# Selective breeding...



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

I would like to discuss the topic of selective breeding of wildlife. I have a fairly specific question, which is whether an emphasis on trophy hunting will put selective pressure on deer and elk toward smaller antler/rack sizes?

I am not so much interested of discussing in this thread the ethical question of whether trophy hunting is ethical or unethical, so I would prefer to see that issue discussed somewhere else, but hey, it's a free country, so post what you want.

I am, however, very interested, however, in the scientific side of this issue.

My own opinion is that there will be some selective pressure that, over a period of decades, could alter the average antler sizes (i.e. tending toward decreased size), though I don't have studies I can site on this issue.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

I would disagree based on what happened with Utah's elk. As the elk herds expanded in the 70's and Utah had open hunts on units like Manti and Wasatch; the herds had cows, spikes and a few raghorns. When Utah implemented the spike hunts and LE on branch antler those elk grew to reveal their genetic potential. 

It's about age class. 
- Less tags = bigger bulls
- More tags = smaller bulls


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

Just so I'm understanding your question correctly. Are you saying essentially that targeting the more mature animals will take them out of the gene pool? And eventually lead to smaller antlers due to the animals with not as good genetics being left to breed?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Dukes_Daddy said:


> I would disagree based on what happened with Utah's elk. As the elk herds expanded in the 70's and Utah had open hunts on units like Manti and Wasatch; the herds had cows, spikes and a few raghorns. When Utah implemented the spike hunts and LE on branch antler those elk grew to reveal their genetic potential.
> 
> It's about age class.
> - Less tags = bigger bulls
> - More tags = smaller bulls


I will disagree with this statment. The reason is when you target only the prime select you get the less desirable doing the breeding. It will affect things in the future. You defiantly wouldn't do this managment for prize race horses, chickens, dogs ect.

On a general deer hunt you get people pounding everything. The genitics isn't hurt but they don't get the age to show their potential.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

According to many biologists with tagged animals once a buck grows to his 4-5 year the likely hood of it being harvested by a hunter is somewhere in the 5% range. Which means that once they are educated and weary they adjust their habits and figure out how to evade hunters. 

With this in mind I guess if everyone was holding out for a buck in the 4 yr or older category then I could definitely see how the gene pool could be hurting. It would take a lot of sacrifice and self-restraint which 90% of your hunters do not have. Especially when it comes to your 3-4 yr old 4 points. Rarely is there going to be a public land hunter that is going to pass up a 21-23" 4pt. 

I would set off some major alarms if big bucks were not showing up on the winter range, but if you get out in the winter time those bucks are definitely figuring out their niche and evading hunters year after year.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Over time it could happen, much more likely in small, isolated populations -- but it would take quite a few generations for it to happen. Even if you harvest the big bucks, the young bucks still have the same genetics. If you let them age, it will show back up. 

I've watched quite a few deer on winter range return year after year. Some never get much over 160, even with age. Others are pushing 180 as 3 year olds. Even the offspring of the bucks who don't grow big can grow big.

I'm 4 inches taller than my dad, and 8 inches taller than my mom. You would have never known that if you'd shot me when I was 12.

Where you'll see an effect is in isolated and very small populations where you start targeting specific traits, but it would take a few generations to see any effect.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Can't give a scientific answer because we don't have that science. The influence of genetics on antler development in free-ranging mule deer is just speculation. Sure, we see anecdotal evidence of genetic traits, but that evidence isn't understood.

That being the case, I'll speculate that trophy hunting in itself has no impact whatsoever on antler size.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

brendo said:


> Just so I'm understanding your question correctly. Are you saying essentially that targeting the more mature animals will take them out of the gene pool? And eventually lead to smaller antlers due to the animals with not as good genetics being left to breed?


No, I am suggesting that taking the animals with the best racks will eventially lead to smaller antlers in the herd. Although there is a correlation between maturity and antler size, it is not a perfect correlation. Genetics must also play a role. Therefore, given two animals of the same age and general condition, one will have better antlers than the other, and if those animals are preferentially taken it will leave the ones with lesser racks in the genepool, resulting in a progressive decline of antler size over the generations. The change might be slow, but it will occur.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

massmanute said:


> No, I am suggesting that taking the animals with the best racks will eventially lead to smaller antlers in the herd. Although there is a correlation between maturity and antler size, it is not a perfect correlation. Genetics must also play a role. Therefore, given two animals of the same age and general condition, one will have better antlers than the other, and if those animals are preferentially taken it will leave the ones with lesser racks in the genepool, resulting in a progressive decline of antler size over the generations. The change might be slow, but it will occur.


