Antler Conformation

[Bowriter]

Last week, I spent two days consulting on a beautiful, 400-acre farm in KY. The farm has it all-fields, streams wooded ridges, heavy cover. It holds a perfect population of deer and turkeys. The owner's major question was why he cannot produce mature bucks with wide racks. His bucks are protected until 4.5-yrs of age and are big, heavy and tall in antler scope. But the racks seldom pass 18-inches.

I explained two contributing factors to him, neither of which he can alter. They are genetics and adaptation. His deer do not genetically have the antler spread. This is due to adaptation to thick cover. Wide antlers match open spaces---the Midwest---crop fields and open plains. In areas of heavy cover, thick woods and thickets, bucks have developed through evolution/adaptation, high, more narrow antlers.

In a nutshell, the best bucks you can produce are the best for your area. You cannot have IA-type antlers in TN. You can improve food, age and habitat. But you cannot change genetics, (legally). And, add to that if you concentrate on one genetic trait and attribute it to only male, i.e. selecting harvest based on antlers, you are ignoring the at least 60% contribution of the doe. Where is the trophy doe program?

Just food for thought.

 

[Doe Shooter]

Never thought of it that way. Good post. Man is an arrogant beast always trying to bend mother nature to his will. When you finally get tired of swimming up-stream the learning process can begin.

 

[OkieKubota]

Explain this one...entire life was spent in heavy deep woods...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bowriter]

Very easily explained. It is called an anomaly. In 2017, the pending new world record, non-typical was killed two miles from one of the farms I hunt. Never been a deer like him anywhere in the area. There are always anomalies in nature. Usually, they get killed.

 

[SwampCat]

Very easily explained. It is called an anomaly. In 2017, the pending new world record, non-typical was killed two miles from one of the farms I hunt. Never been a deer like him anywhere in the area. There are always anomalies in nature. Usually, they get killed.

I agree. All the time folks in my area talk about shortening the season, reducing the bag limit, forcing more folks to let more bucks get older so we can kill bucks like they do in Kansas. I live in the piney woods of south Arkansas where the average 4.5/5.5 yr old scores 115/120. Yes, once in a blue moon someone kills a 150 down here. Those are freaks- anomalies as you said. Records show in general, antlers in this area start to decline after age 5. You could pass every buck until they died of old age and you would still not have bucks like they do in Kansas.

Unless everyone starts feeding protein pellets, you go with what nature allows. We selectively harvest 4.5/5.5 year old deer - we base our harvest on age more than antler. Some lakes are known for trophy quality sized fish, some lakes are known for supplying a lot of eating size fish.

But, while we are on the subject of antlers - I have two properties, eight miles apart in the same river basin. One area, the deer are prone to grow antlers with ten points and the other area, rarely more than eight. I would guess being that close, genetic makeup is almost identical- food availability would be the same. But eight pts is what there are on one property and tens on the other.

 

[catscratch]

I've been fortunate enough to hunt and trailcam the same property for 20+ years. Prominent antler traits come and go. For a while short browtines were common, total number of points shifted from 8 to 10, for the last 5 years or so inside kickers have become common. This year I got pics of the first drop-tine buck I've ever seen and within a month a neighbor showed me a pic of a much bigger droptine buck that he has on his place.

Sexual reproduction and random genetic drift creates diversity in a population and you will see extremes on either side of the bell curve.

 

[OkieKubota]

Some of the widest bucks I have ever seen were on low fenced ranches in south Texas brush country. It is so thick you literally have to crawl through it and those deer don’t just live on a sendero...

Have seen many wife racked bucks in the big woods and I can tell you my county is not known for big deer at all but if you do your homework big deer can be taken in areas where everyone thinks a 100” deer is a giant...I find them in all areas I have access to hunt from N to S in a county that would be considered an “eating size fish” type of county...

 

[dogghr]

No go Bowriter on that second paragraph. I'd like to see the studies that support that. While I wont disagree with genetics of doe and buck being factors, age is the number 1 component. Proven easily by our bow only counties. No ag, poor soils, heavy woods and wicked country they can hide in. Heavy predation from poachers and natural predators. Yet they consistantly produce 150+ class wide racked tall bucks. Hard hunting. On my own property, in a heavy shoot em first county, I can get decent growth from 130s to occassional 150s on my 100 again in non ag, heavy forested land simply allowing them to age. Finally, while I love hunting midwest deer and they have an advantage, I've hunted northern Canada. Some of the poorest land to grow bucks, and some of the hardest predated herd in NA and harsh winters.. Heavy forests of conifers mainly, yet with age they grow big tall and wide.
I will agree, that obviously we have to accept some limitations of where our land might be or we will be very frustrated.

