Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum AON article got me thinking... Opinion on culls?

That's the flawed "study" I was referring to. That fellow showed up here on Aldeer couple of years ago announcing the results of his *future* "study". He made it clear AHEAD OF TIME that he was going to conclude BEFORE his NONstudy that people shouldn't shoot a messed up rack "because it might turn into a desirable gnarly non typical rack." (near about his exact words from his postings here."

AND, as I stated above, he did not even stick to the one true definition of SOOS - he altered the definition to something that SOOS isn't.

EXACTLY.

Where did you do your Ph.D in Wildlife Ecology?

Here's the abstract of the subject research project:



Link to source:
*** click here ***



Explain what you mean by, "An Auburn study proves... "


The abstract indicates that the "proof" you speak of is lacking.

While genetics is VERY poorly understood (although you would not know it by reading this site - seems like everyone here has a PhD in genetic studies), there are NO known genetic traits, that I know of, that manifest "left or right". I would like to see the paper that indicates that there is a genetic trait that explains differences between the characteristics of a right antler vs a left antler. Anyone who knows of it please post!

My point is this. There are SO many factors that can affect a deer's antler formation. Jumping onto one of those factors and making management decision based upon it alone without a knowledge or consideration of the other factors that could influence it is pointless. I believe the only exception to that statement is age. To beat that horse again, dead deer don't grow. I used to be really into deer management and that's the reason I studied wildlife management at Auburn, studied under Dr. Ditchkoff, and did a good bit of undergraduate research with deer. I graduated and then realized that what I was passionate about I no longer really cared for. Why was I going to have a career where the people I was helping knew more about management than I did? What was my point in being there? I'll step off of my soapbox now. Make management decisions that make you, your kids, and your hunting club(if you have one) happy. That's all this is after all is a hobby. A fun way to spend our free time.

Great post

I thought it was a poorly edited article that contradicted its self. Twice the article says that by killing an soos buck in an effort to improve your genetics you may actually have harmed the genetics of the herd (once at the top of the second column and once at the bottom of page 29 with the quote that says "A lot of hunters believe that they are improving their herd when in actuality they have hurt it"

Just a few paragraphs down on the left hand column on page 30 is this "....ongoing research shows it is extremely difficult or even impossible for hunters and landowners to change the genetics in a non-captive herd by removing certain bucks"

So I am with Wm in questioning the science. How can the article in once place say that by killing a SOOS buck you may harm the genetics of the herd and then say research shows it is extremely difficult or even impossible to change the genetics in the herd?

Can't have it both ways.

X2
There is no separate left antler DNA, or right antler DNA. Bucks are made to be symetrical. Just like a severe injury to a child's leg could cause it to look different than the other leg as an adult.

If you want to kill bigger bucks than you need to find somewhere else that has bigger bucks or improve the habitat on your current hunting ground.

culling bucks would be ok if you had a fenced area but bucks roam I a very large area and a lot of "culled bucks" you never see. Me and a friend hunt in a very large area and its normally just the two of us that hunt it. Ive seen bucks once and have never seen them again. If you want a deer shoot him, cull bucks make very good sausage.

I think you get it trademarked so you can at least cash in on it.

The "not very smart grad student" that you are referring to is a good friend of mine, so I feel a little responsibility in trying to defend him here. Hopefully I won't ruffle any feathers. Couple of things...

1) This "piss poor attempt" is now published in a peer-reviewed journal (Wildlife Society Bulletin), so other top wildlife professionals have accepted the study as worthy of inclusion into the scientific literature.

2) There were "preconceived notions"...in the world of scientific exploration, this is called a hypothesis. The hypothesis was that genes are not the single root cause of spike on one side antler formations. Results from the study supported this hypothesis.

3) There was NOT an agenda. He was a PhD student trying to do what any other PhD student does, conduct research, examine the data, and publish the results. (I know, because I am one)

4) 62% of skulls examined could be explained by pedicle/skull damage, antler breakage, or symptoms of intracranial abscess. For bucks 3.5 or older, 76% of SOOS antler formations was identified as pedicle/skull damage or abnormalities.

5) He only had skulls to examine. The unknown causes for SOOS configurations (38% of skulls examined), could likely be explained by injuries to the animal in places other than the skull. A previous study of abnormal antlers found that 69% were due to old gun-shot wounds, healed leg fractures, etc. My point is there is little room left here to argue that "genetics" is a cause for SOOS antler formations.

6) "the author did not even follow my definition of SOOS"
Why is this an issue? The concept was expanded to include not only single, non-forked spikes on one side but to look at those that may have a large fork on one side (which seems to be fairly common). I'm not sure I understand the argument here. Are you saying that a single spike on one side is a genetic issue, but a malformed side with more than just a spike is a result of injury? The definition he used of a side-to-side difference of greater than 2 antler points, was to ensure that an 8 point frame with a big fork on one side (4 on one side, two on the other) would be included.

7) "brain fungus"? I'm not sure what that is, but I suspect that you are referring to intracranial abscessation. This is most definitely not a fungus, but is an infection caused by the bacteria Arcanobacterium pyogenes that enter through cuts, abrasions, or injured pedicles. It basically eats away at the bone structure of the skull and eventually enters the brain cavity where the abscess forms.

8) As several other folks have said, there are no known genes that individually control the left vs the right antlers. There are no right antler genes and left antler genes.

9) I do agree with jlccoffee that the Quality Whitetails article was a little misleading. The point he was trying to make is that if you think you are helping the "genetics of the herd" by removing a SOOS buck you may actually be removing a genetically superior animal if the normal side of the rack is, for example, half of a 140" rack. He shouldn't have said that removing this animal would have hurt anything, as we all tend to agree that controlling genetics by culling certain bucks in a free-ranging population is nigh to impossible.

