I watched a hunting show the other day, where they shot an old Mulie that they considered a "cule buck". They said they didn't w

[wallofsam]

I watched a hunting show the other day, where they shot an old Mulie that they considered a "cule buck". They said they didn't want him breeding anymore. He had a great rack (size,mass,and spread) but said he was bigger last year and was own the downslide for rack quality. I thought your genetics stayed with you your entire life, and it doesn't make sense to me for them to take the buck out of the population. He made it that long why wouldn't you let him continue to breed and live out his life? It was an outfitter that chose to do this and I am wondering, if you had this on your plate (and on your own property) what would you do?

[lovetohunt]

I would take him.

[ishawooa]

His offspring should still be in the local gene pool, his sperm count will decrease with age as will his antlers and physique. Probably right to remove him while he is not too far past prime.

[bonnier-admin_2]

Either give him Uiagra or a bullet!

[rezavoirdog]

Yeah, I'd take him too. He's on the back-end of his prime and you need to let his offspring breed those genes in the fall, its his time to go...

[steve182]

Sam i understand where you're coming from. Good genes are good genes. I don't know whether his Genetics decline along with his testosterone level, antlers and body as he ages. I guess we'd need a biologist to tell us that. So far nobody has. But if he's a nice mature buck i'd take him.

[buckeye]

I would take him I think that his abilty to pass on his dominate genes diminishes with age.

[shane]

Genetics are genetics are genetics, no matter his apparent condition. Even if he became emaciated with a puny rack, as long as he's still nailing does, he's passing along the same stuff that once made him a bigger beast.

I would definitely take him, but not for management purposes. His genes are just as good as his progeny's, unless theirs is a combination of his genetics plus even better genetics.

[Golfing Sportsman]

Shane, well said, you put it perfectly. What happens to you during your life (with the exception of high doses of radiation) has no bearing on your genetics or the genes you pass on to your progeny.

[pumakitchen]

Wallo, do you remeber what his point count was. If he was a typical but not a 4X4 that may be the reason they took him out of the population. I have seen some great 3x4 bucks in my life, many bigger than the 4x4's but to an outfitter those genes are not acceptable. The other question I would ask would be was the hunt somekind of charity hunt. Alot of times when they are donating the hunt they will encourage the hunter to take specific deer. My dad is in a wheelchair and once had the opportunity to hunt a charity hunt, the guides were great and the buck he took was the biggest of his life, but it was a 3x4, and I am willing to bet they wanted those genes out of the pool. Everybody else got it right with the passing of genes so I can't think of any other reason they would specifically take that buck.

[cjmurdoch]

Well, in my opinion, as has been stated earlier, this buck has probably sired a lot of youngun's. If he's in the sights and he's legal, I'd say take him. I'm not a horn hunter or record book kind of guy. A nice deer is a nice deer no matter what. A head on my wall or my name in the books doesn't feed me or my family.

[teufelhunden]

I do not think he was a cull because of recessive genes. I think that they culled him because at his age his sperm count was low and he was on the decline in strength. He probably was no longer breeding because he could not beat the young bucks in rut fights. There comes a point where a buck is eating food that could be used to sustain younger, more potent bucks.

[rudyglove27]

I definitely take him!!!