Again, great discussion. Agree with most of what has been said so far. There is the ideal, and there is the pratical, and there is the possible. Every ranch has to make the decisions of what would best for them given their own constraints. I don’t believe there is any correct answer for anyone, and the “correct answer” may shift over time given real life. Still fun to talk about.

You said that with so many fewer words. I just cant do that. Ideal, practical, possible--I like that.

It took reading yours and STX’s posts to get to that. Not sure that is the best way to say it, but it makes sense when using your Goldilocks analogy .

The 5700 acre pasture/ranch hunters had no idea how many deer they had or had they ever done a survey. They were feeding protein using Lamco timered feeders. Regulating how much they fed. They were of the mind set they did not have to many deer but were disappointed in their results after quite a few years of limited harvest and feed. Doing the first blind counts opened their eyes to what part of their issue was...more deer than they thought they had. When they added up their fawn numbers alone and I mentioned that is how many deer they needed to shoot just to keep the current population the same, they about fell over. They had to clear anything with the LO but he was on board after they explained what they wanted to do. Killing spikes was just a way to pull deer numbers down with the tight buck to doe ratio and to many deer. Easy for them to put a friend alone in a blind and tell him to shoot a doe or a spike. You put a guest in a blind and tell him to shoot a 2.5 yr old 7 pt and 99%(back in the late 90's) of the time they will kill the first 7pt 1.5 yr old that steps out. Were deer numbers the issue? Absolutely they were...but in this lease situation the LO would have never agreed to them pulling that many deer off by only killing mature bucks. No one frets over a spike for removing buck numbers when you have the ratio and to many deer.
The second ranch was basically the same but that situation was a bit different. They owned the land and leased the pasture they added to it. They managed all of it the same plus fed protein on it. No survey but just shoot a few deer and feed as much protein as they could(year round). They did not believe the numbers of deer they had till the survey was done. We killed 175 deer the first year, 185 the next year and then 98 IIRC the last year. The first year there were only 2 7+ yr old bucks killed over 150 by guests. There were about 30 bucks killed that were 5+ and scored under 130. The same was done the next 2 yrs. (I left after 3 yrs).That brought the population down dramatically but still not in-line with where they should be for that habitat. It was a step in the right direction. The genetics were there in that herd but it had been top graded for years. Low end bucks were left to die of old age or eventually get shot after being involved in the breeding herd for way to many years. Not nearly enough does were shot for the amount of feed fed...that feed caused high fawn crops even in drought years. They never killed enough deer to cover their recruitment rate. Just add more feeders and feed more.....bandaid type approach. This ranch was part of what was once a very large acre ranch that had produced numbers of high scoring deer by the lease hunters. The lease hunters goals were to kill a 160+ buck each year...in the end they were killed some top end younger bucks when they could not find a mature buck that fit that class. Were deer numbers the issue on this ranch? Absolutely they were a major part of the issue but the top grading was even as bad of an issue. Today with the management they have in place they have more feeders, improved the habitat, culled and pulled a lot of deer off and have one of the top deer herds I have seen. The amount of deer over 160 are amazing and the amount of deer over 180 is overly as impressive. Today they shoot cull/management bucks that most would consider trophies. 99.9% of the 2 yr old bucks will have had 6 points or more as yearling to have lived to see 2.5 yrs old. They cull as many of the bucks they can before the rut so the top end deer of every age class get very little pressure put on them and they get a chance to breed.
The third ranch had a long term management plan in place. They started a new program with the new biologist...he was aggressive and progressive. His survey the first year showed deer per acres numbers ranging from a deer to 9 acres in a pasture to a deer to 35 acres in another pasture...IIRC the average over the whole ranch was a deer to 20 acres. Some of the habitat would not support a deer to 35 acres. This is a very large ranch so they had habitat ranges from one area to another. Some the habitat issues were man made and were going to take time to correct. The biologist had intensively shot spikes and culls/management bucks on the ranch managed prior to this one. The result were impressive back then for the early 90's.
So to answer your question...the short term fix was killing off mouths. They were successful in doing that and it showed quickly. The long term improvements can be attributed to long term goals and sticking to their management plans. Their management practices(culling in particular) are being upgraded every few years. The results have been more impressive the last 3 yrs than you would believe.
For smaller landowners this is not feasible since they do not have the resources to do that and just don't control enough acres to see any kind of improvement. Then you factor in AR restrictions and it now is very difficult to get enough deer off the habitat with a good buck to doe ratio. My little place is an example of this. I have limited my buck harvest to only 7 bucks (all mature) with two yrs killing 2 per year and several years not killing any bucks since 2012. I was the only one shooting does around my place during that same period and the population showed that. With MLD (on does only) I was able to pull off 29 does in that 8 yr period. It would be scary to see how many deer would be on my place if I had not done that. Taking off those does alone tightened the buck to doe ratio up tremendously with it being 1 to 1 or even more bucks than does for a few years in a row now. One year I counted up 49 bucks I had seen on camera or in person from Sept till Jan...41 or 42 those bucks had made the season. With my limited harvest on bucks it created a problem on the overall numbers side. Luckily low fawn numbers the last few years are helping on that end. I am hoping that by shooting does every year and low fawn crops that eventually they the buck numbers will come down to a better level.

