ORIGINAL: JOEL
[size="2"]
[/size][size="2"][/size] [size="2"]just read an article not sure where but it said basicly that aprs are really no good for the herd as it eliminates the best genes from the herd cuz your only killing fully mature dominate males. Not my opinion just what i read,so dont jump all over me
If you remember where you read that or come across it again, let us know. Not jumping all over you, but here are my thoughts. (Sorry, this is going to be long....)
My guess is that you were reading someone who believes APR results in "high-grading" the bucks -- the theory that antler point restrictions select for the survival of inferior genetics and let bucks with inferior antler genetics be the breeders. Many of these people believe APR is designed to improve the antler genetics of a herd, but they say it will have the opposite effect. They say that APR will result in a bunch of scrub bucks. There is not much (if any) evidence that such a thing happens, so biologists do not believe APR has any effect on antler genetics. It's only a way to allow a higher percentage of bucks to reach maturity. [/size]
[size="2"] [/size]
[size="2"]Here in Pennsylvania before APR, we were killing mostly yearling bucks, and the 3" spike rule meant we were killing bucks with good antler genetics as well as poor antler genetics. With APR, we're still killing bucks with good antler genetics and poor antler genetics -- it's just that we're killing them at 2½ or 3½ years old, instead of 1½. Besides that, it's not just the buck's father that passes on his genes. Every buck has a mother, too, and gets half of his genes from her.
Implicit in the statement that an APR policy "eliminates the best genes from the herd because your're only killing fully mature dominate males" is the idea that antler genetics are related to maturity and dominance. But antler genetics are related to neither maturity nor dominance, so it does not follow that killing fully mature dominant bucks will eliminate the best genes. [/size]
[size="2"] [/size]
[size="2"]Let's consider maturity and dominance separately. A fully mature buck might have poor antler genetics, even if his antlers meet the antler restriction rules. That's because genes are established at conception, and do not improve as the buck matures. So one buck by virtue of being mature does not have better genes than an immature buck. A 1½ year old spike might have great antler genetics or poor antler genetics, and by permitting him to live to 3½ or more, he gets the opportunity to exhibit his antler potential -- whatever it is.
It's also not true that a dominant buck will have good antler genetics. Dominance is a behavioral trait, not an antler trait. A dominant buck might have great antler genetics or poor antler genetics; same with a sub-dominant buck. In fact, sometimes giant bucks with great antler genetics are not aggressive and do very little breeding -- they get big and old by taking fewer risks. When push comes to antler battles in the deer woods, a big buck with a non-aggressive personality might avoid a fight and go look for a doe he doesn't have to compete for, and let the little guys with a Napoleon complex do more of the fighting and breeding.
It is a misconception that APR[/size][size="2"] (or QDM for that matter) is designed to do anything at all to the genetics of the herd. Of the three primary things that affect antler size in a wild deer herd (age, nutrition, and genetics), we can influence age the most, and nutrition second. We can influence genetics almost not at all because we have no control over what bucks do the breeding, and which does they breed. When discussions turn to influencing genetics, we're no longer talking about antler point restrictions or quality deer management. We've begun talking about trophy deer management, and oftenl we're not even talking about free ranging deer.
In a wild deer herd we cannot control what genes get passed on -- let alone the ones that produce big antlers. Human examples for comparison: My father is a big, strong man who bore four sons, none of whom approach his size or strength. In his prime he was 6'2". His sons range from 6' down to 5'8". All but one are smaller boned and only one had his physique. Another example: My son used to play ball with a kid who was a phenom -- a head taller than the rest with greater natural ability, and dominant in every way. The kid was adopted and no one ever saw his father. One guy, [/size][size="2"]thinking that the kid's natural father must have been an impressive athlete, [/size][size="2"]said, "I'd like to have see his father." The kid turned out to be just an early bloomer. A few years later, he was a little smaller than most of his peers.
I know there is someone out there who may be tempted to "jump all over me" now, and say I'm trying to sound like a "pro" here. The fact is, I'm not saying anything new. Aside from the human examples, I'm not saying anything that has not been covered in D&DH magazine and other places. (Sorry this is so long.)
Steve[/size]
