# For Random and TS



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_l/l-111/welcome.html

I'm sure you'll let me know.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I think its over most peoples heads. Especially southern boys heads! 

lol jk in for the responses


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/genetics/

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/genetics/

http://www.nyantler-outdoors.com/deer-antler-growth.html

http://www.msudeer.com/nutrigen.asp

http://www.monstermuleys.com/muledeer.html "Genetics play as much a part of a mule deer's life as they do for human's. Big bucks and doe's with big buck genetics will often produce more big bucks." "Genetics, what did dad or grandpa look like? Some areas can produce giant bucks, while others do not. It boils down to genetics. _It's very similar to human genetics. Take for example, a young boy has a father who is 6' 9" tall and a mother whose 5' 11". There's a very good chance that boy may be tall, right? The same holds true for big bucks. If you were to check the Boone and Crockett record book, you'd find that some area's have produced many giant bucks. While at the same time, you could find certain area's that have never produced a Boone and Crockett buck. Genetics are obviously better in some areas._ I would guess most of us are willing to take much less than B&C bucks, but the same still holds true. Most big buck hunters are looking for something with the magical 30" rack. If you're hunting in an area that is known for wide bucks, you'll have a better chance of seeing one. I personally have hunted in area's where over a 10 year period, neither my father, myself, or any of our hunting buddies, had ever seen a buck that we thought was over 30". Well, I wouldn't spend my hunt looking in that area for a big big one. That area did have many bucks in the 24"-26" range, but rarely anything better than that. You can improve your chances by hunting an area that can produce wide, heavy, tall, typical or non-typical bucks, whatever you prefer. Remember that there will always be exceptions."

I can link articles all day long. All will include genetics.

You clearly are having a problem understanding what I said to you. I said that numerous factors are important. Without a doubt, genetics is one of them. With all other things equal, genetics will separate the groups. It is funny how long you searched for an article to direct at us and still missed most of what the article said. It is looking at the other side of things but you will never find an article that flat out disregards genetics. I don't remember our whole convo, but I believe it was along the lines of restricting access and how that is the only reason deer are big, wasn't that your point? Well, clearly if you look at the biggest deer taken in Utah, the Pauns and Henry's will be the bread winners. That is because, along with diet and age management, THEY HAVE GENETICS.

I can't fall in this trap again. You will read this and refute what is being said because you are in fact ignorant. Again, Genetics has made you unintelligent.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

The one thing genetics won't do is guarantee
Maturity. 

Age class and reduced harvest make that guarantee. 
Not sure why you struggle with that concept. 

The Henry's have large bucks do to their age
Nothing else. 

Genetically superior bucks that are killed as 20 month
Old bucks will never have the racks of bucks managed
To be 5.5 years old.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> The Henry's have large bucks do to their age
> Nothing else.


Stupidity flying high today, full speed ahead.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Summary of Results

There are 3 equally important factors that control antler development in white-tailed deer: nutrition, genetics, and age. Antler development is genetically based, environmentally influenced, and reaches its peak at maturity. The key to quality deer management is to remove those bucks which have the least desirable antler characteristics at an early age. Kerr WMA studies show that yearling antlers predict a buck's antler quality at maturity. Kerr genetic studies indicate bucks with the best antlers will produce more progeny with exceptional antlers than will poorer bucks. The does influence antler production as well. Harvest of older does is important to insure younger does are products of better bucks. Habitat should be managed so that deer can achieve their greatest antler potential. There are no methods to "jump-start" a quality deer program.


From your top link.... 

If the sumbitch don't reach maturity to see a return
On any genetics what does it matter??

I quote. "Reaches it peak AT MATURITY" not at 20 months
When the bulk of deer are killed in Utah numbnuts.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

To further test your theory, let's make the Henry's
A general season unit for a few years. Ya know
Cycle 20,000 hunters of all weapon types through
There for 3 or 4 years and let me know how
Genetics are going to make up for the harvest 
Of all the mature deer in year 1 and 2. 

Age and severe restrictions are less important than
Genetics my a__!!


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Summary of Results
> 
> There are 3 equally important factors that control antler development in white-tailed deer: nutrition, genetics, and age. Antler development is genetically based, environmentally influenced, and reaches its peak at maturity. The key to quality deer management is to remove those bucks which have the least desirable antler characteristics at an early age. Kerr WMA studies show that yearling antlers predict a buck's antler quality at maturity. Kerr genetic studies indicate bucks with the best antlers will produce more progeny with exceptional antlers than will poorer bucks. The does influence antler production as well. Harvest of older does is important to insure younger does are products of better bucks. Habitat should be managed so that deer can achieve their greatest antler potential. There are no methods to "jump-start" a quality deer program.
> 
> ...


No one said deer are full grown at 20 months. I don't think you knew the full growth age until we told you. However, doesn't matter if a deer lives 20 months or 60 months; if his genetics suck then he won't be big.

No one is arguing with you that age is not one factor. On the flip side, you are trying to say that genetics is not.

You are really confused. Conversing, especially in a debate form, brings you many struggles...


----------



## derekp1999 (Nov 17, 2011)

I think it's an interesting article. Ironically enough, it further proves that all three factors are intimately intertwined (like two shed hunters :shock and not mutually exclusive. A few of my thoughts:

- The author's determination of the order of importance between the three factors being age class first, nutrition second, and genetics third is completely aribtrary... and he placed them in that order to coincide with his own personal beliefs (let's face it, he's a Ph.D type with likely a massive ego). The author even admits that the nutrition and genetics side are not as well known... so are they in that order because quality management through age classes is what he knows & champions??? From the way it's written it seems that way to me.