The answer is "it depends" IME it is different on every property, even with a fence line separating the places. A lot will depend on the habitat, their rainfall averages, the deer numbers, the age structure of the herd, the hunting pressure around their lease, the length of their lease, will the lease hunters shoot or pass on the deer required, will the lease hunters take chances by letting the right deer walk another year, etc. Culling or shooting management bucks is not really doing much on a smaller place...shooting only mature bucks is a great start as long as it is done at the correct amount based off of the surveys each year. Shooting to many of the wrong deer can be an issue on smaller acreages. Smaller acreage lease are not so much about managing the deer as it is about managing the hunters. Not putting X amount of hunters on Y acreage.....it should be about putting X amount of hunters per Y amount of bucks. Getting X amount of hunters all on the same page with one goal in mind is a feat in itself. Not many leases can do that to attain their goals. More importantly many leases do not want to do that..they just want to shoot deer and have a great time outdoors. Nothing wrong with either lease group. My

Obviously you have not been on any of those 3 ranches.

Yes that makes sense. And I get your strategy for your place too. I wish Oklahoma (where my place is) offered me an option to take more doe, but their DMAPS program requires more land than I currently have access. I have the real possibility of joining a lease in OK that has real trophy potential and will need some doe removed, and that will further limit my ability to take doe off my place. Conundrums. But not great for management unless I can convince my son to actually fire his bow at something this year. I am sure I could get some friends to shoot some doe on my place too...

I can’t help you need cheaters.

You need a thermal drone

IMO, for management on smaller places you need to concentrate on the things you can control. Get a handle on what the deer numbers are on our place/lease and what they county average is for your area. If deer numbers are to high then work on the doe numbers with the tags you have....even if it is 2 does per year it will add up over time. In 5 yrs that is 10 less doe mouths and their fawn(s) crops over that period which can make the number much greater. Fewer does can raise just as many if not more fawns per year. If you can I would address the water issue if you are in an area that is lacking water> This can create more deer activity on your place/lease over time. For me this is a biggie,..in heavily hunted areas address the amount of pressure that you put on the place/lease in all the seasons. Make the best suited area of the ranch a bedding sanctuary that is not traveled into. These are all things I have done on my little place in the last 8 yrs now.

Albeit on a larger place, our problem isn't from hunters taking too many deer, but from hunters not taking their portion and especially the antlerless goal. What is it about horns?

Know of an interesting program where doe numbers were provided and hunters were successful The next year, the number was higher and the hunters were successful. The next year, the antlerless tally included fawns at the rate of 20%. The fourth year, the fawn % was increased to 40%. Numbers, buck/doe ratio and then you can start "sifting" out undesirable characteristics.

Good info as always. There have been numerous discussions and debates on this (and other forums) over the years about leases costing too much, having too many or not enough rules, numbers of guest, etc. I have always stated that hunters need to match their style and wishes with the lease they are joining. If you primarily want meat and the hunting experience for you, family, and friends then that type of lease is common place. If you primarily enjoy the management aspect and want to work to grow bucks to their full potential and your goal is to take a trophy end buck then there those leases are out there. Problems arise when a hunter who wants and expects one thing joins a lease that is set up with different goals than theirs.

Having been in charge of a large, LF ranch for many years, IMO the number one quotient for success is getting the right members to join. You can have rules and management programs in place all day long but if a hunter is not willing to abide by them then it simply will not work.

So in our case our LO and my job is to make sure any potential members are given full information up front as to how the ranch is operated and what is expected of each member. Finding folks who are willing to be patient with what they shoot while paying out lots of $$ is not easy but can be done. Just takes a lot of up front effort.

