Three years ago I was hunting @100 miles north of my home (in Tyler County, WV) with a rifle using only iron sights. It was legal to take either antlered or non-antlered deer with the proper stamps which I had safely in my hip pocket. I shot what I thought was a big doe only to find a single spike poking out over his left ear and running along the top of the ear.

Last year I was using the same rifle hunting in Jackson County 20 miles from home and viola! I dinged a second one antlered deer, this fellow had a 8" long right spike shaped like a dagger. Any buck that got in a fight with him could have lost an eye!

Then this year I forgot my binos, but was hunting with the .308 with a 1x-4x Leupold scope and saw a buck picking his way towards me thru some beech trees that still clung to their dead leaves. Checked thru the scope and saw an antler that stretched out past the tip of the ear and looped back over his face, nice rack i thinks as i twitch the trigger. Bang! flop with a Hornady SST and i walk up to find... One antler

All three deer had a nub for the missing antler that apparently got snapped off during pre season jousting or tree rubbing.

How often does everyone else run into Unideer?

Many years ago "hunting" with my favorite uncle we saw what appeared to be two does trotting towards us. They went right under the elevated stand and just beyond the first one stopped and the second one mounted her! They were close enough to see two whorls of hair on the buck's head where he'd already shed. This was late Nov. and antlerless deer were not legal till the last couple days of the season.

The following year I killed a one antlered buck at the same place. One antler had been shed and the other was ready to fall off. I have no doubt it was the same defective deer. The same year the neighbor killed a three legged buck we'd seen several times pre-season. Figured he'd been injured but after skinning found out he never had a leg or shoulder on one side!

I would have to say the more deer you see, the more one antlered, broken tines or beams you will incounter. The later in the season, the more prevalent.

In November of 1986 I was hunting Mulies in Idaho (resident) and just at twighlight I saw a big bodied buck standing sideways with his head in a bush. The left antler was a well shaped 4 point and if it was symetrical the rack would go 24" wide and maybe 20" high. It was getting dark on the last day of our hunt so I shot him, bang-flop.

When I walked up the mountain to him the first thing that I noticed was that he was still in velvet (late Nov. with 8" of snow on the ground) the other thing was that the right antler was a 10" spike with a golf ball sized knob on the end.

The biggest surprise was that when I rolled it over for field dressing, it was a doe. Not a castrated buck, a for real doe. She was with a group of other does and a small spike that I figured was a buck but now think that it might have been one of her daughters. She field dressed at 190 Lbs and was the biggest mulie doe I have ever seen.

I shot a one antlered three point once on Kodiak island. 1998

RMiller,
This year's deer had four points, so I got half of an eight point!

Oupa and Fjold,
Every couple of years someone will get an antlered doe here and it makes the local newspaper. Guess it's not too uncommon but I've never seen one.

I also hunt in Tyler Co. (Big Run, near Middlebourne) and have also noticed a number of these "weird rack deer". My brother in law killed a 3 point this year, one rear facing spike on one side and a huge 2 point rack 18- 20 inches on the other.

Antlered does and cryptorchid psuedohermaphrodites are really cool (so it that word!). If it is still in velvet it is a good chance it is a doe, if the antlers are mineralized it is a buck with all his plumbing inside the body (and still producing testosterone from testes embedded in fat in the stomach cavity". Antlered does can occur from several causes. Anyone interested in more on this can check out my Chapter 4 of "Deer of the Southwest" which contains all the latest info on antlers.

They changed the hunting regs in Texas this year so now you can shoot anterless, a buck with a inside spread of 13" or greater, or a spike. And they upped the bag limits to four deer in all the counties I'm concerned with. The reason they did this I'm told is to "shoot out the bottom end of the gene pool" so we'll have some bigger deer to shoot in a few years.
I certainly hope so because it sure has pained me to ignore the four and six pointers I've seen this year. I don't get to hunt nearly as often as I'd like to and in times passed those would have been a good find.

Not deer but several years ago on a Ranch that supports a large elk herd we started seeing several mismatched bulls; 2 pts on one side and a healthy 5 or 6 pt rack on the other. Or a big spike on one side and 2-3 larger but severely stunted pts on the other side.

They shot a mess of them out over the next few years and the trend almost went away. Now there are still a FEW but not the dozen or so we used to have.

I seldom see any uni-deer out here. Healthy herds of whiteys with a diverse gene pool. Could your Tyler County bucks be inbred? No diversity in the gene pool?

FN in MT

The Tyler / Wetzel County area is know for small antlered deer, but the Jackson County area where I shot the last two years bucks (100 miles south of Tyler) is known for big bodied, large racked deer.