- Age class - "_it is NOT the antler restriction that results in more mature bucks in QDM; rather, it is severely limiting the numbers of adults harvested_"... truer words I have never copied and pasted! Big, old bucks don't get to be old by getting shot as youngsters... and not because the buck was managed by a 3pt or better philosophy!

- Nutrition - "_As early as the 1940s, pioneering nutritional work by Franz Vogt in Germany demonstrated the overwhelming effect of nutrition on antler development (summarized in Geist, 1986)."_ But apparently the effect is not overwhelming enough to be #1? Just saying. And "_body mass will be maximized before antlers because antlers are a luxury tissue, so while nutrition can maximize potential within an age-class, it cannot compensate for survival to optimal ages." _So without proper nutrition, regardless of the age class, antlers would be below their potential.

- Genetics - "_genetic potential can be fully expressed if and only if nutrition is superior and individuals can reach optimal ages._" The second truest words I have ever copied and pasted! Age class is most important... but in this sentence it comes in second to superior nutrition??? Go figure.

One thing to notice, indicating that this is probably not the best written scolarly article... the conclusion. If he was really sold on age classes being the absolute most important factor why does he lead off the conslusion of his article with, "_First, QM will work best where habitat quality is high; the most important aspect of high-quality habitat is good available nutrition (nutrition effect)."_ It's almost as if he was writting this to sell himself on his own idea of age class being the end all be all and by the time he completed it he hadn't convinced himself! If I wrote this article and thought that thought that age class was the most important I'd have led off with that in my conclusion and beaten it like a rented mule.

And why on earth does he start talking about stress between males & females, antler breakage, etc. when that was never introduced or discussed in the article?

He's convinced me that the order he should have listed is (1) nutrition, (2) age class, and (3) genetics... and I put genetics third because all he did was bash all previous research on it as inconclusive and contradictory


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> To further test your theory, let's make the Henry's
> A general season unit for a few years. Ya know
> Cycle 20,000 hunters of all weapon types through
> There for 3 or 4 years and let me know how
> ...


Never said less important


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I would be fine with the Henry's and Puans being general season.

As a matter of fact lets make it that way for elk as well. Every unit throughout the state. Stop managing for bigger is better and distribute tags based entirely on population that the habitat can sustain.

Tired of all the antler whores anyhow.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I would be fine with the Henry's and Puans being general season.
> 
> As a matter of fact lets make it that way for elk as well. Every unit throughout the state. Stop managing for bigger is better and distribute tags based entirely on population that the habitat can sustain.
> 
> Tired of all the antler whores anyhow.


Don't you apply for LE hunts?

I guess that doesn't mean you agree with them so I suppose the question is pointless. Why not just save the app fees and hunt general if you aren't after quality?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Well since the general areas are limited to a few places my hand is kind of forced isn't? I do hunt the Uintas every year. All of the deer units are basically LE anyhow now days right? The general elk is limited to spike only and a couple areas that are any bull (and you can't hunt during the rut). If every elk unit went to a "general" classification they would still be limited in number. The only way to hunt elk during the rut is to put in for LE. The rut on the general units is now reserved for youth only.

Hands are tied which is another reason I also go out of state.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random you have repeatedly expressed that
The Henry Mountains unit has large bucks because of genetics. 

I have clearly stated that the Henry's have large deer because
Of age / maturity. 

I've tried to express the way that deer are hunted in
The state, without strict limitations makes genetics
Irrelevant because on all but the Henry's they never
Make it to maturity to actually benefit from any genetic
Advantage they may or may not have. 

My style of debate is fine until "stupidly on display" remarks come
Out. Then you'll probably get back what is given.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> ...on all but the Henry's they never
> Make it to maturity to actually benefit from any genetic
> Advantage they may or may not have.


What about every other LE unit?!

I said genetics is what separates the men from the boys. I said that is why their deer are bigger! You keep insisting that basically if we stopped hunting the whole state every area would have deer as big as the Henry's. Not so.

If you thought logically, I haven't delivered stupidity but you certainly have. Stating that genetics don't matter, quoting ram articles and interpreting them to mean that big bucks don't rut, misreading items...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Age is the limiting factor in utah.

Id say big bucks would be all over this state anywhere there allowed to get some age. I don't think genetics is the problem. Utah's genetics are fine!

Maybe randomelk hasn't seen the big bucks comming off the front. Maybe he hasn't seen the bucks on antelope island, bever, pavant bucks and oak creek ect. If the deer in those areas reached the age class the henries has and you would see big bucks everywhere.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Age is the limiting factor in utah.
> 
> Id say big bucks would be all over this state anywhere there allowed to get some age. I don't think genetics is the problem. Utah's genetics are fine!
> 
> Maybe randomelk hasn't seen the big bucks comming off the front. Maybe he hasn't seen the bucks on antelope island, bever, pavant bucks and oak creek ect. If the deer in those areas reached the age class the henries has and you would see big bucks everywhere.


