• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Access to Quality Whitetail Habitat

In my area we have old fat 100” bucks, somebody tell me why and I am all ears, I am dead serious, the only thing I can come up with is genetics.

That’s genetics assuming it’s a mature buck. But give that deer all the nutrition he needs and he’ll be much bigger than that. Will he be a boomer? Probably not. but my point is without nutrition and age it doesn’t matter what he could be, he won’t ever get there

I believe we mostly agree, you just have genetics higher than I do. If we are strictly talking about which wild three year old will have larger antlers, the answer is the one with better genetics. My point is strictly regardless of genetics that won’t show without age and nutrition which in my mind make them more important


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That’s genetics assuming it’s a mature buck. But give that deer all the nutrition he needs and he’ll be much bigger than that. Will he be a boomer? Probably not. but my point is without nutrition and age it doesn’t matter what he could be, he won’t ever get there

I believe we mostly agree, you just have genetics higher than I do. If we are strictly talking about which wild three year old will have larger antlers, the answer is the one with better genetics. My point is strictly regardless of genetics that won’t show without age and nutrition which in my mind make them more important


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes we are on the same page!
 
I’m sure genetic hotspots are out there but you would have to be tired of 150” bucks for it to matter. Age and nutrition will grow nice bucks everywhere whitetails call home.
 
Good read! I get hung up on the superficial stuff sometimes myself and forget about the big picture. There's a tackle shop locally that's ran by a good 'ol boy who's motto is: "The gear doesn't get the fish, you do". I probably need to heed those words more often.
 
Good read! I get hung up on the superficial stuff sometimes myself and forget about the big picture. There's a tackle shop locally that's ran by a good 'ol boy who's motto is: "The gear doesn't get the fish, you do". I probably need to heed those words more often.
Don’t we all…
 
Here in north Alabama back in the 60's the state DNR brought a bunch of Michigan deer into the state. There seems to be a difference in my experience hunting for 25 plus years here. For example: I have killed 2 roughly 3.5 year old 6 points that were vastly different. One was lighter colored fur, the other much darker. THe darker one also had darker antlers and it was much thicker body wise. I couldnt tell you that one was in the lineage of Michigan or Alabama but I have no idea why one was vastly different than the other. I killed them both within 5 miles of the other. Was it genetics? Was it food intake? We dont have large tracts of Ag land there so I assume they had the same diet. I have talked about this with other hunters who have noticed the same thing and alot of people assume the darker colored deer have Michigan genetics. I dont have any answers to this discussion. All I know is that horns dont taste good no matter how you cook them. I just enjoy being in nature enjoying Gods creation. Taking an animal is icing on the cake.
 
Not to derail your thread your already derailing any farther but, there have been some really convincing studies discussed on the MSU deer lab podcast that have shown nutrition FAR outweigh genetics in antler growth. Its' worth a listen to anyone that is interested.

On the subject of genetics, I agree very strongly with GCTerp. If you want answers, look to the data. MSU deer lab addresses these topics in depth with science and facts. There is an amazing study moving deer from river bottom habitat and big woods habitat just like Nutter is talking about. The authors found that in the transplanted individuals, the river bottom bucks were bigger than the woods bucks on the same feed. BUT their offspring were nearly equal in size (despite some regional population gene differences) and that trend continued. There are factors that regulate your genes, I study these in humans at the hospital where I work. Those factors that influence gene expression are loosely called “epigenetics.” In deer, the evidence shows that fetal nutrition regulates the fawns capacity to express genetic potential throughout its life. In other words, if mama is well fed, there are switches that tell that fawn it’s ok to grow big antlers because resources aren’t limited. There have been several papers documenting this phenomenon in whitetails. We see this in humans as well. For example, it’s common for orphans adopted from impoverished areas to struggle to gain weight or height on high calorie diets. This is one of the main factors that contributes to the habitat phenomenon Nut is discussing here. We get so caught up in lots of food = giant bucks but that isn’t the whole story. In good soil areas, there is generational nutrition that allows full potential to be expressed from the womb forward year after year. It is also the reason that habitat improvement projects don’t routinely improve antler size the first couple of years, they may improve deer density, but it can take 5 years to show a real change in the herd in terms of score (fawns born to the first well fed mothers are reaching maturity).

TLDR: good soil allows deer to show their full genetic potential by feeding their mothers well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Awesome thread Nutter! Great discussion and great read!!
 
