Why you never EVER shoot spikes

* if you want to raise big bucks (I realize big is a relative term, but big for most folks is 160 or better).


The nubbin was born in mid november last fall so he's a "yearling" and should (based on conventional BS wisdom) be a multi horned buck. He is eating all the protein he can stand. I have another just like him.

There are no other genetics in the pasture he's in. Virtually all mature bucks in this pasture will make 160" - 250" (as evidenced last year by the "cull" 3 yr old 156" straight 8 we shot. The other two deer are 3 and 4 and will add 20 to 30" of antler before they're done this year.

I wish there was some way I could legally mark the two nubbins I have. I'd let them make 6 years old and bet all comers they'd be over 160".

LF <> HF.

Yes

Holy moly, he jumped from nubbin to stud.

Born in mid-November?

And I call that a nubbing, not a spike

And you would be wrong. He is still last years model and still going to be of breeding age when he gets hardened spikettes this Sept.

Take him to school and spank his a$$!

"Spikettes!" Love it

Paint Ball Gun

Yep. Had 4 fawns drop in nov. I've owned ranches in Sanderson, big lake, Sonora, uvalde, and mountain home. I've never had a ranch that didn't have fawns born in October. These are the first born in November.

And I called him a nubbin too in the opening post. But stx is right. He'll be hard horned in the fall. But, he won't breed many. And if he does it'll be ok. He's destined for greatness.

Wanna take some bets on what this one turned into this year?

Sausage?

Makes sense.

Never seen or heard of one dropping in November. Sure changes the 1/2 on all the ages

We will have a few with spots still in October, but only seen one in 20 years that had them into November.

Had one last year like that, but have seen them just a few days old the week of Thanksgiving.

That's why I have NEVER been a fan of shooting young spikes. Way to many variables to judge his future based on his first hard horns. Of course I hunt a low fence place where a big buck is 130" so my management practices really don't mean squat in the big picture but its still something I wont do.

Per Kerr Wildlife Research: (https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_0827.pdf)
I have to also agree with the others calling these nubbins not spikes


Our analyses show clear differences between the size of antlers and body mass of
adult white-tailed bucks that were spike- or fork-antlered as yearlings in our control herd.
If the results of penned studies are applicable to free-ranging or managed populations,
then the distinction between these classes of yearlings could be of value to those wishing
11 - D

to improve the average GBC scores of mature bucks. Improvement of GBC scores
within a herd could be accomplished by selectively culling spike yearling bucks. This
technique would increase mean antler quality at maturity within a cohort of bucks simply
by reducing the number of small-antlered bucks contributing to the population mean
(Armstrong et al. 1995). Improvement would be realized within the population, at the
expense of cohort size, regardless of the genetic basis of antler traits.

I'm thinking that wouldn't be permanent and somehow the state would say it's cruelty.

Do him like Travis did the hogs in old yellar.

The born in November thing throws me off. I wouldn't expect an 8-9 month old deer to be showing much.

Seems like there would be a way to keep track of your two deer and follow their progression. I'm not the expert though....

And you missed the basic and most important point I made. This nubbin buck was born 7 months ago. He WILL be a hard horn spike this fall. And I know he has awesome genetics.

Your studies don't take into account buck fawns born in October and November. And there are more than most people think. This has been an awesome browse year and I protein feed. So I know that a spike this fall was born very late in 2014.

I see your point. I definitely have some late born fawns at my place too. Some with spots during rifle season. Never seen one born in October or November though.

Sooo... if all fawns born very late are destined to be spikes..then what about those ranches who have all their fawns born in late April thru May? Same great rainfall and protein and they still see a lot of spikes that never grow out anywhere close to 160 (unless you get a two for one special and add them both up).

Same results just earlier

I'm with you..

On good years if you know your fawns are virtually all born early I'll bet you don't see many spikes. And if you do then I don't think your risking much shooting the odd one or so spikes.

But if you don't know that your fawns were all born early then you are just screwing yourself nine ways to sunday.

