The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

PA gene pool

13K views 194 replies 30 participants last post by  jimbridger 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
I was discussing this topic with my son, and we share similar views on the subject. We have noticed that in some particular areas their appears to be poor genes and in other areas better genes. I used to think the farming areas had better genes, I do not necessarily feel that way now.


With the AR restrictions it appears that some areas simply have better genes than others, and habitat isn't really a key factor. I realize food has a big part in antler growth, but genes also play a big part.


I've seen some pretty big buck come out of some of our more mountainous areas of the north central part of the state. While some areas of mixed agriculture and mountains seem to have poorer genes.


Whats your thoughts?
 
#3 ·
I think a lot of PA always had good genes. But age and nutrition were not there. Herd reduction helped nutrition and AR helped the age.

Aslo, a lot of private land owners are planting food plots and putting out supplements in the off season. The PGC also plants some food plots and has been cutting. Add that to the smaller herds and you probably have 2X better nutrition than in the 1970s through 1990s. Throw in older, healthier bucks and their genetic potential sines through.

Even on our own property, which has not had a change in genetics, has bucks with G4s and non-typical points now. And 6, 7 and 8 point yearlings. That's better nutrition right there.
 
#4 ·
I have seen and killed some old mature buck in the south central part of the state, that I doubt would ever amount to much, if I knew how to post pics on here I'd post a pic of a large heavy 6 pt that had an honest 20" wide inside spread. He was no young deer, could have been a spike or something at one time. I do not know. I do know that genes probably effect a much smaller range than we think. To lump all of north central or south central or WMU in one group could not be accurate.


There was always a big disproportionate amount of spikes on the mt right near my home. For those who hunt the area avidly...I've heard the comments...There is some squirrely genes up on that mt....I tend to agree. 25 miles down the road it could be totally different.


I am convinced some of the buck here will never reach "trophy" status regardless of how long they live. We do kill some nice buck but over all the deer are smaller and the racks are smaller.


DCE I tend to disagree...I believe there are areas of the north that have good genes and it is not only less hunting pressure that grows big buck but also the gene pool.


Right now as I sit here there are a number of legal buck left here on the mt. I live here, I see them, I also am able to watch them the following years. And while there will always be a few dandy buck that pop up every year, many of them will never reach a trophy status.


There are some decent buck around that make it through a couple hunting seasons. Some of the wildlife research done by Penn state and radio collar deer prove that, yet it is also apparent that some will probably never be that big racked trophy.




That same deer, same age, with a different gene pool in other parts of the state would not only be larger racked but heavier body as well. It is amazing how you can see a resemblance in some of the buck we take from year to year. Obviously some of the same gene pool.




With the given home range of deer it is only reasonable to assume that after a while certain genes develop from area to area.
 
#5 ·
Something else I'd like to put out for thought is this.......I'll use this season as an example. Plenty of deer, plenty of legal buck a few wall hangers (very few) after the close of the seasons, plenty of legal buck left. Someone mentions "you know there ought to be some dandy's next year".....and yes there should be, but I'm betting there is not.


Some buck are just slow growers? don't know, but if you have 6 decent 8pts left over, you would think next year there should be 6 BIGGER buck come out of that. I'm betting there will not be and what i'll see is another year like always.


This isn't a rant nor am I complaining, just putting it out for discussion. I spend a LOT of time in the mt year round I know a little bit about what I say.


Personally around here I see most buck dragging to ever turn into a wall hanger. Up north at my parents you give a buck the same amount of time he'll likely turn into a dandy.
 
#8 ·
There is more then one sub species of deer in pa, and I think in some of the south east and even parts of the southcentral have the subspecies out of Virginia. these deer are smaller and their racks are not as impressive as the deer in the northern and western parts of pa. This is just my opinion.
 