Very interesting read, mostly because I’ve been in pursuit of one of those fertile soil bucks you speak of for some time now.

Let me start by saying, I grew up and spent 90% of my hunting experiences in the coastal swamps and marshes of south La. I grew up around old trappers that knew the swamp and gave me an excellent start to develop my hunting style. I have become an efficient hunter and earned a decent reputation for killing mature deer for this area.
As you have stated these coastal swamps don’t get near the nutrients that the black fertile soil of the river floodplain. However the last 5-7 years I’ve been hunting public land in the Mississippi River bottom and still can’t connect with a quality deer. It’s been eating at me. I’ll drive 3 hours and scout all weekend in the heat of the summer to put in the work. I’ll spend more time than I should looking at any map possible to learn the place, to the point i have the maps memorized. I put in the work on the front end,however, it’s tough not connecting after this amount of time on a mature river bottom deer. Especially when I know I can go back to my swamp and kill a mature deer in the next 2 years.
The difference is that my swamp is the least pressured public land in the state, and rightfully so. It is a nasty, unforgiving, hell hole that takes even the most dedicated individual and crushes their spirit. You can’t walk it and the only method of travel is by pirogue. Not to mention I may only see 10 deer a year. So while the nutrition in the soil is terrible the deer population is low, the lack of pressure allows them to age. If it wasn’t for me growing up in this swamp and learning it, I would never even think of hunting it.
Knowing only what I have experienced in my quest for mature deer, I think less pressure is the highest of roles in developing mature deer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
I never said nutrition and habitat are not important, but I also would not put genetics “ way down the list of contributing factors” of trophy animals, say that to any serious deer farmer and let me know what he tells you, they are all about genetics, and rightfully so in my opinion, if the genetics are not there no amount of feed and age is going to turn that thing into what keeps you up at night, in my opinion, everyone has one and that’s my position, as far as choosing areas based upon genetics, follow the history, I live in New York, we have a wide variety of animal sizes and are a good example of genetics in my opinion or a lack there of (in my home area) I live near the base of the ADK’s and I am surrounded by some super lucrative and rich farm land for our region, we own 300 acres, any given night before dark I can drive you down any number of roads and spot 50-100 deer in a matter of minutes, maybe 10 bucks, all of which are under a 100” and weigh anywheres from 120 lbs to 200 lbs, some are 2.5 and some are on there way out they are so old, in 30 years of living and hunting around here I can count on one hand how many bucks have been killed that are 120”, nothing over that, I know the local deer biologist fairly well, these ages are not random guesses, we have no genetics. Drive one hour or two north into the mountains where there is no farms, super extreme winters, deadly snow falls, mushrooms and witch hobble buds for nutrition, and guess what there is, yes trophy class animals, no it is not over run with them, but they exist, and yes they get age up in those mountains because of the extreme hunting conditions but thats about it, nothing else, no food plots or farm fields, nothing, my belief is because of genetics. Amongst those huge pieces of public ground are pockets of hot spots where trail cam pictures and success are not random but more consistent provers of what we all want. Once again I think in the big picture of things all these factors are so regional that a one size fits all approach will never mean the same to a guy that lives lets say in Kansas to somebody in NY. I have hunted Montana, Idaho, Kansas, Iowa, North Dakota, and Kenora Ontario, the grass is definitely greener than what I have at home, but it was fun traveling and learning new things. I guess what I want somebody to do is raise a buck fawn from my home town against a Kansas buck fawn in the same pen and feed them the same and get back to me in 4 or 5 years, then I mite change my mind. I enjoy reading everybody’s take on this and repect all those opinions whom contribute, I just think it’s such a regional thing there is going to be a lot of opinions. Nutterbuster, finding those pockets is the secret, follow the trail my friend, most of the best buck killers I know are not online and keep everything to themselves, good old fashioned put the miles down the road and explore new country is what works for me, I talk to the locals and try and sort out the BS from truth, grab a beer at a local pub and listen, check the pictures out on the walls, ask a few questions and listen more than talk is what I do, it won’t take long and the same names will keep popping up, works for me. Good thread!
 
I think by now most people who are paying attention know that I'm a Bob Sheppard fanboy. I have his "list" of things that are important to hunting success taped to my fridge. Number 1 on that list is "access to quaity whitetail habitat." I think we all know it matters. We all like to point out that, "anybody can kill those farm deer." I've heard the "if I had the money" and, "if i lived in xyz state" excuses. Heck, I've made them myself.