I did see them born early in Kendall County and with great nutrition still saw a ton of spikes every year. If birth date on fawns was the main reason for the cause of spikes then by that thinking none born in April or May should ever be a spike. Spikes occur no matter when they are born or what the nutrition is, they are spikes for a reason the majority of the time....genetics. There will be a very very large percentage on the average ranch that will never grow into anything special(not anywhere close to 160 or even 130 for that matter). Most stay odd pointed- 3,5,7 etc. points into middle age or older IME.
Same with nutrition. You can't feed a spike genetics out of bag. I have seen branched antler yearlings standing next to spikes(both born at the same time) on ranches in poor rainfall years. Both had same nutrition.

"Spikes occur no matter when they are born or what the nutrition is, they are spikes for a reason the majority of the time....genetics."

My neighbors in south Texas, who killed effectively their entire buck fawn crop in 2011 (by shooting the 47 spikes that year), would disagree with you. I think they only saw 6 or 7 spikes in '12.

They still kill spikes, but not during drought years.

I personally know that statements wrong because I have the 8 month old and 21 month old bucks to prove it.

If anyone can tell me how to imbed or link a video, I will link a short vid of my 21 month old 10 point house pet that was a 6 inch spike last year.

Upload to photobucket, copy the the url link it gives you to embed it. Unless you have a YouTube account, then go that route.

Can you post links to another 100 21 month old 10 points that were spikes or is this just an isolated case? Will this now monster score 160 at 5? I can post pics of yearling 10 points also from a herd where all spikes were killed for 13 yrs. They are not the norm just as a spike yearling turning into a 10 point 2 yr old is very rare. During a drought is the best time to cull.

"During a drought is the best time to cull."

You and Murphy Ray are the only people I know who still believe that. My buds who lost a whole buck fawn crop sure changed their opinion. And they fired poor ol Murphy after that.

And yes, I have more than one example. This 10 point 21 month old buck and the two nubbins I currently have, if they make it to 5 years old and I can find some way to identify them.

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

Isolated cases of spikes blowing up are not the norm for spikes. You know that and just want to brag on your one case you have on video. I can also tell you tales of a couple that blew up but that would be out of 100's that did not. Wanna guess how many never turned into well below average deer at maturity that were spikes? Those couple who did blow up where not a monster buts still a good deer. Isolated incidences are not a reason to keep 100% of them in any year. If your bud lost a whole fawn crop then his future improved immensely without those now dead spikes int the breeding herd breeding more 100% yearling spike crops. I have been on both sides of this and know which side works the best from a management standpoint. For outfitters it does not work since they shooting for money on every mouth on the ranch. Nothing wrong with that but do not site rare cases as the norm. After time the spike shooting side will catch up and pass the non shooting side with income. The average deer will be worth more across the board. Culling early will always allow you to maximize your genetic potential.

On spikes born in normal months of May June and July on good years I'll agree with you. But when they are august thru November I'll never agree that those bucks can be judged correctly if they are spikes.

And the guys that killed all their buck fawns... That's a ranch of native south Texas deer that consistently produces mature bucks in the 150-190 range. That was after 7 years of following Murphy's advice to shoot all spikes. No way was the entire buck fawn crop inferior in 2011.

I will tell you that their cattle guy had grazed their 5300 acres down to dirt. And the cattle had eaten the tender brush back hard. They thought supplemental protein would make up for it, it didn't.

What you are saying is that an entire buck fawn crop can just one year become inferior cull worthy spikes. I completely disagree with that.

Mid November??? I believe I would have to see that unless there was some hormonal manipulation done somewhere with the doe.

Same concept on does continuing to cycle as there is on bucks holding antlers into April/May.

No manipulation at all. Not sure if they miscarried early and cycled again or what. But like I said, I've owned ranches in central, west and south Texas and have consistently seen October fawns. These nubbins and a couple of sisters are my first November fawns and I'm not implying that's normal.

If the doe fawns bred I'm sure they'll have November fawns as well.

When you live with the animals you learn a lot by observation. I think most people have a few oct fawns but just don't know it.

Doe fawn bred in Feb or March.
Here is a pic of a spotted fawn born in early Oct. This pic was taken in November that year. I have seen one fawn that looked like this at Christmas one time. He was this size also.

