I doubt it too willie but you know what I'm saying. If you want to preserve genes (which this trophy hunter obviously does) then you don't cull your best bucks until after the rut!
I agree that leaving the best bucks until after the rut will maximise their chance of breeding success, but I also happen to be one of those stalkers who feels that nutrition is more important than genetics when it comes to antler formation and development. Roe deer are polygamous, so even if we leave a "master" buck in the hope that it will pass on its genes, there's always a chance that some scrawny yearling will grab an opportunity to have his wicked way in the meantime.
The evidence seems vague on the exact role genetics play, and much of the theory seems based more on tradition, accepted practice and hearsay rather than scientific fact. I'd be happy to be proven wrong if someone can point me towards peer-reviewed evidence to the contrary?
I sometimes feel we treat our deer as though they were captive thoroughbreds, believing that we can carefully manipulate the population to maximise their trophy potential. I think a lot of the time we are simply kidding ourselves, as we have no idea what's going on for the 99.99% of the time we are not on the ground.
That said, I admire those stalkers who do show restraint until after the rut. Personally I think the rut is the most exciting time of the year when it comes to roe stalking, giving us a two or three week opportunity to catch up with the sly old bucks who normally hide themselves in the deepest, darkest, corners of the country. If we take advantage of that opportunity we have no idea whether the buck in our sights has passed on his genes or not, so the decision to squeeze the trigger rests with the individual stalker, but there's a good chance we may not get the opportunity again.
Hoffman pyramids and age-based cull plans aside, our policy is to shoot a set number of bucks each season. Basically if there are bucks left to cull, any that walk in front of the rifle match those criteria. By ignoring any grand plan based on culling yearlings, middle aged bucks, or those that are in their prime, the ground seems to keep producing some notable heads each season. Maybe we are just lucky, or maybe our tinkering with genetic manipulation has little relevance to wild deer population and trophy production. So long as stalkers are actively managing the deer on their ground - rather than just shooting any and all deer that they see - I can't see that it makes a lot of difference what culling policy they pursue.