Sheppard is a cardiovascular specialist. He hunts where he wants because he has time and money. Those two things definitely make most things in life easier. Initially, I kinda disregarded his number 1 list item because I thought it was something I couldn't do at 20 with no trust fund. I've kinda changed my view on this over the past several years.

I kinda have been hesitant to write this post because I don't have a whole lotta "tricks" up my sleeve, and I've seen the results of cats and improperly tied bags. But, I have been channeling some negative energy lately because I see a lot of threads about little things like arrow weight, camo types, carabiner shine, etc get a lot of traffic. I figured instead of pooing on those threads it'd be better to give my two cents on what makes the biggest difference on hunting success. I'd rather shoot crappy arrows out of a discount bow while sitting on a bucket in blue jeans, on a prime piece of property, than shoot calculator-built arrows out of a 2021 bow while sitting in my saddle in Sitka gear while hunting poor ground.

This is all really simple stuff, and a lot of us already know it. Forgive me if it seems dumb or condescending.

What makes quality whitetail habitat? At the most basic level, dirt. Dirt makes things grow. We all basically come from dirt, and we all are going back into the dirt sooner or later. Man has known this for eons. Most creation stories involve man coming from dirt or mud in some shape or fashion. Good dirt grows good flora, good flora feeds prey animals, predators eat the prey and eventually die and become good dirt. Circle of life, foodchain stuff. Simple, but because it's simple it's easy to overlook. Farmers like our friends @Blinginpse and @Ontariofarmer live and die on how well they understand dirt. Good dirt will grow more crops and support more livestock. It's the main determining factor behind carrying capacity. You can't have more corn or more cows than what the dirt will support. Good dirt has lots of nitrogen, carbon, and other basic building blocks of life.

Water and sunlight are the other big requirements for abundance of life. A sunny rainforest supports more biomass than a dark tundra.

Dirt, water, sunlight. With me?

Sunlight is, more or less, constant throughout the US. The north gets less of it. Harder winters and shorter growing seasons can put a hurt on deer, but they're fairly tolerant of it. Lack of water is arguably why the far west has fewer whitetails, but most of the eastern half of the state gets pretty plentiful rainfall. Sunlight and rainfall are in my mind not good things to key on. We need things we can isolate and use as qualifiers for good habitat.

Circle back to dirt. What makes good dirt? In layman's terms, dead stuff. We'll leave the philosophical ponderings on the concept of death being a prerequisite to life for another day. Remember the story about Squanto teaching the pilgrims to bury their maize seed with a little dead fish? Historical accuracy aside, that's about the gist of it. What concentrates dead things well?

River valleys.

Go on google earth and look at the US. You can quite clearly see the Mississippi/Missouri flood plain. Notice the states that occupy that space? Big-buck states, every single one. Flood plains, deltas, and other places where flood waters cover the earth and then recede are the cradles of life. Supposedly, all of us came out of the valley around the Tigris and Euphrates. The Mississipi valley is our fertile crescent. It's a huge part of what has made us successful. Good dirt and water.

You'll notice, if you look at alabama, that a little piece of that valley kinda gets lost and swoops across our state. That's the Alabama Black Belt, an area know for rich soil, culturally and historically fascinating demographic inequality, and big bucks. If you wanted to hunt Alabama, you'd do well to go to the good dirt in that area. It grows deer well.

Note that not all watersheds are fertile river valleys. The gulf coasts blackwater tributaries and sandy bays do not support deer the same way the black belt does. Salty water and sandy soils (quartz from the appalachian mountain chain congregates on the coast) does not support most life well. But if there's a body of water within driving distance of you that has thick, stinky, stick-to-your-toes mud...

Aside from river valleys, farmers may be the best soil improvers the continent has. Decades or sometimes centuries of husbandry can lead to very fertile soil and very big/plentiful deer. Sometimes it's a chicken or egg type puzzle. Are the farmers here because the soil is good, or is the soil good because the farmers are here? Does it matter? In my mind, no.

River valleys and ag. Chances are, that's a good place to start. That's the big picture. The foundation of whitetail habitat. What else can we do to weed out bad hunting spots?

Deer are a prey species. Prey species have 3 priorities. Eat, don't be eaten, procreate. That's all that needs to be coded into them. Deer are synchronized breeders, so for 11 months out of the year it's eat and don't get eaten. Good dirt satisfies the "eat" part of the equation. We have actually done them a pretty massive favor by ensuring that not much eats them except us. Prey animals thrive to their fullest (sometimes to the extent of overpopulation and mass starvation, but that's another story) when they aren't exposed to predators.