And no matter what you say, I am still not believing that 100% of a yearling buck crop were all spikes. What ever the % was that was spikes all I can say is "good riddance" for the future and better bucks that were not spikes as yearling. You do not progress without culling to allow your best genetics to continue forward IME.

Very educational thread.

No not all. In earlier posts I said "virtually all". I think they estimated their fawn crop at ~120 that year and if you figure half of the fawns are bucks then 47 out of that is pretty close to 100%.

They obviously had a few bucks survive that were not spikes. But JUST a few.

A few...like about 25% of the top end yearlings ...yeah 75% is almost 100% You are getting almost as bad as some the guys saying that humans might be able to get CWD.. pretty close used to only count in atom bombs and hand grenades

Ha! Not a problem. No way in he// 75% of those buck fawns just show up one year as spikes.

And there's no way you can legitimately explain it.

I could with more info on the place and records to look at but you still would not like my answer...kill them all

If I see an obviously young spike, I won't shoot it. If I see what appears to be a older buck with tall spikes, I want that one out of the local gene pool.

Hypothetical Records indicate 11/13 yearlings were spikes in 09, 10, 11, 12..........8 deer to work with over 4 age classes and not figuring in natural mortality, holes in fence and freak seismograph charge incidents.

AND out of the blood line

My thoughts as well 603

I'll never understand these bunny huggers that are scared to shoot spikes.

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).

I've killed 2 and will kill another one this year. So I would say the odds of killing one is greater than a human getting CWD

20 yrs hunting 700 acres low fence in S Texas. Along with other things, started shooting ALL yearlings under 4 points 7 yrs ago. Started seeing better quality bucks 3 yrs ago, even better 2 yrs ago. It's amazing. Imagine what could be done with HF deer.

Yep, and I would point to the fact that the first 4 years of your 7 year study took place in a drought period, that began to get better the last 3 years.

Oops. Don't ya hate it when the facts skew your data...

Well at least he did not say he killed almost 100% of all his yearlings.....

I can make data show whatever I want. Ex: we have a 140" average harvest on our place including all culls. how many score less, how many score more? Most places in the area can't have that average despite their culling efforts.

Yes, there was the drought which is why we made sure they had plenty of water and fed year round. Also thinned the herd some. Progress would have come sooner if weren't for the neighbors. Same program worked well BEFORE the drought on two other larger LF properties I used to guide on & hunt, (one 5K acres the other 6K acres). Nothing skewed here, I've seen the results of proper herd management amigo. . Or at least, what I believe to be proper. and yes, I believe a drought is the best time to cull.

Nooo. Don't think I'm trying to get you not to shoot your entire buck fawn crop... shoot away!

My method has obviously negatively impacted the bucks on my place.

LOL, not shooting anywhere near our entire buck fawn crop. I don't shoot fawns. 1 1/2 yr old 4 pointers & up get to walk. 1 1/2 yrd old 3 pointers and spikes go to the freezer.

FIFY
kill them all

and you do have some nice looking deer BTW.

I've got this old spike on camera for the last couple of years. Tall crooked spikes. I was gonna shoot him (if I could find him), but he's a smart old buck. I've never seen him in person. There's a good chance, if I listen to TheRancher, that he'll be a record buck sooner or later. I guess I'll just wait on him (might as well, since I can't ever see him).

As for all the other spikes, we all have our own opinions. If it's mid season and I see a young skinny necked nubbin buck, he's safe from me. But, if I see a buck with 4 inch spikes where all the other bucks (same water, same food, same everything but genetics) have decent racks, I'll probably cull that spike. Why wait for questionable and doubtful rack development on him when all the others have much better racks and better chances of becoming a serious buck.

As for me, what I don't shoot are the best bucks on the place. Those are my (not really mine) breeding bucks and they have a purpose. I want them breeding every chance they get. Sneak on to my place and you'll see those little blue pills mixed in with the corn...:-)

Yeah. If you read the initial posts you'd know that this is specifically about late born buck fawns. Not old spikes. And I haven't seen and old spike since the 70's.