Here's the thing: keeping an elk unit spike-only for 20 years will cull the less healthy, less intelligent animals. This will encourage development of genetics that produce healthier, smarter bulls and if you asked anyone who's been out there this year like myself you would get the answer that the bulls on the spike only units are monsters. It's definitely a factor into the reason why poachers are targeting those animals this year. You could keep those units spike-only forever and hope for the offspring of the big successful bulls would migrate out or swap out units over time and given a fairly short period of time, the animals would actually improve.

Limiting the harvest of mature animals is the way to go. Shorter general season deer hunts and more of them available plus less limited entry hunts would push the same kind of change in deer as hunters would be encouraged to shoot more of the 2x2s, 2x3s and 3x3s they see.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

These animals with the larger antlers have been breeding, and passing on genetics for 4+ years by the time they are harvested. Aren't they?


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Skally said:


> These animals with the larger antlers have been breeding, and passing on genetics for 4+ years by the time they are harvested. Aren't they?


I don't know about you, but the 2 to 5 year old bucks and bulls I see are mostly by themselves or in groups of young males.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Jedidiah said:


> I don't know about you, but the 2 to 5 year old bucks and bulls I see are mostly by themselves or in groups of young males.


You need to get out more in the rut then. All the two to five year old bucks I see are trying to kill themselves over the ladies.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

so you're trying to tell me a male deer never breeds until it is 5 years old?
are you seriious


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Skally said:


> so you're trying to tell me a male deer never breeds until it is 5 years old?
> are you seriious


5 might be a little aged for a virgin buck, true. But one thing is for sure, they may breed before then but not in large numbers. Bucks 5+ years old mate with harems and distribute their genetic material much more widely.

These kinds of posts always flame up and honestly all of you guys with half a dozen 6x6 racks on your walls ought to think about why you get irate when someone tells you that you should cut back a little.


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

massmanute said:


> brendo said:
> 
> 
> > Just so I'm understanding your question correctly. Are you saying essentially that targeting the more mature animals will take them out of the gene pool? And eventually lead to smaller antlers due to the animals with not as good genetics being left to breed?
> ...


That's what I meant to say just worded it wrong. I don't think enough trophy bucks get taken to make it an issue. as stated they have already spread there genes for a few years before they are harvested. As much as people think that trophy hunting is taking over I would wager that the percentile of trophy antler hunters to the get out have some fun and kill the first buck we see hunters is a lot less!


----------



## Lobowatcher (Nov 25, 2014)

Here is a decent article about your question, though it does leave a few things out, like the epigenetic factor. For the most part though, it gives a fairly good response.

https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/sites...Wildlife Articles/IsTrophyHuntingDraining.pdf


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Dont forget half a bucks genes came from its mommy.


-DallanC


----------



## provoflyfisher (Jun 12, 2008)

No, in a wild population it will not have a deleterious effect. If you removed the bucks with the "favored" phenotype (large antlers) before breeding age and culled all does that carry "favored" phenotype then you may see a bias in isolated populations (high fence). But, genetics is only part of the equation and environmental conditions are another uncontrollable variable.

Most hunters, as stated previously, harvest any 4x4 buck that looks decent and it is impossible to determine which does will pass on large antlers to their male offspring. I think what you are worried about is selective harvesting of bucks with large antlers, that can only be controlled by the number of tags issued in each unit. If every unit was managed like the Henries you would see a lot of big bucks and 99.9% of us would never hunt Utah again.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I highly doubt genetic issues arise in General Season deer and elk units. I do believe that trophy hunting may lead to genetic changes when antler point restrictions (such as 3 point or better) are placed on herds for extended periods of time or high-pressure LE units which see the best genetics selected across the age classes (where hunters are killing 2yo 18" 4x4 bucks rather than shooting the older 2x or 3x).

Elk on LE units will be less susceptible to genetic alterations as all bulls will have had the chance to breed before the rifle/ml hunts. Mule deer on the other hand might be susceptible to long-term changes as males are harvested before they have a chance to breed during the season.

The strongest males of both species have the highest chance to breed, so if the herd bull is an 8 yo 4x5 he could father more calves than a 5 year old 330 6x6. I have watched an old, small antlered 2x3 mule deer buck breed the doe in one area while the younger, better antlered bucks want nothing to do with the old dude. I do not think animals care if about antler size when it comes to breeding season. They do respect age and they do care about attitude.



Lobowatcher said:


> https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/sites...Wildlife Articles/IsTrophyHuntingDraining.pdf


I guess I have a hard time with an article that appears very biased. The author is a respected biologist with mule deer, yet he is described as a "Professional Member Boone and Crockett Club". The photos used are of mule deer. Then the research is completely based upon whitetails-- which have little in common with mule deer when talking about breeding and behavior.

For example:
"A male-to-female ratio of 1:2 or 1:3" Whitetails have high ratios, but most mule deer herds are more in the 1:5 to 1:7.