#15 · (Edited)
2
We have northern woodlands ( that were stocked from Michigan) and Virginia deer ( that were stocked from Virginia or Kentucky,) in PA. but when you have sub -species that live in the same geographical location or in close proximity ( similar latitude etc) there isn't a noticeable difference in body or antler size. Also number of points ect. has absolutely nothing to do with sub species. Habitat, food sources, mineral content of the soil in a specific area, health and how early or late a particular buck was born during the fawning season ( it can take a late born buck fawn up to its 4th year of age to catch up and a very low % of our bucks reach that age) We do not have a genetics issue any where in the state of PA.
 
#9 ·
If you look through the record books, big bucks were always a possibility in PA. There were just a lot fewer of them. Especially in that middle era, where we had 1,000,000 hunters and 1,000,000 deer. When the herd was smaller and the hunters fewer, there were more trophies than in the 1970s and 1980s.

We've also seen 8 year old 6-pointers and we have seen 2 year old 12 pointers on the same property. Genetics can vary in the same WMU. Different bucks breed different doe. Deer disperse. Some die, some move in from other properties. But there are genetics for big and small in all WMUs.

In the 1980s and 1990s, I thought all we had on our property was 4x4s. That's all I would see. Only saw one buck with a G4 in all those years. We just had too many deer and too young an age structure. Same property now has 9 and 10 pointers. We've also seen forked G2s, forked brows and even 3 beam bucks.

Another thing I believe is in play is that genetics are spreading more. When we had too many doe, the same bucks bred in a smaller areas. Now that there are fewer doe, the bucks wander further. So they spread genetics to bordering properties.

Add better nutrition and more age to that, and you have better trail cam pics. :)
 
#16 ·
It's not that simple, that's a grossly inaccurate statement.

That largely goes for Western PA and Eastern PA, but certainly not the big woods of PA, the Appalachian ridges and Allegheny Plateau region.

The soil in in these regions is quite infertile. Particularly the laurel covered Appalachian ridges. Not uncommon for 4-6 year old mature bucks to be sporting sub-100 inch racks here. Even the giants rarely top 130-140ish. Deer do however have a much better shot at reaching maturity due to sheer amount of difficult terrain and thick cover. Smaller, shorter statured deer, mature bucks rarely top 150 pounds. Certainly a function of soil nutrients and available browse, but I suspect there are some genetic differences as well. The deer seemingly choose to live in those laurel ridges despite more fertile agricultural valleys within 5-10 miles.
 
#12 ·
I've been watching a buck since I got my first trail camera in 2007. He was probably a 4 year old then. During all those years I doubt he ever had a rack that scored more than 120". His racks varied minimally up until I thought him to be 9 years old in 2012, and have been receding from 2013, finally sporting a set of antlers this year that do not make the AR requirements. The variances in size from year to year during his prime could be traced back to the severity of the previous winter. Age is most definitely the most important factor in determining their potential, but who's to say what kind of rack this deer would have grown had he had optimum habitat to see his full genetic potential. I personally would like to see the game commission remove a few button buck fawns in their predator study areas and take them to Penn State's deer pens just to see what potential these big woods have.
 
#40 ·
I got a big woods 9 pt on camera last year. His left beam was lower than his right and weaker in almost all areas. He was a big bodied deer compared to every other deer I had on cam, except for the exception of a gnarly 6pt. I also got a real nice symmetrical 8 pt on cam last year and a young 1.5 yr old 6 pt. This year I got all of them on camera again except the gnarly big 6 pt. The lop sided 9pt, who is still a 9pt, but his left beam was even with his right. He is easily identifiable because his G2's look like curved index fingers and his brows go up and out on a 45* angle. My last pics of him both years are late August. Aside from his rack being more even and thicker, I think he lost (marginally) on the length of some of his points. His main beams appear to be a little longer. He looks like he is even bigger bodied.... I assumed him to be 3.5 or 4.5 last year, but that's just a guess. The nice Symmetrical 8 was a nice symmetrical 10 this year, other than his main beams growing just enough for 2 more points, he didn't have much gains. The 6pt I'm assuming is an 8pt I got this year based off his one brow being barley a legal point and the other being about 3 inches, just like the 6pt was last year. He had the biggest overall gain from year to year. I wonder if the other bucks being an older age class just took more of the available nutrition for their bodies to grow or being wore down from last years rut etc.. I always think it's kind of a double edge sword. The big woods mountain bucks live longer to reach that prime age structure, but don't have quite as good as the farm bucks with food. I'd like to see PSU do exactly what you said too...
 
