Will a buck without brow tines ever have brow tines?

[Bones]

I have never understood why people think brows are so important and cull young deer supporting good inches as a result. A 3.5yo 130" deer without brows still scores 130 and still has 150+" potential as a 5.5yo deer without brows. Just because he lacks brows does not mean he has no potential to grow and I have seen several 170" or better deer with weak brows or no brows at all. Personally, I could care less where the inches come from if the potential for inches is there.

Steve

[Landrover]

2.5 and no brow tines and he is SMACKED!!! Kinda ugly without those brow tines to be honest. Sure there are many that don't mind but not in our camp.

[cosmiccowboy]

Why would the simple fact that a deer lacking brow tines constitute it being a cull? I killed my biggest deer to date and he doesn't have any brow tines. I watched this deer for 3 years be the dominate buck in the area. I know he has bred does and I have yet to see another buck in the area with no brow tines. This deer aged out at 7.5 and was killed three years ago. Based on everyones theories I should have deer with no brow tines running all over the place.......

You said it yourself...he was your biggest deer to date and a TROPHY to you...thats what it is all about. As Chance said, there are a lot of really high scoring deer out there that have short or no brow tines.

I have been very fortunate in my life to have had access to hundreds of thousands of acres over the years and see different deer herds in different areas with different management philosophies and although I am no biologist I can definitely see trends. There are certain genetic traits that over time can become dominant in an area. Short or no brows is one. That a real score hurter typically because thats an "easy" 8" + the deer didn't get. Short G2's is another...thats another 8 point whack typically. Mulie forks are one of those area specific gene traits that are a positive..I hunted in an area near Choke Canyon for a couple of years where it was TYPICAL for a mature deer to have forked G2's...that was an automatic +8 on a normal frame...

If you really start trying to intensively manage herds and raise the bell curve on the B&C scores you start trying to identify traits that add or subtract inches and manage accordingly...nothing says those deer are "bad"...you just play the odds and manage accordingly...

[DawgOnIt]

You said it yourself...he was your biggest deer to date and a TROPHY to you...thats what it is all about. As Chance said, there are a lot of really high scoring deer out there that have short or no brow tines.

I have been very fortunate in my life to have had access to hundreds of thousands of acres over the years and see different deer herds in different areas with different management philosophies and although I am no biologist I can definitely see trends. There are certain genetic traits that over time can become dominant in an area. Short or no brows is one. That a real score hurter typically because thats an "easy" 8" + the deer didn't get. Short G2's is another...thats another 8 point whack typically. Mulie forks are one of those area specific gene traits that are a positive..I hunted in an area near Choke Canyon for a couple of years where it was TYPICAL for a mature deer to have forked G2's...that was an automatic +8 on a normal frame...

If you really start trying to intensively manage herds and raise the bell curve on the B&C scores you start trying to identify traits that add or subtract inches and manage accordingly...nothing says those deer are "bad"...you just play the odds and manage accordingly...

Good response/well said!

[bsills]

You said it yourself...he was your biggest deer to date and a TROPHY to you...thats what it is all about. As Chance said, there are a lot of really high scoring deer out there that have short or no brow tines.

I have been very fortunate in my life to have had access to hundreds of thousands of acres over the years and see different deer herds in different areas with different management philosophies and although I am no biologist I can definitely see trends. There are certain genetic traits that over time can become dominant in an area. Short or no brows is one. That a real score hurter typically because thats an "easy" 8" + the deer didn't get. Short G2's is another...thats another 8 point whack typically. Mulie forks are one of those area specific gene traits that are a positive..I hunted in an area near Choke Canyon for a couple of years where it was TYPICAL for a mature deer to have forked G2's...that was an automatic +8 on a normal frame...

If you really start trying to intensively manage herds and raise the bell curve on the B&C scores you start trying to identify traits that add or subtract inches and manage accordingly...nothing says those deer are "bad"...you just play the odds and manage accordingly...

Well said

[BadtotheBow]

He is the only deer I have ever seen here with no brows in 15 years. I feel that does have more say in a bucks characteristics than the daddy.......but I also think a cull depends on the size of your place and how much your management practices affect the overall deer herd. I hunt small property and trying to manage deer based on horns alone is impossible. I try and not shoot any deer that is 4.5 or younger. That includes does. I don't get a good feel for what a bucks potential is until they make that jump to 5.5.........


but to answer the original question, I do believe that if they start out with no brows they will probably never have them. I don't think this makes them inferior. I have seen deer that scored in the 150's that didn't have brows. I would be very happy with a trophy that big.....

I would also be happy with a trophy that big but I would also be even more happy with an extra 8 inches or so from a nice set of brows.... I understand your acrage situation. In my case 4000 acres low fence with good neighbors helping out with the management we have increased the size of our deer and increased our inches due to culling the bucks with no brows. Thanks for your thoughts!

I have never understood why people think brows are so important and cull young deer supporting good inches as a result. A 3.5yo 130" deer without brows still scores 130 and still has 150+" potential as a 5.5yo deer without brows. Just because he lacks brows does not mean he has no potential to grow and I have seen several 170" or better deer with weak brows or no brows at all. Personally, I could care less where the inches come from if the potential for inches is there.

Steve

But by culling these deer and allowing the deer with better brows to breed you are adding even more inches.... and JMO deer with no brows are funny looking

You said it yourself...he was your biggest deer to date and a TROPHY to you...thats what it is all about. As Chance said, there are a lot of really high scoring deer out there that have short or no brow tines.

I have been very fortunate in my life to have had access to hundreds of thousands of acres over the years and see different deer herds in different areas with different management philosophies and although I am no biologist I can definitely see trends. There are certain genetic traits that over time can become dominant in an area. Short or no brows is one. That a real score hurter typically because thats an "easy" 8" + the deer didn't get. Short G2's is another...thats another 8 point whack typically. Mulie forks are one of those area specific gene traits that are a positive..I hunted in an area near Choke Canyon for a couple of years where it was TYPICAL for a mature deer to have forked G2's...that was an automatic +8 on a normal frame...

If you really start trying to intensively manage herds and raise the bell curve on the B&C scores you start trying to identify traits that add or subtract inches and manage accordingly...nothing says those deer are "bad"...you just play the odds and manage accordingly...

Our lease started out 9 years ago with the no to very little brow tine gene and now we have deer with kickers everywhere it pays off when you make the herd into what you want it to be

[Bones]

and JMO deer with no brows are funny looking

I actually respect that reason. If you think that they are ugly and would rather the carrying capacity they consume be provided to prettier deer, that is your prerogative.

To answer the original question, which I initially neglected, I would say no. A deer with no brows at 3.5 will likely not ever have brows. That being said, and supported by a quote from TX-Burt, I do not believe that the no-brow trait is a dominant trait so leaving the ones with good potential to score high should not hurt your herd.

Now before anyone says "how can you say it is not likely to be passed on when there are entire herds out there expressing it", based on what I have seen in herds herds expressing the trait, I would theorize that it is likely the result of inbreeding depression. In that case, ranches with very high deer numbers and high familial coefficients, you are not actually shooting off a dominant gene, you are shooting off the closely related breeders. The results seen would resemble the elimination of a gene but in actuality, you are just allowing the dominant genes to be expressed by opening up the carrying capacity to new non-related bucks, providing the opportunity for out cross vigor.

Steve

[cosmiccowboy]

Plus, a lot of you guys are now hunting on leases that may have been "managed" over the years but bad management is worse than no management at all. I really do remember when "managed" leases meant "don't shoot anything less than 8 points" and "heavily managed" leases meant don't shoot anything with less than 10 points.

All they did was wipe out their good genes killing young 8's and 10's and promote dominant scrug genetics in their herds...

[Bones]

plus, a lot of you guys are now hunting on leases that may have been "managed" over the years but bad management is worse than no management at all. I really do remember when "managed" leases meant "don't shoot anything less than 8 points" and "heavily managed" leases meant don't shoot anything with less than 10 points.

All they did was wipe out their good genes killing young 8's and 10's and promote dominant scrug genetics in their herds...

amen!

[BadtotheBow]

I actually respect that reason. If you think that they are ugly and would rather the carrying capacity they consume be provided to prettier deer, that is your prerogative.

