Rank These Deer Factors

Rank these in order of 1 to 4, with 1 being the bestest and 4 the leastest, that you believe most importantly impacts antler growth. This is in a FREE RANGE environment -- NO pens, enclosures or whatever captive situation exists -- and a general question without regard to region or state.


Genetics

Soils/Minerals

Age/Trigger Restraint

Forage/Nutrition

1. AGE/Trigger Restraint
2. Genetics
3. Soils/Minerals
4. Nutrition
ETA: This is my opinion for a real world environment (not a pen) where it's nearly impossible to alter herd genetics through culling. I cringe when I hear that word thrown around and people actually thinking they are helping the herd.

1. AGE/Trigger Restraint
2. Forage/Nutrition
3. Soils/Minerals
4. Genetics

If we are talking free range under normal conditions. By nutrition do you mean feeding too? If so Soils and Nutrition could swap back and forth but without decent soils you have poor forage and nutrition...

Age
Soils
Forage/Nutrition
Genetics

You have to ask what is the biggest contributing factor to bigger, better deer in the midwest. The answer is older, larger deer. They are larger due to the food they have everywhere. Why do they have that food? Better soils.

The best ground in the world would be worthless if the carrying capacity was doubled though...

Only three responses before the region comparison. I put the over/under at 5. I knew I should have played the under.

wouldn't forage/nutrition kind of coincide with soil/ minerals?

Anyway, I pretty much agree with Barry. Although even with age, if they dont have the quality nutrition you can be hunting 90" 5 year olds.

GENETICS

Soils/minerals and forage/nutrition go hand in hand. I believe they are the same.

Age

How can u possibly rank genetics as lowest priority? If were talking about antler growth fine But if your talking antler size genectics plays a huge role.

1) Soil/Nutrition
2) Age
3) Genetics
I believe soil and nutrition are one and the same. Needs to be mature to express his potential. And finally, IMO genetics are probably pretty much the same around the state.

Because even average genetics with superior nutrition will produce above average antlers. Great genetics with poor nutrition will produce below average antlers.

Yup.

Winner, IMO.

Put them in the same area and a genetically inferior deer will always be inferior.

James, how are the genetics different in a deer in Morgan County vs one in Geneva County?

And the reason for that is the soil, not genetics. Ever heard of the black belt?

Better read Clems question again James, .....was not intended to compare regions.
Jackson Co. deer were stocked from LA deer. Stimpson Sanctuary I believe.

I was respnding to James. He said the genetics were different in south alabama and north alabama, and i disagree. The soil is the difference.

I read where he said genectics are pretty much the same throughout the state & that's false

Yep,
I think there are a couple areas that were restocked from deer outside the state, most areas were from native deer.....so genetics are the same in most of the state.

well I can't help you there better talk to a biologist cause there not the same comparing the 2 is comparing apples to oranges.

1) Age
2) Soil
3) nutrition
4) Genetics

Single most important factor that WE can influence is age. Without birthdays his genetic potential will not be reached. We can also influence the soil with lime and fertilizer, but its not feasible unless you have really deep pockets. We can influence nutrition by sound management practices such as thinning, plantings, and prescribed FIRE. We CANNOT influence genetics in a free ranging herd, therefore is the reason it is least important in this list.

Based on what? The blackbelt region in the south has better soil, than the north. Some area's in the north are starting to produce and catch up with the south, due to people letting deer mature, plus some of these northern deer are in hard to get to places and they reach a ripe old age.

He didn't ask what WE can influence.

Question...

Are we affecting genetics by letting deer age? Does better soil create better genetics through time? At what lat/longitudes are there different genetics in whitetail deer?

Hello its not just soil in the black belt that was growing big deer .I've killed bigger deer in g.hill than that has been killed in the club I'm in Alberta not body wise. Its a fact most farmers r growing corn in Dallas Wilcox Marengo. That was not the case years ago! Its what they were growing in that rich black belt soil. Yes I said damnit nutrition helped grow them there monsters! Lol

Well, we know two things for certain: Hunters can't agree on anything or enjoy a fun question.


We need a delete feature for threads. Damn.

