Leave the best Deer & Elk...

[Tooltech]

Is it better for the herd to leave the biggest and best Deer or Elk and take the lesser animals?

[Cyclic-Rivers]

I say harvest what you want.  I guess I do not understand the question.  What is your goal for the Herd?  If no Goal, it doesn't matter as all the other hunters are doing what they please.

If you want to grow an older average age structure, shoot the mature adults and let the little ones live.

If you are trying to reduce herd size, kill the females.

If you are looking for premium meat, shoot the babies.

If you are a  bad hunter like i am, you will take what you can (which is not much and usually dumb animals anyhow)

[fmscan]

Charlie, well said!

[dbd870]

I'm not a trophy hunter so this is how it works for me (especially with trad gear): Do I have a tag for it? Does the frezzer need filling? Is it in range? If the answer to all 3 is yes it is getting shot.

[Sam McMichael]

I don't think the quality of the herd is diminished by taking these animals. If they have previously mated, the superior genes have already been passed down. A lot of these big animals are past the prime breeding age. But I also understand dbd870 and his notion of taking what presents itself. Big antlers are nice, but not necessary for an animal to be a "trophy".

[Pat B]

I've been elk hunting two times and never saw an elk. When/if I go again I will shoot the first legal elk I see. Animal predators are not very discriminating and neither should you be. That's the way nature works and the most healthy way for the animals/elk.

[CRS]

Biologically it is best to leave the mature animals and harvest when they no longer are contributing to the herd.

With that being said, I am not selective, legal usually means freezer.

[KSdan]

This is interesting to see all the opinions.  The variety is not new in the history of conservation and hunting records. From the inception the North America Conservation Model (Basically 1900), to Boone and Crockett in 1933, until a standard for scoring established in 1958, there was considerable debate on why, what, and how to determine a "record" animal (technically all harvested animals were considered "trophies.")

In light of conservation history, I find this quote from the Record's book of "Bowhunting in Arizona" (~1980), reflective of the actual conservation considerations of the early development for record keeping:

"The minimum scores that were approved . . . are based on the assumption that if an animal were to make the record book, it should be at least an average adult.  To allow adolescent animals in the book would destroy the concept of encouraging selective hunting, one of the major goals of our program . .  A trophy is a subjective and emotional decision, whereas a record head is by necessity an objective analysis based on predetermined specifics. . . The fundamental assumption behind all record book programs involves promoting a harvest of animals that have passed their prime as breeders and therefore, such a harvest would have the least effect on future populations."

Given these definitions- while I am all about conservation, I guess I am a "trophy" hunter!    

Dan in KS

[yeager]

Can't you also say that if you take the lesser animals, they will never get a chance to become a more dominant member of the herd?

[old_goat2]

There is no one answer, I didn't answer the poll because I don't think either answer is correct! Just because an animal has lesser antlers doesn't mean it doesn't have positive traits to add to the herd and vice versa! An animal with spectacular antlers may contribute a negative to the herd!!!! Monoculture is not natural nor is it desirable.

[ChuckC]

As above, there is no one answer.  We do tend to try to take the best ( in our narrowed eyes)nature has to offer, which often leaves something less in its wake.  From that respect, we are not helping.  However, as was pointed out already, we look at antlers, period, and except for the obvious ornamentation, which MAY attract females, it likely does very little for the herd.  Case in point. .  in those areas where there is a minimum 8 point limit, a large deer having a HUGE 6 point rack sure has an advantage for survival.  There are many other features that are much more important to the survival of that species, and indeed, a vast change in weather or food / water source or shelter availability can overnight change what is a very important feature, making the previously important features less important.  This was shown repeatedly on and around the Galapagos Islands.

However,  I will venture to say, based upon statistics ( I HATE statistics) that most folks do not kill even one deer every year with a bow, and indeed, even the gun stats ( for Wisconsin) show mid 40 % success rate).

Most of us therefore do not impact the herd either way.  Food for thought
ChuckC

[Whitetail Addict]

I used to pass up a lot of animals and birds over the course of the season, because they weren't what I wanted.

I always liked to shoot a bigger buck whitetail, or turkey, for example, than a small one, and I'd hold out for the big, older does, just for the additional meat they offered.

I'd still rather shoot a mature buck, but because of a lot of wear and tear on my body over the years, I don't hunt as seriously as I used to, and don't pass up as many deer these days.

As far as shooting the biggest does, it dawned on me at one point, that these are the deer that are having two, sometimes three fawns a year, compared to the younger does that usually only have one. It just seems like a good idea to let them live. It's just my opinion, but I think fawns with an old, smart momma, have a better chance for survival too.

I always thought that the biggest bucks bred most of the does. From what I've read over the past few years, the current thinking is that most of the does in my area are bred by lesser bucks.

Even if the biggest buck in the area breeds most of the does, after five or six years, he's past on his genes to a lot of deer. And with all the hunting pressure, the road hunters, and the night hunters we have here, the few bucks that do make it to that age are living on borrowed time.

The older I get, the more conservation minded I become, but I'll be honest and say that I've never given the older bucks a pass, for the benefit of the herd. Not that I've killed a lot of them, but I've killed a few, and hunted some others hard over the years.

I've always loved to hunt, and loved the animals I hunt. I look at a yearling spike horn and see a beautiful buck, and a yearling doe, a beautiful doe.

The bottom line in my opinion, shoot what you're happy with, within the confines of the law, and it probably doesn't make much difference in the long run.

Personally, I think the people that are shooting over their limit every year, and the night hunters, are doing way more harm to our game animals and birds than the rest of us are, regardless of what we decide to shoot, as long as It's done legally. It's a big problem here where I live, and it seems to get worse every year. JMHO.

Bob

I say trad hunters should shoot every one of the Pope and Young deer in NW Iowa and every deer that is going to be.  If we don't the spotlighting poachers will, not to mention the hoards of shot gunners that try run deer to death with their pickups.

[calgarychef]

Hunt like a wild animal, if it's within reach get it.

[Chain2]

I used to be selective I guess, but the true trophies don't really eat that well. I have been helping farmers out and taking lessor animals but I have eaten very good the last couple winters. I shoot smaller elk also, maybe not spikes though.

[tracker12]

I harvest mature bucks but as many does as I can use, provide to the Hunger Program in the State and to a few friends.  

If I have a large track of private I could manage for several years I would plan the kills according to the herd.

[monterey]

I suppose that for the diehard trophy seekers it would be to take the biggest and best.  I think the best management practice would be to take the animal that presents the best opportunity.

OTOH, the percentage of true diehards is probably pretty low.  Their taking of only the biggest and best probably has zero impact on the quality of the herd.

This is from a western perspective.  In areas with primarily private land ownership where whitetail herds are intensely managed it may be a whole different ball game.  It's my gut feeling that intense and deliberate management of whitetail herds may have some detrimental side effects in the long run.