Roe Buck

I was out for a stalk on Saturday night with a mate. He shot this big boy, easy score medal. Watched him mount Doe three times prior. Nice to see that a buck I shot two year ago (scored Bronze) on the same piece of ground had similar head, so I would like to say great grandson. Hopefully the genes go on

IMG_0791.JPG


Buck from Saturday Night
IMG_0340.JPG


Buck from two year ago
 
Last edited:
Hopefully the genes go on

Well if you had let him live another couple of weeks I'm sure that they would have done. As it is, you may have just killed that very gene pool that you're so keen to keep going :cuckoo:
 
Well if you had let him live another couple of weeks I'm sure that they would have done. As it is, you may have just killed that very gene pool that you're so keen to keep going :cuckoo:

I somehow doubt it - this chap has obviously been around for a few years, so doubtless his progeny are already active in the gene pool.

I also think that nutrition has a lot more to do with antler development than genetics, but that's obviously a personal perspective on things.

The truth is that none of us know for sure....
 
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.
 
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.[/QUOTE]

Baguio this part of Willie Gunns last reply really does it for me, then again I'm nothing but a :cuckoo: trophy hunter.
 
A would say the area the deer are from has more to do with head size rather than there gene pull . Look at the amount of medal heads that come from the Kingdom of fife and surrounding areas compared to the likes of the Scottish Borders ?
 
A would say the area the deer are from has more to do with head size rather than there gene pull . Look at the amount of medal heads that come from the Kingdom of fife and surrounding areas compared to the likes of the Scottish Borders ?
Maybe they have better genes in Fife Amanda?
 
But I'm serious Amanda. Whilst I agree that it's impossible to guarantee the genes that are passed on, we can drastically improve the odds. Deer are no different to any other species. Characteristics of both parents will be passed on to the offspring. Roe does will go in search of the best buck that she can find for a first mating. After that she becomes promiscuous. If we cull out the bucks with characteristics that that you don't want then you up your chances of the mating/matings being with good bucks. And yes I realise that heads vary from year to year but IMO if you have a really good buck on your beat you don't shoot him for the sake of your herd and your trees which may get trashed by several young and undeserving bucks all trying to fill the void that you have created.
Cracking buck though. Wouldn't mind some of those genes being planted around the Thetford area that's for sure!
Baguio
 
Maybe they have better genes in Fife Amanda?

There are some prime examples of Roe bucks in Fife as demonstrated by JohnnyR cracking buck from earlier this year.

I shoot over a large acreage in Fife and while genes play some part, soil type, shelter and a good variety of browse to my mind play a greater role.

Over the last 20 years I have consistently encountered medal class bucks on ground where the soil type is heavy clay and soil analysis shows the soil to contain high levels of calcium. Coincidence???

With reference to shooting bucks prior, during or after the rut, I have taken bucks of all age groups and body/head condition at any time of the year when the opportunity arose with NO noticeable impact on the quality of the population.

I would go further to say that I am confident that some of my average bucks progress into top class bucks only by the removal of the prime buck from a top territory. This removal in turn promotes additional genes to be brought into the local pool hopefully increasing vigour and strengthining the population.

Just my thoughts but think too often people get hung up on big bucks having a massive impact on future populations, the big bucks can only be in one place at a time and that isn't always with a doe that is in oestrus!

regards

BP
 
Agree with all of that Ben. However, if you are worried about genes (which you clearly don't need to be) then see post 5. Don't underestimate genes either. I would be very confident that if one of the bucks from the Thetford area was placed in Fife it would never made a decent head.
Baguio
 
Roe does will go in search of the best buck that she can find for a first mating. After that she becomes promiscuous.
Baguio

I'd be genuinely interested in hearing more about that, as it's not a characteristic of roe I've heard referenced before.

We know that roe are polygamous, and that both does and bucks will range during the rut for a variety of reasons, many of which we don't fully understand. I've not heard of does selectively seeking out the best bucks for their first mating, nor is it something I think would be easy to prove, so I'd be very interested in getting more info on that.

My personal observations would suggest that, once territories are established by both bucks and does prior to the rut, persistence on behalf of the roe buck - whether yearling or gold medal six pointer - is the primary determinant in winning over the fair maiden.

I also wonder about the presumption that roe does regard the bucks headgear as the primary indicator of virility, which is a subjective observation on our part influenced by how we measure bucks. One only needs to consider hummels in red deer to see that having "a big rack" as a visible indicator is no guarantee of success when it comes to breeding.
 
Back
Top