STX, don’t know for sure. This study relied on netting bucks and studying just the buck side. They didn’t look at the doe component at all. Probably due to cost involved but also because buck genetics can not be measured in doe.

I don’t know all the details of the study to comment about, but the article stated they netted bucks and used culling criteria to either let live or kill. Strict, moderate and no culling methods were followed on three separate but “environmentally equal” portions of the ranch. They also looked at dna and father-son phenotype/culling survival and determined a specific breeding value for each buck which roughly correlated with having the biggest sons sired. I don’t know which branch of the culling study the highest value buck was, but he couldn’t have been in the strict management side because he would have been killed being just a 123” (criteria were 145” or better after 4yo).

I almost put exactly your thoughts in my post above about this, that his maternal genetics must have some serious weight on his genotype passes along, and that is something many breeding facilities know about, but with no way to control breeding in the wild, it is a lost cause for most of us. But doe genetics play at least half the role in buck genetics, so that is huge and a big part of the reason culling for genetic manipulation will not work in a low fence wild population.

I have been managing Ibex for over 25 years. I started out with a couple of male mostly Persian type. They came through the sheep and goat auction in Uvalde. Someone did not know what they had and were gotten at a very reasonable price. I started breeding them to Spanish nannies that had features close to Ibex. Every years I would sell the older ones and keep the offspring. After 15 years I had some reasonable looking Persian type Ibex. Ten years ago I saw the writing on the wall that the trend was toward Nubian Ibex. I bought a pure Nubian male. I bred him to my females for 3 years. I sold the females that did not have the look. I had bought another pure male Nubian. Sold the older one and used the new one for 3 years. Each year sell off the older females and keeping the rest. This year I am on the forth pure Nubian male breeding the females. Still selling off the older females and keeping the rest. It has taken me this long to pretty much get to where I have some really good looking Nubian Ibex. Doing the same thing with WT especially on a LF would seem to me to be darn near impossible.

Exactly!! We do not know the genetic potential of our doe herd and think that we are doing something by shooting cull bucks. I also see the value in a herd management situation, but to assume your effecting the genetics of the herd is flawed.

As long as they taste good.

I can point to two ranches that have run extremely aggressive management programs for three decades on one and five decades on the other and both have exceptional deer and not too many on the dud end of the scale. One ranch had never had a single B&C deer. After 25 years of extremely aggressive management practices, the ranch put the first deer in the B&C book followed by eleven more over the next ten years. That is not just a coincidence.

One other ranch I have personal knowledge of that used by be leased by poster rtp here had a genetic that produced long-tined six point deer that he referred to as "tuning forks." They shot ever single tuning fork deer on sight. After ten years, they had become very rare in the herd.

I always respect STX comments and Texas Buckeye appears to really be hitting it right on the head IMO. Ive been super busy a couple months and no let up in sight now that the season is on us so I haven't been following along on forum much for awhile. This discussion definitely needs to be discussed in the offseason.
For now ill keep it brief and just say that I was at the TWA Convention this year when Donnie Draeger gave his presentation on this study. I think that was the first and hes been going around presenting it elsewhere. I haven't had time to read the QDMA article so im not sure how it mirrors the actual presentation. I do have the audio copy of his TWA presentation and I believe you can still order that from them. I talked to some biologists friends after his presentation and they all said the same thing and that is that they already knew you cant manipulate genetics in wild deer. Most agree this study, since it involved actually taking DNA and tracking it forward, was pretty much the best of its kind. Draeger wrapped up his presentation by saying that a lot of very respected Ranches(lots of em were in the room) cull inferior antlered bucks. His thoughts on why they have successful herds is mostly not because of any genetic altering but instead its ALL THE OTHER management practices that quality Ranches incorporate. IMO, as others have said, is if you need to kill numbers of bucks for overall herd/numbers management then by all means kill the lessor horned bucks but I don't think you can do much if any to alter the future genetics. My 2cents.
Well one more thing. Texas Buckeye mentioned the real sorry horned deer sired the best bucks but the study ALSO showed that one of the top(170ish or more) sired some of the sorriest bucks. Once again all this was concluded by capturing deer every year and verifying actual DNA.

