Cull no Cull, not this again, shut the freak up

I'm not starting a "should I cull bucks, just this buck, all bucks, everywhere a buck buck"

Take a look at just these couple vids. Now these are young healthy deer, rack kinda goofy right now but they are going to be strong deer most likely.
Do you think their rack will come to shape in something besides the one horn on one side. Ever ?
These deer are young and could possibly live to be over 6 years old (maybe) would age help?

May turn out like turkey necks buck...never no...imo jacked up racks can still be trophies

Ive never seen one that is substantially screwed up on one side ever be anything but year after year.

Would you consider this a cull? He was six+ and 215lbs? That Right side had 5.5” bases and 191/2” beam length. I consider him to be a trophy and so did everyone else who was trying to get him Killed.

upload photo on net
ssl image hosting
That trail pic was year before

If you want to kill them then kill them. Of course killing them won’t guarantee you won’t have more like them.

I wish I could cull one like that every year Rob! Heck of a deer!

Absolutely he is a cull. Any buck 6+ and 200lb+ is always a cull for me regardless what his antlers look like.

Ha, I knew it

Was just interested if some of these young bucks might grow something other than a straight horn on that side. I'm with ya, I think it'll be that way for his life but I don't know, just wondering what ya think.

Gave this Ol' boy a barrel a few weeks ago. Shame he just had a spike on one side but oh well...

The real questions are:

1. Is there room n my freezer?
2. Will I eat it?

Could turn into what I put down yesterday a old gnarly heavy freak. It’s very unique and I actually like that over clean even these days.

🤔.........😄


It was a nice 'en 👍

If it’s what most antler deformations are,a damaged pedicle,then no. The base of his skull is all jacked up and that’s what promotes the funky antler.

Shooting this deer is not going to improve you herds genetics but will free up some available food which may in turn help out.

I have shot a couple of 200 pound, 4+ year old "culls" like that on our property over the years. They were culls because i thought they were whipping everything else's ass and I felt like they were keeping other good bucks off our place- not because i thought i was helping the genetic pool on that land. Oh, and their was a lot of cube steak and jerky involved!!

A pedical injury will almost always be the same year after year. A leg injury that heals, well that could change from one year to another. Those being young deer, could just be genetics. A friend of mines son killed a spike that stunk really bad, I mean rutted up and both of his spikes had blood around the bases like he had been fighting. Deer have different personalities.

Where I hunt in central alabama nearly every buck is like that. It has to be genetics because surely not all of them are getting injured. However this is kind of a good thing because it adds some character to the racks.

Big deer with a slick side can easily kill other deer. I generally kill every one that I can, not because it's genetic, but because I think it helps reduce stress on the other deer.

And they taste good.

Those are some fine lookin deer gentleman, congrads. My point was not to say these are cull deer or a rack that aint worth having, I too like the character.

I've seen more young deer with these type racks this year than I have the 3.5 - 4 years I've hunted my land. Now I know a lot of that has to do with the amount of cams I have, the amount of days I hunted and the fact that I was out there during the rut which all factored in to seeing more bucks. I just noticed it more on my younger deer than ever before, mostly 2 year olds who are really getting started and trying to be somebody. My thought was that he'd grow out of it cause I saw a good bit of them. I understand the pedical injury, doesn't it usually affect the opposite horn ? I killed a monster in Tuskegee whose right leg had a big ball at the joint and his left horn was all jacked up, he was an old deer, thats when I first learned about this from GW/Ranger who I knew pretty good down there.

Seems like there was a bumper crop of SOUS bucks this year on my lease and apparently in a lot of other places too. I had one camera with 3 of them in the same pic. I treat them like any other buck in the woods. They'll get a pass until they are 4.5. or older.

a buck that suffers a broken leg will have a jacked up rack the next year, and usually the next. By year three it will return to normal in my experience.

Hunted some property years ago around the Zimco area (Clarke County) and we would kill several every year with a dagger on one side, hell we just called 'em Zimco Bucks lol

Studies have shown, aside from obvious genetics, diet, etc. that one of the biggest factors affecting a buck's antlers and growth is epigenetic factors, such as nutrition of the mother while carrying the buck.

I make it a point to shoot big old mean does. I usually get at least one a year. They run all the other does out of the field, I hate a bully so they got to get in the freezer.

I did read a study few days ago that was done in Texas that tracked 385 bucks over a bunch of years. It said Out of those 385 bucks the ones that had no brow tines on there first full rack at either 1 or 2 never grew any brow tines.