In some backward states, like Missouri, those deer are to be preserved. With 4-point on one side antler restriction, they actually WANT to perpetuate the bottom of the gene pool. This is the third year of this restriction in Mo. and this year, out of the 14 bucks we saw, only one was legal. The rest were 6-points and below.

Keep in mind that the does can carry those "defective" genes for weird antlers also. They just aren't expressed phenotypically until she passes them to her male progeny.

Obviously her female offspring would have them as well and so the cycle continues.

Removing sexually dimophic traits like weird antler growth from a population isn't as easy as culling the occational odd spike.

Kyler

Interesting discussion.

I'm curious to how one can judge a deer with "defective" genes by the size of its antlers, though?

Tony,

I was referring to the highly asymetrical growth and severally deformed directional growth some people above mentioned.

... assuming neither is caused by injury. But that may be a rather large assumption.

Kyler

Kyler,

I really wasn't directing my question just to you. In fact, I hadn't seen where you had put defective in quotes before I wrote it that way.

There will always be some bucks with weird racks running around. Most are caused by either bodily injury or something gone awry when the antlers were still in velvet, however.

That said, I often read stuff where someone says something like, "He was only a small three-point, so killing him will help the gene pool." -TONY

Tony,

I started this thread out of curiosity about how often most folks see one antlered deer. The position in the gene pool was mainly tongue in cheek, I know that the same buck with one spike this year may be a nice six point next year if he gets good nutrition and doesn't manage to break one off learning to spar.

Our State runs a wildlife sanctuary near Buchannon called the French Creek Wildlife Center. One of the staff biologist has a collection of antlers from one healthy well fed buck that lived more than nine years, the later sheds were twisted and very atypical. According to the biologist the buck had damaged one leg and that triggered the abnormal antler development.

But they all fit nicely in the freezer no matter where they swim in the gene pool

I only got one of those about 25 years ago with one very nice 4 pts on one side and the other was a 3" post with 4 1/2" little points coming out of it. All the rest have been normal.

Rick,

I apologize for adding confusion to this thread. Again, my comments weren't meant to be pointed to any of the previous comments here.

I was merely trying to broaden the discussion from the initial weird antlers to the topic of the supposed "management" of deer by the removal of "inferior" bucks that are solely judged on their antler size.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
Interesting discussion.

I'm curious to how one can judge a deer with "defective" genes by the size of its antlers, though?

Hey Tony, Same way you cull inferior cattle and horses - you have to know what "your" herd is capable of producing, look for all the correct traits and remove the questionable ones.

When in SC, the lands I had access to had an abundance of excellent forage, year around. Suplimental feed andmineral blocks provided for the normal livestock and the Deer augmented any potentional nutritional deficiencies.

The vast majority of the First year Deer were fowled in April/May and would tend to have small Basket Racks by 15Aug. You could see a distinct body size difference between those First Year Bucks and Does. The Bucks that carried the small Basket Racks got a FREE Pass and the ones that didn't got a trip to the freezer.

The ones fowled in Jun/Jul were small enough that they would still have Spots and nearly invisible Spikes. These were small enough that you knew they were simply the second fowling and they all got a FREE Pass.

If a Dog Drive or Man Drive was part of the Hunting program, then it was very difficult to pick and choose. Sometimes mistakes were made, the intent was to remove lots of Doe and occasionally a Spike would die. But that is just part of that style of Hunting.
---

The next year, the previous year's second fowling Bucks that got passed on because they were just too small, now either had very small 6-8 point racks, easily visible Spikes, or 1-2 points per side. Again the small Basket Racks got a FREE Pass and the others made fine Cube Steak, Roasts, Loins, Stew Meat and Burger.

You simply have to know the "herd" and it's potential. Same as any other animal husbandry.

Good hunting and clean 1-shot kills on the inferior Deer - they eat well.

HC,

I must have slept through those lessons during my bio classes in college.

I always thought any young buck -- spike or basket rack -- has the potential to be a worthy trophy when it reaches maturity at 4-6 years old. Geez, many bucks don't even sport decent branched antlers until they're 16-20 months old.

So when a management-type guy is afield and he sees a 2x2, he can assume it has inferior genes and needs to be eliminated, huh? -TONY

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
...I always thought any young buck -- spike or basket rack -- has the potential to be a worthy trophy when it reaches maturity at 4-6 years old. Geez, many bucks don't even sport decent branched antlers until they're 16-20 months old.

Hey Tony, There are a lot of "opinions" on this subject and some that are taught in school just don't always hold up to the real world realities. And some of those are based on well documented research and long trails of "captive" breeding.

I was brain-washed into thinking the above was also true, simply because I thought "those researchers" had to be correct. But the reality of the situation is that when trying to let those Bucks live "which may have potential" as seen by some experts, you end up with a HUGE herd of inferior Deer.

