Had to double take who posted that, but you wrote that different then the regular, it would have been "" and chill'n, as pappy say's ""

I've hunted 33 years and I can't recall ever seeing a fawn that appeared to have been born in Oct/Nov.

How far south have you hunted? I've never seen Nov but have seen Oct.

I have seen them in November and December. That was in Mississippi after several years of the crazy buck a day 4 month seasons and the buck to doe ratio was according to the local biologist 1:27. There were does going through several cycles before getting bred.

Can't speak for others, but this bunny hugger doesn't think this 21 month old deer ought to be taken out of the gene pool just because he was a six inch spike last year.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s172/BigIron_2007/th_HDV_0004_zpsnamugqde.mp4

They'll make good deer. But not great deer.

I'm older and prettier than you are and I've seen them born in oct. on every place I've hunted since '96. As I stated, this is my first experience with nov fawns.

I just don't see the leap in logic that just because (by your own admission) a very small % of your deer may be late, late fawns that this means you must never shoot spikes and let every spike gene be passed on. Forever.

No method will yield perfect results in the deer management game. But good management means you engage in a cost/benefit analysis and employ the method that will provide the best results. Just because a rule has exceptions doesn't mean it's smart to ignore the rule.

Prettier? I dunno...

I'm questioning the rule. I actually have two other spikes this year. I'm almost certain they were October or late September fawns. And the cost benefit analysis is ongoing. That 10 point in the vid is weighing real heavy in the + category.

It is my opinion that the studies that "prove" the need to kill all spikes were conducted on herds that were heavy with hill country deer. In the 60's, 70's and into the 80's you had some really nasty hill country gene pools. It is my opinion that most of that has been rectified.

I know for a fact that the spikes on my place have the genes to produce fine deer (one of the many benefits of a high fence )I have plenty of nice six to twelve+ point yearling bucks. But I believe they were born earlier in '14.

Well it certainly is a heated debate.

I sure don't know either. Just have to pick a side and go with it I guess. Honestly, my place does not have that many spikes, even as yearlings. Guess I am lucky. (Not to imply I have a trophy place, but it is getting better every year.)

I shoot obviously older spikes. And let the a youngun shoot a spike or two each year just because I'm in an AR county. But it's not a big issue on my place.

I can usually tell which ones of ours were born early and which ones weren't. I have one that was later last year where we actually hunt. I staked out his mama hoping she'd cycle since she camped out on the upper end of the field. I had to call it quits and exit survey in late Jan, the little nubbin was still hanging with her. He'll be with her still I'd imagine when I get to see this pics from the last couple months. Quite possible he could be a spike. As wet as it was though he ought to be a chunk living in the berry thicket.

Wanna guess what all 3 of the youngs bucks had in common?

Enfamil in the water trough?

Dang STX.

Sired by a spike??

10pt yearlings?

Nope, not even by a 5 pt or less since every buck with 5 pts or less was culled in the previous 11 yrs. They were sired by bucks with at least 6 pts or more as yearlings. They were all born the 11 and 12th year of that culling routine. They were all born in the driest year(s) of that period also. They are all 2 yr olds in those pics. There are 3 different bucks.

One was and one wasn't, the other I am not sure.
This is either the top 2 pics or 3rd pic buck. I am about 90% certain it was the buck in the top 2 pics buck since he ate out of the same feeders as the buck in those pics. The other buck in the 3rd pic also ate from those same feeders. Either way it was a tremendous yearling and he is the product of good genetics that got a chance to show itself from intensive yearling culling. He is a 6x6 yearling.



This buck is the buck in the last 2 pics. He is at the same feeder/blind location and you can tell by the beam shape he is the same buck only a year older. Main frame 9 point.

Why would anyone want to allow a spike to live and breed when you could have this kind of quality? The yearling bucks that were culled field dressed between 75 and 119 lbs(3 pt) on this ranch. We never killed a good yearling to know what they would have dressed. Mature bucks dressed from 175 to 205 depending on the time of year. Food plots year round, protein year round and not the best habitat but with rain it was decent forbes at times. This ranch was managed intensely for top end bucks from the first year on. Of course it was HF. I know of some LF ranches that are doing the same intense management and culling heavy on yearlings and up. They are seeing the same results. Only issue with LF is enough acres. Hard the for smaller places to see much benefit without the help of a lot of neighbors.

"Why would anyone want to allow a spike to live and breed when you could have this kind of quality?"

Mainly because these deer are his half brothers. And they didn't start out much better than the 21 month old 9 in the video, who was a 6" spike last year. And since my deer blow up on their third year, I expect him to be quite impressive over the next couple of years.

Now, I realize these pics aren't all that impressive. But, one must understand that these deer have a lot of growing to do between now and October. It's my opinion that a couple of them might be decent deer by then.

That's all I have to say about that.

Excellent point Skinnerback.

What was I thinking? I should encourage folks to shoot young spikes...

It pretty much guarantees my business.

Speechless huh?

It's pretty simple, the more young spikes that are killed, the fewer trophies reach maturity. Which drives bidness my way.

I'm sure you got that.

I'm curious though, how many people believe there are actually a statistically significant number of spikes in their second year? My personal opinion is they're as rare as hen's teeth (everywhere).