Believe it or not, once had a guy tell me that even if that was so...and he didn't for one minute believe that SOOS was the result of injury but was convinced it was genetic and didn't care what no research said... BUT that if it was an injury, if the deer bred that year he was going to pass on that gene that year. He believed there was a "temporary injury gene" that a buck could pass on.

You should have sold him some ocean-front property in Arizona...

I identify culls on our place but only try to place them on the cull list once they reach 3.5 to 4.5 years of age. We do not cull young buck regardless of the characteristics of their rack. I killed two culls last season that were mature deer, both weighed over 200lbs and were not going to get any better than what they were. Glad their genes are out of the pool now. Unfortunately, the one we called Clubber must have been busy as we have several little Clubbers running around now.

Or maybe it’s that old nanny doe, that pops out twins every year, that y’all keep passing on, that’s the one carrying the traits for the little clubbers.

Cull or not, any buck taken at 3.5 or older has already left his mark and passed his genetics to multiple fawns.

Great point jbatey! . She will have to keep popping those twins though. I aint shooting a big ole breeder.

Its cool when you got an ole cull you have around long enough to name. We had one called "sausage" a few years ago. Could never quite catch up with him. Father time probably did.

Wish I knew how to post pics... Was on a hunt 3 years ago. I was told to shoot a certain "cull" buck. I did, and got a cool European mount for my efforts. His undamaged side was truly a trophy. When I looked closer, the bad side had pedicle damage.

Maybe it’s crazy, but I’ve never shot a deer as a “cull”. Honestly, has never crossed my mind when shooting a deer.

Can we at least all acknowledge at this point that it has been proven that you can't change anything about genetics no matter which one you shoot or if you shoot everyone you ever see......it doesn't change anything. I'm just surprised to still hear so many folks that talk about taking a deer out to get those genetics off the property or out of the herd, etc.....I hear a good bit out tracking for people and on here as well. I don't think this is really a matter of opinion anymore to where we can just believe it to be so because that's what makes sense to me. At some point you have to acceptt what the science and data tells us over opinions passed around the campfire.

I'll add a pic to the thread...….this is the biggest bodied deer I've ever seen in person as well. Didn't see it on any scales or anything but I've seen a good many bucks now in the 200-220 lb range and the one in the pic looked noticeably bigger to me than any of those without a doubt. Also probably very fortunate that its still probably the best bay job Otis has ever pulled off on one. He charged him several times too but Otis kept enough distance between them that he never got hit by that spear this big joker was carrying around on him. A buck that size with a dagger like that could kill a dog in a heartbeat, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't gore a few bucks during his life as well if he carried this kind of rack for years

Taking injury out all together and looking at genes determine culls. If you kill a cull, the way yearling buck dispersal works, isn't daddy cull and momma cull are off somewhere else steadily replacing the culls....and then some. So just looking at genes if that were the case, all shooting a cull improves is your neighbors genes, not yours. I don't mean neighbors as next door neighbors but neighbors a couple miles away or better.

unique trophies IMO., esp. when mature

I hunted a tract on the Alabama River in Clarke County back in 1990. Every deer there had a spike on one side or the other. I Killed one that had 6 on the right and a 5" spike sticking straight up on the left. If he would have matched the right he would have scored close to 140". He was a stud by all means except for the spike. Rack hangs in the shop as we speak and more folks comment about him than any other. His left side just didn't grow. Goofiest racks I have ever seen came off that tract.

I'll.take that even a step further and say that the neighbors 2 miles away didn't benefit either. Buck dispersal is if we took it all and put in a big bag, shake the hell out of it, and then sling it randomly across the landscape. The neighbors still get the same random influx that you get.

Do you think it might have been some kind of environmental situation that caused the bucks to have weaker antlers and therefore more prone to pedicle damage? I think some of these situations where something is obviously going on that gets blamed on genetics is being caused by something environmental that's being overlooked

The property we hunted was in the Chance-Lower Peach Tree area and there is a member on here who owns it now. I just don't remember who has it. The only thing ever done to this place was the cutting of trees off it when we leased it. You went back in time when you got there it was so remote. Alligators, hogs, you name it, they called it home and we were visitors there.

There were plenty of oak trees and plenty for the deer to eat. We just all assumed it was genetic and dropped the lease after one year. There was not a single deer killed there that had a matching rack. One side always had a spike, and only a few of the spikes even had a curve to them. There were racks left on the well supports there that were the same as we killed that had been left by other hunters before us. Maybe the member that has the tract now will chime in and let us know what it's like now.

