Genetics vs. Habitat for Big Bucks?

[El Serio]

Which do you think is most important for producing big bucks, genetics or habitat?
If you #1 could transplant a herd with non trophy genetics (defined as being from county that has never produced a B&C entry) into a prime area like central Arizona or New Mexico (assume no mixture with animals native to the prime area)
or #2 transplant a herd with trophy genetics (Assume from an area in central AZ or NM that has produced many B&C entries) into an area that has proven unable to produce big bucks (Assume a county in Utah or Idaho that has never produced a B&C entry) (Again assume no mixture with resident herds)

Which one do you think would produce bigger bucks?

 

[wytex]

Where's Eli? He will have some input on this. I'm betting good genetics would produce in a marginal area but habitat must play some role in horn growth.
He hunts the best areas so he has to see the differences between drought years and good forage years and the effect on horns.
Great forage years will help the average antelope buck have better horns but would like to know how those Arizona trophy bucks fair in poor forage growth years.

 

[1_pointer]

I'd say habitat. Alot of "good genetics" with critters, IMO, is a result of the habitat over long periods of time.

 

[BlakeA]

I'd say habitat. Alot of "good genetics" with critters, IMO, is a result of the habitat over long periods of time.

I'd agree.

Hopefully Eli will chime in...

 

[Gr8bawana]

I'd say habitat. Alot of "good genetics" with critters, IMO, is a result of the habitat over long periods of time.

^^This^^
Good genetics with poor habitat I think would probably produce poorer genetics over the long term. Good genetics go hand in hand with good habitat and the ability to reach maturity.

 

[Bhill552]

I think you need to factor hunting pressure also. Genetics and food dont matter if you cant live past a year or two.
Then habitat/food would be second.
Genetics are probably better most places than people think.

 

[EliAGrimmett]

They transplanted bucks from 19A all over the state and the big horn size has never taken hold anywhere. Although the habitat never seems to affect the bucks with the ear tags. Their offspring however never seem to attain good horns. Over time I’d say you’d need to place crummy bucks into prime habitat, but shorter term it would probably be the opposite. Good question! I’ll think on it some more. Currently setting up our booth at the SCI convention.

 

[Long Walker]

Maybe they should transplant does also��

 

[EliAGrimmett]

Maybe they should transplant does also��

Most of the transplants I know of also included does but I’ll look them up when I get home and find the actual numbers.

 

[El Serio]

Records show that between 1932-1961 there were a lot from 5B (Anderson Mesa) transplanted across AZ as well, but the quality of bucks in the units that received them seems to vary quite a bit.
Going the other direction, Utah's Parker mountain herd (itself a transplant from MT) has never been a trophy producer, but has been used as seed/supplemental stock all over Utah as well as areas in Nevada, Arizona and Idaho. Many of the areas that have received transplants from this area seem to produce bigger bucks than the Parker can (Certainly there is intermixing with other populations in most areas, so it is hard to draw a conclusion here). The Parker mountain herd lives at high elevation (approximately 7,000-10,000 ft), and shares the range with domestic sheep, both of which could be limiting factors in developing trophy class bucks.
Another factor that got me to ask this question is the fact that nearly every state/province with significant antelope populations has at some time produced a few giants (90"+). The ones that do it fairly regularly (AZ, NM) are at southern latitudes, but occasionally it seems like the stars can align and a giant comes from an unexpected area. Makes me wonder if good range conditions, combined with favorable climactic conditions in the right years of a buck's life (especially 1st) play a bigger part than many of us would initially expect. Scroll to the bottom of Eli's 90" buck gallery http://www.pronghornguideservice.com/90-picture-list.html to see some of the surprising states that have produced 90" bucks at least once.

 

[El Serio]

Maybe they should transplant does also��

Looked at the AZ translocation history. Every transplant since 1945 appears to have included does, and in most cases more does than bucks.

 

[El Serio]

I think you need to factor hunting pressure also. Genetics and food dont matter if you cant live past a year or two.
Then habitat/food would be second.
Genetics are probably better most places than people think.

That certainly matters too, I hunted WY unit 16 last year with all the other nonresidents on the small portion of accessible public land. Never saw a buck that looked mature. Hard to get a sense of real potential in a situation like that.

 

[375H&H]

That certainly matters too, I hunted WY unit 16 last year with all the other nonresidents on the small portion of accessible public land. Never saw a buck that looked mature. Hard to get a sense of real potential in a situation like that.

For Wyoming I think age and genetics are far superior to quality of habitat. I don't believe that the best habitat for antelope has the best trophy potential.

Unit 16 has mature bucks...but mostly on private.

 

[joelweb]

I think food availability and the nutrition of that food plays a big role in antler size.

The farther south you go the earlier the greenup. Deer in places like Utah and Arizona are pushing up new antlers long before deer in Montana. Plus, deer in Montana often come out of winter in poorer body condition because of our hard winters. With that said, the quality of summer range and nutrition in that summer range can have a big impact on antler growth. Just look at the Wyoming range - that place is full of perfect deer browse and it produces monster bucks.

 

[BuzzH]

Just a heads up, but the last GF commission meeting, which can be found on youtube, Dr. Keith Monteith gave a presentation that will answer a lot o the questions regarding genetics, antler, growth, body size as it relates to deer.

Some of the stuff he presented had to do with a study conducted in South Dakota. Some of the conclusions were that the does and their body condition play a huge role in their male off-spring and how that plays into antler growth. The study seems to suggest that the better the body condition of the does, the more likely their fawns are to have larger antlers and body size both.

The study also suggested that off-spring of does in poor body condition, never reached anything close to trophy sized antlers and were much smaller body wise throughout their lives.

Just the opposite with does that were in excellent health when their off-spring were born...those tended to show greater body size and also grew much bigger antlers throughout their lives. He had a bunch of photos to illustrate it.

It would appear that a bucks lot in life is largely a function of the body condition of its mother when it was born.

I bet there are direct parallels with pronghorn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzvMirbLNMU

2 hour 36 minute mark...worth a look.

 

[kenton]

Very good info above.

It would appear that a bucks lot in life is largely a function of the body condition of its mother when it was born.

I'll add to this that the timing of birth can have a big influence as well. The better condition a fawn can get to before going into its first winter can be make or break.

 

[joelweb]

It would appear that a bucks lot in life is largely a function of the body condition of its mother when it was born.

I don't doubt that this has a major effect, but why do some places consistently produce big deer while others do not? I can't imagine that some places produce plump does every year while does in other areas are always famished.

 

[midwesthunter]

I would say habitat would have a larger roll. Look at professional athletes, they have gotten way better over the years. Why? We have learned how to optimize training and nutrition.

 

[BuzzH]

I don't doubt that this has a major effect, but why do some places consistently produce big deer while others do not? I can't imagine that some places produce plump does every year while does in other areas are always famished.

Did you watch the video?

I think why certain areas produce better deer more consistently is better over-all habitat and thusly better conditions for the doe throughout its life. Which would fall right into the study that Monteith presented on why a deer's start in life is so important and dependent on the condition of its mother.

Makes sense to me...and his science sure seems to support that.

 

[El Serio]

The study referenced in the video is very interesting. Basically the idea I referenced in my original post, but with a different species. It seems likely that it would be true of pronghorn as well.