But right now the question is mono or fluorocarbon.

Braid.. so they can feel the power and I soak croaker

Saltwater dries the heck out of braid...

Fluoro

This is like the chicken or the egg argument of deer. If you don't have the genetics to grow big horns, doesn't matter what you feed them...... If you don't have the forage on the property to the extreme some are taking their argument, then it doesnt matter if it escaped from Maxbos breed pen, it's going to die from starvation. I don't think they have figured out how to alter the deers genetics where it doesn't have to eat.

Here's the importance I would place on the aspects of management.

1) age structure (assuming this property is not the Sahara desert and has something for the animal to eat) Let the bucks get older to see if their needs to be an introduction of welfare feeding. The natural forage on the property might be enough.
2) numbers of animals - get a clue of what the CC of the land is. If the population is too much, start killing animals before Mother Nature does it for
you. this could help out the nutritional value of the land greatly.
3) start introducing supplemental feeding, so that the land is capable of carrying the amount of deer you want to see while hunting, while maintaining a healthy herd.
4) start culling the deer you don't want to see for the next 15 years, assuming the property is good size. 1,000+ acres I would guess
5) high fence the place, so the neighbor doesn't screw up all the work you just did.

No the real question is bar-ditch or bay?

Ding Ding.

genetics will always be the trump card.

nutrition is very important though

That's because you have naturally consistent nutrition where you are... much more than people down south.

This debate really depends on where you are standing and what you are talking about...

Are we including all scenarios... including line bred deer in a breeding operation or are we talking strictly non manipulated baseline genetics?

Nutrition is going to give you about a 15% baseline bell curve shift from the norm if genetics stay the same...

A herd with better genetics may or may not be 15% bigger than the native herd if no extra nutrition is granted them... hell they may not even be able to LIVE...

It's a tricky question... usually people stack genetics on TOP of nutrition and say that genetics are more important... you can't really do that if you are an apples to apples type guy...

You always hit the bar ditch first for your croaker, mullet, piggy perch needs.

Cheater I only use artificials

Not sure where this one can go any further. Safe to say, they are interdependent. Genetics is enhanced by supplemental nutritional feeding. A deer cannot meet it fullest genetic disposition without proper nutrition as well as getting to its maximum potential growth age, probably 6-7 years old..Can we put a stake in this one?

My name is Ryan Mitchell and I say nutrition all the way. No doubt about it. No brainer

Believe what you wish, but there are two things that I have learned from my experience. No matter how hard you try or what your buddy's tell you (1) You can't turn an inferior buck into a trophy....(2) You can't turn a ho into a housewife. That's just the way it is

And you know this how?

You don't ever learn that lesson until you have tried it yourself...I won't say how I figured that out

Like I said....from experience sir.

If you feed GMO corn then you have better genetics and nutrition all at once.

Though I have more to say, I will stop now.

Cause you'll never get them off the (buck) crack.

I let one loose in the house once, just to see what would happen...figured out quick that I didn't want to add the wife part to it

Whooooo!

Nutrition, I can afford protein, food plots, feeders, supplements better than I can afford genetics. But since this is a wishlist question leaving cost out I would still go with nutrition and let nature take its course, I enjoy the work, helping the deer out year round, and the harvest is much more rewarding. Hope I didnt go off on a pig trail again...gotta learn to stick with the topic better.

So, nutrition and genetics are both behind... age? How do they atain age without nutrition?

If you go to extremes with the age and nutition you have fat healthy old does on one side with good nutrition and zero antler genetics or dead deer on the other weith great genetics that starved to death.

What good are genetics if they starve or get shot at .5? With extremely poor nutrition and no deer living past 1.5, you won't know anything about genetic potential.

Yeah I know, but zero genetics would be deer living on a hi fenced concrete slab in the middle of an open field. No browse no food. Given naturaly available food and better than average genetics or better than average nutrition and average or less than average genetics I think I would take the genetics and average nutrition, but Im sure and argument can will and has been made for both sides.

matt