It is true that many areas in the state have good genetics. 
But if you were to put the Henrys and Vernon head to head, with the same amount of tags. Say 500 for each. 
I would be willing to bet my house on the fact that the Henrys would produce double or even more 170+ bucks than the Vernon unit. 
The Henrys do have that much better genetics than any area in the West Desert.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

ridgetop said:


> It is true that many areas in the state have good genetics.
> But if you were to put the Henrys and Vernon head to head, with the same amount of tags. Say 500 for each.
> I would be willing to bet my house on the fact that the Henrys would produce double or even more 170+ bucks than the Vernon unit.
> The Henrys do have that much better genetics than any area in the West Desert.


Agreed. Better habitat as well IMO.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

So your telling me the genetics on antelope island and oak creek are different than the Vernon and then those are different than the henry mountains?

How did different species of deer evolve a few air miles apart to make one far superior in genetics. I think it has more to do with forage or the way the forage collects its nutrients from the ground then it has to do with genetics. 

I often see people gripe about bookcliffs deer and crabby forks. Ive been out there enough to see patterns weather has on the horn growth out there. Some years there's lots of perfect long tined 4 point bucks. Next year there's not as many. Ive even seen the same deer come back different from year to year.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Genetics can change quickly from unit to unit all the time with many different species especially when inbreeding is involved. If they have been segregated, which they have for the most part, a strain of inbred animals that reproduce yearly can make some pretty drastic change from an original strain.

I wholeheartedly agree that habitat and age play a huge role. I also agree that most all of Utah has the genetic attributes for big antlers. That said I believe it is foolish to think that they are all genetically the same.


----------



## chukarflusher (Jan 20, 2014)

Different species don't evolve but different genetics do I think that it is a mixture of the two age and genetics where I hunt if you go down and look at deer during the rut you spot multiple deer and guess what all I see is 4x3's with some four points mixed in but not very many those deer. I have watched grow into bigger 4x3 s they don't magically turn into Henry mountain deer even with age one year I shot a small 4x3 a couple years after that my wife shot a much bigger one the horns are identical could they have been twins maybe one was a younger buck and one was older how much older I don't know but the age was there and the deers antlers where genecitly the same so in my opinion they both play a major role just my belief is all I have nothing scientific to back it up I'm not near a smart a you fellas ( if you can't tell from my poor grammar)


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> So your telling me the genetics on antelope island and oak creek are different than the Vernon and then those are different than the henry mountains?
> 
> How did different species of deer evolve a few air miles apart to make one far superior in genetics. I think it has more to do with forage or the way the forage collects its nutrients from the ground then it has to do with genetics.
> 
> I often see people gripe about bookcliffs deer and crabby forks. Ive been out there enough to see patterns weather has on the horn growth out there. Some years there's lots of perfect long tined 4 point bucks. Next year there's not as many. Ive even seen the same deer come back different from year to year.


I've seen genetics differ greatly on the same mnt. range. One end will have 80% narrow and heavy with crab claw front and the other end of the range, (maybe only ten miles away will have 80% wider racks with big fronts with less mass. Nothing to do with forage. I think the two groups even winter in different spots. 
Look at the AI bucks. Most of them have a strong genetic for long main beams and wide inside spreads but I think the poor forage out there is the cause of them breaking so many antlers during the rut.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I think the reason they break so many antlers is competition and fighting because of so many bucks. Kind of like hunting the late rut elk hunts. Lots of broken bulls


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Swbuckmaster maybe you haven't seen all of me and Gbell's (pointless) back and fourth. I know all the factors involved, but have mentioned countless times that genetics is the difference between the Henry's and the other high end LE's. I know there are big deer all around the state. I have taken big deer on the front and seen deer pass 200" on the front. How often does it happen? The monster muley article I posted pointed out the likelihood of big bucks in different areas. It is more likely to see a 180"+ on the Henry's then it is the Front. Try arguing that one. 

Some of this forums best contributors have jumped in to back up genetics. It is foolish to argue against DNA.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Scott, Random is correct, we are stubborn.

I agree with you, manage for age class instead of buck to doe ratio
and any unit will produce monster bucks.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> Scott, Random is correct, we are stubborn.
> 
> I agree with you, manage for age class instead of buck to doe ratio
> and any unit will produce monster bucks.


Gordy,
You forgot to use the sarcastic icon again!


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

:mrgreen: ~~~~


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Scott, Random is correct, we are stubborn.
> 
> I agree with you, manage for age class instead of buck to doe ratio
> and any unit will produce monster bucks.


If we managed every unit for an older age then those units would produce bigger bucks, yes. But not MONSTER bucks. So lets do it, lets further restrict general season access. The very thing this began with was you being against restricting a public resource.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> Swbuckmaster maybe you haven't seen all of me and Gbell's (pointless) back and fourth. I know all the factors involved, but have mentioned countless times that genetics is the difference between the Henry's and the other high end LE's. I know there are big deer all around the state. I have taken big deer on the front and seen deer pass 200" on the front. How often does it happen? The monster muley article I posted pointed out the likelihood of big bucks in different areas. It is more likely to see a 180"+ on the Henry's then it is the Front. Try arguing that one.
> 
> Some of this forums best contributors have jumped in to back up genetics. It is foolish to argue against DNA.


Here goes my best shot lol

Your correct I haven't seen or noticed you and gbell's back and forth. So im not up to speed and don't care to get in the middle of it either. So im only addressing this topic.

I know its a three part triangle to grow big deer age, nutrition, and genitics. However it would be a hard sell for anyone to tell me the henry mountains is so much better in genetics than the front because antelope island deer are front genetics.