When we hunted it, I was big into bow hunting and I didn't have much of a cull factor. I killed a couple of truckloads of deer off it that one year. I also killed two hogs that were published in the magazine AL Game and Fish in their camera corner feature. They were the largest hogs I have ever seen in the wild. Everything else grew there like it was supposed to. The deer just didn't grow a matching rack. I really believe it was the genetics at play messing them up.

I started hunting our family land about 30 years ago and there were a lot of SOOS bucks in there. I started shooting every one I could get the crosshairs on. I havn't seen one in 5 or so years, but if I do I'll shoot him. Not a scientific approach that some of ya'll have, but if they are dead they aren't breeding.

But here's the thing when saying it's genetic. Those bucks your talking about we're most likely not born on that property. The vast majority of then anyways. They came there as a dispersing yesrling from othother surrounding properties . It varies according to habitat but you're likely talking about the possibility of the young dispersing yeslrings coming from any property within say 3-5 miles in any direction. You get a mived bag of young ones each year that could come from any and all of those properties. You might as well put all of them within that radius into a lottery bin and draw them out like Powerball. What are the chances then to draw out only soos bucks for your property?

We share same science, here are 2 that lost breeding privileges

like this approach

I see this point. Makes it look a lot more of a bleak situation. I mean its almost as if there is nothing you can do about it ever... Only thing you can do is eliminate the SOOS deer in the cross hairs to keep him from reproducing.

Good to see you back on here CNC!

Thanks!....Hunting season is over now and its been boring as hell with all the rain.

So let me say upfront that getting into the finer details of genetics is not something that I’ve researched and studied on very much........so take this next comment with a grain of salt and hopefully if I’m a little off with what I’m saying someone with a better understanding with clean it up……

There’s a difference in a deer “carrying” a gene versus a deer “expressing” a gene. Think about if we were looking at a dogs paperwork and its pedigree. Is the only thing effecting the traits of that dog simply the ones seen from the mom and dad? No its not……There’s a lineage behind those two that branches out over and over with different dogs with different possibilities for characteristics. It may be that the current dog we’re looking at is far more similar in appearance to his grandfather than his father……How many people have you seen that were the spitting image of an ancestor and looked for more like them than their immediate parents? This is because of the genes that are being expressed. They’re still carrying the genes for the other ones that may be passed on and express themselves in the next generation. With dogs there has been a intense controlled breeding that has taken place in order to produce a lineage of dogs all with standards and desired characteristics such as great hunting drive for example…..But with something like wild deer herds, the lineage is gonna be a completely random mix of this and that. So those genes from that cull deer are still in the lineage being passed on through other deer…..It will still express itself in future generations no matter if you shoot everyone you see.

Now I may be a little off on that……I really hope someone with help out here because I’m wanting to hear how this works if I’m off on what I’ve said.

Y'all read this. Very interesting. In my opinion it sums up the cull myth.

https://www.qdma.com/spike-one-side-genetics-injury/

From the article - Harvesting SOOS bucks does nothing to improve the genetic quality of a deer population.

Author was Dr. Gabe Karns, who earned his Ph.D. in wildlife sciences at Auburn University and his master’s degree from North Carolina State University.

I wonder if he was a part o the QDMA bunch that came up with "shoot does, shoot does, shoot all the damn does" brilliant idea?

Dr. Gabe is a pretty young guy, he wasn't even born or was very young when QDMA ran out on the shoot does limb.

You mean dominate and recessive? Mendel's studies and outcomes were pretty interesting.

This is the reality, sometimes we act like the doe has nothing to do with genetics. If for no other reason that that, the idea of "culling" bucks with "undesirable" racks is foolishness.
And for me personally, I love the character of those "goofy" racks when they get old and big. It's really boring if all you have is slick 8's.

That half baked "study" was thoroughly discussed and analyzed here when it came out many years ago.

It was only a very small cursory look at the SOOS phenomenah, was not any kind of thorough comprehensive and scientific study whatsoever, and it was completely INCONCLUSIVE. As a matter of fact the cursory short "study" did not find any explanations for about 50% of the FEW SOOS antlers they looked at.

The "study" was more social politics then anything.

*************

Bottom line is that if hunters can high grade a deer herd and mess it up by doing so, ipso facto, hunters can low grade a deer herd and improve a deer herd. That is what animal husbandry has been doing with farm animals for 10,000 years.