 

[Bowriter]

There are only three components and all are of equal value. Age-Genetics-Nutrition. Fall short in any one and you get less than the best. Age and nutrition can be controlled to some degree. But inn a wild, free-range population, you cannot influence genetics. For over two decades, I was a professional hunter. I got paid to kill big deer. I have hunted all across the US and Canada. No matter where I hunted, those three factors were all that influenced antler development in a free-range herd. You cannot match Borealis with Eastern or Eastern with Key. All of the sub-species have certain characteristics. Some grow larger, heavier antlers, some grow wider antlers, some grow smaller. All can be "improved", if you want to call it that with age. But age, by itself, without sufficient nutrition is not enough. I have hunted WV on several occasions. I have seen tons of mounted heads from WV. I have seen very few over 140". It compares...almost, with AL. On one very large, very well managed plantation (21,000-acres) with a 16"spread and 8-pts restriction. I killed the largest buck ever taken with a bow. It measured 142 and change and was aged at 5.5. You could not have better management for age and nutrition. But genetics over rules all. You can only produce the best of your population...not the best of all populations.
This buck died of old age at age 8.5. He could not have had better nutrition. He was the dominant buck for four years. But his rack was never much bigger than in the picture. He is representative of the deer in my county. Yet...yet two miles away, a non-typ over 314-inches was killed. He was 3.5-yrs old. Ma Nature is a funny old gal.

 

[dogghr]

Wasn't really arguing about those three factors, but the one comment that deer genetically narrow spread of their racks for thick understories. But anyways, age will trump those other ingredients even tho they are all def factors. And sorry you struggled to see many over 140 here, I'll be glad to take you around one weekend to enough garages to bunk that thot including mine and my friends. I'm not much of a deer mounter but I do have enough piled into the corner of my garage to make the point. I do agree with the basis of your original post but certainly points to argue, but that's just my humble opinion. Carry on.

 

[Chipdasqrrl]

The thing around me with antlers seems to be a lack of brow tines, and uneven racks are also abnormally common here. By that I mean one side could be a spike and the other has 4 points, or one side is simply significantly bigger than the other. 3 of the 5 bucks taken on the properties bordering me were very uneven. Wish I had pictures of them.. seems like it would be caused by injury but why are so many of them like this?


Sent from my iPhone using Deer Hunter Forum

 

[Mennoniteman]

"In areas of heavy cover, thick woods and thickets, bucks have developedthroughevolution/adaptation, high, more narrow antlers" In the rocky areas along the Appalachian trail in central Pennsylvania deer have developed longer legs to enable them to step over the rocks.
A lot of good thoughts in this thread but the narrow rack one deserves a prize.
From my humble perspective and experience good nutrition and longevity is two trump cards to high scoring bucks. Genetics is a joker in the deck, valuable, but undependable. Ask any deer breeder.

 

[SwampCat]

This is statewide antler data from the state of Arkansas. Ozark mountains are rugged limestone hills. Ouachita mountains are sandstones, shale, and novaculite. Arkansas River valley is a narrow valley between the Ozark and Ouachita mountains. West Gulf Coastal plain is rolling piney woods. Mississippi Alluvial Delta is flat delta along the Mississippi River and Crowleys Ridge is a loess formation. 90% of the largest bucks come from the Mississippi Alluvial Delta. Crowleys ridge also produces some really nice deer. The Mountain areas are in between. The Gulf Coastal Plain produces the smallest deer. That is where I live. A 4.5/5.5 yr old buck will average 115/120. Yes, they kill a 150 every now and then - but they are a freak of nature, and anomaly. I have hunted 40 years in that area, and probably killed 60 bucks - most of them 4.5 yrs or older - and have never broke 125. You can not realistically believe you are going to kill a 150" deer in this area in your life time. I have one on my wall that a friend killed off my property. These deer start going down hill after 5.5 years - as the chart below indicates. The few bucks I have pictures of, or have killed, that are older than 5.5 wouldn't break 100". I don't care how old you let these deer get - they are what they are.

