“120 Minimum Glass Ceiling”

[Long Cut]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6vDmt4uWhdCN1rKGJq2ggm?si=1RkE4OHLQGGdYZNqX-MysA

Included is the podcast link to an MSU Deer Lab discussion on “culling” and its impacts on genetics, herd health, fawn survival rates and overall Antler scores.

Around the 40-55 minute mark, they discuss how these “glass ceilings” are created by land managers and hunt clubs. In short, when you have a 115” or 120” Antler score minimum, the first bucks reaching this size are 2.5-3.5YO bucks with the genetics and potential to get much larger. While the bucks the land managers are “giving another year” may never reach 120”. Now these older bucks are outcometing younger bucks with the genetic potential to have larger antlers.

Just some food for thought.
“Culling” cannot, and will not change a wild animals genetics. But you can control how many mouths your food plots and feeders have to feed.

 

[across the river]

The best criteria for harvest is age, no doubt. A deer will be about 80%!what he will ever be in terms of inches at 3 years old, so a 120” 3 year old could hit 150 where a 110” inch 4 year old will never come close The problem is even people who are experienced at it aren’t all that accurate aging deer on the hoof, which is why spread, score, main beam, etc.... rules come into play. It is tough for most guys paying club dues to pass on a 120” 3 year old, and I get it. So unless you have a lot of acreage to yourself to manage or a group of really like minded guys, it’s tough to do.

 

[rstallings1979]

Yeah...I am not a fan of the TV hunters very much but I remember Lee Lakosky stated that when they first purchased their Iowa farms they ended up shooting 3.5 year olds with superior genetics because they were 160 plus inches while their inferior 4.5, 5.5 year old bucks were left alive to spread their inferior genes another year. He said it was a big mistake and it took a few years to correct.

He also noted a 3.5 year old is the easiest buck to kill. They have reached an age where they want to breed everything so they respond aggressively, they are running all over the place trying to find a doe etc. The older bucks aren't as aggressive and they basically know when its time to look and when its time to lay low.

 

[spencer12]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6vDmt4uWhdCN1rKGJq2ggm?si=1RkE4OHLQGGdYZNqX-MysA

Included is the podcast link to an MSU Deer Lab discussion on “culling” and its impacts on genetics, herd health, fawn survival rates and overall Antler scores.

Around the 40-55 minute mark, they discuss how these “glass ceilings” are created by land managers and hunt clubs. In short, when you have a 115” or 120” Antler score minimum, the first bucks reaching this size are 2.5-3.5YO bucks with the genetics and potential to get much larger. While the bucks the land managers are “giving another year” may never reach 120”. Now these older bucks are outcometing younger bucks with the genetic potential to have larger antlers.

Just some food for thought.
“Culling” cannot, and will not change a wild animals genetics. But you can control how many mouths your food plots and feeders have to feed.

I read a study in Texas they did on a 20,000 acre high fence ranch. They started “culling” inferior bucks by use of a helicopter. Inferior was in the antler department, so any young 2.5 yo 6 point or 7 point was culled and any 3.5-4.5 yo 8 point was culled. This went on for 4 years and by the end of year 4 the antler size had actually decreased. I’m more of an age class guy myself. There assumption was they had removed so many animals from the herd simply based on antler appearance they had actually skewered their herd.

 

[catch22]

The best criteria for harvest is age, no doubt. A deer will be about 80%!what he will ever be in terms of inches at 3 years old, so a 120” 3 year old could hit 150 where a 110” inch 4 year old will never come close The problem is even people who are experienced at it aren’t all that accurate aging deer on the hoof, which is why spread, score, main beam, etc.... rules come into play. It is tough for most guys paying club dues to pass on a 120” 3 year old, and I get it. So unless you have a lot of acreage to yourself to manage or a group of really like minded guys, it’s tough to do.

I couldnt agree with this any more!! well said!!

 

[DynamicDennis]

Great points. Last season I set out to kill a 4yr + buck. I did shoot a mature buck, 7 pts. Maybe 90-100in. But when I dig up the head I will be taking the jawbone to have it aged by the DNR. I'm thinking 5-6 but will be sure before next season. Wish the rack was bigger, but genetics not on his side and I would shoot the same type deer next year. Spent a lot of years really horn hunting and killing several nice 3 yr old bucks, trying not to do that anymore but if it happens not a big deal.

 

[Rich M]

Shoot what makes you happy.

Culling has long since been debunked and only exists cause the internet heroes keep talking about it.

The best thing you can do is hunt with like-minded folks and be reasonable. If you pass a big 3 yo, then yer buddy/neighbor/etc. drops it, there is no net gain for next year.

I'm not gonna join a club that has a 120 or whatever minimum unless they can prove there are enough bucks like that around.

 

[Long Cut]

I read a study in Texas they did on a 20,000 acre high fence ranch. They started “culling” inferior bucks by use of a helicopter. Inferior was in the antler department, so any young 2.5 yo 6 point or 7 point was culled and any 3.5-4.5 yo 8 point was culled. This went on for 4 years and by the end of year 4 the antler size had actually decreased. I’m more of an age class guy myself. There assumption was they had removed so many animals from the herd simply based on antler appearance they had actually skewered their herd.