I think if only 25-30 bucks were killed off the front a year and the bucks that are harvested were in the 5-7^ year class you would see just as many 180^ plus bucks as you do on the henry mtns. Front deer blow up in horn growth at 3.5 years and up.
Now if the front deer had a winter range they could migrate to so they didnt have to replace half there body weight they could be even larger then they already are. They have the same genetics as antelope island deer.

Antelope island deer have an easy life and easy winter. There are less deer on the island then there are on the henry mountains and it kicks out ratio wise about the same amount of 220^ bucks a year as the henry mtns. If antelope island deer had access to the fronts summer range look out it would produce some eye poppers and jaw dropper bucks.

My argument is as a whole age is the key factor to big deer in utah because I believe utah has the genitics to grow henry quality bucks anywhere in this state if it were managed to only take a very small percentage of the bucks in the oldest age group. Do I want to see utah managed like that? NO!


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Perfectly said SW. 

Random, I'm about as far from a LE fan as you can
Get. 

I'm opportunity, probably to a fault.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

I would love to see you guys explain how two brothers can be a foot difference in height. How one can be a dwarf when the other is not. How one child has a size 12 shoe and the other wears a 10. How one kid needs braces but the other doesn't. Why one kid is born with a hereditary disease that neither parent or the siblings have. Why all deer of the same age on the same mountain do not have the same antler structure.

Do so without referencing DNA and genetics.o-||


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Perfectly said SW.
> 
> Random, I'm about as far from a LE fan as you can
> Get.
> ...


So why sit here and argue age when you are one of the biggest contributes to DENYING them growth? Age, genetics, and diet should have no meaning to you because you don't really care if a deer receives them, right? Opportunity!

Sw, busy at work but I will give you an appropriate response soon. Basically though, don't forget the apples(LE) to oranges (GS) comparison. Maybe the front would be a great LE, although most big bucks are taken while they are wintering on the front during the extended archery. BUT, the henry's isn't the only LE in the state. Compare it to all the other LE and CWMU's. Now make a bell curve. The results say that age and restricted access is not the difference.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lonetree has said some things in the past that makes sense to me or I at least cant prove what he said wrong.
Bare with me because I'm about to butcher what he said. 

There are areas that seem to not grow bigger deer in utah. It could very well be genetics but it may be nutrition. Just because you can see green grass and trees maybe doesn't mean the thing those deer eat will have the proper minerals absorbed from the ground to pass to the deer so it can grow the horns. The soil could be mineral defficient in some way or the area gets the wrong amount of rain at the wrong time of year for the forage to absorb the nutrients properly.

Id almost bet if you took a sample of a hundred bucks from the vernon or bookcliffs and placed them in a huge enclosure and fed them a very scientific diet you would end up with several monster bucks. Not all of them would be monsters but a good statistical sample would be.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> I would love to see you guys explain how two brothers can be a foot difference in height. How one can be a dwarf when the other is not. How one child has a size 12 shoe and the other wears a 10. How one kid needs braces but the other doesn't. Why one kid is born with a hereditary disease that neither parent or the siblings have. Why all deer of the same age on the same mountain do not have the same antler structure.
> 
> Do so without referencing DNA and genetics.o-||


Im not denying genitics is a big part of why one buck on the same mountain is different than another. Genitics is all part of the triangle! However you wont know what a certain bucks genetic potential is in a wild herd until its allowed to age.

Maybe this state should only allow you to harvest mature narrow crabby bucks without extras.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lets look at elk

Where are the largest elk killed in this state? Id say anywhere they are allowed to get some age. The genetics are already there to grow them.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lonetree has said some things in the past that makes sense to me or I at least cant prove what he said wrong.
> Bare with me because I'm about to butcher what he said.
> 
> There are areas that seem to not grow bigger deer in utah. It could very well be genetics but it may be nutrition. Just because you can see green grass and trees maybe doesn't mean the thing those deer eat will have the proper minerals absorbed from the ground to pass to the deer so it can grow the horns. The soil could be mineral defficient in some way or the area gets the wrong amount of rain at the wrong time of year for the forage to absorb the nutrients properly.
> ...


Henry's mountain has the largest population of "tall people" in utah. These tall people keep breeding with does that love "tall people" and are in fact offspring of "tall people". So, for some strange reason, these "tall people" keep breeding tall people. Some of these people are the TALLEST people in utah, so the offspring are also record breaking "tall people".

With me?

On the front, there are a few really "tall people" but also a lot of "short people" and "average people". They all breed together so any of the above can occur, but even the "tall people" aren't as likely to be the "tallest people" in the state. Their are more "small people" and "average people" born than there are "tall people".

Making sense?

You seem to think Utah could be all "tall people". Not so with humans, not so with deer.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> You seem to think Utah could be all "tall people". Not so with humans, not so with deer.


Ive seen some short deer on the henry's. I have friends who have picked up truck loads of short deer antlers on the henry's. You seem to think there are only tall deer on the henry's.

How come the san juan elk unit is the best unit to draw an elk tag in this state? Is it because there's lots of tall elk or is it because all the short and tall elk are allowed to age so you as a hunter can see the genetics potential and wack a tall one.

How come the southern area of the state can grow tall elk and tall deer but doesnt have near the as many tall people as the wasatch front? 

This one throws me through a loop though. Maybe you can explain it for me. The Dutton used to have lots of tall elk. What changed there a bunch of short elk moved in and took it over?