"Recent whitetail research showed that nearly a third of the fawns were sired by yearling and 2-1/2-year-old bucks" Again, when was the last time a whitetail buck had a harem? Mule deer are known to hold groups of doe while whitetails tend to run singles. I have no doubt young bucks breed doe, but the rutting behavior of whitetails and mule deer is very different.

"most big game populations are not isolated from genetic exchange. This clustering of interrelated populations into one metapopulation dilutes any selection applied to a population and helps to maintain genetic diversity. In whitetails, approximately 70 percent of 1-1/2-year-old bucks disperse from their birth area, travelling one to five miles on average, with many going 10 miles or more." Mule deer tend to return to the same rutting ground every year-- even after traveling a hundred miles from summer to winter range. Many times, a yearling buck will return to the same winter range to rut in subsequent years.

"Boone and Crockett Club's Records has kept consistent records since 1950, containing data back to 1830, and yet, the number of annual entries has quadrupled since 1980." Of course entries have increased, but does anyone here feel that is because people actually care more about inches today? I never knew what an "inch" was until 15 years ago.

It was an interesting article, but written for the purpose of supporting the harvest of trophy animals by an organization which profits from inches. That said, I like to shoot mature animals so maybe I am part of the problem...


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Skally said:


> These animals with the larger antlers have been breeding, and passing on genetics for 4+ years by the time they are harvested. Aren't they?


But if they are taken out at 4 years (more or less) they won't be passing on their genetics in their later years, whereas the ones that aren't taken will continue to pass on their genes. After manu generations it can make a difference.


----------



## redleg (Dec 5, 2007)

The Germans have sudied this for centurys. They know that big racks come from good breeding. They never shoot big antlered bucks that are less than 6 years old and they cull the small bucks in the first 2 to3 years, that improves the herd. Scrawny bucks might get one rut to pass their bad genes, if they are lucky.
The germans grow MONSTER red deer that way.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I think we focus too much on the size of an animal's antlers when we talk about genes. But genetics are so much more involved than that. It is possible to have two 4 year old bucks with the EXACT same genes (twins) that have totally different size and shape of antlers. It is the same reason I am 6'2" and my brother is 5'9", yet we have the same mom and dad. I have blonde hair and blue eyes, he has brown hair and brown eyes. 

The fact is, the age of the buck and size of his antlers at time of breeding has nothing to do with the genes he will pass on. I am no geneticist, but I know how bad people miss the genetics mark when they focus on antler size.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

TS30 said:


> I think we focus too much on the size of an animal's antlers when we talk about genes. But genetics are so much more involved than that. It is possible to have two 4 year old bucks with the EXACT same genes (twins) that have totally different size and shape of antlers. It is the same reason I am 6'2" and my brother is 5'9", yet we have the same mom and dad. I have blonde hair and blue eyes, he has brown hair and brown eyes...


Are you and your brother identical twins?


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Was that question said in jest?


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

massmanute said:


> I would like to discuss the topic of selective breeding of wildlife. I have a fairly specific question, which is whether an emphasis on trophy hunting will put selective pressure on deer and elk toward smaller antler/rack sizes?
> 
> No. It will have no effect on antler size. There are many factors that contribute to antler growth. Genetical contribution is one of them but not a limiting factor. But harvesting the best grown set of antlers in a particular area will not alter the trait. You would have to kill every ungulate in the area if it was isolated geographically to alter the genes. It's been awhile since I studied chromosomes and genetics.
> 
> ...


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Idratherbehunting said:


> Was that question said in jest?


Yes and no.

Clearly the brothers are not ideal twins, but TS30 was trying to make an analogy between him and his sibling on the one hand and identical twins (elk) on the other. The comparison is invalid because he is comparing identical twins to ordinary siblings. My post was intended to allow him to explore the problem with the analogy.


----------



## provoflyfisher (Jun 12, 2008)

Ts30 only identical twins have the exact same combinations of maternal and paternal genes and therefore are identical in almost every aspect. You and your brother or for that matter fraternal twins have different combinations of your mothers and fathers genes (alleles) and as you mention can have very different phenotypes (hair and eye color as well as height). Your parents randomly pass on different genes to you and your brother the same as a buck and a doe to each of their offspring. Genetics/genes get thrown around a lot with regard to deer/elk antler size, but we have spent billions trying to understand the genetics underlying human height and weight and we still have a lot to learn. Nothing is known about the genetics of deer and elk with regard to antler size. 

As Packout mentioned, you can selectively bias your population of bucks to less favorable 2x2s and 2x3s by antler restrictions. Hunters, when forced to harvest a certain antler class (e.g. 4x4s or better, not to be confused with age class) can cause population bottlenecks that can result in less favorable bucks. After many generations of selective harvest and environmental induced bottlenecks (predation, poor range conditions and winter kill) you may see less favorable phenotypes increase in frequency. When this happens I would be less concerned with antler size and more concerned with increasing the deer population.