Yup same study they are talking of in the podcast. Texas has much lower fawn recruitment rates than GA, but I’m going to imagine the results would be very similar if done in GA.

Culling works, but not from a genetics aspect, but off of deer density and available forage. More mouths, less food.. smaller antlers etc.

 

[NWS]

Culling in GA is usually just a good excuse for “I needed the meat”.

 

[buckpasser]

Yup same study they are talking of in the podcast. Texas has much lower fawn recruitment rates than GA, but I’m going to imagine the results would be very similar if done in GA.

Culling works, but not from a genetics aspect, but off of deer density and available forage. More mouths, less food.. smaller antlers etc.

Does Texas have a lower fawn recruitment rate than Georgia?

 

[Long Cut]

Does Texas have a lower fawn recruitment rate than Georgia?

Yes the biologist they were talking to from the King Ranch who was apart of their trials was saying with the droughts, they could lose an entire fawn crop.

Truthfully I do not remember the exact numbers for fawn recruitment rates between Texas, GA, Mississippi, etc.. But I do remember that Texas was significantly lower than ours.

 

[buckpasser]

Yes the biologist they were talking to from the King Ranch who was apart of their trials was saying with the droughts, they could lose an entire fawn crop.

Truthfully I do not remember the exact numbers for fawn recruitment rates between Texas, GA, Mississippi, etc.. But I do remember that Texas was significantly lower than ours.

Okay, I’ve never looked at research, but based on my limited time in TX and extensive time in GA, I would have thought the opposite was true. Our fawn recruitment in Thomas/Brooks is horrible unfortunately.

 

[elfiii]

Culling in GA is usually just a good excuse for “I needed the meat”.

Exactly. Culling as a management tool is a waste of time and frequently counterproductive.

 

[srb]

It is hard to maintain in open range..Seems like lots & lots of factors..

 

[Long Cut]

Okay, I’ve never looked at research, but based on my limited time in TX and extensive time in GA, I would have thought the opposite was true. Our fawn recruitment in Thomas/Brooks is horrible unfortunately.

GA is around .5-.6 and Texas varies from my brief research. Southwest Texas on drought years can be as low as 0-.1 and on good rainfall years up to .4 from what I saw. East Texas is more like GA from my understanding.

It’s going to vary all over GA, I bet North GA mountains is worse than SW Texas... Whereas SW GA could be double that...

Just depends on habitat, predator management, food, hunting pressure, drought or heavy rain years..

 

[Long Cut]

Exactly. Culling as a management tool is a waste of time and frequently counterproductive.

I think it’s really site specific. To say a waste of time all together I feel is a bit extreme.

A good example for this is we had an old 4pt with an 18” spread. Massive body and a very aggressive buck. I shot him in mid October and after that, had more bucks spend more time on the property in daylight. From October through January on 61 acres I’ll still get daylight pictures of bucks all over.

To me, it seemed like that buck dominated our property and would push other bucks off of the feeders. Once he was gone the dynamic changed and more bucks seem to bed on the land now. Maybe it was the rut, maybe our winter bedding habitat is better, but it just seems like through hunting and trail cameras that removing that Buck benefitted the hunting for us.

Yes they’re wild animals, we cannot control genetics.. but we can attempt to control which bucks dominate the land were able to hunt. We can try to manage the buck to doe ratio.

 

[JHannah92]

I was on a lease in talbot Co several years back that had a 120" minimum. In 3 years I had just 1 buck on camera that was definitely 120+. Can't hold out for bucks that don't exist on a property. There were several mature bucks there. One of our members killed a 200lb 10 point that was maybe pushing 110". It makes sense to me to target "mature" bucks in an area without putting an arbitrary number in place for minimum rack size.

 

[Away]

I was on a lease in talbot Co several years back that had a 120" minimum. In 3 years I had just 1 buck on camera that was definitely 120+. Can't hold out for bucks that don't exist on a property. There were several mature bucks there. One of our members killed a 200lb 10 point that was maybe pushing 110". It makes sense to me to target "mature" bucks in an area without putting an arbitrary number in place for minimum rack size.

Agree. But the reason these rules get imposed is b/c it is a measurable criteria vs age, which is often subjective. With only a few members it is easier to share pics and make decisions as a group but on larger properties and lots of hunters it's often easier to draw the line with something measurable.
It sounds like no one in your club ever took stock of your herd. If that 10 pt was the closest anyone came to 120" then there was no way your club would ever have met that criteria. 110" is awfully small for a mature 10.

 

[davidhelmly]

Culling in GA is usually just a good excuse for “I needed the meat”.

Usually it’s used by hunters who want to be known as big buck/trophy hunters but in reality they can’t pass up a young buck so they “culled” it.

 

[livetohunt]

VERY few hunters are willing to pass bucks until they are 5+, so most trophy clubs never reach the desired goal. The very worst deer to take if you are managing for old, mature bucks, is a good genetic 3 or 4 year old. Unfortunately, this is what makes up the bulk of the bucks taken, even in clubs that say they are trophy managed.