Starting to catch up? You realize that jackson county has more bucks over 150" in the state record book than any other county? Of 11 bucks I killed in Jackson county 10 of them weighed over 200 lbs. Genetics? Not in my opinion. It was due to the fact they had an abundance of high quality food available through out the year and could eat as much as they like.

Either way its still the same order.

And were able to grow to be more than 3.5 years old due, in part, to the terrain.

I hunt the black belt deer don't eat the soil!

No doubt. You need it all if you are going to consitently grow big deer. Any one of the above factors aren't enough by themselves.

I'm out

Is it just me, or can some people not understand the soil is what makes plants nutritious, thats why we lime and fertilize the soil. Clem i agree, the deer getting to a mature age has everything to do with the deer in northern Alabama being in the record book. Oh well, not going to argue about it, we'll agree to disagree.

You do understand about soil, minerals, nutrition that goes into plants, plants thrive in better soils, minerals in soil are used by animals including deer, etc.?

It's all hooked together and not one singular thing.

Deer can't get larger antlers if they die when they are 1 or 2 regardless of the other factors. Best food, best soil, best genetics equals a fork antlered yearling. If he dies as a fork antlered yearling, he aint getting any bigger.

yep

I understand completely. But Its a documented fact that hunting the black belt is not what it use to be largely due to what the farmers are not growing anymore. So now supplemented feeding has took some its place

Yes yes poor analogie can be taking wrong way lmao!

James, part of the problem in south alabama is there's too many deer. In these situations, deer can't express their ultimate potential. In north alabama, the density per square mile is a lot lower. There are bucks in some of the mountainous regions, that has never seen a human, or at least not very much. You can take a 5.5 y/o buck in north alabama, and he would be a hoss. That same buck in the black belt would be bigger. Why do you think midwestern deer have larger antlers, its not all genetics, its about soil. Their farmers can grow higher yields of corn per acre than ours, why? The soil, not superior gentic corn.

Well I think we can agree on one thing we all like to hunt & the deer wouldn't be where they r today with out us. So everyone else can kiss our arse! Lol

But, it has giant antlers on the bag!

Age-Animal has to mature.Dead deer don't grow.

Genetics-MUST have good genes!

Forage-Natural is the best.

Minerals-Helps if done properly.

Ut oh James... that killed ya.

Agree partly but not about corn. Corn is a poor substitute for soybean & peanut fields & etc.. I've yet to see a deer come from Dallas or so on that compares to the deer from n.west Alabama around the bank head areas & surrounding. My buddies have 2,000 acres private owned around orrville by them. & the bucks have topped out @ 150s can't seem to do know better. Granted Marengo holds a record but that was awhile ago

We have killed bigger anltered deer smaller bodied deer though n.west of g.hill on some property I hunted for awhile could that be a sign of good genetics?

1 genetics 2 trigger restraint 3 genes 4 genes

A 154 10point 4.1/2 my biggest was 141 3.1/2 10 point and several others not much age & know black belt so what makes them deer in that area far better?

Your deer don't eat .

I follow.
Trigger restraint is easiest to control.
Genes are pretty much the cards you're delt.
Nutrition is the key,doesn't matter it he's got world class genes if he only eat's low quality food growing in low quality soil. He may only be a little above average for that area.

1. Nutrition
2. Soils
3. Genetics
4. Age

Age/TR
Forage/Nutrition
Soil/Min
Genetics

Clem, "trigger restraint" was the kicker that inflenced me in ranking age as #1. Take out trigger restraint which is "assumed hunter involvement" and my rankings would change but I think age is the biggest obstacle to overcome.

For an entire local population of bucks (average antler scores):

1) Forage/Nutrition

2) Soils/Minerals

3) Age/Trigger Restraint

4) Genetics


When considering an individual buck, age and genetics would be slightly higher in importance.

I've seen many post on deer having great genes but poor nutrition. What about deer with poor genes eating great nutrition & he may have slightly above average rack wth?

Yes we eat it at least 2 to 3 times a week and i'm starting to run low. Killed 2 last year 1 that weighed over 190 and one that was over 170 along with some does. None of them came from a managed hunting club. The 1 that weighed 170 going on the wall. He had better genes and survived long enough to grow good horns. So once again genetics, trigger restraint, genes and genes.

