Texas Cull Buck
Whitetail Deer
This is Langley's mother. In the background is her fawn of this year, Langley's half-brother.
This is Langley's mother. In the background is her fawn of this year, Langley's half-brother.
This is "Langley". Langley is 15-months old. This is Langley's first set of hard antlers. In Texas. Langley would be considered a cull buck due to the length of his antlers and lack of points. Langley's daddy was a 130" eight when he met a dump truck. He was 2.5 at the time. If I can find it, I will post a picture of Langley's mother. Again, I submit, there is no such thing as a cull buck under wild conditions. Unless you can document sire and dam over a minimum of three years, under pen conditions, you don't have a clue about genetic makeup.
This is where these deer live. The 113 wooded acres that join me, just sold. It won't belong,it will look like this, too.
This is where these deer live. The 113 wooded acres that join me, just sold. It won't belong,it will look like this, too.
This was shot 9-8-17 at about 6:30 p.m. Distance was over 125-yards, so kinda fuzzy. I hope these two youngsters will stay on this side of the road through January.
^^^^^^^Me too. QDM has been to Texas, actually it was conceived in Texas. The state G&F may be ignorant, but that doesn't mean all the hunters are. You might want to measure the width of your brush before you start painting.
Dry creek-I have no problem with QDM at all. It does not, (supposedly,), even consider antlers. That is management as it should be. When you remove a buck from the gene pool, based on only one genetic trait-antlers-that is not management of any kind. That is stupidity. And, I know of nowhere that is more prevalent than in Texas where you can kill a "management" buck for a lot less money. I was "asked to leave" a hunting site just a few weeks ago because I "offended", one of the sponsors, a Texas Ranch, by debating this cockamamey "cull buck" b.s. Biologically and scientifically, in a wild population, there is no such thing when only antlers are uses as the criteria and I defy anyone to refute that fact. On an antler farm, where strict records of dam and sire for three generations are kept, yes. Then you can cull. In the wild, a cull buck is one that suddenly developed a severe case of ground shrinkage. I do not paint all of Texas with the same brush. But as I said, I know of nowhere where this "management" buck, horse hockey is more prevalent. Having said that, I also do not care if that is what they want to do. That is their business. Just call it what it is instead of leading entry level hunters to believe you should shoot a 1.5-year old spike or any 2.5 with less than eight points. This 2.5-yr. old six is a genetically superior animal and I hope he contributes mightily to my backyard gene pool.
Because texas hunting is commercial deer are artficially fed. They sell these hunts and its just good business to only feed those providing the best cash flow. A fat and happy ten point brings in three times the money as a fat and happy eight point. Its deer management alright but its management for profit. This isnt about genetics. If you can count to ten you can grasp texas management where expensive supplemental feeding is necessary to maintain big racked deer in some places.
Amen drycreek.
Bowriter I get a feeling you have an ax to grind. You male it sound like there is a consensus about culling in Texas, not true. There is also plenty of wild deer hunting goininv in here.
What's your point? Seems like your post is just trying too start an argument. If you want to shoot that deer go ahead and shoot it if not don't shoot him. Pretty simple do what makes you happy and gives you enjoyment. Why do you care about guys in Texas and what they choose to do. Pretty much none of your business unless you own the land and are paying their taxes.
What's the problem with him posting this?
Useless attempt to put deer management in proper perspective. I am a firm believer in a person, when legal, shooting whatever they want. That is their choice and their right. Shooting a small antlered buck in the guise of improving genetics, goes against everything I know about genetics. Peterdrummond nailed it pretty well. And I am well aware there is plenty of open hunting in TX. I was raised in the Hill Country, went to school in Austin. On another forum, I saw three different, Texas posters, debating whether or not a buck was a cull buck. One was in favor of shooting everything less than 8-points at 2.5.
I agree with a lot of what you say John, and WV, he has every right to post whatever he pleases as far as I'm concerned, but when you say Texas, as in your thread title, you include the whole state. My hackles go up when ANYBODY tries to intimate that all of this state is one thing or another. We are as diverse in ideas, ideals, and habits as we are in terrain and weather. Hell, we even have a few liberals if y'all need some. Maybe your third post should have been your first.
Personally, I hate the whole horn porn thing, even on my favorite site. I do not care what a deer scores, nor do I use the term "cull buck" to describe anything other than a spike that's 2.5 or older. I've been deer hunting for over fifty years and I've probably seen three or four of those in my life. I use the terms young, immature, old, and mature and don't subscribe to the philosophy that, apparantly, our Parks and Wildlife does.
I think hunting magazines and hunting shows are as responsible for the "cull buck" or "management buck" syndrome as anybody is.
