3 point min or spike only to improve trophy quality?

[JLS]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

I agree, but as you said in your previous post- "the genetics are already there."

Gotcha.  I think I misunderstood what you were getting at.

[Jonathan_S]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

For crying out loud the herds managed to keep good genetics for thousands and thousands of years.

Then they see a good buck or bull and think, "wow, great genes! we need to manage this herd and make sure he spreads his seed..." when in reality it was probably just a buck/bull that beat the odds and lived to his full potential. 

For those who can't let go of the genetics argument, you better find out how to identify which does/cows have the best antler traits in their gametes because they contribute 50% to antler genes.

Predator management and winter-range management will be the downfall of herds, and the reason for a lack of "Trophy Quality"

[TheHunt]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

Who cares about creating more trophies that can be shot on winter range and sold for a profit?

If there was not so many trophies killed on winter range.  I would love to see some game management in this state.  Why do you think so many folks hunt out of this state?

[JLS]

Predator management and winter-range management will be the downfall of herds, and the reason for a lack of "Trophy Quality"

Or, simply the number of animals killed. 

[JLS]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

Maybe.

I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas.  It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role.  I don't know.  But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.

Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies.  Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.

[NOCK NOCK]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

Bobcat, that last sentence summons it up pretty good, I agree

[Jonathan_S]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

Maybe.

I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas.  It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role.  I don't know.  But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.

Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies.  Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.

Well, I mostly agree with you.  I don't think I dismiss genetics, I just think there are much bigger fish to fry.

Tell you what, I'll agree with you and tell everybody that I'm wrong if you show me where the best genetics are, preferably before next September 

[JLS]

I think a lot of people put way too much stock into genes.

Maybe.

I can't tell you if it's a nutritional component or not, but I can give you many examples of areas that produce mediocre deer in terms of true trophy quality relative to other areas.  It could be that genetics play a large role, or a complimentary role.  I don't know.  But to simply dismiss them is somewhat presumptious.

Also, I can show you areas where deer don't have the genetic antler makeup to produce numerical trophies.  Sure, they are good bucks, but they may pale in comparison scorewise to similar age class deer in other areas.

Well, I mostly agree with you.  I don't think I dismiss genetics, I just think there are much bigger fish to fry.

Tell you what, I'll agree with you and tell everybody that I'm wrong if you show me where the best genetics are, preferably before next September 

Colorado

[Jonathan_S]

Is that a road in GMU 204?

I haven't ever came across it?

[JLS]

Is that a road in GMU 204?

I haven't ever came across it?

You have to buy the super secret GPS decoder chip.  They are not just available anywhere

[jackmaster]

if you have great genetics a young buck or a young bull will start out with a nice healthy antler, with more points than a spike, i have seen first hand what good genetics does in an area, that along with good feed and nutrients creates good bulls and bucks and a great birthing ratio, of course if you cut down access it will help, i wish hancock would gate all roads except the mainlines and i buy a pass every year, i wish a few more spots would do the same thing. you also so need to kull the heards so they arent allowed to pass their bad genetics on to other young bulls, i think if the margeret was managed right, it could be in time as good as the blues or the watershed. it wouldnt break my heart if the whole state went to spike only but they would need to give more to the youth and seniors and disabled guys, like make it cows or a spike for them or somethn or give them a week head start, i really like odd or even, one year you get to hunt deer and the next you get to hunt elk, they should do that for salmon and other sport fishn to, but you gotta get the indians to go along with the same thing

[rosscrazyelk]

I like the idea of what rtspring said, that was my exact thoughts. But that is true as well that it would be nice to see some evidence of it working on the westside first. All I know is that in the area of the 550 I hunt, I cant go up without seeing almost more spikes than cows. I see groups of 10-30 animals and it is very common for me to see over half of each group is spikes. The record for me so far just had my jaw dropped. Scouting in August I saw a group of 27 elk, 1 BIG bull (never got a good count on points it was in and out of the trees, I was watching this group from 700 or so yards across a ravine with the spotting scope for an hour or so) 7 cows, 1 calf, 18 spikes. Then on the hike out going the other direction saw another group of 6, 2 were cows, 4 were spikes.

I normally would have a hard time believing  this . I have never seen more than three spikes in a herd until this weekend.  I saw a herd of 50+ animals with 21 bulls.  7 which were spikes.  Crazy stuff

[bobcat]

There's nothing wrong with having a lot of spikes. Just means calf recruitment is doing well.

[Booman2]

The Montana elkhorn study was commissioned when herd populations crashed several years ago. It showed that bigger bulls bred earlier and the cows produced more and stronger calves. We are not in Montana, but review of this study could be helpful. I think that the Elkhorns subsequently went to spike only.

[Alan K]

Want more big bulls on the west side? Raise the minimum point restrictions. . . Make elk on the west side 5 or 6 pt. minimum and you'd have them running around all over in a few years provided you're outside areas pounded by the tribes.  It would be a couple years of slim pickings though to get to that point.

It'd be just the same as when they went to 3 pt. minimum from any bull.  I'm sure people thought it was the end of the world when they did it, but now those same bulls are taken with another year of antler and body growth.