Hunters have become very efficient at harvesting bucks of all sizes and shapes. As long as game managers properly manage the resource we will not "shoot out the genetics." Unfortunately I think the verdict is still out regarding proper management of the Western Mule Deer.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

provoflyfisher said:


> Ts30 only identical twins have the exact same combinations of maternal and paternal genes and therefore are identical in almost every aspect. You and your brother or for that matter fraternal twins have different combinations of your mothers and fathers genes (alleles) and as you mention can have very different phenotypes (hair and eye color as well as height).


I understand this, and I don't think there is any logical conclusion to think that deer, dogs, moose or pigs are any different in this either. Which is why just looking at two deer or elk and their antlers and talking about "good genes" or "bad genes" misses the mark completely.



provoflyfisher said:


> Your parents randomly pass on different genes to you and your brother the same as a buck and a doe to each of their offspring.


Again, this is my point. Just like in people, deer will pass on genes randomly that they don't necessarily exhibit themselves. Spider bull undoubtedly bred with many cows in its day. Why don't you see bulls just like him walking around 6 years later? Or why did we not see bulls just like him walking around that area 6-10 years before? Again, I'm not geneticist, but even in basic biology classes you learn about this stuff. It goes much deeper than just the size of an animals antlers.

As stated above, genetics is only one of the factors when it comes to deer growing bone out of the top of their heads anyway.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

There are a lot of people confusing the inheritance of dominant/recessive traits with the effects of selective pressure on evolution.


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> There are a lot of people confusing the inheritance of dominant/recessive traits with the effects of selective pressure on evolution.


Do you have any studies or literature that spotlights that?


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Mr Muleskinner said:


> There are a lot of people confusing the inheritance of dominant/recessive traits with the effects of selective pressure on evolution.


Agreed.

To elaborate a bit further, antler size and quality is governed by several factors, including age, environment (in the most general sense), and heredity.

Looking at heredity, it is likely follows multi-factorial inheritence, i.e. more than one gene, and the genes are likely a combination dominant, recessive, incomplete dominant, and incomplete penetrant genes. Genetic recombination may be completely independent or linked, depending on which which chromosomes the genes are on and how far apart they are if they are on the same chromosome. Futhermore, a gene can contribute to survival or be detrimental to survival, or a little of both. In other words it can be quite complex.

Selective pressure affects gene retention in the gene pool differently for each of these, but as a rule of thumb all types of genes respond to selective pressure, whether it is natural or artificial selection.

To elaborate a further, a dominant gene is relatively easy to eliminate from a population. Just eliminate the animals that show the trait. Recessive traits are much harder to remove because there are many individuals that carry the gene but do not show the phenotype, and you therefore cannot identify them (without genetic testing) and can't eliminate them from the breeding population. You can only select against the ones that show the phenotype.

For example, if you were a kind of reverse Nazi who wanted to eliminate genes for blue eyes from the population of China, and you planned to do this by removing all blue eyed people from the gene pool you would not succeed because most of the people who carry a gene for blue eyes in China carry only one copy and therefore have a brown phenotype. You can't detect those people because they have brown eyes, and selection is therefore weak. As a practical matter you could never route out the blue eyed gene completely by simple selection according to phenotype.

On the other hand, if you were a regular Nazi who wanted to eliminate the gene for brown eyes from the population you could do it in one generation simply be removing all brown eyed people.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

massmanute said:


> But if they are taken out at 4 years (more or less) they won't be passing on their genetics in their later years, whereas the ones that aren't taken will continue to pass on their genes. After manu generations it can make a difference.


So they have already passed their genetic material on to other deer. And these other deer are also passing those genes on. in the later years that buck might not even be able to reproduce naturally. He is still passing on the SAME genes weather he is 2 or 5... right?


----------



## Elkaholic2 (Feb 24, 2013)

Skally said:


> So they have already passed their genetic material on to other deer. And these other deer are also passing those genes on. in the later years that buck might not even be able to reproduce naturally. He is still passing on the SAME genes weather he is 2 or 5... right?


Right!

Most bucks start breeding at 2.5 years old. Most of the older bucks that breed don't get to all the does. Seems like in most general season areas. 5% of the buck population is 4+ years old. In most ares the younger bucks are doing the breeding...

But the never say never and never say always rule applies here!


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

I agree that the "good" Bucks would pass on the same genetics, but I think there is a possibility of some general drift, if antler size is genetic. 