BSK, could you address this?

Can you take a buck with "below-average genes" and put him in a setting with great nutrition - for the sake of argument including protein supplements (pellets) and mineral licks - and see above-average antler growth?

Clem,

How many people do you know that have fenced in areas buying deer with below-average genes?

Well my buddies club in Furman kept letting 5.1/2 to 6year old 8 point deer walk well I hate it that 6year old 8 point is gonna be just that no matter what u feed him. They came to that conclusion too late the adjoining landowners really appreciated that

We're not talking about fenced areas. That's a topic for another thread.

I'm with this list.....

Correct there bringing in deer with far superior genes. You can't take a buck from Washington county Alabama to Illinois & expect him to grow a 200inch rack because their soil is better. Its not in his genetic make-up

1. Age
2. Nutrition
3. Genetics

Age has to be 1. If you kill a 1 year old spike, it's going to be difficult for him to grow bigger antlers. It doesn't matter if you pour soybeans down his throat every day, he's still dead.

I am curious on your 1 & 2. Wouldn't the soils directly impact the forage? Obviously it does not include feed or any other artificial food sources. I'm guessing you're leaning toward artificially increasing the quality of the food sources through management?

Good thought too, most all us were looking at it from an individual standpoint. Of course most of us are only worried about a handful of individual bucks.

x2

Genetics affect all the bucks, not just a few.

1. soil
2. age
3. genetics
4. forage...if you have good soil you'll have good forage

for all that say age, take a trip to Illinois or Iowa or even go hunt a farm that is actually in the blackbelt in Al....they have 2 year olds scoring 120 all day long and 3 year olds scoring 130-140...assuming your letting all bucks 2 years or younger walk, it's all about the soil... that's why the avg. 5 year old buck in south Alabama will never equal what the average 3 year old buck scores in the blackbelt or Jackson Co....

soil first, without great soil you are already behind

the others will fall into place

Genetics then genetics, then genetics, then all the rest

Age
Soil/Nutrition
Genetics

Where is this Furman? Seeing 5.5 and 6 y/o bucks during the daylight in Alabama, in a wild heard, and passing on them, is not realistic. Most people couldn't age a deer if you paid them. I wonder how many people on here actually have their deer aged by a biologist. If its like guessing the weight of a deer, then people can be way off.

Hope you're not putting much stock in anyone aging beyond 3 in the Southeast by tooth wear. But that's another thread.

The food and soil aspect of the Midwest I agree with. But the age part I STRONGLY disagree with. I see no difference in buck age structure between much of the Midwest and much of the Southeast.

I've heard the reason Illinois doesn't produce as many booners per hunter as Iowa is b/c with all the out of state hunters in Ill. a ton of 2 and 3 year old bucks get shot, especially 3 year olds. But those 2 and 3 year olds are much bigger than same age in Bama b/c of the soil/ crops

Interesting, please elaborate. Are you saying biologists can't tell age past 3 in Alabama?

Well it can be realistic there they had a 10point restriction hinthint they didn't shoot anything but that or better. When they decided otherwise they didn't see any of the big 8 on cams or daytime or any in the past 2years

Where did I say anything negative about biologists? If u don't know the Furman area please don't make accusations on what can & can't be seen there because u know nothing about the area & the people there........

Well I can judge fairly good if I don't it cost me a $200fine & I'm not given away money

Watch TV show the chase their in that area alot they see some decent bucks in the daytime hours..