As to the the notion that Texas hunting is commercial, yes it is. And so is hunting most everywhere else in this country. If there's a dollar in it, people are gonna sell it. Lots of folks don't take into consideration how much of Texas is public land. The answer is, not too damn much ! No way could all the folks that want to hunt be able to hunt our public. So, what's left ? Pay to play ! Been going on here for years and it works pretty well, but just because you pay doesn't mean everybody hunts behind a fence on a 300 acre place. Many high fenced places are thousands of acres. And much, much more land is not high fenced. Most hunters lease land, from small acreage to large ranches. I leased a 1406 acre place for 18 years, until the drive got too long and the lady who owned it got too greedy. I had many a good hunt and some good memories were made there. The biggest buck ever killed on that place wouldn't have made 130", but that was not my criteria. We dove hunted, quail hunted, bow hunted, and gun hunted. We drank whiskey and cooked wonderful steaks. That, to me, is what it's all about.
The notion of a cull animal depends largely on how many animals are present.
If there are too many animals on the range, as is quite common once a TX property has a survey by a biologist, then why not target the ones with the smallest antlers for the herd reduction? That makes sense to me as a logical notion.
Culling takes place on basically every continent, and across myriad species to reduce herd numbers and allow for habitat preservation and continued existence of wild animals within it.
Technology has allowed for more and more thorough census taking and selective culling operations in Texas and elsewhere. This is good, bad, and kinda scary sometimes. It's also necessary in many instances where herd reduction is required.
This is a direct quote from one of the nation's premiere whitetail biologist. In my opinion he is the best, for sure, the best I have ever known. I'm sure very few if any on here, ever heard of him. He said, "Over the years I learned that it makes little sense to discuss the "cull buck" topic with advocates of "deer management"." I reckon he is right and that pretty well sums it up for me. But...Halibutman, in herd reduction, if your goal is to reduce numbers, you shoot does, not bucks. Just as with cattle, if you want less, it is not the bulls you sell. Natural culling is one thing. When humans get involved, when it comes to wildlife, almost always they allow their desires to supersede those of sound biological management. In perfect deer management, what you kill should be based on only one factor-sound biological principle. Search all you want. You will never find a sound biological principle for management based on antler size or points. Human desire came up with that.
John, I will take issue with one thing in your last post. Cattle and deer cannot be compared, unless you fence both in, and raise both to sell and trade, which I abhor by the way. Some places in the wild have too many does, some not so much. Where the problem rears its head, is the state allotting doe and buck tags by region, and hunters are hunting in a variety of acreages. The guy who owns 15 acres gets three doe tags, (on his license) , I get three doe tags, and the guy who has a thousand acres gets three doe tags. Sometimes, the bigger the place, the more people hunt, but not always. I've seen small places that have multiple family members hunt and of course they all want to take home a deer, or two, or three. It's very complicated, this management thing, and one size does not fit all. I'm not sure it even fits most. One thing I'm sure of though, the high fence, raise 'em in a pen crowd, as much as I dislike the operations, are doing a better job of managing than the state is. Why ? Because they are managing them just like livestock. I hope that is not the future of hunting though !
I agree that when anything is bred for a singular characteristic irrespective of others then it is generally detrimental.
I have seen ranches in Texas that feed tremendous amounts of protein in an effort to push them into physical maturity sooner - so there skeletal structures peak and then horn growth accelerates at an earlier age. At an earlier age translates into a buck that is less nocturnal and easier to kill. They kill everything other than deer and quail.
They will net does and a "trophy" buck and put them in pens with a buck for him to repeatedly breed to get good offspring.
Some ranches engage practices that feel artificial.
However, I have never seen a ranch promote the breeding of a buck that is poor physical specimen with a big rack.
So while I agree with your point about management focused on a singular characteristic, I am not sure I have an appreciation/understanding that across the state ranches are promoting genetically inferior deer outside of their horn dna.
In Texas, if you operate in cooperation with the state, its really easy to obtain special permits under "MLD" or "LAMPS" which effectively nullify bag limits and antler restrictions.
In order to qualify, the biologist requires an annual census of the deer population with camera surveys. He then establishes a mandate harvest quota for the property (both high and low fence) that is required to be allowed continued enrollment privileges.
The quota will be for both bucks and does, specifically by sex. so, if you have to shoot 17 bucks, it makes sense to select those with the least potential.
In addition to the camera survey, a browse survey is also conducted annually. Herd balance is a goal within the structure of this model, which makes the notion of "just shooting does" an impossiblility.
In most of Texas, there are way too many deer for the habitat to sustain. That means a whole bunch of them have to get shot for a balanced ecosystem to emerge. That's NOT the case everywhere, but it sure is here in Texas.