We see a more pronounced example in milk cows and milk production, a highly hereditary trait. 50 years ago, a heavy producing milk cow on most dairies would give about 30 lbs of milk. Through selective breeding (artificial insemination primarily) cows were breed to Bulls that had the milk production trait. Now there are milk cows that produce well over 130 lbs of milk. Of course necessary nutrition is still critical for these animals to reach their potential, but the ceiling has been raised.

Now if we assume that antler size is a similar hereditary trait, there would be some potential drift in the genetics. If in the first generation, 50% of the does were breed by bucks with the "big" genes and 50% with the "smaller" gene, then you'd have a 50/50 split in offspring. But let's say in year two, due to some of the big bucks getting shot, the split is 48% big and 52% smaller. Obviously we don't know dominant vs recessive (I don't at least) but I think over time there would be a gradual shift. Obviously not as drastic as in dairy cows, because it doesn't habe the control over the genetic make up as a farmer does, but to me it seems rational that there would be some drift. But there are so many variables it would be extremely difficult to quantify it.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

I never shoot large antlered deer or elk, nor do I want you to shoot them, because I want more large antlered deer and elk, that we won't shoot. Let's make sure we grow more genetically large antler deer/elk so we can't kill'em. I love it.

I will however shoot mature does with great antler genetics........obviously, there's no need to protect the genetics in the does.

Makes perfect sense to me!


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

Idratherbehunting said:


> I agree that the "good" Bucks would pass on the same genetics, but I think there is a possibility of some general drift, if antler size is genetic.
> 
> We see a more pronounced example in milk cows and milk production, a highly hereditary trait. 50 years ago, a heavy producing milk cow on most dairies would give about 30 lbs of milk. Through selective breeding (artificial insemination primarily) cows were breed to Bulls that had the milk production trait. Now there are milk cows that produce well over 130 lbs of milk. Of course necessary nutrition is still critical for these animals to reach their potential, but the ceiling has been raised.
> 
> Now if we assume that antler size is a similar hereditary trait, there would be some potential drift in the genetics. If in the first generation, 50% of the does were breed by bucks with the "big" genes and 50% with the "smaller" gene, then you'd have a 50/50 split in offspring. But let's say in year two, due to some of the big bucks getting shot, the split is 48% big and 52% smaller. Obviously we don't know dominant vs recessive (I don't at least) but I think over time there would be a gradual shift. Obviously not as drastic as in dairy cows, because it doesn't habe the control over the genetic make up as a farmer does, but to me it seems rational that there would be some drift. But there are so many variables it would be extremely difficult to quantify it.


Those are Domestic Cows, that have been genetically modified for over 200 years. The difference being we cant pick and choose witch Does a Buck breeds.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You will never shoot out the genitics on a general season hunt because the pressure is on everything. The deer that are left to do the breeding are the younger yearling and two year old deer that have yet to show their potential!

LE hunts are a total different scenario! I think the Henry mnts are an example. Several years ago there were better bucks being killed on the rifle and muzzy hunts and more of them. The quality has slipped the last five years and not as many are being killed. Some say "sfw" it's being over harvested and would like tag cuts. There are also more old big reject crab clawed bucks that no one would ever shoot with that tag doing the breading. Sure does carry the genitics but if you keep breeding the does with these cull bucks you will loose the quality you desire over time. Not one whitetail ranch who breeds for superior genitics will kill their prize buck before it breeds and let the big old crab claw bucks do the breeding!

Bookcliffs is another great example. Everyone wants a four point buck. People that get this tag will kill every two year old four point they see. Most leave the 3x4 and big 2x3's, 2x2's for the rut. These older class cull bucks are aggressive and enough of them are left over the younger yearling bucks with possible good genitics simply won't get their chance to breed unlike what happens on a general hunt where the majority of the bucks doing the breeding are one and two year old bucks. The bookcliffs is a hunt that needs these cull bucks taken out!
The bookcliffs is a fun hunt to draw but you have a better chance imho of killing a true trophy on a general hunt.

Another good example is the Wasatch front. Great genitics and the majority of the bucks getting killed are getting killed during or after they have breed the does. The deer genitics are strong and imho keep getting better.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Skally said:


> Those are Domestic Cows, that have been genetically modified for over 200 years. The difference being we cant pick and choose witch Does a Buck breeds.


You can control which buck breeds a doe and the good ones are being selected and killed long before the rut.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> You can control which buck breeds a doe and the good ones are being selected and killed long before the rut.


you mean 5% of the good ones


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Skally said:


> you mean 5% of the good ones


Skally you can't say out one side your mouth over 200 years it worked for cows then out the other side of your mouth say it doesn't for deer.

2+2 will always equal 4


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

swbuckmaster said:


> Skally you can't say out one side your mouth over 200 years it worked for cows then out the other side of your mouth say it doesn't for deer.
> 
> 2+2 will always equal 4


imo the situation with domestic cows is completely different.