blumsden, about 10 years ago I came to believe tooth wear was unreliable. My thinking was that is like going through wal-mart parking lot and trying to guess how old tires are by the wear. Over the past several years I have spoke to several biologist at length about this, one being Chuck Sykes 2 years ago at the QDMA convention.
I asked questions like can deer teeth wear be effected by diet,that some may have softer or harded teeth in a given region. He agreed as did Erich Long who was also present. I told him I was from Jackson Co and thought tooth wear may vary in our county. Deer from PRV that are mountain deer only v deer in river bottoms, have different diets, the crop land/ bottom deer having a much softer diet. Also that deer in a high limestone area may have harder teeth. He agreed as have others. Chuck added that other factors in the Southesast are that fawns are born over a wide range and can make their teeth appear to be on a whole year instead of a half in hunting season. He also said drought can effect. He also said Centium anillum ( please forgive spelling) is not 100% in the Southest but is much more accurate than tooth wear. Chuck also said the only sure way in the Southeast is ear tag them as fawns.
Matt Brock , a fine biologist himself, that posts on here told a story about a set of jaws he has. He's handed one to other biologist and they give an age of 3.5, then he hands them the other and they say 5.5. He then tells them they are from the same deer!

I disagree that tooth wear aging is not accurate. It's been my experience in the aging of several hundreds of jaws that it CAN be accurate.

No if you are talking about a set up like you said with Matt, then I will agree that it can, usually is, inaccurate. One jaw of unknown origin is a crap shoot most of the time.

30, 40, 80, jaw sets off the SAME property over several years can give you comparisons to judge age by. Pretty accurately too. Just my personal experiences aging by tooth, cameras, eyeballing, all compared to get an accurate age.

I guess I keep getting hung up on the places I hunt and not the overall population. I agree to a point on the buck age class structure. Statistically speaking there is no difference.

Midwestern states do a better job a recruiting bucks into the adult (older than yearling) age classes by their hunting season lengths and methods IMO.

I'm sure a diet of supplemented feed & corn doesn't help matters neither in judging teeth.

2dogs, thats very interesting, i'd never heard that before, but it makes sense. BSK, have you heard of this? I saw a processer and a game warden age a deer at 3.5 y/o, and i would have thought by the neck and shoulders that this deer would have beeen at least 4-5. The guys in the QDMA mag can't agree on age by looking at pictures of deer, and they are aging all the time, thats why i think most of us are probably not good at aging on the hoof.

All teeth coming off the same property over a period of years would be the best situation for aging with tooth wear . But a "State" biologist or anyone else seeing teeth from all over the state and saying he's even close to 100% on deer 3 years and older is full of crap. IMO.

I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed on the QDMA site. My understanding is the mid-west and other areas can be very accurate, terra the same, fawns born early and in a short time frame, food is pretty much the same year in year out, along with other factors that are more stable.

I disagree as a general rule. Trophy managed properties in the Midwest hold a lot of mature bucks. So do trophy managed properties in the Southeast. However, on unmanaged properties in the Midwest, yearling bucks are slaughtered, far more than in most parts of the Southeast these days.

What I see in much of the Southeast is antler development so far below what the SAME AGED bucks in the Midwest grow that hunters don't believe they have any mature bucks around. Hunters have been watching too many TV shows filmed in the Midwest. They are expecting mature bucks to have large antlers. Yet in many parts of the Southeast, mature bucks don't average high-scoring antlers, because of the habitat (soil/nutrition).

If one area has a buck population that is 10% mature, and another area also has a buck population that is 10% mature, yet one of those two areas grows much larger antlers, what is the difference? It isn't age; it's nutrition.

I think 2Dogs and BF nailed it. I agree that aging jawbones that are all from a specific area or location can be fine-tuned into fairly accurate judging (you're able to obtain "known" age and compare) but throw in jawbones all from different areas of state and country, I think it's very difficult to be conclusion past 3.

There has been no scientific studies proving some deer have harder teeth or that diet effects tooth-wear rates (although that makes perfect sense, and is probably true).

Considerable discussion has occurred within the scientific community as well as the general hunting public that the Severinghaus Tooth-wear and Replacement aging method has limitations. One of it's major limitations is that it tends to underage the oldest deer. Rarely does the toothwear process over-age a deer, but with every year older that a deer actually is, the chances that toothwear will under-age the deer increases. By the time a deer's toothwear indicates they are 5 years old, they are almost guaranteed to be older than that, by up to 2 years older.

But honestly, too many hunters (and biologists) get hung up on EXACT ages. Who cares? Is the deer young, middle-aged, or mature? Body conformation will tell that quite accurately almost every time, as will toothwear. Honestly, does it matter whether a buck is 4 1/2 or actually 5 1/2? If you think it does, you're taking all this way too seriously.