10) If you want to shoot a SOOS buck, do it, but realize that this is highly unlikely to get rid of this "bad gene" as it really isn't a gene that controls this unwanted antler configuration in the first place. I can definitely see the merits of getting rid of a SOOS animal because you want more food to be available for other "normal" looking, or more desirable bucks.

Good to see you back on here Clint.

It was actually the AON article I read. I don't know if the same article might have been in Quality whitetail. I pretty much agree with your points though.

My mistake. I haven't seen the AON article, just assumed it was from the QW article.

Had my eyes opened a little bit last week while hunting up north with what I thought was a "cull" buck, and I don't always agree with that term since it's loosely thrown around.

A buck comes into the plot and I put my binocs on him. I see forks and browtines, so my first thought was "Scrawny 6-point." The antlers are probably 8-10 inches high, each, with some curvature, with the forks at the top being probably 3 inches each.

The brow tines were in front of the main antlers, not inside of them like normal. When it got closer, I could see a third antler of about 3 inches coming off the side of one of the brows. Then I saw another little sticker antler, then another, and then another. The main beams were studded with little bumps probably 3-4 inches up from the base. The antlers were not thick - about the size of a hotdog.

So, now it's a small-racked weirdo 10-point instead of a 6-point. My thoughts were "OK, this is a weird 'cull' buck and with the state's one-buck season limit, it would either (A) walk, if the landowners didn't want to waste their tag on it, or (B) someone could tag out on this one, or (C) it might die of lead poisoning and never be reported as a legal, tagged kill."

I mentioned it to the landowner that evening, described it in detail and reiterated my thoughts.

"Oh, I know about him. He was a very nice 8-point last year. We don't know what happened this spring and summer, but he's not a 'cull' in our book."

He did say, though, their state's one-buck limit was not beneficial for their management efforts to legally get rid of some deer they believed were not part of their management plan. But they hunt legally and were not going to SSS just to eradicate a couple of iffy deer.

Just food for thought.

Finally got myself a copy of the AON issue that featured this article. For what it's worth, the issue brought up by jlcoffee about "hurting" your deer herd by removing a cull buck were a poor choice words by the author of the AON article, not anyone associated with AU. Just wanted to clarify.

Hope everyone is gearing up for the rifle opener, good luck to all!! From the looks of several trail cam photos posted on the site, seems like there's plenty of good ones out there to chase this year! Shoot straight, and be safe.

Hey everyone. I haven't been on here in a while...obviously.

I'm posting this time because I'm not going to sit here quietly while someone rips one of my grad students, or bashes the research we have done. I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with the conclusions (or interpretations of the data...that is part of the scientific process), but I take offense to someone taking personal shots.

"A piss poor attempt by some not very smart grad student at Auburn with preconceieved notions and an agenda tried to claim it was either brain disease or pedicle damage, but even that "paper" (ha) conceded that almost 50% of SOOS could not be explained in terms of pedicle damage or brain fungus."

WMHUNTER

That was just poor and uncalled for. Gabe is one of the top young deer researchers in the country, and has probably forgotten more about deer biology, behavior, and science than 99% of the people on this forum have ever known. I'm amazed how someone could draw those conclusions about someone they have never met, and then post them publicly in a forum like this...especially when Gabe was just trying to put data that is not normally available to the public, into a publicly read forum.

The simple fact is that you don't have an inkling of an understanding of the intent of the study. The intent was never to determine the "cause" of every SOOS buck, but rather to see if there was a link between pedicle/skull damage and antler abnormalities. While it would have been nice to have several hundred deer in an enclosed setting where we could have manipulated those deer in a more controlled environment, we were limited by available financial resources, and thus found an inexpensive way to examine a single hypothesis...that pedicle damage may be linked to antler abnormalities.

As was stated earlier (very accurately) by Clint, Gabe (and I) had a hypothesis...not an agenda. We could honestly care less if you (or anyone else) think that it's genetically driven, a function of alien abductions, or due to some other cause. Gabe's intent was simply to examine a scientific hypothesis with the best tools available, and hopefully shed a bit of light on what has recently become an issue in some parts of the Southeast. Unfortunately, he is forced to receive slanderous criticism in a public forum for trying to share that information with those that might be interested in seeing some actual data. If you disagree...fine. But it is in really poor taste to rip a person's efforts in that way.

If you believe it was a "piss poor attempt", then so be it. The reality is, it was the FIRST attempt to examine this issue, by anyone as far as I am aware. I suspect that there will be more studies conducted in the future to better understand HOW, WHY, WHERE, WHEN, etc. We would have liked to conduct a more thorough study, but like I said before, there was zero funding available. The fact is...nobody wants to pay for it. Overall, I think we did a pretty good job with limited resources. But, I think it's pretty harsh to rip the study design when you (1) don't understand it, (2) don't understand the hypothesis of the study (or the definition of a hypothesis), (3) you don't understand the conclusions of the study, and (4) you don't have much of a grasp of the scientific process.

I'm not going to get into all the ways in which you are totally off base in your statements (I think Clint did a wonderful job of that already), but I would encourage you to try and read the original paper, understand it (completely), and have a firm grasp on the science that it is based upon before you publicly rip a student who is just trying to conduct science.

If you want to read the paper, I would encourage you to click on the link below Paper Here - Karns and Ditchkoff 2013

You should also read the papers that are cited in the article so that you have more of a firm basis to substantiate your criticisms.

Next time...take a shot at me. I would much prefer it to you taking shots at my graduate students.

Huzzahs! Bravo, Dr. D!

Welcome back Dr. D, been a while, see what you've been missing.