Go to a light pollution map (https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=5.00&lat=4007046&lon=-9637101&layers=B0FFFFFTFFFFFFFFF) that's the quickest way to visualize whitetail predator density. IE, you and me. Now, it's tricky because not ALL humans are predators. Less populated areas with the demographical factors that breed hunters (income, political leaning, religious affiliation, age, etc) can be harder on deer than areas with more people, but fewer hunters. There can be excellent hunting in yuppie suburbs. But, look again at Alabama's Black Belt. Notice something? No people. And the Black Belt is not just called black because of the dark flood plain soil. The population is predominately African American. Statistically speaking, that demographic is not particularly likely to produce a lot of avid deer hunters. (There's a LOT of interesting and sometimes, to be honest, very sad history behind this. I live in a rural, minority-majority zip code, and a lot of them do hunt. For a variety of reasons, small game is more popular. I'm aware there are always exceptions to the rule.) So we have good dirt, and relatively few predators.

If you're inclined, now might be a good time to take a second and look at your state. See any river valleys or patchwork quilts of ag land? See those dark areas on a light pollution map? Do the two overlap? Is there public land there?

TLDR, good dirt and low human population makes quality whitetail habitat. I've expounded on it because I believe in having a firm grasp of the basic theories of stuff. Knowing WHY something is so has value.

Light pollution maps and aerial photography helps to see a big picture, but there are tools you can use to really narrow it down. Last year, I put together a spreadsheet with information on each county in Alabama. First, I joined the Pope and Young and the Boone and Crockett foundations, along with the Alabama Whitetail Records membership. This allowed me access to the databases containing info on "trophy" bucks. Ceteris paribus, the more trophy bucks a county has, the more interesting it is, even if you're not interested in trophies. If you have big bucks, you most likely have plenty of other deer surrounding them.

Our state is quite behind the times when it comes to harvest reports, but I also gathered that information. For the past several years every deer that has been harvested by a hunter has been reported, and the info is made public on the DCNR website. Or that's the theory, anyways. Definitely check your DCNR website. Call the biologist. Talk to the game warden. The information they can give you is often not very specific, but they can sometimes point you in the general area of "more deer there."

The USDA, USCOE and USGS also have some interesting maps that show things like soil type, rainfall, flood plains, etc. These can be used to identify the good dirt we're so keen on.

Census information is also useful. Deer harvested per capita in a county is a better indicator of quality habitat than just the harvest number alone. So is the deer per square mile number if you can compute it. Election results are handy to throw in the mix too. To be blunt, in Alabama, red counties hunt and blue ones don't. If you see a lot of deer harvested per capita in a blue county, that is worth investigating.

Once I had all that information in a spreadsheet, some counties really rose to the top. My county has ZERO P&Y or B&C bucks on record. Now, are all trophies recorded? Not hardly. I have seen some 150s come from around here. But if another county has, say, 80+ on record, is that not interesting to you? It was to me. I found a county that had it all. Low hunter numbers, good dirt, good harvest numbers, and some public property. I found several counties that way actually, and hunted 4 of them. Saw or killed deer on every sit in those counties, even though I had no prior familiarity with them and have hunted some of "my" spots locally for a decade. Must have been the saddle...

A lot of work can be done from the computer. I'm still looking at maps, charts, spreadsheets, and calculators. But once you've identified some good counties in your area, and ascertained whether or not they have public ground available on them (many good counties in Alabama unfortunately do not have public access) you have more work to do.

Boots

On

The

Ground

Boots on the ground. Until such a time as we can take high enough resolution imagery to see the little boogers hiding in the bushes, that's the only way to KNOW that they're there. Hop in the truck. Grab the bike. Hitch up the boat. Spray on the Gold Bond and put two pairs of socks on. Throw a camera in the backpack if you have one. Go to that WMA that the stats say should hold deer. Drive the roads. Walk the property line. Ride or walk the trails. Ride the rivers. Walk the field edges and woodlines. Walk all the easy stuff, mark the interesting sign on your GPS, and then circle back and follow that stuff into the property interiors. Don't slow down. Don't stop. Don't prep trees. See the whole property. Count tracks. Count deer. Bumping deer? Seeing tracks? Rut sign? Disused facilities?