To answer the original question, which I initially neglected, I would say no. A deer with no brows at 3.5 will likely not ever have brows. That being said, and supported by a quote from TX-Burt, I do not believe that the no-brow trait is a dominant trait so leaving the ones with good potential to score high should not hurt your herd.

Now before anyone says "how can you say it is not likely to be passed on when there are entire herds out there expressing it", based on what I have seen in herds herds expressing the trait, I would theorize that it is likely the result of inbreeding depression. In that case, ranches with very high deer numbers and high familial coefficients, you are not actually shooting off a dominant gene, you are shooting off the closely related breeders. The results seen would resemble the elimination of a gene but in actuality, you are just allowing the dominant genes to be expressed by opening up the carrying capacity to new non-related bucks, providing the opportunity for out cross vigor.

Steve

I see what your saying. I hunt 4k acres low fence so in my opinion the deer arent as inbred as some high fence places? Ive always looked at the genetic issue like I do when I look at show calves or show hogs. The traits are carried on to their offspring in most cases... Am I correct or have I been wrong the whole time?

[bowhuntertex]

Plus, a lot of you guys are now hunting on leases that may have been "managed" over the years but bad management is worse than no management at all. I really do remember when "managed" leases meant "don't shoot anything less than 8 points" and "heavily managed" leases meant don't shoot anything with less than 10 points.

All they did was wipe out their good genes killing young 8's and 10's and promote dominant scrug genetics in their herds...

Exactly!

[BadtotheBow]

Plus, a lot of you guys are now hunting on leases that may have been "managed" over the years but bad management is worse than no management at all. I really do remember when "managed" leases meant "don't shoot anything less than 8 points" and "heavily managed" leases meant don't shoot anything with less than 10 points.

All they did was wipe out their good genes killing young 8's and 10's and promote dominant scrug genetics in their herds...

I agree with that! Never have I thought of management strictly by number of points but by undesirable traits instead. And I never shoot a deer as a cull untill he is 3 1/2 or older. Is this a good age to be able to predict his potential?

[Bones]

I see what your saying. I hunt 4k acres low fence so in my opinion the deer arent as inbred as some high fence places? Ive always looked at the genetic issue like I do when I look at show calves or show hogs. The traits are carried on to their offspring in most cases... Am I correct or have I been wrong the whole time?

Not at all. Genetic principals and breeding are basically the same. The difference is that we have control over domestic animals and outcross when depression presents. Wild game does not have that benefit. If a property is at capacity, new deer will not take up residence in it. High fences are not needed to keep out a steady supply of new genetics. The basic principals of survival take care of that. Deer in high density areas move to lower density areas and better provisions, not the other way around. High fence properties are actually at the advantage in this case because they do have some control. They get to double up on their good genetics through naturally occurring line breeding and inbreeding and when depression does present, they just TTT some new genetics in to increase genetic diversity and produce the outcross vigor.

Fun fact: Did you know that Eisenstein was a product of inbreeding? He was also in love with his cousin but did not marry her because the familial coefficient of their potential progeny would have been too high, making the potential for depression likely.

Steve

[cosmiccowboy]

I agree with that! Never have I thought of management strictly by number of points but by undesirable traits instead. And I never shoot a deer as a cull untill he is 3 1/2 or older. Is this a good age to be able to predict his potential?

IMHO they will definitely start showing "undesirable" traits at 3.5. Short brows...Short G2's...tight beam curl basket racks, etc.

If you have better genes in the herd but you are OK with the majority of your deer looking like that in 5 years then leave them.

[cosmiccowboy]

Not at all. Genetic principals and breeding are basically the same. The difference is that we have control over domestic animals and outcross when depression presents. Wild game does not have that benefit. If a property is at capacity, new deer will not take up residence in it. High fences are not needed to keep out a steady supply of new genetics. The basic principals of survival take care of that. Deer in high density areas move to lower density areas and better provisions, not the other way around. High fence properties are actually at the advantage in this case because they do have some control. They get to double up on their good genetics through naturally occurring line breeding and inbreeding and when depression does present, they just TTT some new genetics in to increase genetic diversity and produce the outcross vigor.

Fun fact: Did you know that Eisenstein was a product of inbreeding? He was also in love with his cousin but did not marry her because the familial coefficient of their potential progeny would have been too high, making the potential for depression likely.

Steve

Who was Eisenstein?