You think big antlers are just statistically random? I think big antlers are an expression of that bucks viability. Typically they have big bodies and are the dominant buck.(not always but more likely statistically)
That big, healthy doe got half of her genetics from a big, dominant buck, probably some influence there on the doe’s health based on her dad’s genes, to in turn produce a healthy, big buck offspring
Big bucks are generally a function of habitat quality. "Genetics" play a role, but that role is diminished as more research points out "genetics" is really habitat in disguise. At least thats what the best mule deer researchers in the world are concluding.
The whole habitat thing sounds good until you see 6 mature, 4.5-7.5 year old 150”-160”’s standing next to a giant in the exact same habitat.
Obviously there are genetic outliers. All I'm saying is that even tho those traits may be passed on, they are not reliably expressed in the next or subsequent generations. The expression of the genotype is the important part and that seems to be controlled in large part by maternal condition, which in turn is controlled by habitat, drought, etc etc.
I bet they sell the left over elk tags that didn’t draw
Sean, I’m not buying the habitat=big antlers simply because with the right genetics a whitetail(ranch buck) is over 200 as a 2.5 year old. The same thing happens in the wild. The big ones are big when they are young based on my anecdotal experience. That jives with @antlerradar explanation
You can argue with researchers like Monteith, etc. I realize what you are describing happens, but it is by far the outlier.
How can you be sure about that? Can you link a study?
It’s a good theory, but to express the phenotype, you first have to have the genotype, and half the genotype comes from the doe which might not have good genetics for large antler growth, meaning that just because a big antlered buck bred a doe, the offspring might not have the same genetics for large antler growth. I don’t fully buy the habitat over genetics talk
Everyone on this thread hopes some big antlers come from the better herd health the proposal creates
I just did a 5 min search, there is obviously more. I would run through citations for more papers. Here's a paper and a Wyofile article that goes over it, along with a second paper that discusses similar research in ID. I'll also attach a video GoHunt did with Dr. Brock Mcmillan, a mule deer researcher out of Utah where they talk about antler size averages, habitat and other cool mule deer stuff. Enjoy.
wyofile.com
And more Mule Deer. From fawns to big bucks. mtmuley
Antlers from three different bucks, all of them older from the same bachelor group. There was also two other bucks that were also old and small in the same group, I just didn't bother to keep there antlers when I found a few of them. The single set is well over 200, One of the top bucks I have ever seen. The middle buck is pushing 180 in his best year ( the second to last year). He died of natural causes and old age. That happen in the 90's on public land in Montana. Not any more. The other buck is a weak forked buck that will not break 140. These antlers are the best he ever had. I also have antlers from another monster buck that lived a few years later and two miles away that are very similar to the big single set. I wonder if they are half brothers with the same mother or even full brothers.
Because it was written, it is soI just did a 5 min search, there is obviously more. I would run through citations for more papers. Here's a paper and a Wyofile article that goes over it, along with a second paper that discusses similar research in ID. I'll also attach a video GoHunt did with Dr. Brock Mcmillan, a mule deer researcher out of Utah where they talk about antler size averages, habitat and other cool mule deer stuff. Enjoy.
Study: Deer’s lifelong fate is affected by mother’s health at birth - WyoFile
Multi-generational research shows health of a mule deer mother at time of birth may influence lifelong size of offspring.
I'll also add that Robby Denning has some excellent podcasts on Rokslide with several heavy hitters in the mule deer research community. They are a very interesting listen as well and I am pretty sure one (maybe both) of you are also members there.
I agree that good quality habitat lifts all deer, but any rancher will tell you that if you don't have the genes to turn all that high quality food in to extra milk, fat and bone structure you are still going to have a sub par cow herd. I am thinking that deer are not much different. I wish it was as simple as good feed equals big deer. If ranching was as simple as good food equaled 650 lb calves a lot of pure breed outfits would be out of business.
I’m curious, why do you choose to hunt such poor habitat every year?I just did a 5 min search, there is obviously more. I would run through citations for more papers. Here's a paper and a Wyofile article that goes over it, along with a second paper that discusses similar research in ID. I'll also attach a video GoHunt did with Dr. Brock Mcmillan, a mule deer researcher out of Utah where they talk about antler size averages, habitat and other cool mule deer stuff. Enjoy.
Study: Deer’s lifelong fate is affected by mother’s health at birth - WyoFile
Multi-generational research shows health of a mule deer mother at time of birth may influence lifelong size of offspring.
I'll also add that Robby Denning has some excellent podcasts on Rokslide with several heavy hitters in the mule deer research community. They are a very interesting listen as well and I am pretty sure one (maybe both) of you are also members there.
