I know, I got your point . Average 4-5 in Alabama is below 130-140, and will remain that way even if you release truck load after truck load of larger bucks. Wonder what those 180's that have been eating 25% protein in a pen gonna look like after a year of acorns and browse?

The 'Book' deer are in the 'Book' because they are much LARGER than average........

Some folks just don't get it.

Coondog, there are plenty of 150" deer in the midwest but you will have to be content with the 130" 4 year olds in Bama. Most guys would be very happy with a 130" buck.
You are not going to increase average antler size throughout the entire state with any method, especially introducing non-native deer. Really bad idea and I hope this is the last we see of it.

I think it has more to do with the dirt and what grows in that dirt than it does with genetics. I don't see how the Midwest could have just happen to have better genetics than everywhere else in the country but what it does have is better dirt. That is why I don't think this will have much effect.

It does, that's why Alabama and the whole Southeast varies so much in antler production. You have places with very poor soils and pockets with some that is pretty good and everywhere in between. Better dirt= better antlers.

It's illegal to release turkeys into the wild:

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/codeofalabama/1975/coatoc.htm

Why is it OK to release deer?



Another issue to consider:

If these deer are untagged but have come from a breeder area and are "genetically" superior, that would intimate or indicate there are some genetic tests or records existing to prove these genes.

Someone hits a deer, veers off the road and sustains injuries or is killed. Blood from the deer (that was hit) could be tested genetically to see if they were part of these released deer.

Might be quite a liability issue with a good lawyer arguing in court about a private entity releasing animals and a state Conservation Department staying neutral.

Thats high level thinking for a member of the media.

I'd bet we will see something along those lines in the future.

If by vast majority you mean 70-75% at 130-140 inches, I would say that we don't and never will see that in Alabama. But that can be said for Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin and every other state. It takes a very special buck to make those scores. The biggest difference in here vs the midwest is that they have a much bigger percentage of 4.5-5.5 year old bucks walking around. That and nutrition is the only major differences. Genetics matters some but not much.

If the state increased license fees and had extra money to spend the money would be put to much better use by hiring more game wardens and implementing a tagging and check in system....implanting breeder bucks isn't even on the radar, even if it didn't raise biological issues.

Anytime you use the word "dealer" and deer hunting in the same sentence or paragraph there is an issue, IMO

there are already native Al. bucks that can grow 180". Most get shot at 1 or 2 and most of the rest become nocturnal... that combined with the very small percentage that reach 180 is why you don't see many killed in Al....but they are here and breed every season. Why do you think releasing non-native bucks that have big horns will do anything? Are you suggesting that hundreds of 180" bucks get released or just a few...I'm just having a hard time seeing your logic here....besides the fact that your trying to manipulate the native deer herd and would likely cause issues with diseases, etc.

Like I said before...I'd rather hunt next to a "brown it's down" than a "let's genetically alter the deer herd"

Again, the nutrition factor is huge and I agree with what your saying about the dirt, protein, etc. However, genetics are huge and I don't think it would hurt to try. Bo Jackson weighed 230 lbs and ran a 4.2 40yd dash. 2 dogs more than likely didn't look or run like Bo. Those are genetics. If humans had horns and 2 dogs and Bo ate the same thing their entire life, I have to say that Bo is a 170" and 2 dogs is 130". Its just genetics.

Bo knows apples to oranges, people to deer, and I do get the point you're trying to make. Not that simple. BSK posted about this a week or two ago. Deer are one of the most genetically diverse animals on the planet, humans one of the least. I think I'm remembering it correctly.
The areas in Alabama that have the better soils could produce better antlered and bigger bucks, if they grow some quality food in those soils and let those bucks get 4.5+. IMHO

The state better not sit on their hands on this one. Better nip it in the bud, too much could go wrong. Heck, what do they even know about it?

My comment had nothing to do with "hunting style" and everything to do with the stupid things the "genetics" believers will do to promote those genetics, like release potentially disease-carrying pen-raised deer into the wild. THAT is dangerous.

Coondog4,

"Genetics" is only potential. Just because a buck has the potential to be a 180" buck doesn't mean he will grow a 180" rack even at full maturity. What a buck actually grows at full maturity is his genetic expression, and that is driven by what he eats, every day, year-round, his entire life. And good research is now showing that that buck's mother also must have been well-fed before and during her preganancy with that buck. Where in the Southeast can a doe get maximum food resources, every day of the year, and then her male offspring, from newborn through maturity, also get maximum nutrition every day of his life? THAT is what is required to grow his genetic potential antlers.

I've seen not one stitch of evidence that deer in AL have any different antler potential than deer in Iowa or Illinois. However, AL's much poorer soils and habitat than the Midwest prevents bucks in AL with huge potential from ever expressing it. A darn good reason exists why a map of B&C buck entries by county matches a map of soybean acreage and yields across the U.S. More crops are planted/grown in the best soils, and the best soils produce the best crop yields per acre. Deer eating lots of agricultural crops grown in highly productive soils grow the largest antlers.

In your example of Bo Jackson, he had the genetic potential to be what he turned out to be. But that is because he was raised in a country with the highest nutritional intake per capita in the world. What would Bo Jackson have been if he were raised in the starvation-plagued regions of Africa? He would not have grown into the Bo jackson we got to see. Lack of nutrition stunts growth, and lack of nutrition at a young age stunts growth permanently.

A marathon runner.

And if Bo had been shot as a 1 1/2 year old six point we would have never known what he would be. Glad he wasn't ,I sure enjoyed watching him play ball.

not any?


just for fun please define "monster" for me.....


just for clarification I am a trophy (big antlers) nut of the first order. I just refuse to shoot a three year old with a big rack knowing it will be a LOT bigger in two years. Age matters a lot with me.

you do know you ain't seen all of my bucks, bill won't let me show them on here....

for the record I agree with you on the success chances of the Big Buck Project....

troy

I am not as experienced as some in this discussion and I don't have a biology background, I'm just a regular feller. But at some point I would hope all of us as hunters (me included) would realize how to enjoy hunting for what it is and not what I wish it was based on what I have seen or heard about. To me there is a fine line between improving the deer hunting experience by land management/health of the heard (which I am in total favor of)and never being satisfied with what we got which in my opinion is a nice liberal season that allows choices through out the season. I battle this within myself a lot. I would like to work and make my land as good as it can be and just enjoy God's creation.

Excellent post Matt07.