In over a half century or more of deer hunting (serious deer hunting), I have never seen a spotted fawn in November. A fellow might think that if the buck/doe balance was extreme in favor of does, maybe it would be possible to see a fawn that late, but back in the early 60's in NE Louisiana it was normal to see 100 or more does in a winter wheat field and never see a buck. And I never saw a 'November fawn' then either.

If this whole chat is based on November fawns with spike horns, why have it? If it occurs, it has to be rare.

Not "just" nov fawns. But late sept - nov. Several others here have mentioned nov. fawns, which implies late sept. - nov.

I posted a pic of a nubbin buck. I have two. These were born in mid to late nov. I saw them, and others have seen similar.

I don't pretend that I know anything about Louisiana deer. But I know quite a bit about Texas deer. As I said, I've seen October fawns on every ranch I've owned.

The point is, shooting all spikes is foolish if you have fawns born late. My pics and vids prove it.

It is my considered opinion, right or wrong, that in a deer herd that is reasonably balanced in males and females, there will be no significantly late fawns. I could maybe go with a September fawn, but not October or November. Anything like that would be extremely rare, and worthy of mention. Again, that is what I believe, which does not make it fact.

That probably wont be a spike will probably be an antlerless.

Still has possiblity of up to 60 days of growing.

I have killed quite a few like that, that did have hardened antlers. Small but still hardened. Most people call the fawns but they are adult deer. Destined to fall into the 90+ % that end up being culled later on.

All that means is you've just never seen it. I, and several on here have. I've seen fresh scrapes in early April on every place I've owned .

I have an opinion that it may be from miscarriages, and then they cycle back. The place I have with nov fawns has a lot of pigs. But I have seen sept and oct fawns on places with no hogs. Could be some pig diseases causing miscarriages here in mountain home. I assure you I have great ratios and great genetics.

He will definitely be a hard horned ~ 3" spike. He would die under "shoot all spikes" protocol. I think that would be foolish.

I can see that point.

However, that is different than your original point as stated in the title of this thread.

Why kill one that may be carrying some cool genes...

That was an exaggeration to pique interest.

So, just for clarity, Skinnerback, SniperRAB, 603country, STX and others not mentioned believe that culling this 21 month old 10 as a 6" spike last year would have been a good idea?

Man, the things you learn when you maintain an open mind...

All I see is a pic of a buck. I'll stand with my previous comments. I think maybe you are just baiting us with a BS premise for fun.

I'm not the only one on this thread that has quite a bit of experience with October/November buck fawns. I would say that part of the premise has been supported.

That buck eats in my back yard every night. He did it last year when he was an abnormally young spike as well. I have no proof, just witnesses.

I find it more likely that he had a fawn/young mother that came in really late in the spring for him to have been born in October or November. Miscarriages are certainly possible, particularly if you are running feeders where the deer mix/mingle/fight, but I would expect that to be much rarer than the young mother scenario.

But you're talking a different ballgame than most on here. Behind a high-fence with known genetics and known ages is a lot different than open pastures with much more questionable genetics and for most of us, more standard fawn ages.

If 1 or 2 late season fawns as you mention make a significant impact on your deer herd then the herd itself is not very healthy to start with. Genetically balanced or whatever you would like to call it.

The part of the debate missing has nothing to do with a spike becoming a 6 point or 10 point the following year. Carrying Capacity and establishing your ratio are very important parts of culling deer. Are you going to shoot a 6,8,or 10 point yearling over it's counterpart that is a spike? I think not and it doesn't really matter when it was born.

Can a spike become a nice framed deer as it ages? Absolutely and nobody on this thread is going to disagree with you on that point. But if you need to shoot X number of deer out of an age class the spike should be the first to go.

Earlier you were talking about how you wish you could mark the two nubbers... how do you know that that buck was a 6 inch spike last year? Can you show us the pictures please of differentiating markings, ear tag, etc.?

Good question. No I can't. That's why I wish I could mark the two nubbin bucks. They were born even later than the "spike turned ten".