#1 Genetics

#2 Soils/Minerals

#3 Forage/Nutrition

#4 Age/Trigger Restraint

I don't know much about big deer. In my opinion if the deer does not have good genetics he will never be a high scoring deer. A deer with good gentics will grow an above average rack with decent soil and nutrition given time. Take my club for example. We have above average dirt, good nutrition, and practice trgger restraint. What we lack is good genetics and our deer show that on a regular basis. I have killed several deer well over 200 lbs and fully mature and they will be lucky to break the 125" mark. I know our deer are very healthy due to their body size and age at the time of harvest. We lack good genetics and it doesn't matter how old we let them get they are never going to be a high scoring deer. We might have a few deer that are the exception but those are few and far between. None the less mature bucks are fun to hunt no matter their score

James:

You also mentioned that they (your buddies' place) had a 10 pt minimal restriction. What about a 5 yr old four, or six or seven point?

Anyway, WOW!! That's better than hunting adjoining land that's not hunted at all. Your buddies feed and grow bucks to seven years old!?!?!?! I bet the neighbors' DID love your buddies! I do believe that your buddies would GREATLY benefit from a whitetail biologist's realistic recommendations. They would also greatly benefit from turning off any outdoor show filmed in the Midwest, Canada, high fence, etc...

Your buddies place was "free-range" whitetails and they were letting 6 yr old bucks walk if they were just 8 pts? Man, Man!!!! At some point, it's time to pick the fruit! At an earlier point, it's time to be realistic! Seeing a six year old mature Alabama buck in daylight hours is something special and not shooting him because he's "just" an 8 pt would seem crazy to most of the guys on this thread!

You said that they learned from their "mistake" but before anymore deer mgmt mistakes are made, your buddies need to consult with a biologist and do a lot more reading and set some realistic goals. With free range Alabama bucks and with more than a few hunters involved, managing for 4 yr old is very good. Managing for 5 yr old bucks is... hey, that's great but it takes A LOT of discipline and dedication AND, education. Managing for 6 yr bucks and NOT shooting then when they're 5 yr olds takes an enormous amount of restraint and discipline and you almost need to have your bucks chronicled with pictures and pre-aged prior to viewing them on the hoof.

With everything considered, having unrealistic/unattainable goals makes it almost no fun. Ya know.... at some point, it's time to "pick the fruit" If yo buddies can wait 'til 6 yrs old, your neighbors will continue to appreciate it!

this

like those ODMA poster of bucks by age, kinda misleading to most areas in the SE we hunt

I put one up on our l;ease and said deduct a year by antler characteristics

So you are saying only 10% of bucks make it past 1.5 years of age? I'd like to see that data.

I would say as a general rule all deer are slaughtered by locals for farming reasons. They don't select bucks so I don't necessarily agree it skews anything. They don't selectively harvest anything and mostly harvest antlerless deer in my experience.

I completely agree it is about the soil too though. I just can't concede that soil is more important than age in your respective area. You are dealt the hand you're dealt with soil for the most part. You can do some to better it. As a hunter you have a lot to do with age if you have enough property. Sure there are coyotes, mortality and other factors you have to deal with but if you shoot a buck he sure isn't getting any bigger. He may still not get much bigger but dead you can be sure he won't.

Edit:

I realized I have been arguing myself a little too. I would like to recant and ad that age and nutrition/ soils are equally as important not more than the other. In all my consulting jobs and management recommendations the first thing I tell people is have realistic expectations and that is due to where they live and what I believe they can provide nutritionally based on their soils. Still, dead deer don't grow, so in my eyes age is of equal importance as nutrition. I succumb to the great BSK

This^^^

You need to know your area. I age thousands per year. You get pretty good within your area.

What do you think your accuracy rate is as a %? Not a gotcha or trick question, just wondered what you thought it might be.

10% Mature. A deer must be 4 1/2 or older to be considered mature.