One thing that contributes to this in the SC Lowcountry is a HUGE over-population of Doe. Due to this, plenty of Doe end up getting bred by the inferior Bucks. The dominant Trophy Bucks are in short supply and just can't service all the Doe when they are ready.

If your Doe herd is small enough that the Trophy Bucks can romance ALL OF THEM, then there is nothing wrong with letting the inferior Bucks try to become shooters.

quote:

So when a management-type guy is afield and he sees a 2x2, he can assume it has inferior genes and needs to be eliminated, huh? -TONY

People should do whatever they think is best for "their herds", based on what they observe over a few generations of Deer. It quickly becomes obvious to someone who is an active cattle or horse breeder.

Stop in KY some time and see the horses that get shipped off to the Dog Food plants. To the untrained eye, most appear to be capable of winning the Derby but some are obviously just not gonna be winners.

Same with cattle. Ask a cattleman who lives near you what they do with the cattle they believe will down-grade the herd. Ask if they just keep them around, sell them or stick them in the freezer.
---

On the other side of the coin are the captive research studies which feed high growth concentration nutrients and foods to the inferior Deer. A lot of schools do this.

Yes indeed, some of the ones we would cull do end up with nice, but not spectacular, antlers. And study after study will recite how well they responded.

It just isn't the same out in some parts of the real world. You can't force them to feed only on the High Growth suppliments. And you can't keep the inferior Bucks from Breeding when the Doe herd is HUGE.

Some kids prefer junk food and their parents do nothing to correct that problem. And the only exercise they get is with their "thumbs" on a game.
---

So, I'd encourage everyone to do whatever they think works best for their herd. Meanwhile, we will continue to remove Doe as hard as we can go, along with the inferior Bucks.

Best of luck to your herds.

HC,

It appears we're mixing too many apples & oranges into this discussion.

Let's forget anything regarding POPULATION control, i.e. too many does or bucks in any given area. That takes in a LOT of other considerations separate and apart from defective genes.

Instead, let's stick with the topic of being able to judge what is or isn't a buck with "inferior genes" on the hoof.

Now, if I understand what you're saying correctly, any of the bucks with antlers such as these below should be killed on sight because they have inferior genes? And if, let's say, C breeds with a doe, the result if male will also be a buck with inferior genes?

Hey Tony, It also depends on when the Buck was fowled.

Generally we expect to see antlers similar to "C"(or 7-8 small points) on a Buck fowled in Apr/May by that Fall. That Buck won't have Spots and will be around 85-100 pounds. We would not shoot it.

The antlers shown in "A & B" if found on that same Buck would be culled.
---

But, here is the difference, if antlers such as "A & B" are on Bucks fowled in Jun/Jul, they will still have Spots in the fall and they will not be culled. It would weigh around 60-75 pounds, will still be running with it's sister and will just look like a young Doe at distance.
---

If we see antlers similar to "A & B" on any Buck weighing more than 125 pounds, then it gets culled. That is because it is at least a 1 1/2 year old Buck down here and it's genetically inferior.
---

Not trying to confuse you with the amount of Doe, just explaining "Why" it is important to remove inferior Deer from our herd. If you are in a place where the herd is in proper balance, then there is less opportunity for the inferior Bucks to get an opportunity to breed.

Best of luck to you.

Okay, so it sounds like the culling you're talking about is nothing more than willy-nilly ala guess-n-by-golly.

Incidentally, set "B" is from a quite healthy NON-inferior buck that was 15-16 months old, well beyond the "...similar to "C"(or 7-8 small points) on a Buck fowled (sic) in Apr/May by that Fall"

This is what he had atop his head at 3.5 years. Bet bucks like that are fairly scarce in SC, no? -TONY

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
Okay, so it sounds like the culling you're talking about is nothing more than willy-nilly ala guess-n-by-golly.

Naw, proper selective genetic removal. I really doubt you will be able to rile me up on this issue.

quote:

Incidentally, set "B" is from a quite healthy NON-inferior buck that was 15-16 months old, well beyond the "...similar to "C"(or 7-8 small points) on a Buck fowled (sic) in Apr/May by that Fall"

This is what he had atop his head at 3.5 years. Bet bucks like that are fairly scarce in SC, no?

First off, thanks for the spellin lessin. It really should be foaled. Obviously "fowled" should rightfully be used with "up" when describing folks that don't properly manage their Deer herds like we do.

Yes, Bucks like that are not found in "abundance". But since we have been using "proper herd management" they are beginning to show up more and more.

Here's a buck that to me warranted removal. He was chasing does like crazy about a week ago. He had one long antler on one side and the typical 4 points on the other. In my opinion, his chances of either being or producing a great buck one day were slim.