Ranchers don't put herd bulls in the freezer.

We have 3 generations (at least) of identical 3x4 antlered deer, granpa, dad, now lad.... it is clearly not a good trait. We need to go MLD and thin some, but in a one buck county, so no one wastes tag on them early, and late they are hard to find

Why would you NOT cull a buck with no brow tines??? Is that a genetic you would like to continue in the over all herd?

Snake, because the brow tine trait may be carried in the doe side, and culling a buck with small or nonexistent brows may not make any difference at all. Even if the brow tone trait is carried by the buck, do you have enough tags and are you willing to shoot every buck that has the trait in order to try and eliminate them from the herd? What if they throw some doe offspring, how are you going to determine which doe have that genetic trait? Gonna shoot all the doe too?

As mentioned above, it is impossible to manipulate genetic genotype or phenotype in the wild.

For me the answer is:

1)It does nothing to effect the genetic pool in ridding the trait from the herd (see study); and
2)I’m not wasting my one buck tag on a deer I don’t want to take - especially when I’m not accomplishing anything.

I have seen what culling/intensive management can do for a deer herd both on LF and HF. This type of management is not a quick fix or short term only process. I takes time and most will not give enough time to see it work. It takes resources, long-term management goals, a dedicated landowner, intestinal fortitude to continue on a hard core process and most of TIME. You can't try to change the look of the herd in a year or two. You have to work on the numbers, ratio, habitat/nutrition, etc while "culling" at the same time. It is not about what you keep but what you get rid that makes a difference over time. You have to cull out what you don't want for a number of years to get into the years where the offspring are now old enough to start to see the results. It may take 7 to 10 yrs to see mature deer that the genetics in that area can produce.

I have seen a large LF ranch start a culling process back in the late 90's. This ranch had not produced hardly any(if any) net book B&C deer up to that time.Today after 22+ yrs of "culling the whole herd" they kill net book deer every year and have for the past 17 yrs. That result did not happen over night it took time. They started out culling spikes and then the lower end of every age class 22 yrs ago. Back 22+ yrs ago 2 yr olds needed to be 8pts and 3 yrs old score over 120. A few years ago they have raised the bar on 2 yr olds to a score minimum of 120 IIRC and 3 yr olds need to be 140+ gross and 4 yr olds 160+ gross. They still cull 1.5 yr old bucks. They try to take top end trophy bucks at 7 or older age. I had another friend that worked on this ranch for one year during the deer season about 10 yrs ago and said it was really amazing to see the overall herd quality...with the amazing number of bucks over 160 of all ages not just mature bucks.

I have seen the same "culling the whole herd" work on a large HF ranch with native genetics that was once part of a very large LF ranch. The large ranch was known for producing net book deer in the past. After 10+ yrs of top grading the bucks and killing top end young bucks by lease hunters on the large LF ranch, you could not find a deer that grossed over 180 on these pastures out of the main ranch. It took 7 more years of "culling the whole herd" to see their first 200" gross deer from the native genetics. They started out culling 1.5 yr old spikes and 3 pts and then bottom end of all age classes for the first 7 yrs. About 8-9 yrs ago they started a much stricter culling program on bucks and does. They raised the culling bar to 4 pts or less on 1.5 yr old, 2 yr olds needed to be 8 good points and 3 yr olds needed to be 140+ and 4 yr olds 150+ and 5+yr olds to 160+. About 3 yrs ago now they intensified the culling even more. Still shoot 5pts or less on 1.5 yr olds, 2 yr olds that have under 5x5 are culled, 3 yr olds now need to be 5x5 or better frame and gross 160 or better(will keep a wide or very tall tined mid to upper 150's clean typical) and 4 yr old or older bucks need to gross 180 or better.