 

[Day Walker]

I was on a 5000 acre club in Alabama, all pine trees and horrible soil. It was burned yearly and minimal human contact. The place was overloaded with deer. It was nothing to see 50-70 different deer in a days hunt. The racks were small baskets, every so often a bigger basket rack would be killed. Body weight on average was 120lbs.
2012 a farmer brought in a sniper at night, shooting about 400 deer in a 2 week span on 1 side. The sniper proceeded to go to the other farmer on the other side and shoot 250 +/- deer at night in about the same time. Upon hunting you would see only 10 deer +/- a day. We started planting high mineral and protein crops and the horns took off. In 2 years we were harvesting beautiful wide tall racks. The bodies were heavier, does too. You wouldn't see as many deer hunting , but The ones you saw were healthier, bigger and overall a nicer animal. So the deer ratio you hear about makes a difference and food you feed them counts.

 

[Keith Nehrke]

I'm a researcher at a major university, and we have a joke in the aging field: "What's the best way to live longer?" - "Choose your parents wisely"

I think that applies here, as well. The top end is determined first and foremost by genetics. Better genetics will allow for better utilization of the resources, all else considered. In order to be maintained in a population, a trait needs to convey a selective advantage. Of course, it's reasonable to ask how our definition of advantage coincides with Mother Nature's...but regardless, genetics provides the basis for that determination. Having a narrow rack in a certain environment would suggest that the size of the rack was somehow a limiting factor in reproductive success. Which it could easily be, but you can see how it's not a simple relationship.

So, age is a factor that we can control by proper herd management, as is nutrition to a more limited extent. Genetics is tough. The law of unintentional outcomes applies regularly. Even in a controlled laboratory environment it's tough to select for certain traits, and unless you keep up the selective pressure all the gains you've made can disappear in a generation or two.

 

[Bowriter]

Keith-Dead on, lots of mysteries in the checkerboard. Hard to select for one trait when you don't what percentage is contributed by each side.

 

[weekender21]

“This is due to adaptation to thick cover. Wide antlers match open spaces---the Midwest---crop fields and open plains. In areas of heavy cover, thick woods and thickets, bucks have developed through evolution/adaptation, high, more narrow antlers.”

You’re welcome to opine but please state it as such. Your statement above is just that, an opinion. OkieKubota’s buck isn’t a rare anomaly, rather a great example of genetic potential reached by age.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[George]

You can get spots and floppy ears in just 7 inbred generations of fox. The Rompola buck is most likely an anomaly. Was my 16-17 inch spread average in Iowa, throwing out one that hit 20, an anomaly or did the deer adapt to the cedar, autumn olive, multiflora rose thickets in the past 30 years as opposed to the open cow pasture or savanna of yesteryear. The whitetail lives in a maze of variability locally let alone regionally and borealis has been transported all over the map. Do these adaptations take 1, 10, 100, or 1000000 generations. My guess is that narrower racks are probably more of an adaptation to fighting than what kind of woody plants that they are calling home today. Does open corn country explain wide racks or does it better explain the majority of the bucks that can fit between the corn rows?

G

 

[catscratch]

A lot of causation of gene frequencies is pure speculation. The driver's for antlers is assumed for breeding purposes as does survive just fine without antlers... so antlers are not needed for a deer to survive. Antlers are costly though with both energy and minerals needed to grow them so there is presumed an advantage to having them. The advantage isn't staying alive but for breeding. For wide antlers to be selected out of a population due to environment the antlers would have to get them killed before they reached sexual maturity. Are wide antler bucks dieing before they reach sexual maturity? Or has a random gene just become more frequent than another random gene? If big antler genes got bucks killed wouldn't trophy hunting have those genes mostly taken out of the pool by now (since that is what everyone is after)? Or does sexual reproduction simply create a lot of diversity and you'll find individuals on each side of the bell curve?

 

[dogghr]

“This is due to adaptation to thick cover. Wide antlers match open spaces---the Midwest---crop fields and open plains. In areas of heavy cover, thick woods and thickets, bucks have developed through evolution/adaptation, high, more narrow antlers.”

You’re welcome to opine but please state it as such. Your statement above is just that, an opinion. OkieKubota’s buck isn’t a rare anomaly, rather a great example of genetic potential reached by age.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All I know is rephrasing Jaws.... I’m gonna need a taller pair of boots.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk