Free: Contests & Raffles.
Everyone always talks about big bucks breeding and being able to pass on their genetics, which means if you miss one early season and get him or miss him again late he’s been able to procreate and there will hopefully be a couple bucks born that will grow up to be huge and just like him. I saw this last year in Montana when I shot a different buck than I was going after because he had the same antler style as a masher we saw, but 25 inches less bone or more due to regression. Everyone knows that big bucks should make more big bucks. BUTAssuming that a big buck travels a lot and gets to breed a decent number of does, 50% of his offspring that year should hypothetically be does. These does still have the same Dad, so even though they can’t grow antlers they still have the same big buck genes in them right? Obviously you can’t track these does realistically but wouldn’t it be safe to say that their future kids have a higher likely hood of being big bucks even without a dominant father? I think it would be interesting to look at does with big buck genes to see what their offspring are like. Obviously this post isn’t really conjecture and more of an observation on how nature works, but it was an interesting realization. Also then, how diverse is a given deer population genetically?
Keep in mind that a buck with a big rack doesn't wait until then to breed, chances are he has been spreading his genes for years leading up to that point. Genes don't change as the buck gets older, it doesn't matter when he spreads them.
I'll answer with my own opinion and serious questions.. Why do we assume large antlers means good genes? The genes we should want is ability to survive winter, predators and habitat not necessarily antlers.. Is it an assumed fact that large antlers means good genetics or just the ability to grow large antlers?I want more deer/elk regardless of antler size to keep more opportunities period, not necessarily the biggest bucks/bulls that may or may not breed while they spend late years holed up and not breeding.
It seems like every so often the subject of a buck "regressing" comes up........one which had large antlers at one time, but no longer does. Without seeing the same buck year-after-year, I'm not sure how it's known whether a buck has "regressed" or not. I've seen bucks that just look old, but don't have large antlers. My son shot a very large-bodied 2 pt. mulie with five eye-guards this season, and his face just looks like an old deer, not a young one. I guess my question is how common is it for a large buck to actually regress?
Quote from: Igor on November 02, 2018, 04:45:21 PMIt seems like every so often the subject of a buck "regressing" comes up........one which had large antlers at one time, but no longer does. Without seeing the same buck year-after-year, I'm not sure how it's known whether a buck has "regressed" or not. I've seen bucks that just look old, but don't have large antlers. My son shot a very large-bodied 2 pt. mulie with five eye-guards this season, and his face just looks like an old deer, not a young one. I guess my question is how common is it for a large buck to actually regress?Pics?
How do we know the "big antler gene" isn't a male only chromosome? His female offspring may not even have the ability to have the gene. Even if they do, by the time that generation comes around, its at most a 50% chance its been passed down. All that being said, the whitetail population I hunt totaly has two antler forms. One is thick with super long eye guards, and one is narrow, spindly, and "normal" looking. Maybe back in the day there were only two dominant bucks in the area but they never ran into eachother. Its an interesting conversation.
I guess my question is how common is it for a large buck to actually regress?