Count shot up stop signs and beer cans too. Drive to the local town. What do you see? Lifted trucks and Summit stickers on the backglass? Bernie stickers, prius cars, and soccer moms? Talk to the cashier at the local gas station. Stay a night at the local campground or motel and chat up the host. "Get a lot of hunters here around the holidays?"

Now get back in your truck and go to the next place. And the next one. You're looking for the most important thing you'll ever find as a hunter. THE SPOT. Don't skimp. Don't wimp. Find the property that makes you look like a better hunter than you are.

We've mainly talked about the macro stuff. Micro can play a huge roll too. I have a smallish (500 acres) tract of public near me that gets a lot of pressure because you can get to it without a boat, and it doesn't flood. BUT...the surrounding several thousand acres have been under QDMA for about 20 years. Some affluent white guys lease the property on one side of the road, and another one runs a quail hunting lodge on the other side. Deer have a chance to grow old on those properties, and there's nothing but a dilapidated old barb wire fence between their place and the public land. There are maybe 40 acres on that 500 worth hunting, but that 40 acres produces one buck a year for me, almost without fail.

That's my spiel. I'm happy to answer questions about how I try and narrow it down, or hear from others how they separate the wheat from the chaff. Remember, Hemingway once said, “I write one page of masterpiece to ninety-nine pages of sh/t. I try to put the sh/t in the wastebasket.” Don't make the mistake of thinking you can use gadgets and gear to kill deer that don't exist. Put the sh/t in the wastebasket, and go find that one page of masterpiece.
Thank you for starting another great thread. Many good points and I really like the posting on your refrigerator. Since you seem to have a passion for data collection and analysis, would you care to compare deer stats based on agricultural practices? More specifically the difference between deer in areas of predominantly conventional farming versus areas with high numbers of farms practicing regenerative agriculture or at least minimal tillage. South Dakota would be a good state to look at. Last year 50 percent of their crop land was planted using no till methods.https://drgnews.com/2019/12/13/no-till-gaining-ground-in-south-dakota/
 
Antlers are for fighting over mates, and attracting mates based on the size of the antlers - like nutter said - you’re healthy and can afford to grow them. Well, when you have 20 does to every buck, things change. You can start breeding long before you have big fancy antlers. You don’t have to fight much to secure a mate. This selective pressure will generate smaller antlers over generations. No matter how good the soil is, sexual selection is going to play a large role in dictating what happens with genetics.

I have a lot of questions about the confidence being given to epigenetics. I think a better descriptor for what largely makes up the differences we encounter is called the non shared environment. It’s definitely not worth getting into detail here.

but, genetic selection and sexual selection are interwoven through the environment. This is a complicated puzzle. But I haven’t seen sexual selection mentioned once. It likely explains almost all of the genetic differences in antler size. Not that genetics aren’t related to the small antlers you’re seeing top dog - just that genes for big correlates with big antlers.

another helpful piece of information is to recognize that there isn’t one, or even 5 genes that a switch is flipped one way or the other to determine antler size. There’s likely thousands of genes, of which certain combinations thereof, create large antler potential.

having those combinations of genes, good soil, and the time needed to express big antlers before you die, and a continued need to fight/impress does for sexual selection to play its role, all contribute.
 
Antlers are for fighting over mates, and attracting mates based on the size of the antlers - like nutter said - you’re healthy and can afford to grow them. Well, when you have 20 does to every buck, things change. You can start breeding long before you have big fancy antlers. You don’t have to fight much to secure a mate. This selective pressure will generate smaller antlers over generations. No matter how good the soil is, sexual selection is going to play a large role in dictating what happens with genetics.

I have a lot of questions about the confidence being given to epigenetics. I think a better descriptor for what largely makes up the differences we encounter is called the non shared environment. It’s definitely not worth getting into detail here.

but, genetic selection and sexual selection are interwoven through the environment. This is a complicated puzzle. But I haven’t seen sexual selection mentioned once. It likely explains almost all of the genetic differences in antler size. Not that genetics aren’t related to the small antlers you’re seeing top dog - just that genes for big correlates with big antlers.

another helpful piece of information is to recognize that there isn’t one, or even 5 genes that a switch is flipped one way or the other to determine antler size. There’s likely thousands of genes, of which certain combinations thereof, create large antler potential.

having those combinations of genes, good soil, and the time needed to express big antlers before you die, and a continued need to fight/impress does for sexual selection to play its role, all contribute.
Thank you, that was meaningful and informative, I believe your assessment of my situation is correct.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top