I would recommend that all hunters everywhere kill all SOOS on sight, and also low grade kill all their crap 2s and 3s.
Let all your best 2s and 3s walk and let them get to full maturity.

Certainly not trying to say that it was all handled properly but that's not a true way of describing what took place. The information that QDMA presented to the public on things like carrying capacity and buck to doe ratio was sound and correct. The problem occurred because most hunters did not have a complete understanding of when and where it needed to be applied. Nothing was really taught about how to assess your individual situation and better yet it was never presented as there being a wide range in what is acceptable. There's no one "just right" density or level of carrying capacity that has to be managed for. The worst part of the situation was that only a small percentage of properties were even remotely close to overpopulation. Hunters misunderstood the info and ran with it. There are still ffolks that shoot does just because they think it's just what you do to manage deer on any given club or property....with no understanding of if they really do need to or what kind of population they could manage for. QDMA did not teach to just shoot every doe without reason. I will concede that there was some bad info given through opinions when making the claim that most folks wouldn't be able to kill to many. That statement just didn't take into consideration the impact of coyotes thst would soon be realized

Those look like Kemper County, Mississippi deer, whole dang herd is messed up.

I think this is something a little different. I think it was BSK maybe that I remember discussing this part of its and someone else has as well since then but I forget who. I'm just about positive that they used the same terms on how genes were "carried" and "expressed".....I just don't recall everything that was talked about. Its easy to thing about a pedigree chart though and see that the deer you consider to be the trophy may have very well had numerous grandfathers with inferior traits and vice versa the one you're shooting as a cull thinking its getting the gene out of the pool could have had some one fiddy's in his lineage. What is passed down to the next generation does not all hinge on simply the current mother and father and it certainly isn't gonna have an impact just manipulating one of them. People will believe what they want to believe anyways though just because that's how they make sense of it. This is a prime example of one of the biggest issues we have in this state. Most of us don't know anymore about genetics that we do brain surgery. Yet folks will still form an opinion based off of nothing more than what seems right to them and then close off their minds to any other possibility. Many of the problems that clubs and such have are because many of the folks in them and running them don't have much of a true understanding of the truth and only know it from the perspective of what's been passed around the campfire over the years. It doesn't matter that universities have research facilities dedicated to finding out the science behind all of the finer details....someone will still believe the rut came early this year just because that's what they saw by God. A more open minded approach and a little room for the possibility that your opinion may be wrong would go a long ways toward learning and knowing the truth

What was the buck to doe ratio that QDMA presented are you referring to?

Both parents have to have the recessive gene for it to show up, though.

But, I have great news for you. I'll shot every "boring" 130"+ 8 point that you have on your place so you don't have to look at them. You're welcome.

Is there a study that shows that a screwed up rack buck will only have offspring that have screwed up racks?

Don't know how that type study could be done on free range deer.

It's be awesome to know tho 😃

I’m just speaking about the overall idea really of how a deer herd responds to having some balance. How having decent buck to doe ratios helps take some stress off the younger deer and prevents all the bucks from having to go through the rigors associated with a rut that’s really drawn out. Also how they were just trying to show how the deer herd responds to being in balance with the habitat….things like having twins, heavier body weights, etc…..The one area where I think they failed in this regard…. and maybe this is just my personal opinion about things…..but its how they didn’t explain that your herd doesn’t have to throw off twins for every doe or meet a certain body weight criteria. If I want to have a higher deer population and body weights are lower as a result then that’s fine too up to a point. They should have taught it as a gauge of determining which direction you’re headed and how to tweak things when needed so that you never reach critical levels in either direction…..To me it all came out as something that was black and white and like there’s a certain utopian place to manage that we should all seek to reach. There’s not. There’s a lot of clubs and properties out there that had the potential of actually holding more deer that whacked a bunch of does just because they perceived doe management as a part of every situation. Hell, at this point we could make a real good argument that there are very few situations where anyone HAS to shoot does period. You just need to have an understanding of the whole picture and not look to a one size fits all approach. I think they meant to help with that understanding but instead everyone perceived needing to do it one certain way.

hmm, ok. You referenced the buck to doe ratio specifically as being sound and correct, I just figured you knew what it was they said.