I disagree strongly. Today's serious deer hunter tremendously overestimates how much of the deer hunting community is as enamored with trophy bucks as they are. Big buck hunters tend to associate with other big buck hunters, which gives them a skewed view of the deer hunting community as a whole. In addition, TV hunting shows and big buck magazines make it seem like everyone is a trophy hunter and having success. That just isn't the case. When random surveys of a state's deer hunters are conducted, time and again they come back with data showing the majority of deer hunters are pretty casual hunters. Most hunt less than 10 calendar days per year. For those hunters--which make up the majority of all deer hunters--they don't hunt enough to be picky, hence will shoot the first buck of opportunity. And this is exacerbated in the Midwest, where very short gun seasons do not give the average hunter time to be picky. If they don't shoot the first buck of opportunity, their chances of seeing another buck are low. Although many hunters believe short gun seasons protect young bucks from harvest, the data suggests just the opposite--they increase the harvest of yearling bucks. Longer gun seasons provide more opportunity for the average hunter to be picky. I would suggest that is why many Southeastern states, with their long gun seasons, have buck harvests that are only 30-40% yearlings while some Midwestern states, such as Ohio, have buck harvests that are 60+% yearlings.

NightHunter,

The reason I put nutrition above age is due the both hard data and anecdotal data from different regions of the country that clearly show nutrition can overpower age, WITHIN LIMITS. Now you can always take things to the extremes and say no amount of nutrition is going to make yearling bucks outperform 5 1/2 year-old bucks, and that is absolutely true. However, when we start talking about truly large-antlered bucks, nutrition can easily overpower age. In the Mississippi State data, where 10,000+ harvested bucks from the three main soil-quality/percent-agricultural regions of the state were compared by age and antler score, 3 1/2 year-old bucks from the lowest soil quality and lowest agriculture region had antler scores almost 30 INCHES less than 3 1/2 year-olds from the best soil and agriculture region. In fact, bucks in the poorest region had to have two more years of age to equal the antler sizes grown by 3 1/2 year-olds in the best region (5 1/2 year-olds from the worst region had identical scores to 3 1/2s from the best region).

In my home state of TN, 3 1/2 year-olds from the eastern mountains (poor habitat) average smaller antlers than 2 1/2 year-olds in the better regions of the state.

In my region of TN (hilly hardwoods and acidic soils), bucks 4 1/2 or older only average 120-125 gross. However, a friend of mine that manages trophy properties in southern IL reports 4 1/2 and older bucks on his properties average 140-145 and he has never seen a mature buck gross less than 120. In my area, we've killed mature bucks that gross less than 60.

Nighthunter, how do you know if your accurate, unless your estimations are being checked?

yep...talked to a guy last season in the Walmart parking lot in Scottsboro (Jackson Co. for LA guys). He killed a mid 140's last year and had it sent of to determine genetics. It came from Marengo Co. I believe.

I'm just catching up with this thread, but I couldn't help but notice you said some areas in the north are STARTING to produce and catch up...I realize some of the best deer ever killed in Al. are from the blackbelt, but if you check out the record book over the last 10-15 years and Jackson Co. and Madison Co. are on top, especially Jackson...I agree hunters in Jackson Co. are much more management minded than 20 years ago and is the reason that bucks are now being killed more at 3 and 4, but this has been going on in the blackbelt since the early 80's, so shouldn't, if anything, there still be more 140 and 150's killed in the blackbelt? Why has Jackson Co. surpassed all the counties in the blackbelt?

You also point out that there are some hard areas to hunt and kill deer in Jackson Co. You are correct and I would suggest that b/c of this many, many more bucks in Jackson Co. die of old age than in the blackbelt. So I'd venture to say all in all there are still more 4 year olds killed in the blackbelt than in Jackson Co. Wouldn't it be great if the sate could prove that right or wrong? LOL.

Anyway, I'm not sure why Jackson Co. is producing more top end deer than the blackbelt. I've done my share of hunting in the blackbelt and do know that it is a very, very small sliver of land, but still all in all it's probably comparable acreage to Jackson Co. But to say the genetics are different is completely inaccurate unless your specifically referring to extreme NW Al. Just go check out info. on the restocking program...

Theres twice as many deer living in the black belt as there are in Jackson County. This has a big effect on antler size, as well as body size.