Again, matching the right hunters with the right lease/ranch is where it begins.

IMO management or "cull bucks" are both very broad terms. What I would consider a buck under those terms on my property would be completely different than what someone else on their property. Some like just seeing a lot of bucks whereas I like seeing the right buck(s). Some areas a goal of 130 class bucks every year is realistic whereas a 150 class buck every year is not realistic. Others places have a goal of multiple 160+ every year and it is very attainable. There are larger ranches across the state that have the genetics to get 160+ deer every year and fall short for a number of reason IMO. How you get a place to your goal is where the major differences begin. Almost everyone's place where they allow bucks to get old will have some of the type of bucks they are looking for. Differences arise in management plans for the bucks but the end goal is the same. One issue then becomes if they get to that goal what do they do to control numbers? That is where the serious management begins and sometimes the arguments start. Like tlk posted you need one good leader that can take input from the masses but has the final say.
Years ago I liked to get the deer population to the correct numbers for the acreage, buck to doe ratio addressed as quickly as I could, work on habitat/nutrition, then start to work on taking the lower end bucks and finally start to take trophy bucks after a 4-5 yrs. What I learned 30 yrs ago was that in some habitats deer numbers have a way of multiplying very rapidly with number reduction. When shooting only does very early you could increase buck numbers rapidly and you filled up your buck numbers with very young age classes. You had your buck to doe ratio where you wanted it and your carrying capacity where you wanted it but lack mature buck numbers. To keep your numbers where you wanted them you had to make room for the new fawn crop numbers every year. To do this there was no choice but to shoot the lower end of those younger age class bucks. This was done just to keep your numbers where you wanted and to try to get the older age classes of bucks filled in. Early on by allowing buck numbers to grow for 3 or 4 yrs I soon learned that if I did not like him at 4 or 5 yrs of age, there was very high chance I did not like him at 1 or 2 yrs of age. Not every deer has the genetics to be the class of deer your are looking for. If I have the tags and resources, now I will shoot the lower end bucks the first year and every year after. In the end it was a deer number and it was a mouth off the habitat. This came from watching 100's of bucks for years on TC or from visual sightings.
Genetics on a ranch and what those genetics can show play a major part of decisions. Those genetics can vary greatly across a county and region. Expectations sometimes have to be adjusted after a few years hunting a place. Record keeping and history play a major role in your decisions on a place if your are serious about deer management. Past history is important if it is available. Looking at deer killed off a place 20, 30 or even 70 yrs ago is important from a genetics and goals/expectations standpoint.
One thing that many do not consider is the amount of hunting pressure you can put on a ranch/lease to attain your management goals. How the pressure, when it is applied and how much hunting pressure is applied will effect the every ranch/lease differently. You go from 0 to 60 in one month of hunting on a place that has not had much hunting pressure and negatively effect it long term. Stress on a deer herd is not good.

We cannot take bucks until 3 1/2 and then they have to have less than 8 points. At 4 1/2, all 8 pointers can be on the table. Even so, we have come to find if ugly when young, likely ugly when older.

WOW!!! All I did was sleep a few hours and I come back and theres more deer management information on this thread than any book ive ever read on the subject. Lots of good contributors on here but STx continues to blow me away. Its remarkable his knowledge but the fact that he is willing to spend so much of his time sharing it is fantastic and very unigue. I hope all yall realize how lucky we are to have that kind of source. Hes not gettting paid nearly enough!!! I dont want to short change any others out there that may know as much as STx, but if you are out there I think its safe to say that you are not sharing your insights at nearly the level he does. At some point I may go back through and try to address some of his points as well as others but theres just too much to get my head around right now.
Back to topic. Even given all of STx information I hope its clear that he still shares some of my thoughts as well as tlk and TxBuck and others that there are many situations that culling should not or cannot be addressed. Deer management is similar to a vehicle that has many parts and it takes a wide assortment of tools to get it going and keep it going.

One thing that studies have shown is taking that one buck doesn’t affect the deer herd anymore than not taking him. Meaning, the genetics of the herd are not negatively or positively affected by taking a single (or couple) buck. When you talk about high grading or low grading the herd, then you are talking modification of the herd, but for the majority simply removing deer means removing mouths. In that case it can be a ugly deer or a good deer, it’s just reducing a mouth. When you talk actually taking numbers, then you have to be selective because you could shoot all the good ones and leave the bad ones (high grading) or just shoot too many and have none left for the next year or two. It is a deliberate act, not just random shooting.