#13 ·
Lonzo...I was waiting for someone to say that. Personally I don't know , but I do believe that our deer right around here tend to be smaller body wise than some of the deer I see come out of the north.


WOL mentions different time periods in PA deer hunting. And I tend to agree, If you look at some of the "days of Lore" type pics, there were some real bruisers in northern PA, then came the high deer numbers, with not enough food to go around we seen a lot of small stunted deer, now that things are coming a full swing around less deer, less hunters we are once again seeing some bruisers coming out of the north.


Back to your statement Lonzo...I could believe that, yet I don't know. But if you study big mature deer pics those deer that have a little age to them being shot up north, Often Do look like big northern deer, while many times in this area they have a sleeker , smaller look.


Don't know, can't say for sure. I will not mention any particular areas out of courtesy to folks that hunt there, but there are pockets throughout the state that just seem to produce bigger deer.
 
#14 ·
Sounds like we need an ancestry dot com for deer. Waugh!

I can see the TV ad now. I thought I was hunting Pa deer but when I got my results back from ancestry dot com I found out I needed a tag from...... Waugh!
 
#17 ·
Smaller, shorter statured deer, mature bucks rarely top 150 pounds
Are you talking about big woods mountains deer? We have weighed several that were 200, 235 and even more. I have trail cam pics of bucks that would push 300 pounds. There are a lot of clear cuts that they could feed on, but they are certainly never that small. We're not talking deer living in Florida mangroves. The Bergmann effect, along with a lot of borealis sub-species genetics mean that deer can get pretty heavy in those mountains.
 
#18 ·
Yeah, big woods is an ambiguous and non-specific term, specifically I've noticed smaller deer in the long running sandstone ridges like the Bald Eagle SF. I've never personally seen a deer deep in those mountains anywhere in the ballpark of 200 pounds alive or on cameras. I have seen a some bigger deer on the leading ridges where they tend to drop down and feed in ag fields, and seen some giants down in the limestone valleys. Makes me wonder if the mountain deer tend to carry more O.V. virginianus genes or possibly their own unique genetics, or is it solely the inferior soil fertility. What makes them stay up in those mountains?

The oft-quoted ongoing PSU study has trailcam pictures of a collared 4.5 year old 8 pt in the Bald Eagle. He's sporting about a 75" rack which isn't atypical of what I see in those mountain deer. On another web forum I posted that picture asking people to guess his age...most Midwesterners had him at 1.5, nobody guessed more than 3.5.

I also hunt the "big woods" up North in the Sproul/Susquehannock/Moshannon and the deer absolutely run a lot more "normal" body sizes there. I also know those soils are better than the sandstone ridges and also that those deer would most likely carry the larger bodied o.v. borealis genes.

None of this really matters in the scheme of things, but I do find it very intriguing that depending which direction I decide to drive from my house I can target either of what I consider to be two different "types" of big woods deer.
 
#19 ·
One would think the gene pool is mixed over almost 100 years. With what we know about dispersal and mating it would be hard not to imagine genes in deer near Phily from deer stocked near Pitts. I can see no major geographical feature natural or man made that prevents the mix of genes in Pa deer.
Do the different gene types exist? Sure; but it would be hard to explain why for this long in only small areas. Most likely the stronger traits of each type blended into what we have today. We all would like the larger for body and antler to be the strongest but they very well not be. Just like many mistake fitness for something they can see in individual animals, what we see is not always the traits that make them better. Waugh!
 
#20 ·
We are at 2400 feet elevation and in the heart of game lands. Nearest agriculture starts at 5 miles away and that's some hay and corn.

The biggest deer I shot, weighed and had aged was a 4.5 year old. 236 pounds live and had a 120 inch rack.

My buddy shot one that was much bigger and it was estimated at 8.5 by the taxidermist (teeth). Our neighbor shot a brute of a 6-point that was pushing 300lbs live. We weighed it after it was skinned, no head or legs. Calculations online ranged from 280-305 live weight. We watched that buck for 8 years. Assume he may have been 10.5 years old.

A real whopper was only available on trail cam, never shot him and only saw him one year. He dwarfed all of them in body size. Had about a 130 or so 8-point rack.

We have pics of all bucks I mentioned.
 
#21 ·
Elk yinzer...I'll second your observations. The deer in the Bald eagle do seem to run smaller ....Not that there isn't any nice buck , but on average I'd say they are a little smaller.




Shedseeker... I strongly disagree with your assumption, I happen to hunt in a number of different regions throughout the state with the exception of far western and far eastern areas. And I can assure you the gene pool varies from not so good to very good. When you have a large number of spikes every year there is a gene problem lurking in the local herd. I hunt an area often, that I see that happening more often than other areas I hunt.


To think we have good genetics in every corner of the state is a little optimistic, but not realistic. We have the potential to harvest a trophy just about anywhere yes. But some places are better than others.
 
#22 ·
Elk yinzer...I'll second your observations. The deer in the Bald eagle do seem to run smaller ....Not that there isn't any nice buck , but on average I'd say they are a little smaller.
Elk yinzer points to poor soils for the lack of "big bucks" in a certain area (sandstone ridges).

That points the finger more at available quality forage and quality minerals....and away from a difference in genes. Everyone always wants to hunt bucks where the soil is black and rich in minerals (Midwest, central Canada, etc).

Or am I missing something?
 
#24 ·
We have seen some 200 plus inch non-typicals in PA. The state record typical netted 189 (guessing solid mid-190s gross) and that was from Bradford County. So the soil has produced "Midwest" caliber bucks in the past. And in many different areas of the state. I've seen a 180 incher from the Lycoming Co area. A few years ago, in back-to-back years, two sisters shot 190 and 200 inch non-typicals near Bloomsburg. That's a few 180-200 inch deer from the eastern part of the state.

I know the Midwest produces more big bucks than we do. But is that all soil and nutrition? Or do they just have more mature bucks than we do. If our soil doesn't have the nutrients, how do any bucks become booners? You would think it would be unheard of.
 
#29 ·
not every mature buck will be a giant no matter what he eats or how long he lives. Like most mature men average around 6", and 6'5" is uncommen and 7" would be pretty rare. Most mature bucks in pa are going to be 130 to 140 inches about 160 to 180 feild dressed.

Pa has the added handicap of lots of hunters. With about 5 tags waiting for every legal buck it's pretty hard to get a 4 years and older age class, and thats when bucks really show genetics.

I hunt illinois and ohio, and i see as many spikes and tiny racks on yearling bucks there as i do here in pa. Yearling antlers don't tell you anything about what a buck will grow when he's mature.
 
#43 ·

That's the 4.5 year old mountain buck from the PSU study. Many 1.5 year olds in Western PA will be sporting a rack that size.


Same buck at 2.5.
I'm arguing he is more of the exception than the rule. I hunt the big woods on state forest and while the nutrition might not be perfect, a deer with average genetics is bigger than that just by eating air and drinking water....:)
 
#34 ·
If I look back at the bucks shot at our camp and some of the surrounding camps in Lycoming county over the last 20 years, I can see a pattern of what appears to be 2 different gene pools the bucks fall into. The 2.5 + yr olds have either a wide low rack (> 18") or a tall narrow rack with longer tines (14-16"). The bucks with the wider racks seem to always have a few broken off points and are a bigger deer by about 20 lbs and are a little darker. There is not a lot of agriculture in our area.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top