In reference to a comment made afew ago, Missouri is not protecting the bottom of the gene pool. A few counties in the northern part of the state do not allow some of the smaller bucks,therefore antler restricts, because of the habit hunters were getting into of shooting anything in sight.A normally good trophy area was becoming a wasteland. A lot of the state is not under these restrictions, including where I live and hunt(35 miles N of KC). Myself and my sons have shot several inferior bucks to get them out of the pool. Because of that where I hunt rewarded me with a fine 10 point this year. It takes time but a normally meat area where we are is turning into something to be proud of. By the way, one of the neatest trophies on my wall(to me anyway) is a very large 7 on one side with a long tine with 2 on the other side. He was so large and unique, I just had to mount him.

HC,

Bet you thought I forgot ya, huh? How could I ever miss a chance to get you riled?

Actually, I've been kinda snowed under with article deadlines and honey-dos for a few days. BUT...I'll address a few things and then you can have the last word since it appears we've beat this one to death.

First, I didn't intend to correct your spelling of "fowled." If that was the case, I would have done so long before the message where I quoted you and cited "foaled" as being improper. That said, I didn't because I understood what you MEANT to say -- I think. What I did was standard operation in a quote where something is incorrectly used. In fact, you actually spelled both foaled and fowled properly but merely misused them.

"Foaled" applies to equine critters, not deer. Horses have foals, deer have fawns and cattle and elk have calves. So the verbs for each respectively would be, to foal, to fawn and to calf. To give birth would also work for any of them.

Then you dug a deeper hole with "Obviously "fowled" (sic) should rightfully be used with "up" when describing folks that don't properly manage their Deer herds like we do." Two points with this one: fowled is a spelling applied to avian critters; the proper spelling for the one that goes with "up" is fouled.

Enough about that, though, and back to the subject of hunters being able to alter the gene pool through selective culling on the hoof by just looking at a buck and deciding it has inferior genes. Sooo...rather than me write anymore about it, there just so happens to be another thread that recently started at another site, and noted deer biologist Jim Heffelfinger, author of Deer of the Southwest, addressed this exact topic with an article he had written for DEER & DEER HUNTING magazine.

Here are his thoughts, which are pretty much alongside mine.

******

ARE TROPHY HUNTERS DRAINING THE GENE POOL?
By Jim Heffelfinger

Does removing the biggest bucks from the herd cause a long-term decline in the quality of the deer herd?

We live in a world of information overload. We are receiving so much information from so many sources that we scarcely have a chance to absorb any of it. Unfortunately science does not lend itself to a sound-bite society. Those that oppose hunting are often much more successful in swaying public opinion than sound, well-thought out wildlife management principles. As a result, quick, catchy ideas are accepted without much thought as to how reasonable the suggestion is in reality. Trophy hunting is one of those subjects that are judged on a very shallow basis without much thought about the realities of that activity. A recent survey in Arizona showed 85% of respondents opposed trophy hunting. It is unfortunate that the survey did not ask them to define trophy hunting, because it is doubtful most of those respondents were envisioning trophy hunting as I see it actually occurring. The media and anti-hunters have portrayed trophy hunting as a “shoot ‘em and cut the head off†activity. While there are certainly some hunters who are only interested in another head for the wall, most people who consider themselves trophy hunters are a more conscientious hunter who is not interested in shooting the first legal animal they find. They have matured as hunters and have placed further restrictions on themselves and taken sportsmanship to a higher level.

One of the most popular attacks on our hunting heritage by animal rights zealots is the assertion that trophy hunting is morally wrong. Rather than pushing their personal views (which they are entitled to) on the non-hunting public, they try to convince others to oppose trophy hunting by arguing that it is biologically unsound. They fail miserably in this arena. These groups state that by harvesting large bucks each year, trophy hunters are removing the best genes from the breeding population. As a consequence, the smaller bucks are doing the breeding, thereby passing along their inferior genes. This, they say, will lead to a decline in the size of antlers and health of the population over time. The rabidly anti-hunting group "Fund for Animals" even goes as far as to say hunting is "evolution in reverse." This is not consistent with the biological reality when we look at trophy hunting as it is actually practiced.

The trophy hunting argument may seem reasonable on the surface and is apparently very convincing as I have spoke to hunters and even some biologists who believe we are harming the gene pool. However, as we shall see, trophy hunting is not providing the intensive and consistent selective pressures needed to affect the extremely diverse and constantly changing gene pool of the population.

In this age of increasing misinformation we need to question everything we hear and read. We need to just stop and think about it. You won't find much about population-wide genetic influences on antler growth in the scientific journals because there has been no “antler gene†identified. Without a gene to focus on, it is not possible to conduct a research project to show changes in the relative proportion of good and poor antler genes in a free-ranging deer population.