----------



## wileywapati (Sep 9, 2007)

Carry on.


----------



## osageorange (Nov 20, 2010)

Here in Utah we protect the absolute smallest antlered deer (through antler restriction regulation) and fine anyone one that kills one of those protected class of bucks. It's got to be protecting the genetics or we wouldn't be doing it? Apparently we've been doing is since the early 1960's, it must not be having any negative impart.............or maybe it is and they like the results they've been getting. 

It's the opposite with elk, we regulate against killing large antlered males and overwhelm our smallest antlered bulls with massive hunting pressure. They've been doing it for nearly 30 years, apparently no negative impact, they must like the results there getting, in as much as a few years ago they increased the number of spike elk hunt units. 

Get 4 out of that pair of duces!

Actually, you can get 2 + 2 to equal something other that 4. You just simply tell everyone they don't understand and this 2 isn't the same as that 2. They do it all the time and it seems to work very well for most of us. 

Blissful deception!


----------



## provoflyfisher (Jun 12, 2008)

massmanute said:


> Agreed.
> 
> In your original question you were interested in the scientific side of the issue of selective breeding due to selective pressure on trophy bucks. To clarify, in a wild population you are not looking at or studying selective breeding as your title states. You want to understand if "trophy hunting will put selective pressure on deer and elk toward smaller antler/rack sizes?" Your argue that the average antler size will be altered "over decades" because hunters "like" to harvest the biggest bucks but have no scientific support for this hypothesis.
> 
> ...


Fortunately for deer herds antler size is not a single gene trait and the 10-100 genes are not linked, we will not completely eliminate bucks with large antlers as your last example suggests.

I too worry that the number of big bucks is lower than the good ole days. 
We as hunters have become extremely successful at harvesting big animals due to technology; rifles, scopes, rangefinders, compound bows, 4-wheelers to name only a few. The lower number of big bucks is due to increased success not because of selective breeding by inferior bucks. In small, genetically isolated populations with strict antler restrictions the frequency of less desirable bucks can increase. But, once antler restrictions are removed, optimal tag numbers are given and mother nature cooperates, the big bucks will show up on the winter range without fail. The only way to increase the number of big bucks, given the current success of hunters, is to drastically reduce tag numbers. Or do what I do and hunt the Wasatch Front with a bow and you will see a lot of nice bucks


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Skally said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Skally you can't say out one side your mouth over 200 years it worked for cows then out the other side of your mouth say it doesn't for deer.
> ...


Shally, the example I sited has occurred in the last 50 years, in a large part led by researchers at Utah State. During that time, the change has been incredible. Look at my post again. I didn't say that it was exactly the same, as obviously we don't have as much control on the deer, but I believe there would be some genetic drift. I sited the cow example as it is a hereditary trait that has greatly demonstrated the power of selective breeding. The very basis of evolution is that if a trait made an animal more likely to not survive, over time, that trait would diminish in occurance. Drift occurs. IF enough hunters only harvested the biggest bucks, it could lead to genetic drift. Do I think it will happen on Utah's general units? Probably not to a noticeable extent, or to the extent other factors were ruled out, because there are enough hunters that are willing to shoot the first deer with antlers.


----------



## Idratherbehunting (Jul 17, 2013)

Sorry. I meant skally


----------



## bkelz (Dec 3, 2010)

When I first read the title, "Selective Breeding" my first though was, "some hunters should not be bred at all." Poaching seem really bad in Utah.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

*Gotta remember a few things*

First. You are trying to cross micro and macro populations. On an isolated high fence unit where you can equal everything across the board, ie. nutrition, you can select out genetic traits you want, control for the mutations, and create a "pure" line.
The closest to this in the wild I can think of is AI. Yeah I know Denny will tell you this the roughest hunt on the planet, but look at it. For decades it was surrounded by water so the animals stayed. It has a nice genetic line. There are coyotes but no cats, bears, wolves, and until recently people. There was plenty of nutrition to support the small herd and good habitat. The result is a pile of very big main frame 4x4 s. However, there is also a line of bucks that aren't in the genetic line. Are they mutants? Where did that line come from, who knows.
Now expand that to a macro environment, the manti for example. It is impossible to end a genetic line or create one in that ammount of acreage. It is also impossible to foster absolute expression of genetic traits if for no other reason than varied nutrition.
A couple of other things. First, discussing the robust Elk, and Whitetail when talking mule deer is useless, mule deer are much weaker, much less adaptable, and "genetically" less fit. Second, antler growth is based genetics PLUS environmental factors. The same deer can have vastly different growth rates year to year based on food and water. Third, unless you can select out the does, factoring for the bucks only gives you some of the growth potential. Lastly, and we see this in humans. You can jack up that f350, chip it out, put on the mudders, crank up the Florida Georgia Line, but if you need a stool to get in and out of it, it not real impressive. Same is true of deer. Yeah antler growth is part, but if that older, smaller horned buck beats your azz every fall, he is porking does while you show off your rack. Genetically speaking, the female of the species wants to ensure the perpetuation of her offspring by breeding the most fit, thus the rut battles. To the winner goes the spoils and while that usually means the bigger antlers, it almost always means the strongest, and that isn't always the biggest horns. If it did, wouldn't we be seeing a herd of spider bulls by now?
I have said it for years, but until a buck gives birth we are worrying about the wrong side of the mule deer issue. We need more does, stronger does, does, does, does. The breeding will happen, but if those fawns don't come we are wasting effort. Every doe that gets killed is how many potential trophy class bucks that could have come from her? We don't need a sausage fest, regardless how big the horns are.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