I said I have no proof. Other than this deer is a house pet that eats about 25 yards from my back porch every evening. Everyone who hangs out here knows it's the same deer, as I said, all I have are witnesses. Lots of them, but they aren't the kind of proof it would take for skeptics.

I'm not a breeder so it would be illegal for me to mark him or the nubbins. But I sure wanted to put a .22 hole in one of his ears last year.

So we are basing this all on the "assumed" exception to the rule?

If I was going to defy logic and convention I would want more support.

If I feel like shooting a spike.... im gona shoot a spike.. does are only legal in archery which ill fill those tags too... but I get hungry

I know my deer aren't huge, but most folks would consider them healthy (see linked pics).

And you and I aren't going to agree on the carrying capacity issue either. I believe that carrying capacity is moot when you supplementally feed (I submit the fact that the largest bucks in the world average about 500 square feet of home range, as proof).

What matters to someone who sells hunts is selling a deer at his best. There is a huge delta when you "cull" a deer as a spike that would have reached 160+ in 3 or 4 years.

If CC is moot... then why do most places regardless of supplemental feeding and HF VS LF see their greatest numbers in good rainfall years? I believe you can feed a lot out of a bag and through food plotting etc. but good rainfall years will always produce your best.

Who cares if that yearling spike grows to 160 inch? If you have deer that make it to 250 then those are the ones you want no? If your spike yearling ever does reach 160 he is still about 40% inferior to whatever buck made 250... or are we just going to assume that he was a spike too?

Rusty, is there a way you could mark them with a freeze brand method?

Since I'm not a breeder I believe it's illegal for me to "harm" or even manipulate them. Sedating them to apply a brand or tag would fall under those categories.

No matter how noble and just the educational cause is, I know you'd be one of the first to hunt a rope to hang me if I broke a small letter of the law.

I think if you want to pass on young spikes to see what they turn into you can and to each his own. IF you want to nurture it and wait the extra years go for it. It is taking a bigger risk that they will repopulate and never grow to anything close to a trophy even if sometimes you get decent deer from lesser genetics. What everyone here is trying to say is if you want to have the best genetic potential for the overall heard it is best to eliminate the lesser from the gene pool entirely no matter if he could be something decent one day. ESPECIALLY if you are throwing money around on protein, high fencing, etc. It always hard to off something you had a part of raising even deer, especially backyard deer. I have seen too many breeders, deer, cattle, dogs, kids whatever get to attached and afraid to do what they know is best because they have helped nurture it. Let em grow or let em go.

Im no geneticist but take a small harmelss spike late fall and you say hes a keeper. Lets say within a few years he has put up decent head gear, he is a rare bird. Good for him. Good for you, you took a lesser animal and helped it reach it's potential. Nothing wrong with that. But his offspring male and female will carry the gene. If he bred only 5 does in the time it took for him to grow a decent rack and produces lets say 10 fawns jus to be simple. 5 females and 5 males even if they do not show the spike gene or not all of them even show it in the next generation when they reproduce it will show in the herds lack of antler progress. You have just left 15 spike carrying genes to go on. THen you have to take the opportunity cost if you had shot that spike. His neighbor 4 pt at the same age just had to compete for the same food protein or browse still has to compete. Still has to compete for does and has to at least match the spikes breeding pattern to "rebalance" what the spike has done. Even then his good doesn't undo the spike gene being carried in the herd. Sometimes you have to do the right thing for the greater good which is kill the dang spikes.

From my experience the spikes tend to be bullied more, tend to be outliers, tend to be slippery to hunt, and steel breeding opportunities from more qualified deer. In some battles they have an upper hand with more of a weapon that doesn't get caught up with two sides like a real rack so other superior bucks back off with less battle. At the end of the rut a little ole spike mihgt still be burning to go when the heavy horned guys are wore down. Sometimes big bucks tend to disregard the lesser spikes then they slip in and steel the ladies. This can kill your genetics. This is all just based on my opinion and could be totally skewed from my hatred for spikes.

