Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2006 17:11:55 GMT -5
Before I start this thread let me say this...I hold myself to a self-imposed buck restriction (3 and a half years old or older)....
Now here comes the controversy....
It is no secret that there are a lot of does that are about to be bred in Indiana. The fact is that some of them will be bred by mature bucks and some will be bred by immature bucks....here is my dumb question....
What difference does it make?
Genetics are genetics. A buck does not grow better genes as they grow bigger antlers. When a 1 1/2 year old 6 pointer that would one day grow up to be a 180" monster has just bred a doe, he has just passed the same DNA along as he would have 5 years later. I have always scratched my head in bewilderment when this fact seems to get lost in the whole QDMA argument.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Oct 17, 2006 17:41:35 GMT -5
There wouldnt be any difference between an immature buck and mature buck breeding if they both had "good" genes.
If the mature buck is a 6 pointer basket rack then there would be a difference. Not all bucks will grow up to be "monsters".
What is the controversy ?
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Oct 17, 2006 17:41:40 GMT -5
Good question.We, as humans and also deer hunters, like to assign what we believe is the best genetics for a male deer. That is usually in the form of large symmetrical antlers. The larger the antlers the better the genes says us. Probably not true in all cases. The biggest and baddest looking antlered buck (by our estimation) might be the deer herd's local DORK.I am reminded that when Mitch Rompola (no, I don't want to start another Mitch thread )was hunting that whopper that was supposedly a "potential world record" there was a much smaller 8 pointer that was daily running that buck off and servicing the does. There is an article in my favorite deer magazine (actually the only one I subscribe to) Deer & Deer Hunting that addresses this subject. I haven't read it yet, but I will. To me... genes is genes is genes... deer or humans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2006 17:47:30 GMT -5
What is the controversy ? The controversy comes from those who argue that the only way to assure good genetics in the herd is to let the little ones walk. That is part of the QDMA mantra. I let the little ones walk too, but I let them walk because I no longer want to shoot a little one. I don't think that if I shot a little one it would have any negative effect on the genetics of the herd though. To me it is simply a matter of personal preference. I understand the part of QDMA that preaches to shoot some does, but the other part doesn't hold as much water with me.
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Oct 17, 2006 17:57:50 GMT -5
I think qdm could work on closely watched deer herds like on a ranch. These people see the same bucks every year and know if they are growing big racks and how old they are. They know which ones to cull. I am not personally good enough to judge a small buck and tell what kind of rack it will have when it matures. I pass on it and if it breeds inferrior genes ............then oh well . Did someone mention Mitch Rompola ?
|
|
|
Post by davepowers on Oct 17, 2006 19:02:31 GMT -5
I think the thinking on ranches is that if you have a possible monster why risk him getting hurt or not getting them food that is needed so you shot the smaller ones.
Genetics are what they are, if it is a late bloomer or early still the same genes. You could think of it this way, What if (pro athelete) had a baby as a teen before the made it big would it have the same potential as a baby born after pro's? Along with genes you need proper nutrition.
I have seen deer family members where I hunt they have the same racks some are thicker or taller but look the same.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 18, 2006 6:17:21 GMT -5
Immature bucks do not have as much chance to breed as mature bucks do and so have less chance to pass on their genes. By allowing young bucks to reach maturity, they have a better chance of passing on their genes, whether good or bad. This increases genetic diversity and makes for a healthier herd.
However, a relatively small number of the most aggressive bucks will do the majority of the breeding in a given area, and these bucks are seldom the ones with the largest antlers. Indeed, the energy devoted to aggressively seeking and mating with does takes away from the energy stores for growing a big rack the next season. Even though a buck may have the genetics for a huge rack, it may have such an energy deficit from breeding that it can not reach its full potential the next spring.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Oct 18, 2006 6:21:27 GMT -5
I am not personally good enough to judge a small buck and tell what kind of rack it will have when it matures. Nobody is!
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 18, 2006 6:55:27 GMT -5
It has been proved many times over that the key to big bucks is also good genetics of the hosting doe.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Oct 19, 2006 5:48:12 GMT -5
It has been proved many times over that the key to big bucks is also good genetics of the hosting doe. Yes, I have read studies that show the genetic contribution from the buck determines basic conformation and the characteristics of the rack, but the contribution from the doe has more influence over maximum size.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Oct 19, 2006 9:31:44 GMT -5
It all boils down to Darwin’s survival of the fittest. In a well-balanced herd, the dominant bucks pass on the best genes. This does not mean the best antler growing genes it just means the best survival genes. If immature bucks and subordinate bucks are allowed to breed then all the genes are mixed in and you never know what you will get.
|
|
Yogi
Full Member
Posts: 90
|
Post by Yogi on Oct 19, 2006 12:10:14 GMT -5
Just like a box of chocolates, and that'd all i got to say about that.
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Oct 20, 2006 10:00:47 GMT -5
Just like a box of chocolates, and that'd all i got to say about that. Good one Forrest! ;D ;D ;D
|
|