hossblur said:


> First, discussing the robust Elk, and Whitetail when talking mule deer is useless, mule deer are much weaker, much less adaptable, and "genetically" less fit.


This quote is full of holes! Mule deer are found everywhere whitetail and elk are found however muledeer can be found outside of elk and whitetail areas. This alone shows their genitics adaptabilities.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> This quote is full of holes! Mule deer are found everywhere whitetail and elk are found however muledeer can be found outside of elk and whitetail areas. This alone shows their genitics adaptabilities.


His whole post is full of holes or crap. 
Why even bring Denny A. name up in a thread about genetics?
Just an excuse to take another cheap shot at the guy?
I do find genetics in deer interesting.
If you like a certain look of a rack/antlers on a buck. You can scout out areas that fit that look more than other areas. I've seen on the same mountain range where on end you will see a lot of heavy antlered bucks with crab claw fronts. Then in the middle of the range, you will see more bucks with big fronts and several bucks with drop tines.
Then on the other end of the range, you will see bucks with wider spreads but not very heavy racks.


----------



## fishreaper (Jan 2, 2014)

I don't believe that the current hunting practice will greatly affect the genetics of our deer. Unless antler growth is strictly on the final pair of genes (X-X or X-Y. female and male respectively) and in limited to the Y gene that is passed on by the father, no immediate problems should exist. Even if it remained on the feminine X gene and the male X is what resulted in mule deer does to lack antlers, the vast majority of the genes are going to be preserved in the doe population, even if you attempted to kill all "favored" bucks for a few generations. That of course is not the case. I can't account for mule deer specifically, but it has been noted that the majority of all deer killed in America fall (to the hands of a hunter, not a motor vehicle or other various dances of death) within the first 1.5-2.5 years of life, and as they age and grow more intelligent, they are less likely to die.

In conclusion of only MY personal logical steps, *I* do not believe that the current rate of harvesting will greatly affect antler size.

What *I believe* does affect antler size, in addition to all other aspects of life, is nutrition. If deer antlers are primarily bone, then calcium carbonate and its biological precursors to the creation of bone are a more prominent factor. (**sarcasm*If you're feeling altruistic, hike deep into the mountains and drop off a small quarry of mineral licks and start burning more coal to warm the mountains up via greenhouse gases.*)


----------



## fishreaper (Jan 2, 2014)

swbuckmaster said:


> This quote is full of holes! Mule deer are found everywhere whitetail and elk are found however muledeer can be found outside of elk and whitetail areas. This alone shows their genitics adaptabilities.


It is my understanding that mule deer are a cross between whitetails and blacktail deer at a much earlier time in history when their ranges greatly overlapped. Mule deer eventually took the stage and became the more frequent animal in the area and were likely more fit to survive the area.

With that said though, whitetails survive everywhere from the 300 lbs giants of snowy Canada to the 90 lbs swamp dogs of Florida. Gotta show them a little love. Elk were once also prominent on the east coast and plains prior colonialism and lived happily in the low lands, but were eventually pushed into the mountains, or in the case of the eastern species, extirpated entirely.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

fishreaper said:


> It is my understanding that mule deer are a cross between whitetails and blacktail deer at a much earlier time in history when their ranges greatly overlapped. Mule deer eventually took the stage and became the more frequent animal in the area and were likely more fit to survive the area


True, this was discovered via DNA mapping. Muleys are hybrids.



> In Valerius Geist's informative book _Mule Deer Country_ he explains that by testing the mitochondrial DNA (the mothers DNA ) of the three species (blacktail, whitetail and mule deer), researchers have now determined that it was the mating of Whitetail does, and Blacktail buck's, that gave rise to the Mule deer and not the opposite as was once suspected.


-DallanC


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

ridgetop said:


> His whole post is full of holes or crap.
> Why even bring Denny A. name up in a thread about genetics?
> Just an excuse to take another cheap shot at the guy?
> I do find genetics in deer interesting.
> ...