Maybe in some parts but the areas I've hunted actually in the small blackbelt sliver didn't have very high deer numbers, but would agree Jackson Co. doesn't have as big as a deer pop. problem as south Al...but like I said high deer numbers are something I've never seen in the blackbelt...Fitspatrick and Union Town areas. Those two areas do produce some giants though

You do realize that doe season has been going on for a lot longer in south Alabama, than north Alabama. Not sure where your buddy hunts, but just look at the state deer density map. They have even cut back on doe days in some area's in the north this year. Listen, if you don't believe its the soil, you don't have to believe me, talk with a biologist. Age has a lot to do with it to.

I do believe it's the soil...but just saying that the best places in the blackbelt don't have high deer density like you'll see as you get a good ways south of Montgomery. Question still remains why are there so many good bucks being killed in Jackson Co. if genetics aren't as good and if soil is so much better? when I originally posted I listed soil as number 1 and genetics as last. I think it's all about the soil.

If i had to guess it would be that deer are being passed on until they are allowed to mature. What else could it be, genetics? I just don't think so.

I'd venture to say most deer in Jackson Co. that make it to 4 are not passed on at 3 or in many cases not even 2...they just live in hard to hunt terrain and avoid being seen by hunters for their entire life. Clubs and landowners are definitely moving in the right direction and there are some large tracts that are heavily managed but all in all Jackson Co. hunters are passing 2 year olds at a much lesser rate than hunters in the blackbelt. At least based on everything I've ever seen...

I'd be willing to bet a good bit that percentage wise and number wise, there are way more mature deer killed in the blackbelt than in Jackson Co. A lot of the 150's to 170's I've heard of and seen in Jackson Co. are in the 3.5 to 4.5 year old range. Just saying it's not the norm for us to kill 5, 6, 7 year old fully mature bucks. In Jackson Co. once they hit 5 they are nearly impossible to kill. They not only have experience like every other mature buck but they also have terrain to hide them as well as acorns every 50 to 100 yds. during most hunting seasons..

I'm not saying I have the answer, I'm just saying a lot of our deer came from Marengo and (I think) Clarke Co. so genetics should be very very similar. I'd love to hear some biologist chime in on Jackson Co. but I've yet to hear anyone explain why the quality is so good. Regardless it's still some of the hardest whitetail terrain to hunt in the country and it really does take a dedicated hunter to consistently kill 3 year old + bucks in Jackson Co.

Try in to convince me there's no difference in our deer herd from south to north is like trying to tell a texan that the hill country deer is no different from southern plains deer!

I guess the deer in Tennessee & surrounding states know the state lines & don't cross over.....News to me when did the state of Alabama put up a high fence?

200" is a stretch anywhere, but to follow your point, take a yearling buck from Washington Co. and put him in Illinois eating beans and he will far exceed where he would have ended up back in sandy soil Washington Co. assuming he lives the same life span.

I'm not a biologist but I'm guessing genetics can vary as much with in a certain property as they can across different regions. There are a lot of bucks in the midwest that top out at 125 to 130 even with the soil and food. And in Al. you have the same thing. I would have a hard time believing that the genetics are that much better in a free ranging herd in the MW than in the SE...it's the soil and food.

When the bottom dropped out of farming in the 70's (thank you Mr. Carter), didn't much of the the black belt go from row crop to those stinkin' pine trees?
The soil in Jackson and Madison Cos. in the river valleys is probably some of the best in the Southeast other than the black belt and along the Mississippi River.
However, 2 of the Harbin Automotive contest winners the last few years came from Sand Mt. one of the others came from a mountain waaaay up in PRV where there were no row crops , so it's clear as mud. Must be in the water.

now that's a thought

It really is amazing to see how some genetic traits really do stop almost at the AL/TN line. A genetic component exists for preferred breeding timing (mothers appear to pass these dates hereditarily to their female offspring). Breeding dates in northern AL, right up to the AL/TN border, are generally mid-January dates. However, breeding dates in most parts od southcentral TN are November dates.

The TWRA recently conducted a fairly extensive study of breeding dates in the southernmost counties of TN and they found the switch from January dates to November dates only covers about one county north to south. In the counties along the AL border, breeding dates mixed from November to January were found, yet in the next counties north, breeding dates were almost all November.