There are 3 basics of quality antler development. 1.) Good nutrition. Nutrients consumed by bucks go first to body development and maintenance, then to antler growth. This is one reason yearling bucks do not produce much antler growth - their nutrient intake is being used almost entirely for body development. If there is a limited amount of forage available there may not be enough nutrients "left over" for optimal antler development that year. In years of below average rainfall or a widespread mast crop failure, bucks will sport smaller racks than in years of abundant forage quality and quantity. Also, a higher proportion of the yearling bucks will be spikes in poor years. 2.) Age. Antler development in mule deer usually peaks when the bucks reach 5-7 years old. After peaking, a buck's antlers generally lose tine length, number of points, but gain mass. No matter how good the nutrition and genetics of the area, you will not see trophy class bucks unless they are allowed to reach the older age classes. 3.) Genetics. Each buck has a different genetic potential for antler growth. Captive bucks of the same age, fed the same diet, show very different antler conformations. Some bucks will be superior to others the same age and some will never have large antlers just as some humans never reach 6 feet tall. The heritability of antler traits has been shown by various researchers. If we graphed antler quality genes, we would see a bell shaped curve with a few animals possessing exceptional genes and a few with very poor genes, and the rest in between, clustered around some average antler quality. Captive white-tailed deer research in Texas and Mississippi have shown examples of a few individuals which occupy both extremes of this curve even after being raised on identical diets. Whether antler quality is hereditary and whether we can manipulate the gene pool through hunter harvest are two entirely different questions. Antler quality is hereditary but hunters don't affect the proportion of good quality genes in a population and cause a change in antler quality because of the complexity of the antler growth equation. The high genetic diversity in mule deer along with all the other selective pressures work to “reshuffle†the genetic card deck preventing a unidirectional decline in antler quality in a deer herd.

Biologists wanting to manage for trophy deer can manipulate deer populations and habitat to provide optimal forage conditions (good nutrition), then establish a very light harvest of bucks to allow them to reach the 5-7 year age classes before being harvested (age). Genetics are rarely considered because there is not much we can do to change the overall genetic quality of a population. The gene pool of a population is extremely diverse and constantly changing in response to an infinite number of environmental pressures.

Let's explore several factors that illustrate how ineffective hunters are at actually changing the gene pool.

AGE VS. GENETICS
Many times the effects of age are confused with the effects of genetics. Most "trophy" bucks harvested are simply the oldest bucks in the area, not necessarily the most genetically superior. The other "small bucks" in the area will be trophies in a few years and this year's buck fawns will then be small bucks. Some of these small, young bucks carry better antler genes than the larger, older bucks. These superior genes will be expressed as the buck matures. In other words, if we see young bucks doing much of the breeding we cannot automatically assume they are genetically inferior bucks. Age of a buck and its genetic potential for antler growth are two unrelated factors.

Lowering the age structure (average age of breeding bucks) has no effect on the gene pool. A buck has the same genetic material if it breeds at 1.5 years as it does breeding at 6.5 years. Antler size is less indicative of genetic potential in the younger age classes because so much of the nutritional intake is going to body maturity and development rather than antler growth. Shifting the age structure lower doesn't affect the genes being passed on, just what the "gene passers" look like at the time (small because they aren't old enough to express their own genes physically). If young bucks are doing a majority of the breeding, some are passing on exceptional genes.

In many areas of the country, a small percentage of bucks in the population are 3.5 years old or older. In this situation, those bucks will be doing a majority of the breeding because they are the dominant males, however, they are dominant because of age rather than genetic superiority.

In some areas of the United States, hunters have been harvesting a majority of the big bucks each year for decades with no noticeable change in local antler quality (no decline in the antler sizes of bucks of the same age). Hunters often speak of the higher prevalence of big bucks in "the good ol' days." This was due to a lower overall harvest that allowed more bucks to mature, rather than a higher quality gene pool.

THE DOE'S CONTRIBUTION
For years the doe's contribution to the genetic makeup of her offspring has been overlooked. Research on white-tailed deer by Harry Jacobson at Mississippi State University showed that the doe contributes at least as much to the antler quality of her male offspring as the sire buck. This complicates the issue tremendously because we have no clue of the quality of those genes since the hormonal environment in her body does not allow those genes to be expressed. Experiments have shown that fawns born from the same doe but sired by very different bucks often have antler conformations similar to each other and their mother’s father. In many areas the buck:doe ratio is 1:5 or wider. This means that at least 83.3% of the population is made up of females that are not being subjected to selective pressures related to antler quality. It is ridiculous to think that the quality of the gene pool could be manipulated by light and sporadic removal of 16.7% (percent of males in the population) of the gene pool. Many states have even wider buck:doe ratios, reducing further the percent of genetic material affected.