Last I looked though certain areas can pop out tall elk on certain years. Last years wasatch crop is a good example. Id even say it had more and taller elk killed then the san juan.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

This is an interesting thread...and thankfully, much more constructive than the previous one. It has prompted me to do a little research on height (in humans) and to consider if some of what has been learned there might have application with deer and antler growth.

First, height is polygenic...meaning (in laymans terms) that it is impacted by by the combination of multiple genes. It seems likely that a deers antlers would also be polygenic and would be further complicated by having little information to determine what type of contribution would be coming from the female.

Second, height is subject to regression to the mean. In essence parents that or either extremely tall or short are likely to have children whose height is closer to the average. It seems reasonable that the same would be true regarding antler growth. 

Third, some countries do have taller populations than others. The Netherlands is the tallest country with males averaging 6'. Conversely, Indonesia is the shortest country with males averaging 5'2". The worldwide average is 5'7". It is fair, I believe, to say the same may be true with antler production and mule deer. Certainly, areas seem to produce certain antler configurations with far greater consitency than others. Outliers should be expected in any population. China is not known for being a particularly tall country, but produced Yao Ming.

Fourth, height is often impacted by the overall health of the poplulation and/or mother. A mother in poor health is likely to have shorter children. Developing countries have been shown to have shorter populations. Interestingly, studies have also shown significant increases in height in children who are placed in an environment with improved nutrition vs. their counterparts who remain in substandard conditions. Again, I think this would be applicable within deer herds as well.

Obviously, if a child does not reach physical maturity it will be impossible to know how tall he might have been. 

So, which is more important? Nutrition? Genetics? or age? I think that the answer is clearly none is more important than another. If the goal is to produce large antlered deer, then the absence of any one of the 3 will make the goal difficult if not impossible to obtain.

The Henry Mountains are well known for producing large antlered deer. Are there a large number of older age class deer on this unit? Yes...I couldn't find the the harvest numbers showing age class, but as I recall the last time I saw the figure it was north of 5 years old. 

Do the deer on the Henry Mtn. unit have the genetic makeup to produce large antlered deer? Again, I believe the answer is clearly a yes. Multiple 200" deer are taken off of the unit every year. Are the genetics on this unit "better" than other units in the state? Hard to say. I don't know what the age class of the deer being taken off of the rest of the LE and CWMU units in the state are, but only the Henry Mountains, Paunsagaunt, Antelope Island, and Heaton Ranch CWMU are know to consistently produce deer in the 200" level. In speaking with a few CWMU operators who measure every buck that they kill, 160" seems to be the average buck with a few top end bucks that measure 180"- 200". Very occasionaly they will kill a buck north of 200". 

So the final question, are the deer on the Henry Mountains healthier and getting better nutritional value than the rest of the state? Impossible to say right now. It would be an interesting study for sure.

Anyway, great discussion. Very thought provoking.

And sorry for the monster post!:shock:


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Men, look, you are making this WAY harder
Than it needs to be. 

Without age, genetics mean nothing. 
Skinner using your analogy of the family
That has a big kid and a short kid, I'd simply
Ask what the size difference is at 2 years of age??
That is THE AGE we kill deer in all but a few
Areas of the state. 

If you wanted to have an apples to apples comparison
Where genetics played ANY type of role you'd have
To have 2 units that had the same management plan. 
Right now the Henry's is 5.5 years of age per harvested
Buck. EVERY other unit is managed by buck to doe ratio. 

You can't assume, and be honest in saying that the deer
Down there are bigger because of genetics, you are using
To different variables to try to come to one conclusion. 
Manage the Book Cliffs to AGE OBJECTIVE instead of buck to doe
Ratio and you'll think that unit has superior genetics too.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

GBell said:


> Men, look, you are making this WAY harder
> Than it needs to be.
> 
> Without age, genetics mean nothing.
> ...


I know&#8230;. Let's kill all of the big bucks and leave the young ones to do all of the breeding. Then there'll be more big bucks&#8230;. 'cause the little ones will all grow up to be big ones&#8230;. someday.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

GBell said:


> Men, look, you are making this WAY harder
> Than it needs to be.
> 
> Without age, genetics mean nothing.
> ...


Yes, genetics matter, they are bigger 2 year old bucks!

In all seriousness though, reverse your statement as well. If 1+2=3, 2+1=3. Therefore, without genetics, age means(there is an "s" on "means") nothing.

Also, obviously you don't know the management plan:

"Manage limited entry units for a 3-year average of 25-35 bucks/100 does. See 
Table 3 for units and objectives 
i. If the 3 year average buck:doe ratio exceeds 35 bucks/100 does, limited entry 
permits will be increased to bring the population to objective within 3 years. If 
the 3-year average buck:doe ratio falls below 25 bucks/100 does, limited entry 
permits will be reduced to bring the population to objective within 3 years. 
3. Manage premium limited entry units for a 3-year average of 40-50 bucks/100 
does with 40-55% of the harvested deer being 5 years of age or older. See Table 4 
for units and objectives. 
i. Establish management buck hunts on these units to provide additional hunting 
opportunity. 
ii. If the 3-year average buck:doe ratio exceeds 50/100, management buck permits 
will be increased to bring the population back to objective within 3 years. 
iii. If >55% of the harvested bucks (3-year average) are 5 years of age or older, 
premium limited entry permits will be increased by no more than 10% in any 
given year until the age objective is met. If <40% of the harvested bucks (3-
year average) are 5 years of age or older, premium limited entry permits will be 
reduced as needed to get to objective. "

Antelope, Henry Mountains, and Paunsaugunt are all "Premium" hunts. Managed for age.