No...I was just getting at the reasons for why someone might need to shoot does as they were explaining it. I've always agreed with the approach of educating the public on how things work but there's a fine line there though in how you use it to direct their behavior....whether intentionally or on accident. I don't think that meant for it to go the way it did...I think they likely just didn't foresee the way it would misinterpreted and misused

CNC about 25 years ago we hosted 3 QDMA seminars in Troy. The common thread they had was to shoot does. It was usually ask if a doe and two doe yearlings came into the plot which one should you shoot, the answer was to shoot all of them. no talk about deer population, just shoot all does. They usually wanted to make a quick presentation and eat and they get the auction going, a lot like the Wild Turkey bunch.

Seems like it would be easy to do that study on captive deer. Get a buck with a messed up rack, spike on one side, rack on other. Put him in a pen with 10 different does and see what the buck offspring look like.

Hold up now

Oh yeah...I've been to those banquets before. Trust me there no love loss there. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong. I do remember it snowballing into being more and lots of things being said like what you describe but I thought I remember the original message to just be about the overall way things worked. It was when things like someone asking questions about which doe to shoot with the assumption that they for sure needed shoot them that it went astray. The answer to shoot all of them wouldn't be wrong if / was needed to take some out. I really think the coyote situation made the whole thing worse. Things wouldn't have went nearly as bad if had never spread and boomed or if it had already done so well ahead of he doe shooting mess happening. Folks got the wrong impression though right at the same time as the coyote boom and everything was hit with a double whammy

Their genes are not out of the herd. The only legitimate reason to "cull" a buck from the herd is to take a mouth to feed out of the herd. You're doing nothing for the genetics. The bucks you removed had a mother and daddy that passed on the same genetics as the bucks you killed, and the bucks you killed had passed on theirs before you killed them.

They will no longer be ADDING genes to the herd.

***********

This is about MATH.
So many of you guys cannot see the forest from the trees.

Genetics is about MATH.
It is a MATH issue/MATH problem.

You have less of something that is a MINUS.
More of something is a PLUS.

High grading is FACT.
Ipso facto low grading is a FACT.

If everyone low graded every year and otherwise did not shoot a buck until it was at least 4 years old the overall antler genetics of the State
would improve over time.

What we have had the last 50 years is people doing the exact opposite.
That is why there are so many scabby inferior antler traits in the Alabama gene pool.

[quote=280REM The only legitimate reason to "cull" a buck from the herd is to take a mouth to feed out of the herd. [/quote]

That's is incorrect .

Beside the FACT of REDUCING bad antler genes from the herd, killing crappy scabby bucks that will never
amount to anything antler wise - not only saves food for other deer, but it opens space, bedding, cover and breeding
opportunities for superior antlered bucks.


**********

There are a lot of cattle farmers on here.

Do any of you go looking for the most inferior bull to breed your cows?

Do horse farmers pay big money to have the weakest, smallest worst stallion breed their mares?

Well if there is any merit to that way of thinking at all then lets stop for a minute and think about how the “good genes” are being treated…..Aren’t we taking that trophy gene out of the herd if we shoot that nice 10 pt?? Any of y’all letting it walk to keep it in the herd?? By the logic being used here we should have already taken that trophy gene out of the herd by now if it was possible to do so shouldn’t we have??….. since we’ve likely shot every one that’s ever walked??…..many even at a young age….most of them likely

I'm interested to hear how this gets explained......

The dominant gene wants to get passed on, moreso, than the recessive gene. That's why both parents have to possess the recessive gene for it to get passed on.

I understand that concept but how does that apply to what I’m asking? Why would you think that a high scoring rack would be a dominant trait anyways? Humans are the ones who put emphasis on that…I don’t think nature does.

Nature absolutely does. The biggest and strongest, typically, do the breeding. They're also typically the healthiest. Why do you think that doesn't exist?

Because I think body size would have a far greater impact on what you’re talking about than whether they had a spike on one side or a perfect 10 pt frame….I don’t know if attitude is any way somehow passed on but that more important as well than rack size and score. Antler characteristics do not provide any evolutionary advantage. The only thing I could even possibly come up with is that if the doe were more attracted to big racks but I don’t think it plays out that way….Even if antlers did somehow play a role in an evolutionary “survival of the fittest” type way….aren’t many of these cull hunters shooting the big SOOS buck and claiming that he likely whipped all of the other bucks. I mean wouldn’t the one in the pic I posted have the advantage there and therefore carry the best gene to pass on?? Nature and evolution isn't choosing for and trying to produce one fiddy's….those traits only matter to hunters

Very simple.
.

The good 10 point was allowed to spread his good antler genes around when he was 2 and 3 years old.
Maybe even as a 4 year old.

What 90% of Alabama hunters do is kill that good antlered deer when he is 2 years old.

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.