I agree that most of the best bucks are taken out as a young deer but you haven’t answered the question that was aske…..

Let me state it another way….If what y’all are implying about all of this were to be true….. then by that rationale we would be much more heavily targeting what would be considered the “good” genes and taking them out of the herd more so than the ones you’re calling a cull. The cull was likely passed on as a young deer and maybe even gets passed as an adult while the trophy gets whacked every time he’s seen often even as a young deer. The effort to take that good gene out is way more intense. So if it was possible to take either one out….good or bad…..we would have most definitely seen the results of it from the good one disappearing. However, that certainly does not seem to be the case. If it was then the bell curve would be heavily shifted toward the low end more and more as we whack the good gene out each year. It just doesn’t work that way though no matter how many ways folks try to justify it. You may high grade the good ones and only leave the bad ones to get older but genetics are changed. And surely if you can see that if we haven’t been able to remove the good gene through shooting the hell of them at a way higher clip….then that old cull deer you shoot from time to time for sure isn’t gonna do anything to change it.

Ummmmm

https://www.mossyoak.com/our-obsession/blogs/deer/improving-antler-genetics-by-culling



You'll have to forgive me if I go with the science and scientist.

Hello.... McFly!......This is the worst part about ever making a good point that's hard to argue against....people just disappear and the discussion goes cold.

Do you see a vast number of perfect 10s that don't fit into the healthiest herd group? If you think they're attracted to their racks, then I'll disagree with your reasoning as it pertains to whitetails.

Actually I said that it didn't work that way with does attracted to their racks....I said it was the only even remotely feasible way in which I could see someone being able to link antlers to dominance As if you were just searching for ways in which large antlers could have an impact and listing the possible reasons....Does that make sense now?

But as to your question.....I don't see points or score good or bad correlating with health. What are the measures of health that you're referring to and where do we see "inferior" antler traits showing these measurements of health to a lesser degree than any other deer? Body weight? Do all SOOS bucks have low body weights? Do all 10 pts have large bodies? I killed one this year that scored really high and might have weighed 165 lbs if he was lucky. Health gets slung around a lot as a broad term. What all are you referring to?

N2T……I get the basis of what you’re trying to say…..but I think its tying a couple things together incorrectly. There’s a difference in the genetic makeup? I guess you might call it….I don’t know the technical term here…..but there’s a difference in the genetic makeup of a deer versus how much of that potential he shows due to things like nutrition and stress. A deer could carry the genes for a 10 point and be just as likely or unlikely to be healthy as one that folks might call a cull. Just look at the 240 lb deer in my picture with a spike on one side. Bucks won’t change their genetic makeup no matter how much nutrition is or is not provided. You could have a big old 6 point that is the dominant deer with the biggest body and baddest attitude just as easily as it could be a big old 10 point. I actually believe the reason the one I killed showed up was because he got kicked on down the road likely by some much lesser scoring bigger bodied bucks.

That article was scrutinized and digested long ago and it is not real "science" - AND it is more about deer politics then anything.

That article and what you, CNC and others make the basic mistake of using/adopting/adhering to a false straw man argument.
Specifically an all or nothing argument.

Here is the false straw man: you cannot eliminate a bad antler trait from a free range deer herd.

That is a false illogical argument because NO ONE claims that a bad antler trait can be 100% eliminated.

No one ever made that claim.
No one claims 100%.

And the flip side unspoken claim flowing from the first false straw man argument is that culling has a zero percent affect, which is also false.

As a matter of common sense, and I mean common math sense, as in 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 - 1 = 1, the LESS you have of a bearer of
a genetic trait, whatever it is, the less there is of it and the less it will be expressed.

So you CAN visibly REDUCE the prevalence of a genetic trait and therefore its expression.

How much?
Who knows, but this is not a 100% vs. 0% thing.
And that is the crux of the disagreement here - lack of understanding of basic math, the false straw man of 100%, and deer politics.

********

Timbercruiser, for example, shot the heck out of SOOS for years and saw a MAJOR REDUCTION over time.
I did the same thing and had the same result.
Countless others around the State and South have also reported the same result.
And I am just using SOOS here as an example, it could apply to any substantially inferior abnormal antler trait.