So my comparisons with all LE's are valid, but when I speak of the difference between the Henry Mountains and Pauns and the Henry's having bigger deer, I am very correct. In fact, if you look at the last 3 year data for the area, 2 of the 3 years the Pauns harvested a higher % of >5 year old bucks. One year (2011 I believe) the Pauns harvest was low in regards to age, about 15-20% less bucks of >5 year old bucks. The next year, right back to normal. That is the only reason over a 3 year span the Henry's is barely higher in percent of >5 year old deer. I have done wayyyy to much research on the Henry's in the past years.....

Now this comparison isn't the best, because from 2010-2011 14 bucks breaking 220" were taken on the Pauns. But why do people go for the Henry's over the Pauns? Takes more points, and has more applicants... Because of the averages. The likelihood. I have heard various averages but most are 10-15" greater at the Henry's. Both are genetically amazing units.. That is why they are premium. If you turn some of the others into premiums no doubt they will do well, but if you look at the real harvest data from these areas their 5 year old bucks are USUALLY NOT the same size or close to the ones on the Pauns..

Edit: Top o the PAGE!


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lets look at elk
> 
> Where are the largest elk killed in this state? Id say anywhere they are allowed to get some age. The genetics are already there to grow them.


Elk grow old in the Uintas I assure you. Their genetics don't allow them to get near as big as many other units. Call me crazy but I have seen too many of them. Their are a few nice one but they are far and few between. Same goes for Asian basketball players.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

great thread though. It is refreshing to see intelligence rear it's face even if I don't share the belief.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

it's been one of those weeks for me.......


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random, how many permits were off the Henry's and
AI vs the Pauns?!


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

GBell said:


> Random, how many permits were off the Henry's and
> AI vs the Pauns?!


 ^^^^^ he has a point.
Also, over half of the top ten % biggest bucks on that unit are taken on private property.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Ridge, the Pauns, is exactly like you said. 
The management plan call for PLE management
But they put out more than 3 times the permits
As the Henry's, and 50 times more than AI.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

The Pauns summer range for deer= 329,841 acres. Henry mountain summer range=38,000. The long term Henry objective= 2,000 deer; Pauns = short term is 5,200 but they believe it will support 6,500. 3 times the deer tends to call for an increase in tags.

The management plans for them as far as harvest age and buck/doe is the same. They both are exceeding the harvest age objective, even on the pauns down year in 2011.

Antelope Island is managed to bring in 300k per tag, doesn't even count. However, the say the island should hold 200-250 deer and they are over that. 2 tags. The management isn't happening out there. Managed as an attraction, not a deer unit.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Elk grow old in the Uintas I assure you. Their genetics don't allow them to get near as big as many other units. Call me crazy but I have seen too many of them. Their are a few nice one but they are far and few between. Same goes for Asian basketball players.


So if elk grow old in the Uintas and they don't get tall its not a genetics problem because they all came from the same herd in the beginning. This is where you have to start looking at nutritional problems that are keeping them short. Coincidentally the Uintas doesnt grow tall deer either.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> ^^^^^ he has a point.
> Also, over half of the top ten % biggest bucks on that unit are taken on private property.


So why are the lions share of the tallest bucks taken off the private areas on the pauns? Could it be the supplemental feeding and spread out watering making them taller?


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

swbuckmaster said:


> So if elk grow old in the Uintas and they don't get tall its not a genetics problem because they all came from the same herd in the beginning. This is where you have to start looking at nutritional problems that are keeping them short. Coincidentally the Uintas doesnt grow tall deer either.


And what elk habitat is the Uintas lacking exactly? Lakes? Pines, Quakies?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> So if elk grow old in the Uintas and they don't get tall its not a genetics problem because they all came from the same herd in the beginning. This is where you have to start looking at nutritional problems that are keeping them short. Coincidentally the Uintas doesnt grow tall deer either.


Like I said before though there is the random bruisers up there and I have seen few REAL big bucks. Discounting genetics and thinking they are all the same is just foolish. Sorry. You guys claim to believe it is a triangle but continually discount one of the three. If you think all deer share the exact same genetics in Utah and it all comes down to age and nutrition you are simply incorrect.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Winter range would be the correct answer.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> Like I said before though there is the random bruisers up there and I have seen few REAL big bucks. Discounting genetics and thinking they are all the same is just foolish. Sorry. You guys claim to believe it is a triangle but continually discount one of the three. If you think all deer share the exact same genetics in Utah and it all comes down to age and nutrition you are simply incorrect.


I haven't discounted genetics at all. I think your missing my point. My point is how come elk and deer dont seem to be as tall in those areas vs elk and deer along the mountain ranges running north south. The elk were started from the same herd which had the same genetics. Im discounting genetics as the reason and looking at the other parts of the triangle. I also dont think there is a large number of 7-10 year old bulls running around in the Uintas. So the Uintas maybe compairing apples to oranges.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> And what elk habitat is the Uintas lacking exactly? Lakes? Pines, Quakies?


If forage gets rain at the wrong time of the year it can lack the proper nutrients to grow tall deer and elk. It will still look green.

If the soil is made up of the the wrong minerals you end up with short deer and elk. "The forage will still look green."

In the Midwest "ohio, Iowa" is it a coincidence the "genetically" taller whitetail deer live in some of the richest mineral deposited soil in the united states?


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Uncle.................I give. 