WHAT IS A TROPHY?
A trophy is in the eye of the beholder. One trophy hunter may be extremely satisfied with a buck that another hunter has already passed up in his search for what he feels is a trophy. If one hunter's trophy is another's reject, we cannot define what a trophy buck is. How can we discuss the effect of removing "trophy" deer when we can't even describe what it is we are actually taking about?

In fact, many "trophy hunters" actually take the first buck they encounter because when the moment of truth comes, they decide they would rather have venison steaks and sausage in the freezer. Any deer population is made up of a mixture of small, medium, and large antlered deer of varying ages. Charlie DeYoung at Texas A&M University – Kingsville showed that there is too much overlap between whitetail antler size and age class for a hunter to tell what is a 3.5 or a 6.5 year old. Some exceptional 3.5 year olds are indistinguishable from poor 6.5 year olds.

ACTUAL HUNTER DENSITIES
In reality, the density of true trophy hunters is low throughout most of the country. Those hunters actually passing up smaller bucks and only harvesting mature animals are few and far between. In any deer camp there are always many more trophy hunters on opening day than towards the end of the season. If a high density of hunters over a large area were selectively removing the biggest deer in each age class for many years, that would be a much more intensive selection scenario. In reality, trophy hunters are uncommon and do not take the largest buck in each age class, but rather the largest buck they encounter within range, during the season, during daylight hours.

In contrast, most hunters in areas of trophy deer management will hold out for a mature buck. However, the buck harvest rates in these areas are extremely low in order to maintain an older age structure and thus a very small proportion of bucks are actually removed.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURES
Even if selective removal of genetically superior individuals did occur in a population, it would not be the only selection taking place. Many other factors remove deer from the population irrespective of genetic potential for quality antlers. In many areas of the west, malnutrition, coyotes, and disease take more than half of each year's fawn crop. In some areas mountain lions remove a large number of adult deer from localized areas. These predators are removing individuals (male and female) for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with their antler quality genes. Collisions with automobiles remove thousands of deer annually; again, these mortalities are unrelated to antler quality. We must keep in mind the multitude of selective pressures on every population.

This is not to say the laws of natural selection are not taking place in areas where several mature bucks battle for dominance; only that trophy hunters have a negligible effect because of the great many factors involved.

In trophy whitetail areas of South Texas, the most dominant bucks suffer a substantially higher mortality rate than other bucks in the population. With close buck:doe ratios and a mature age structure, there is tremendous competition for does during the rut. This intense fighting, limited feeding, and constant doe tending causes mature bucks to lose 20-25% of their body weight which contributes to this high mortality during and after rut. I see nothing genetically, biologically, or morally wrong with harvesting these older bucks; many will die anyway. Mule deer research shows that even if a buck survives to age 8 or 9 he may be replaced in the hierarchy by a younger buck in his prime. When this happens the defeated mature trophy buck is not contributing genetic material to the population anyway. One ranch I am familiar with in South Texas has had a deer proof fence for 35 years and has trophy hunted exclusively. This fence has prevented the exchange of genes with the surrounding deer populations since its installation. This genetic isolation would intensify the effects of removing high quality antler genes, because no new genes would enter the gene pool. This ranch has kept meticulous records of antler sizes by age class and bucks of the same age have not shown any decline in antler quality.

I am not a proponent of trophy hunting everywhere. As a statewide policy, it reduces hunter opportunity because to produce an older age structured deer population you must reduce the buck harvest substantially. At a time when mule deer populations are at extremely low levels, I think it does agencies, hunters, and all mule deer enthusiasts a disservice to let fewer people hunt mature deer. The danger of reduced hunting opportunity for mule deer is not only the loss of revenue for state agencies, but more importantly, the loss of an interested and active constituency that is in tune with the issues that affect mule deer. Hunters have lead the conservation movement because we care about the animals we pursue. A reduction in mule deer hunters equates to fewer constituents and supporters working on habitat projects and fighting against the forces that would like to turn winter range into oil fields and subdivisions. Trophy management is one of many options that should be available to hunters to provide a diverse array of hunting opportunities. Most states have recognized this and established particular areas that are managed for the harvest of trophy quality animals or a more enjoyable hunt experience.

Regardless of discussions of supply and demand and sociological issues, trophy hunting stands on solid biological ground. When someone talks about the trophy hunters' negative effect on genetics, remind them to think about the details. Think about the actual density of trophy hunters throughout the country. Think about the actual proportion of the gene pool affected. Think about the doe's contribution. Think about the young animals breeding that are not yet old enough to show their superior genetics. Think about the multitude of environmental forces acting on that gene pool irrespective of antler quality. Genetic changes are the result of consistent natural selection occurring over a very long period of time. We need to keep things in perspective.



