Cull Bucks

[Steve Bartylla]

Btaylor, I'm afraid I don't see myself as being qualified to address resetting genetics based on doe removal. I've somewhat recently heard theories that if one has the best possible range and wipes out a large % of deer that the genetics of those that replace them are better than the genetics of the ones removed. I just can't pretend that I've connected those dots. In fact, when an EDH & BT combo wipes the properties I've managed (no different than shooting a bunch of deer, is it?), it seems the replacements are actually not as good as the standing stock it's replacing was. That said, one can also argue that's because I'd actively worked on shaping the standing stock. Still, there's just not the stud 2.5s & 3.5s that make your jaws drop and a lot of "iky" young bucks. Long way of saying, I haven't seen that, but don't pretend to know if it's because of other factors at play.

Outside of that, I look at does in 2 ways.
1 is from a simply "mouths to feed" aspect. If my habitat isn't able to sustain the deer numbers and still be "healthy" in my mind, one must shoot does to balance the deer numbers and habitat health.
The 2nd is purely a selfish view. I want as many doe groups that are doing what I want (have daylight core areas on the ground I manage) that the property can support in what I see as a healthy manner. When I need to shoot does to try to strike that balance, the first does I'm always going to target are those that bed on the neighbors and feed on me (doesn't happen much in reverse, as I am a big believer in offering a surplus of food). If that's not enough (and it often isn't), I'm shooting the younger does that bed on the ground I manage. The Alpha's that live there are doing what I want already (bedding and feeding on the ground I manage, giving Mr. Big does to dog on my ground that are less likely to lead him over the fence). So, I don't want to risk throwing that into chaos by killing the Alpha.

The other thing I think is important for free range buck management is keeping the buck:doe ratio in the 1:2-2.5 range. From a buck management stand point, I don't want it tighter than that, as tighter is a big buck stressor in my mind (forcing them to work harder and get in more out right brawls to score breeding opportunities...I see that as a MAJOR buck stressor that negatively impacts buck health far more than we tend to realize). For a thrilling hunt, tighter is better, but it comes at the costs of more dead (from fights and rut strain) and heavily stressed bucks than a looser ratio. Getting it much more skewed than 1:2.5 and the doe numbers make up too high a % of the population and taking more food than I feel it's worth. Not saying I'm right or wrong, just the balance I strive to hit/seems to work best for me.

My thoughts in a nutshell.

 

[Steve Bartylla]

P.S. That said, I have taken over several large properties that hadn't really been hunted at all for the 4-6 previous years. Most would believe that the quality of bucks on large ground essentially unhunted for 4-6 years would be ridiculously good. None of them were. They had great mature buck numbers, but their racks were generally very disappointing. They all had nigh and day improvements to the rack quality with 3+ years of shaping the standing stock. Was the improvement partially due to the heavy doe harvest that somehow resetting genetics? I've always credited increasing the nutritional plain, reducing social stress levels and shaping the standing stock by removing the lower end 3.5+ yr old bucks. However, it is entirely possible that dropping doe numbers also helped do a genetics reboot.

The part that gives me pause to that theory is that if it does indeed reboot genetics to a higher plain, aren't the majority of those new bucks relocating anyway through yearling buck dispersal? If that's the case, how does one know if they are improving genetics? Just thinking this through out loud.

 

[Btaylor]

Steve, that is exactly what I was looking for by asking the question. 5 years ago we did not get a single buck on cam or see while hunting that had greater than 8 points. We had to my knowledge 100% yearling spikes and a sub 60% lactation rate and virtually no bucks over 2.5. Last year was the first year we started getting both buck and doe pics at every cam setup. Prior to that it would either be bucks or does. This year with the exception of one cam we are getting nearly even numbers of both at every spot. The one cam has a larger bachelor group that beds right by the cam. Last summer we did 7 ten acre TSI projects spread across the property but no TSI prior. As mentioned we have significantly increased plantings so food quantity and quality has been improved. Last season our lactation rate was 80%, body weights are up roughly 15-20% and we have 3 tens and a couple of nine pointers. Our neighbors that joined our management efforts also have multiple bucks greater than 8 this year. Obviously I can not state that a hard targeting of older does is a leading cause of the over all improvement we are seeing in herd health indicators because it was just one of several things we changed but it certainly appears to have helped. The one are where I think it has had the greatest beneficial impact is that by removing the majority of oldest most dominant does, the other non yearling does from those family groups split up dispersing across the farm an established their own new core areas. How that plays out as we move forward remains to be seen but so far it appears to be positive and looks like it could help in the rut period social stress. That is assuming that the increase in doe family groups across the farm may lower the number of direct buck conflicts somewhat.

 

[boot]

http://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/...le-dispersal-maybe-they-do-ask-for-directions

An interesting article that shows why culling bucks for genetic modification is impossible