limited nutrition, there is still natural food the deer eat. So if there are fewer deer does that not leave more food available for the survivors? It has to help the overall health of the herd does it not?

Yes but that would mean he would have to cull and shoot more than he wants to

If there's excess browse, then no. It's like stocking 20 cows on a place that will naturally hold 100 with no supplements, even during bad times. Will those 20 be any healthier than the 100 or did you just waste opportunity to carry more? This state is pretty large and different regions come with their own perks and set of problems.