Jim Heffelfinger
Wildlife Biologist and Author

For several years, a number of the bucks in our hunting area had what I believe was a genetic disposition for a weakness in their left antler that would result in a broken left antler, always in the same place! 1 year we shot 5 bucks that were approximately the same size and age that looked almost exactly alike when they were hanging in the barn. They all had a typical 5 point right antler and their left antler was broken off at around 8". Until you got used to seeing so many bucks with the same genetic trait, it was a little odd to be looking through the scope at a deer than looked exactly like the buck you'd already shot. Talk about deja vu all over again! We consulted with a friend who manages low-fence trophy hunting ground in several states and he had his biologist do a survey. He found several more buck with the same trait and recommended that we concentrate on shooting those buck, so that they wouldn't have a chance to pass along their genes. It took 4 or 5 years to shoot that trait out of the deer in that 6 square mile area, but now the bucks seem to have a better genetic pool and we are see/shooting more 4x4 and bigger racks every year. Bottom line, if you have multiple buck tags and don't mind taking an inferior buck to help keep his genes out of the pool, you should do so.

The oddest antlers that I've ever shot in that area was a 3x3x2 whitetail with 3 antler. He was large, over 200 lbs. field dressed, didn't have any testicles, and tasted fine.

Jeff

260,

That would certainly be a quite rare gene that would lead to broken antlers in multiple bucks.

Here are a couple of pix of Dan King's 3-antlered buck from my book on Coues deer. It scored 134. Guess some here would have shot this " inferior-gened" monster in its younger years if this antler configuration was evident.

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
..First, I didn't intend to correct your spelling of "fowled." If that was the case, I would have done so long before the message where I quoted you and cited "foaled" as being improper. That said, I didn't because I understood what you MEANT to say -- I think. What I did was standard operation in a quote where something is incorrectly used. In fact, you actually spelled both foaled and fowled properly but merely misused them.

"Foaled" applies to equine critters, not deer. Horses have foals, deer have fawns and cattle and elk have calves. So the verbs for each respectively would be, to foal, to fawn and to calf. To give birth would also work for any of them.

Then you dug a deeper hole with "Obviously "fowled" (sic) should rightfully be used with "up" when describing folks that don't properly manage their Deer herds like we do." Two points with this one: fowled is a spelling applied to avian critters; the proper spelling for the one that goes with "up" is fouled.

Hey Tony, I could have stayed with the old MARINE CORPS expression for "Fouled-Up" and spelled it correctly.

When I was in the CORPS, I'd get letters from my Mother where she had carefully cut-out mis-spells that I'd made and return them to me. Some things I was able to learn like the difference between morning and mourning. But I still think Watermellon is good enough to "deserve" 2-ls.

I don't take any offense at all when someone is helping me and I'll try to avoid fouled, foaled and fowled all together. My spelling is sometimes as bad as those great "Ebonics Spellers" the democrats championed years ago.

quote:

I have spoke to hunters and even some biologists ...

Now here is where I would have used "spoken", but of course I didn't write a book like Jeff did.
---

Just a darn shame Jeff didn't get to spend some time on land where he could have seen the Deer genetics in action prior to writing that book. Sure makes his "ideas of reality" look bad.
---

If there is no Antler Genetic, I wonder how you all explain being able to see "unique" Antler traits in a herd that are not present in other herds. Like similar Drop Tines to name just one. Perhaps you and Jeff think it is just a coincidence?

I can't think of any other factor that would result in around 30 deer from the same 6 square mile area having exactly the same trait. I don't have a picture of the 5 deer that were hanging on the game pole in the barn, but the heads looked exactly alike. Not just similar, but exactly alike. When you saw these deer in the woods, you'd shake your head until you got used to the fact that there actually were multiple deer with exactly the same set of antlers and with the broken antlers breaking at exactly the same place on so many deer.

How would you explain it?

Jeff

HC,

I don't sweat spelling mistakes for the most part because I indeed make my share of them that are more related to bad typing skills rather than not knowing better.

>>If there is no Antler Genetic, I wonder how you all explain being able to see "unique" Antler traits in a herd that are not present in other herds. Like similar Drop Tines to name just one. Perhaps you and Jeff think it is just a coincidence?<<

Whoooa, I don't think either JIM or I said any such thing. Of course, certain genetics *could* result in different antler configurations.

BUT..what I have been trying get across all the time is that it is downright impossible to JUDGE young bucks on the hoof in regards to "inferior genes." As Jim said, there are TOO MANY other fators that come into play. -TONY

P.S -- I assume you mean that little Marine acronym SNAFU?