Entirely Hypothetical---- just think of it this way if you raise sheep, you think in pounds of wool. You have one Ram's offspring that never have enough wool their first year sometimes they turn into good sheep but mostly they just do not produce like the others. Do you keep that Ram and try to raise it's offspring who would could be good sheep and spend all that time and money to know it will just be passed down again and wait on their offspring to have wool and so on ? Causing you more grief and costing more money? Not if you have others or can get another Ram. Are you going to let that ram breed your best ewes instead of the big woolly boogers whose offspring are equally wooly? Never. Thats a couple of animals a year not paying for themselves just in the first year, and it will only multiple.

Not hang you, pull your nails out and maybe a little water boarding after a glass of wine, but no hanging

BTW, I had assumed incorrectly I guess, I thought you where also a breeder at one of your properties?

First, there's a lot more to what you said about cc than just feed. Cover is probably a much bigger factor in survival numbers than food on good years.

This discussion isn't about survival or cc as much as it is about young spikes having the good genetics mismatched with birth dates. So if you don't mind let's back out of that or discuss on another thread.

I used 160 as a base because I can almost guarantee that he'll make that. It's my opinion that he's got the genetics to make the top end or anything in between as well.

I think a fella could sell the heck out of all the 150-160" bucks he has, no matter how they graduated grade school if selling is the goal and the occasional 250"er is a end bonus.

Nope. When I bought the ranch with improved genetics it already had a pasture where the improved deer were. The previous owners had killed natives out of that. We just killed the natives out of the larger pasture and opened the gates.

Had another thought, I do try to stick to the rules, I admit that, best I can anyway, but maybe you'd prefer me to be one that would offer your foreman a steak dinner and a round of golf to get a free pass on your ranch (when you weren't there of course, no point bothering you about the ranch details)

Don't blame you at all.

Assuming same place. But you're saying that even with improved genetics, likely from ranches with well documented pedigree, spikes (and small forkies) still come out of those superb gene pools?

I disagree. I think I have logic on my side based on known genetics and birthdates.

Following convention despite logic is where you get into costly ruts.

Dr. Semmelweis went mad trying to get doctors to wash their hands before doing surgery and delivering babies. You see, in his time period, conventional wisdom stated that there was no negative effect in doing surgery with nasty hands and lab coats. And in fact, the dirtier your coat the more esteemed you were.

Semmelweis started washing his hands in chlorinated water and infant mortality in his practice dropped like a rock. Logic shouted that there was something good about washing your hands in that solution. But, convention supported by the "experts" said "that spike won't ever amount to anything".

There are a lot of other examples where convention has been wrong.

Yes same place.

Spikes, nubbins and forkies born late. Yes. Definitely.

Yearlings get a pass from me, spike or no spike.

Why should the CC be thrown out? The ranches who are shooting all spikes(for the most part) have an extremely high standard they are trying to reach. It is a combination of multiple factors that lead to that practice. It is an invalid argument to single out 1 of many contributing factors in order to change a management plan. Or say that everyone else is doing it wrong.

Your argument is based on an outlier, you admitted to manipulating the thread title in order to stir the pot, but unfortunately you can't seem to see the forest from the trees.

No, I don't have "an outlier". I have several does that fawn from late sept. to mid nov. The doe fawns they have will probably breed lat as well. As I've stated, I know I've had plenty of sept. oct. fawns on 9 ranches I've owned.

I believe that MANY of the spikes that show up in good years and supplemental fed ranches in bad years are potentially genetically normal, just born late.

The research on spikes was done on hill country deer back in the 60's 70's when the genetics were lousy.

So the genetics are different now?

A whole lot different.

Mmm, love me some spike. Bonus backstrap for me.

Wonder how many deer breeders are using breeding sires that were spiked yearling bucks? Wonder why they aren't?

Hell its wasn't lousy genetics it was a straight up stacked deck!!!!!
I'm glad they took years of intense scientific study to conclude that an A&M STX breeder buck will as a percentage wise be bigger then a hill country buck.....

You don't say

Wait.... how did I miss this part Sooo...you are saying that genetics can be changed?

I wonder why my low fence free grazer place has very few spikes? And by very few I mean I have seen 2 in 4 years.