Again, for the vast majority of hunters this is not really applicable, just removing doe and mouths to feed and trying to keep overall numbers down to increase nutrition for the remaining deer

Absolutely great stuff within this entire thread but bolded above to me says it all.
What is a management or even a cull buck on some places could very well be the best buck on other places!
There are LF ranches/pastures where they literally consider up to 170" deer management deer and 140" deer culls. Now granted those kinds of places are far and few between but they do exist.
When we talk about those types of 'upper end' places the shoot/don't shoot standards are going to be quite a bit different than a place that is in it's 2nd or 3rd year of management!

Each place is certainly different and must be managed accordingly with someone very knowledgeable leading that charge....such as stxranchman!

Hell, if I'd have culled every 8 point or less mainframe buck on my little place 8 or 9 years ago we'd have only had one buck left around! lmao

In the hill country, (Comal county) where my FILs lease is, a 2.5 year old with no brows gets shot. No questions. Up here in North central Texas our deer population is lower and we have better nutrition. I'm not interested in just shooting a buck just because I can. I'd probably let him walk.

If your lease has a bunch on them as you say, why not start with shooting the oldest one's first? Try to kill the mature 4.5-5.5 yr olds.

Taking culls and management bucks does not "change the genetics" on any ranch. What is does do, IMO, is limits the number of bucks that show their poor genetics from breeding. Does provide one half of the genetics and of course there is no way to "judge" the genetics of a doe. But the OTHER 50% (bucks breeding those doe) can be limited.

So in our situation we cull a ton of does most years to keep the numbers in line. Then we provide supplemental feed coupled with our natural browse (which is amazingly diverse and plentiful). Then we shoot any buck that does not show potential - if left alone nature will produce straight 8 pointers all day long. Our deer have multiple kickers, splits, wide, narrow, mass, and points that it makes zero sense to let a 3-4 year old basic 8 point walk. All I know to go by is our results over many years - so at the end of the day we ain't changing nothing!

I started a thread about me and a long time commitment to improving my Ibex. It has worked but it has taken quite a few years. First off you have to have the right genetics to start. I did not and had to purchase a male that did. Same would go with WT. Your best Buck you have on the entire place may not have what you are trying to manage for. What do you do then? Every year I remove the oldest Females. If a certain amount of females are born I remove that amount of the oldest females. That way the young ones have more of the traits I am looking for. Again can you do that with WT? You could but chances are you won't. Every 3 years I purchased a new pure bred male and removed the older one. Again it would be hard to do this with WT. So as not to draw this out. Unless you have something to start with. Unless you will be committed to actually working at a plan. Unless you are HF or have a very large LF acreage you may have a tough time meeting you goals. And another thing. And this is just my own beliefs. The AR's that have been started are in the long run going to change the antler type in those areas. You keep letting less than 13" wide antlered bucks breed the does and what do you thing the long term result will be?

To those that cull a bunch - What do you do with all that meat??

I've asked around out here and the area food banks don't do that much. I know Hunters for the Hungry and Woodburys in Kerrville is still a donation site, but at $30.00 a pop, if you need to take off 20+ it adds up real quick. Plus Kerrville is still a ways. I have a walk-in cooler, so that reduces the urgency of the process, but I'm trying to figure out how to help some people and not waste meat. I'm talking to a local pastor, and we may be able to get something going, but I'm curious what others do.

Made five deer into sausage and sent one to Hunters for the Hungry. Recently learned about a church on 3009 that processes deer into hamburger to serve the indigent.

There are many individuals here who will ask for and take gutted does. There ae others who want the meat (buck or doe) for tamales.

The Pitchfork offers doe hunts to youth groups each year......

Game wardens will come get our deer and donate them to needy families. Our rancher also takes some and donates to folks

^^^I think this is fairly common or would/could be if you just make some phone calls and establish some relationships.
I well remember when the MLD program first started. I was on the Executive Committee of TWA in the late 80s early 90s and we had lots of heated discussions about rather to approve the original MLD program. Besides a potential loss of hunter opportunity, one of the concerns was that landowners would pay "hired guns"/ranch hands to just mow down the needed numbers of deer and just have the meat wasted. I dont think that ever happened much if at all but I remember it being a concern. I feel like the type of person that controls a large enough property to need to kill large numbers would be the same type person to do whats right with the meat.