To Cull or Not To Cull - That is the Question....

[Joshua Flournoy]

I was reading an interesting discussion a few days ago regarding taking out "cull" bucks as part of an overall QDM management strategy. The following comments were posted - they are supposedly an excerpt from the conclusions of a study Dr. Mickey Hellickson has been doing on a 10,000 acre are of the King Ranch. Pretty compelling information, to say the least.....Text below. My apologies if this has been posted before.

Joshua

__________________________________________________ _________

The results from Dr. Mickey Hellickson’s recent culling study in South Texas are likely the most applicable to the average deer manager because of the intensity of the culling efforts and the size of the study area. Mickey and his colleagues intensively culled the smallest antlered bucks in all age classes for six straight years on 10,000 acres on the King Ranch in Texas. When the study was over, the average antler quality per age class was slightly SMALLER than when they started! While factors such as yearling buck dispersal off the study area could partially account for lack of impact, it clearly suggests that even intensive culling on this scale is unlikely to impact genetics.
__________________________________________________ _________

[Dead Down Wind]

That's no question at all -- YES cull.

[Joshua Flournoy]

ttt

[Walker]

Joshua, the biologists at Kerr told me it takes 15 to 20 years of intensive culling to impact the genetics of a herd. What the King Ranch project didn't do was to cull all those "inferior" bucks mamas, 1/2 of their genetic make-up.

[Bloodhound]

How can you identify the Mamas, Walker?

[Walker]

You can't, that's the problem and that's why it takes many years to affect the genetics by culling. That's the main reason the Kerr biologists advocate taking each and every spike every year. Theory is you strengthen the doe herd genetics by not ever allowing suspect bucks to breed.

[JW]

O my Brain Hurts...

Josh, Helluva deer in ur avatar. Were did you get 'em at ???

[RingSteel]

For 99% of hunting ranches, culling bucks is just a "feel good" measure for the hunters. It would be almost impossible to influence the genetics by taking cull bucks.... hunters still like to do it "because it surely can't hurt".

IF the buck/doe ratio is already right, AND IF you need to remove some animals to stay well below the carrying capacity of the land; then you'd have to shoot some bucks in addition to does (Because your buck/doe ratio is already right). Cull bucks fit this role well, leaving your middle age bucks to mature.


On those leases that give you "one trophy buck and one cull buck per year", just be honest and say that the limit is two bucks. We all know that the majority of hunters end up trying to kill the biggest "cull" buck that will still stay in the definition of "cull buck" and they try to pass on the really runted antlered bucks that are better suited to the cull buck moniker.

[sasquatch]

My lease must be in that 1% that ring thinks doesnt do it to feel good. Come on. While I agree there are many that use the cull buck moniker to simply kill a buck, there are many who truly attempt to kill sh1t bucks and prevent them from breeding.

[GARY]

Six year study is a joke as it's too short to make it legit as it doesnt take into account years of weather changes, etc...

[tuthdoc]

It's like protein. For protein to influence the herd, it has to be done over the whole property for years. for protein to influence the individual deer, all he has to do is stick his head in the feeder and eat, and eat a lot. While the herdwide affect is slow, the impact on the individual can be dramatic.

For culling to affect the herd, it would have to be done over years and years. to see the affects, the Hindes ranch would be a good example. However, to affect the individual makeup of the ranch, all you have to do is kill the smaller, less desirable bucks and let the better bucks grow. It may not affect the fawn crops dramaticly in the beginning, but the bucks that are left to grow to maturity will definately be bigger. Also, If I have to choose between letting a less desirable live and breeed or die and not breed, then I'll take him out. It may not help the herd, but if a better buck breeds that doe, it has a better chance of affecting those fawns from that doe that year.

We cull to take out numbers of deer and we take out the worst we can find. On our lease, those of thus that have killed lots of deer MUST kill inferior deer. If you kill a cull that could be considered a "trophy", then you risk having it BE your trophy. We let the kids and hunters that have just started take out the bigger culls. Most of those are mounted rather than being thrown in a box by someone that just thinks it needs to die.

[wags]

Well said tuthdoc...

[Bucks&Broadheads]

That's no question at all -- YES cull.

Cull first, ask questions later

[Tmag]

Will cull for free!

[DaveC]

How may years do you let a brow tine less buck (one or both missing, smooth main beam) live before calling him a cull?