No, Denny can be Doyles sugar daddy all he wants, I AM opposed to selling AI deer, claiming its good for the population, and trying to pass it off as fair chase. Since Denny buys the tags I use his name.
Second, the rest of your post repeats what I said about macro environments so I guess either you didn't read, or we are both "full of holes".
However, your right only to the extent that the entire range has the same limiting factors. If one end is deeply forested, and the other desert, the same genetic line would manifest vastly different antler size, weight, and color. DNA, doesn't change. That spotted fawn whose daddy was a 30" 2 point, has a very high probability of being the same(depending on mom). External manipulation, such as injury, or even loss of testicals(some sheep herders used to catch fawns and nut them) can change this. However his odds of coming from that line, and becoming a mainframe 4x4 are slim. Thus the reason for management hunts on units, or in highfence to cut out that genetic line. Otherwise, he might be a big 2 point, thick 2 point, or raghorn 2 point, and that could vary year to year mostly due to nutrition and water.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

DallanC said:


> True, this was discovered via DNA mapping. Muleys are hybrids.
> 
> [/FONT]
> 
> -DallanC


One would think that with the overall superior genetic line(not arguable, simply look at range, and population) the whitetail doe would allow herself to be bread by a weaker blacktail buck. She must of been permiscuous?
I mean as a rule the female of the species breeds to perpetuate that species and breeds with the "biggest and baddest". One would think that it would have been whitetail bucks breeding blacktail does. 
Nature is a funny thing sometimes.

I believe, and there has been a lot written, that the current decline of the muley is solely based on the change in environment/climate that we are undergoing(thanks Al Gore), and that from a evolutionary perspective, is not reversible, and will one day lead to a dead end on the deer "family tree". 200 years from now I would bet that the whitetail will have pretty much reclaimed the North American land mass, and blacktail and mulies will either fail to exist, or only exist in very small isolated communities. Sucks, because Mulies are much "cooler" than their ancestors are.


----------



## massmanute (Apr 23, 2012)

Regarding selection and breeding, as mentioned earlier, the genetics of antler size are probably multifactorial, meaning controlled by more than one gene. Also mentioned is that as far as selective breeding is concerned, dominant and recessive genes behave somewhat differently. Also mentioned is the degree to which selection is applied, though not called by that term.

However, to a fair degree these are fine points. The main idea is that selection will alter the distribution of genes in a population. If selection is strongly applied the change in gene distribution will take place over relatively few generations, and if applied weakly it will take place over relatively many generations, but the general trend is the same, regardless of how strongly applied.

Also mentioned was the concept of mate selection, though not under that terminology. In other words, the does may tend to select the biggest and meanest males from the herd. This is one form of selection, and this form of selection may tend toward bigger racks. This form of selection would tend to be in the opposite direction from the selective pressure from trophy hunting.

If trophy hunting in a population suddenly starts (e.g. the white man comes to the region) there will be a new factor in male breeder selection, and the factor favors smaller rack size. This will set off a general genetic drift towards smaller rack size. This drift will continue until the selective pressures favoring large antler size (probably dominated by mate selection) and pressures favoring small antler size (trophy hunting, as well as other factors) reach a balance point. The new balance point (e.g. new median antler size) will depend on how strong the various selective pressures are, including trophy hunting among the many factors. All else being equal, the balance point will favor smaller antler size after trophy hunting begins than before the new selective pressure is applied.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

hossblur said:


> No, Denny can be Doyles sugar daddy all he wants, I AM opposed to selling AI deer, claiming its good for the population, and trying to pass it off as fair chase. Since Denny buys the tags I use his name.
> Second, the rest of your post repeats what I said about macro environments so I guess either you didn't read, or we are both "full of holes".
> However, your right only to the extent that the entire range has the same limiting factors. If one end is deeply forested, and the other desert, the same genetic line would manifest vastly different antler size, weight, and color. DNA, doesn't change. That spotted fawn whose daddy was a 30" 2 point, has a very high probability of being the same(depending on mom). External manipulation, such as injury, or even loss of testicals(some sheep herders used to catch fawns and nut them) can change this. However his odds of coming from that line, and becoming a mainframe 4x4 are slim. Thus the reason for management hunts on units, or in highfence to cut out that genetic line. Otherwise, he might be a big 2 point, thick 2 point, or raghorn 2 point, and that could vary year to year mostly due to nutrition and water.


There you go again bringing Denny's name up again. This thread(selective breeding) has nothing to do with the two tags given out on AI.

You did have some good info. in your first post but once you go off topic, like bringing up Denny A., you loose all interest from readers like me. 
Kind of like when someone starts off their hunting story with it titled "1,398 yards shot and all the work paid off". 
Yep, I just lost interest in the story.

Stay on topic.


----------