Almost forgot:

The "I spoke to" is proper use there in that tense, which expresses a past action or state. In another use, it could be "I HAVE (had) spoken to," which denotes that an action or event completed before a given or implied past time.

Proper use of both in the same sentence:

Before I spoke to HC, I had spoken to several others.

Jeff,

Can't explain it. Sure your guys weren't just shooting those antlers off? -TONY

Geez, I hope I don't mispell anything!

We know that antler shape and some nontypical "trash" is certainly heritable (passed on). There is lots and lots of proof of this. A South Texas ranch I managed had a high incidence of drop tines on one part of the ranch. Another I worked on, had an incredibly high occurrance of double browtines. Genetics-Nutrition-Age is the triad that builds antlers. I'm not trying to be a used car/book salesman, but honestly I spent 13 years documenting all this in my Chapter 4 on nothing but antlers in my new book. It covers all this really cool stuff that people have been talking about for years.

JIM

quote:

Originally posted by Outdoor Writer:
...If there is no Antler Genetic,.....
Whoooa, I don't think either JIM or I said any such thing. Of course, certain genetics *could* result in different antler configurations. ...

Hey Tony, Just realized I didn't comment on the Deer flick that Spring(Vic) sprang(or sprung down here) on us. I agree with him that it was a good idea to save that Deer's genetics - "in the freezer". Darn shame he couldn't get to it sooner.

And that is really amazing about the "Defective Left Antler Herd" that Jeff had to cull. Surely they have "trees" growing on the right side of Deer trails too.

I felt sure someone said there isn't an Antler Gene, but perhaps it was a misunderstanding of this:

quote:

You won't find much about population-wide genetic influences on antler growth in the scientific journals because there has been no “antler gene†identified. Without a gene to focus on, it is not possible to conduct a research project to show changes in the relative proportion of good and poor antler genes in a free-ranging deer population.

Obviously just because it has not been "identified" does not mean that it does not exist. (Tripple negative, creating a positive sentence result.)

Just a good reason for the fellows going through school and doing their studies on "captive herds" to get out and "observe" how the real world operates - before they write a book.
---

Hey DeerNut, I understand your desire to sell your book - I'm all for it.

I do believe it will sell better for you when "other folks" start recommending it, rather than through self promotion. It gives the appearance that you are only here to sell books.

Don't take that as a slam on you, cause it is not intended as such. I look forward to any "first-hand, experienced observations" on non-captive Deer you care to share with us, without the commercials.

HC,

First, although Jim will likely speak for himself here, he became a book author AFTER he spent many years as a deer research biologist here in AZ. We don't have any captive deer herds here, so all that research came from observing and studying wild deer.

That said, captive deer herds DO allow researchers to CONTROL certain factors so the results can be consistently verified -- which is how science works. This is quite unlike the willy-nilly culling of small bucks from a wild herd solely due to their antler size being the result of "inferior genes."

Certainly, most of the bucks that aren't killed will be larger because they are OLDER, not because they necessarily possess some superior genes. In fact, in order to grow older, they HAD TO HAVE small antlers early on, and most of those dead tiny bucks are their off-spring.

The two passages below from Jim's article are dead-on the mark:

"Some of these small, young bucks carry better antler genes than the larger, older bucks. These superior genes will be expressed as the buck matures. In other words, if we see young bucks doing much of the breeding we cannot automatically assume they are genetically inferior bucks."

"Lowering the age structure (average age of breeding bucks) has no effect on the gene pool. A buck has the same genetic material if it breeds at 1.5 years as it does breeding at 6.5 years".

Jeff's herd of one-antlered deer that seem to break in the same place at 8" high is unexplainable. It's like having a gene trait in humans where the entire family has one arm that breaks at the elbow each year. **IF** Jeff's deer showed a similar antler conformation on one side, it might not be such an anomaly.

But the fact the antlers supposedly BREAK in the same place seems to imply those bucks are born with a dotted line around a specific spot that says, "Tear Here." That would be one weird gene to affect so many bucks in one area.

Oh, and lastly, I highly recommend Jim's book. It contains some great information based on actual scientific research rather than willy-nilly speculation.

I guess that I should have taken genetic samples from the bucks with the broken antler, so that they could be replicated by science at some point in time.

The antlers were broken, not just grown short. Maybe it was a recessive genetic trait, like hemophilia in humans, that is recurring in families, like the Romanov/Romanoff Family. Whatever it was, it doesn't show up any longer, after we made a commitment to shoot all of the deer with that antler configuration.

Jeff

Some before and after "genetics" shots:









More pictures from last year.