We know Mississippi created an antler restriction rule that quickly led to disastrous high grading and messed the herd up in just a few years.

What I am saying is that while nothing is ever going to be 100% outside the big pen, there are things that can be done.
There can be a visible and measurable affect.

We have had 50 years of high grading in Alabama.
What we need is a new version of QDM that involves low grading, do that for the next 10 years and see what happens.
If high grading hurts then low grading certainly can't hurt.

I wish there was still someone on here participating in this discussion with thorough understanding of the finer details because I’m almost positive I remember there being a little more to it than what’s being thrown out there. It was something basically to effect of each deer carring the genetic code for other possibilities than just one he’s showing and they get passed with the potential to show later on…..and that trophy could just as easily be carrying it as the SOOS buck so theres no way to shoot it out…..Something like that….I’m conceding that this may be off….I thought surely someone would tell us more….

Lets break down what you’re saying a little more Wmhunter…….I think you’re just applying a simplistic idea that makes sense to you but isn’t actually happening……..but lets go with your idea for a minute and explain it a little more……Ok for one….if I take a cup and scoop out a cup of water from the ocean then yes it is technically true that the ocean has less water now….is there any significance to that though….no there’s not….its not even relevant nor did it make any noticeable difference…..But your gonna come back now and say….Yes but if everybody takes a cup and scoops out water then we’re taking out a LOT more water that way…..And that would be true…..But now I’m gonna point to the fact this is exactly what were doing with what you’re considering the good genes. We're all collectively taking out every trophy we see generally speaking with many being taken out early on. We're managing them even more intensely to rid herd of that gene than the culls by your rationale

Are we not managing them in that manner? How many folks do you know that let the best deer walk and never shoot them….only shooting the culls?? Wouldn’t that be the only way what you’re saying would work. I mean as it is we’re taking a higher percentage of them out than the culls…..Basically we’re just shooting chit load of deer and nothing is changing…..and even if it was it wouldn’t be headed in the good direction. Does this not make sense? You can’t just use this logic on the bad gene and not apply it same way to the good one if you’re gonna go that route. You can’t just shoot the chit out the good ones and pretend that’s not happening. You’re shooting the good gene out if you believe the logic yall use

The "claim" is not a straw man claim. The claim is as follows: “You cannot affect genetics as a hunter, and you cannot influence genetics through selective culling in wild deer populations.” and I highlighted that in the article linked above. That article is not a scientific article in terms of showing the research data. The article does say there are a plethora of studies that you can reference that back up the assertions made in the article, and quotes at least 2 of the scientists that conducted such studies. The article is written to debunk the type of thinking you're victim to. I'm certain the writers know that many people will not be swayed by that, and prefer to stick to their own anecdotal confirmation bias. Your "it's a simple math" issue would only hold true in a completely stagnant and sterile environment. Free ranging herd are not that and thus, it's NOT just a simple math issue. Your assertions and comparisons to cow and horse breeding are, to any person that has any research knowledge at all, completely flawed. Your SOOS example is another issue that has been debunked by science/research, and true to form, you've convinced yourself that A: it's a genetic trait despite you having zero evidence that it is AND contrary to geneticist that will tell you that there is no "right and left antler gene", and B: that you can shoot it out of your herd. You can't, but I know there's no convincing you that you have not done it. I know a guy in TX that is convinced he and his buddies hunting land has a bout a 6 to 1 Buck to Doe ratio, and that they have managed to "shoot out" the "no brow tine gene" from their herd. His claims are the equivalent of saying he essentially has the Galapagos Islands of deer habitat right there in TX. And trust me on this, he's only convinced of what he sees, and won't ever be persuaded by any scientific data that contradicts that.

More: https://www.qdma.com/qdm-works-culling-doesnt/

Great quote from the article: “If you claim that culling is working for you, but you don’t have a control area for comparison, you have a hollow statement. That’s just your guess as to what’s causing the improvements you’ve seen.”

That article is total bs.
The QDMA association is bs.

Less of crap is a good thing.
And that is the bottom line.