Both of these ranches I gave as examples put a strong long term management plan in place. They gave their plan enough time to work, tweaked their plans after 7 or more years to continue to improve on the success they had seen. Both ranches used their native genetics. Both are seeing the real genetic potential of the deer herds. Both are producing higher scorer bucks than they have ever had and are producing them in numbers that were thought to not be possible 15 to 20 yrs ago. The quality of the younger bucks is where the overall management plan is showing the best results today.

I have also seen LF and HF ranches fail with culling due to not addressing other major issues first. They think that feeding and culling are the quick fix for other issues not addressed. It takes resources and serious long term commitment for it to work properly. You are not changing genetics but you are allowing the genetic potential to fully be realized and expressed over a long period time. It is not going to happen in 3 or 4 yrs, more like 10+ yrs till you see the real results of the long term commitment. Most of those that fail only think of "culling" the bucks and not addressing the doe side of the genetics. What does you keep or cull depends on a lot of factors IMO.The does are a major part of the genetics that you can't see but know they are very important in successful long term management plan. What age does to keep or when to shoot is important and needs to be based off a ranch by ranch basis IMO. How quickly you turn the doe herd over is important. Just like what bucks to keep or shoot is based off of a ranch by ranch basis and what the goals of the landowner are.

Culling and intensive management is not something for every landowner due to resources and work involved. It takes time and the resources to get it done but I have seen it work for those that are committed. The look of the herds that are culled intensively every year and continue intensive culling are noticeably better today than when they started many years ago. It is not what bucks you keep but what bucks you shoot that makes a difference over time.

Good post STX, and I think anyone would agree with what you wrote. Culling as a part of a management plan will work but takes time, money, people, and resources. As you mentioned should aren’t doing this to change the genetic make up of the herd, you are doing this to allow the full expression of the genetics.

With all due respect, saying culling doesn’t change the genetic makeup but does allow “full expression of the genetics” doesn’t make sense to me. No offense, but it just sounds like doubletalk. It sounds like just another way to say it does work. Perhaps I am just not understanding-that is a real possibility for sure.

There are now at least 2 major long-term studies (one using indisputable DNA evidence) that “culling” (attempting to alter/kill off bad genetics over time) does not work. Period. The gene pool for the desired traits are not affected. In fact, with intense “culling” a host of other negative effects take place.

Yes, intensely managed ranches tend to do better over time - but it’s the buck/does balancing, nutrition and habitat practices allowing “full expression of the genetics” - not selective shooting for bigger antlers. That’s appears to be the state of the science. Everything else is just anectdotal.

I know this is not my area of expertise, but I can read the data and conclusions.

What am I missing?

NP, genetic changes vs genetic expression are two totally different things.

Example in some people so it isn’t as muddy:
A couple have kids that aren’t very strong, and they don’t work out or have good nutrition so they remain somewhat weak their whole lives. Those kids have kids and have essentially the same dna from the parents but some different from other dna lines. If the other dna lines are essentially the same body build and have the same habits as the original parent lines, they too will remain relatively weak thru life.

However, let’s assume one of the families decided to eat well, get plenty of exercise, and works hard to get healthier and stronger. These folks would exhibit different physical traits than the rest of their extended family, yet they have the same essential genetic make up.

This is the difference between genotype (genetic makeup) vs genetic phenotype (how those genes are expressed physically). Culling for herd management, ratios, and reducing to CC are the same as a lazy family vs the fit in shape family. They will look different although the genes are the same.

This example also shows that genes in some deer will have the same play they do in human families. We all see exceptions to the norm, and we see that in deer too. Some deer will be specimens just like you can have some humans that are specimens in the midst of mediocre humans.

Very different from dna changes or manipulations, it is just allowing genes to fully express

Most breeders don’t sell buck fawns for reasonable prices. They don’t breed low quality genetics and most wait until they are 3 to see what they have. Obviously they will sell any deer but they don’t tend to let go of buck fawns cheap.