Apparently, that particular genetic trait does not spread geographically very quickly. I have some clients right along the TN-AL and TN-MS border, and they report a double rut--one rut in November and another in January. They are close enough to the border that they have both genetic traits in their local doe populations.

Solid insights, BSK. Thanks.

Couldn't that all be traced back to where the deer were restocked from? NA got their deer from South Alabama. Tenn got theirs from somewhere different. Then, along the state line they get mixed. Que Conway and Loretta, Lousianna woman Mississippi man.

There is a lot more cutover in the last 15 yrs than there used to be here. I think that's what changed it allows them to get older.

And, thus the debate about whether genetics are still evident and passed along as many 50, 60, 80 years or more after stocking from one area-state-region to the other.

BSK,

you know where our place is on the state line...our neighbors to the north of us in Tennessee report a late November rut almost every year...these guys are all hunting with in 100 yds to 4 miles of our place. It is bizarre that we rarely see any rutting activity on our land, but occasionally on opening weekend we see a buck chase a doe. I can't explain how these guys that are only hunting sometimes 400-500 yds from our line are seeing an actual rut annually that we rarely see. Makes no sense and there may be more to it. Maybe these guys hunt harder anticipating rutting behavior and we don't. I don't know but it's pretty weird. Our rut consistently starts after Christmas and ends about 10-15 days later, except for some trickling rut activity in late January. The guys to the north experience it too, but not to the degree that we do. Go figure....Maybe it has everything to do with the Alabama restocking program.

Also, didn't Tn. do a restocking program as well? The guy that owns the farm next to us, In Tn. says that when he was in his teens they released some deer from up north (maybe Ohio). He killed one that he believes was a released deer. It was huge, both body and amount of mass.

I would guess some of the bloodlines have remained more pure to the deer that were released from LA and some have mixed more with Tenn. deer. It is like some know where the state line is. Interesting.
Most of the first deer that were released on Skyline in the 50's were said to have went North into Franklin County Tenn. ( Carter Mt.) That's why about 5 years later the state released more. Personally, I think the hillbillys killed most of the first group.
I think those North of the boarder on Carter Mt. breed same as Skyline, guess because Alabama was being a good neighbor and stocked those for Tenn. At least the few the hillbillys didn't kill.

I live on hurricane mountain in Jacksonville. Our rut is around Thanksgiving every year, and runs thru the middle of Dec. A friend of mine lives across the mountain from me, probably less than 10 miles and he killed a nice buck chasing a doe Jan. 2nd. Across the highway, their chasing the middle of Jan. On my club in Lincoln, it starts around Christmas, thru the end of the year. In Barbour county, there's 2 ruts, within a couple of miles from each other.

Perhaps, but no other state in the nation--besides AL--display breeding that appears (notice I wrote "appears") to display patterns that could be explained by restocking. Every other state displays breeding dates that are exactly what you would expect to see when Natural Selection is the driving force in breeding dates, even though all the other Southeastern states had deer stocked from all over North America too. If localized breeding dates were driven by restocking, every state would display a weird hodge-podge of dates in different locations, with no rhyme or reason (just like AL displays). In my opinion, because Natural Selection has over-ridden restocked genetics everywhere else, either AL's weird dates are not due to restocking, or Natural Selection pressures are so weak, they cannot/will not over-ride restocked genetics.

I'll bet it has nothing to do with restocking and everything to do with how slow female-linked genetic traits spread geographically. Part of the male breeding behavior carries their genetics far and wide. But female deer behavior produces a very slow outward spread of any female-linked genetics traits.




TN had no native deer by the turn of the 20th century, except for in a few pockets of the mountains. All deer were restocked, and they came from all over North America, with breeding dates that ranged from late September to February. Yet those widely spread breeding times no longer exist. Now breeding is earliest in north-central TN (mid-November), and slowly gets later the farther east, south, and west you travel. The latest dates are in southeast TN near Memphis, where mid-December dates predominate. However, more than 75% of the state has November peak breeding dates.

Very interesting.