All elk and deer share the same genetics They all came from the same place. As do every other species on Earth. Given the same nutrition and age they will all be the same because the genetics are the same. My brother and I look different and we came from the same place but the differences are only because we are separated by three years and we eat different food.

Makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Dahlmer (Sep 12, 2007)

All human beings share the same genetics as well and yet we see geographic areas that consistently produce taller humans, or humans with certain colors of hair, or eyes, etc. The same is true with deer. Geographic isolation of different herds will likewise result in some herds expressing certain characteristics with more consistency. Not just antler size, but ear size, body mass, etc.

Nutrition absolutely plays a role in the overall picture, but genetic isolation and natural selection play an equal role in determining what traits are expressed and with what consistency.


----------



## DarKHorN (Mar 4, 2012)

Oh come on TS it's your time to shine, post up. This is yours and Randoms thread to shine some light.


----------



## DarKHorN (Mar 4, 2012)

Without nutrition the spyder bull would have been POS bull.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

And a midget can eat the same diet as Kareem Abdul Jabbar and will remain a midget.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

This thread exemplifies perfectly why we have the ill conceived management that we do. Everyone here, is right, at least in some sense. Yet where the big picture is concerned, your all wrong also.

I see the key statement in that article as being this:
*Nutrition*

As early as the 1940s, pioneering nutritional work by Franz Vogt in Germany demonstrated the overwhelming effect of nutrition on antler development (summarized in Geist, 1986). Vogt found that pregnant deer fed a supplement high in protein, energy, and minerals over generations produced superior bucks even if the original genetic stock was mediocre. For example, one group doubled in body mass and more than doubled in antler mass in just three generations. Clearly, nutrition has to be optimal for either age or genetic effects to be seen in antlers. 
Unfortunately, nutritional requirements for antler development in wild herbivores are poorly understood. Some general guidelines likely apply, however.

As noted above, body mass will be maximized before antlers because antlers are a luxury tissue, so while nutrition can maximize potential within an age-class, it cannot compensate for survival to optimal ages.
Nutritional requirements for optimal antler growth probably mirror needs of females for lactation. These needs are high: for elk, diets of more than 67% digestibility and more than 16% protein, and more than 70% digestibility and more than 18% protein for deer.
While little firm knowledge is available on mineral requirements for antler growth, anecdotal evidence suggests that mineral supplements can enhance development.
One of the biggest points here is the three generation time line. If you look at obesity in humans, you see the same three generation time frame play out. By the third generation, its set, dieting and nutrition have no affect, because of the way the genetics have been selected for, over the last three generations. Deer are the same way, it takes a healthy doe, bred by a healthy buck, to produce a healthy fawn, that fawn may go on to be an average buck, but he is healthy. So he breeds a healthy doe and so on. Next thing you know you have not only healthy deer, with good fawn recruitment, but you also have big bucks showing up. The survival of a fawn, that becomes a "trophy" animal, starts the summer before his willow horned grandfather is conceived, by his healthy well fed parents.

Regardless of the Henry's or the Pauns, this cycle has been playing out across the West in a macro sense, separate and independent of micro management. Currently it is an upward trend, but that is short term. The long term, 30 year trend for mule deer, is that of a downward spiral. And the Henry's, or any other micro management example, has no bearing on this fact.

Micro management, and local phenomenon mean nothing in the greater picture of mule deer health, mule deer survival, or mule deer hunting. They only play into the very divisive, scientifically unfounded, $$$$ based wildlife management institution, that is currently stealing your grandchildren's hunting heritage from them. 

Trophy management, or the myth that it is in anyway sound wildlife management has to stop, if we want to see solutions to the bigger mule deer situation. Trophy management is nothing but the exploitation of localized circumstances, to appease the $$$, and non conservation minded hunters among us. Sound wildlife management seeks to understand, conserve, and preserve wildlife and hunting on a wholesale basis. Such philosophies and doctrines bring long term, lasting understanding, and gains. They do not opportunistically exploit circumstance, under the guise of other things.

If the opposite were true, then with all the convention tag, and conservation tag, and other rapidly expanding revenue streams generated over the last 20 years of the neo-quasi-conservation movement, we would see gains. We would see gains in wildlife, and we would see gains in hunting opportunity, but we see just the opposite under the current wildlife management paradigm. We have devolved from the foundation that Roosevelt and others laid, that was reinforced and reaffirmed by Murie and countless others, to this....

This debate is not even what you think it is about.

The trophies will come, across the board, with healthy deer herds, for generations to come. And their value will in no way be diminished, by quantity, only the unconscionable retail value of them. But then again, how will we stay busy, if we can't chase our own tail?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

I could buy what Lone is selling. 

Not sure how it evolved in to a tag pimp / inch
Management rant, but I agree with that too.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> I could buy what Lone is selling.
> 
> Not sure how it evolved in to a tag pimp / inch
> Management rant, but I agree with that too.


You can't separate the two, that's the problem, that is a big part of how it self perpetuates. It is in this entanglement, that these "debates" are born, and we go in circles that we have been going in for the last 30 years. Step off the merry go round, get your balance, and look around. Its not going anywhere, and neither have we.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Having my 4 foot tall black cousin, my 7 foot tall asian cousin, my midget mexican cousin all over for dinner. We ate different food as kids, must explain the huge difference. Why do I look like my dad? We ate the same food as kids. My mom looks like her mom even though they grew up in different countries and ate different food... Must be an age related thing.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Having my 4 foot tall black cousin, my 7 foot tall asian cousin, my midget mexican cousin all over for dinner. We ate different food as kids, must explain the huge difference. Why do I look like my dad? We ate the same food as kids. My mom looks like her mom even though they grew up in different countries and ate different food... Must be an age related thing.