Problem is your herd Bull is equivalent to a pedigreed breeder buck. The huge LF buck you see is as hize 57 as the gene pool that produced him, and a no brow 6 and a 2 year old spike.

I understand that. I also understand the science seems to prove “culling” based on antler size doesn’t affect that “expression”. Population control, balanced sex ratios, better habitat and better nutrition do - but not shooting for antler size.

If culling doesn't impact the genetics of free range wild game, what's the reason for being against it? There's no logic is being against something that has no impact.

IMO, the need to keep deer numbers in check has been used for decades to push hidden agendas. Buy a license and harvest what the law allows and ignore the needless debates between those who try to deny caring more for antlers than meat.

IMO, when culling bucks, my belief is that you should target the old, mature bucks that are at their prime, or past prime (6.5 for whitetails, 7.5 for mule deer). I believe bucks younger than this are better left alone. As far as culling WT does to mange overpopulation......I'm all for it. My buddy let me "cull" 26 does last year on his MLD place. Hunters for the Hungry was elated.

All about tags and numbers. If you have a place and are trying to adjust deer genetics using only one or two buck tags, it is a waste of tags. Taking doe is fine to reduce mouths to feed, but for limited one buck counties, just shoot what you want. That’s the point. It isn’t that anything is wrong shooting what you want, just as long as you are aware of what shooting what you want will do to the deer herd long term and making sure it aligns with your goals. Most folks want big antlers. Some want meet. Some just want to shoot stuff. Everyone is different.

The discussion hinges on whether culling affects long term genetics in the deer herd, and in the grand scheme of things, you are better off trying to manage the deer herd than change the deer herd.


Shoot away man!

It’s not a moral issue.

But if some have deer “management” as a goal, I simply think having the latest, most accurate management science is better than not having it and spinning your wheels.

Me personally - I have always abhorred all the “cull buck” and “culling” talk. IMO it cheapens the animal and, by extension, cheapens the endeavors of those who see animals as “culls” or “trash bucks” or any number of terms you see thrown around. But that’s just me. I get many don’t see it that way. And as long as the meat is used, it’s not a real issue.

I agree. Hunters will often use the term "cull buck" to identify some deer with a rack that others might see as not good enough for harvest. Personally, I'll never judge anyone who takes a legal deer more for the meal it provides than the size of its rack. After all, they are followers of the most valid reason for being in the woods.

I think some make this too complicated.

Bucks - shoot out the ugly and what is left is pretty. Does not work overnight, but has worked over time. Don't take the best management buck, take out the ugliest cull buck - it's really that simple. Our cameras help bunches here. Everyone knows what a trophy is and there are few mistakes there. The cameras help us to determine what needs to go. We don't shoot spikes and begin our culling criteria at 3 1/2. That age was set by the owner, is not in our jurisdiction and just something we have to work with.

Does - shoot the one that is in front of you. Always get 'em early and always get your numbers.

Started on the place 12 years ago or so. 140 was a trophy. Very few 150' were taken before we got there. We did have some work to do. 5 1/2 and up to 150 can now be a cull and regardless of the number of points. Everyone on pretty much the same page (yes, some did have to learn). Not everyone is able to get a trophy each year, that just isn't going to happen. Three in a year is a great year. I have been blessed with four. Six years into it, I was blessed with my trophy of a life time. The very next year, one of the guys took the highest scoring typical in the South TX Low Fence Division of the TX Big Game Awards. The prettiest deer taken was the next year and he didn't score what mine or the other guy's did. It's been pretty good ever since. Last week's fly over was met with lots of "Oh my's". Deer with broad backs not on camera and a buck doe ratio of 1.5 to 1.

The belief here is that culling from the bottom up is the most effective. Too many want or insist on a trophy and then the next best trophy buck to call a management deer. We don't have much left in the ugly category. Just sent out photos this AM to neighboring hunters on lease to get on same page with needed management bucks to take.

One mans trash is another mans treasure. Enjoy your time in the woods and your harvest. We have only so many seasons...

And that is something on which we can all agree.