Not that simple. But here are a few other real world examples. African Americans that came here prone to Rickets, lose their propensity for the disease after a couple of generations of being here. And that is in spite of the fact, that as one moves North, they get less sunlight, which impedes Vitamin D production, and exacerbates Rickets. So now genetically, this person is not prone to the disease, but their relatives, that still live in Africa, and get more sunlight, are still prone to it. This is the affect of nutrition and environment over generations, despite genetics.

Take a Hopi family, and move half of them off their ancestral mesa, and into modern 21st century life. The portion of the family that stays on the Mesa, will seem unchanged in three generations. The portion of the family that partakes in modern life, and eats processed food, will look very different in three generation. Obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc. They will look very unlike their relatives.

If you look at the cases of alcoholism in the Scotch/Irish population, and look at family histories as they relate to multigenerational famines, you will see that there is a direct line between the two. Along the same lines as famine, there is a generational "skip", that occurs when a generation falls on hard times or famine. It is not so much the generation that experiences the hardship that is affected, or even the following generation, but rather the third generation that has a "bump", or positive affect from the hardship three generations before.

So do big bucks produce big bucks? Yes, it can go that way, but there is a lot more to it than that. And one of the big stand outs for "trophy" areas, is genetic disease, such as Cryptorchidism, and high buck to doe ratios, but low, or no herd growth. So focusing on such a model seems to have little overall, long term benefit, other than some big deer, that a few people get to hunt, for an indeterminate time.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Lone I havent read your posts yet ha.. Longghg. I posted that on the last page and it never sent till your posts. I will read your stuff. Regardless this was Gbell calling me out. It wasn't management tactics. It was him saying genetics don't matter. And if your post is a fancier way of saying that then please see all my other posts. Otherwise, when I am not on my cell I will read and reply to yours.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

RandomElk16 said:


> Lone I havent read your posts yet ha.. Longghg. I posted that on the last page and it never sent till your posts. I will read your stuff. Regardless this was Gbell calling me out. It wasn't management tactics. It was him saying genetics don't matter. And if your post is a fancier way of saying that then please see all my other posts. Otherwise, when I am not on my cell I will read and reply to yours.


OOooooohhhh........In-di-vid-ua-al an-i-mal-'s ge-net-ics don-'t mat-ter.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Random it wasn't my intention to call you out. 
Just to present you and TS with more data. 

I do apologize for calling you numbnuts. 

I see the angle Lonetree is working and while
I never tied management and genetics together
I can see the potential for the genetics myth to grow
Legs and run here. 

Peace.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

genetics myth.........that there is classic.

Greenhouse gas is a myth as well. As is evolution. In fact we are all a myth nothing is real. Except for Jennifer Anniston.........nobody could dream her up.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Glad to elevate to classic status Mr Skinner.

Now Kate Upton!!!! That's no myth.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Kate Upton couldn't wear Jennifer's jock......wait how is that supposed to go?


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

^^^^blasphemy^^^^


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Both genetics and greenhouse gases are very real. But there are myths about them, and how they actually play out in the world.

You can have what look like the best "genetics" in a population, and get poor results, because of environment, nutrition, and other exacerbating factors. Yet you can take what looks like a mediocre "gene pool" and turn it into what appears to be top notch genetics. In many ways it is a chicken or the egg scenario. I have watched the same deer for ~30 years, and watched this play out. 5 years ago it was hard to find a willow horned four point, but over the last two years several heavy 30+ inch bucks have been harvested. Genetics? nutrition? both? are they interchangeable?

Speaking of hot chicks, when I was younger I was told to always meet their mother, so you know what you may be dealing with in 20 years. It holds pretty true, only one generation of separation. Yet when you compare her grandparents, to your children, you will have a hard time making the connection.

My point is, is that we always have the shoot two points verses, 4 points debate, and all the related "management" discussions that go with it. There is a lot of myth, as it relates to genetics in those debates. Lots of anecdotes, and first hand experience, but very little actual, provable, repeatable science, that comes into play in these debates. And we manage our wildlife in this state, based on a whole lot of those same myths.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

Do we need another thread for the predator myth??

Sorry, bad joke.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Are antlered species like trees? Do they push out larger and still larger antlers each year if there are a lot of other males with larger antlers in the herd, but save the energy and settle for smaller antlers, if the competition has smaller antlers? Like trees pushing to be taller each year, if other taller trees are blocking the sun.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

osageorange said:


> Are antlered species like trees? Do they push out larger and still larger antlers each year if there are a lot of other males with larger antlers in the herd, but save the energy and settle for smaller antlers, if the competition has smaller antlers? Like trees pushing to be taller each year, if other taller trees are blocking the sun.


NO! But I bet that would play well at a WB meeting.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

GBell said:


> Do we need another thread for the predator myth??
> 
> Sorry, bad joke.


Bring it on. If anyone is serious about actual wildlife science and management we have to address that one at some point too.


----------



## GBell (Sep 2, 2013)

I'll let you handle that LT. These dudes already 
Think I'm whack.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

GBell said:


> I'll let you handle that LT. These dudes already
> Think I'm whack.


No myth there.


----------