Everyone playing up how great spikes are wouldn't take one for a breeder buck for their herd. Its interesting they keep them around to see what happens.

I have a friend that doesn't shoot spikes but he runs a commercial hunting operation and needs the numbers of bucks. In his own words hunters will shoot and pay the same for a 4.5 yr old 8 as they will anything else. He has 14,000 acres low fence with one trophy hunt price. His culls get shot as trophies and he is a winner. I asked him if he would keep spikes if he was running his own personal ranch for trophy deer and he said no.

I shoot spike because they taste better. Nice and tender steaks and that way I can shoot two bucks.

I would LOVE to be able to take those nubbins born in November and mark them. I guarantee at least one of them would be taken as a breeder by most folks.

Ha, make no mistake, I'm certain they didn't "cull" their way to better genetics. Most of us now understand that's an impossibility without a high fence and destroying the old and importing new.

But, what you had were folks like the guy who owned this property before me back when it was over 40,000 acres. Bobby Shelton was a King ranch scion. So, back in the day he brought many south Texas deer to his ranch here after he broke ties with the Kings and took his inheritance to the hill country.

Funny story, when I bought this place my neighbor still had some of those King ranch genetics on his place (typically our deer are from 90" to 130" at maturity). Typical hill country. But my neighbor in the early 2000's still had some King genetics. He killed a 196 double drop 12 and another 183" deer in 2005. He's never had anything close since. The old south Texas genetics are being outbred by the natives pretty fast.

As pappy once said: Richman hunt for big bucks.. Poorman for the en & chillen

Wow so let me get this straight, they brought in enough deer from the King Ranch to change the genetics on a 40,000 acre typical Hill Country ranch? Amazing, so when did they do this again? Lets just suppose that they had a deer to 10 acres and 4,000 deer. That would mean they would have had to have brought in 4,000 or more deer to even start to change the genetics for just a generation or two. Then the native genetics would have taken over. So how many deer did they bring in again? It is amazing the the Hill Country never had any book deer genetics, I guess all those heads hanging at the YO were killed in South Texas then?

Are you saying the YO culled their way to better genetics? You know better.

And yes, the Kings and Shelton were pretty tight with the Schrieners back in the day. A lot of horse trading went on.

They obviously weren't bred to native ETX deer for the purpose of throwing smaller horned offspring....

This is getting good. Anyone got any butter or salt to go with my

Rancher, forgive me because I am a little slow. So you are saying that late season born spikes will most likely develop into a decent buck, while normal birth month spikes will have a lesser chance of developing into a decent buck? I am just trying to clarify for myself.

Have you looked at the pics and read the posts?

Tired of repeating myself. I have 2 nubbin bucks right now because they were born mid to lat nov last year. Weren't even nubbins in their birth year. I'm saying that I have a real nice 10 point that was a 6 inch spike last year. Because he was born in October the year before. I'm saying that my genetics are known and are good.

I'm saying that a significant % of spikes are spikes based on birthdate, not genetics.

And lots of people disagree.

Thanks for clarifying, no I didn't read the post or look at pictures, I completely guessed out of thin air what the content of all the posts were about, and I wanted a smarta$$ reply just for the heck of it.

FWIW, I can see where you might draw the conclusions you did, not sure I agree, but I can see some of your reasoning. But the whole argument of known genetics on HF property seems like a completely different argument on any LF with purely, or mostly native genetics. Apples and oranges thing to me I am no expert even by a long shot.

I am going to sit back now and enjoy the debate, lots of good opinions and observations so far.

Yes they do. And it doesn't bother me in the least. No one has offered a better explanation either.

Fwiw a lot of folks disagreed with Semmelweis and others throughout history who didn't let convention close their minds.

Ha! I wasn't trying to be a smartass, I guess I'm just a natural. I asked the question to help determine if I wasn't communicating well. I guess I was, and you ARE a tad slow. Heh heh. Yes, I was trying there.

I told you I was slow, just ask my wife!

This is the way I like to see spikes. After reading this thread I had to pull a spike strap out of the freezer Sunday and whip up some carne quisada, and boy was it good. Can only imagine how one of those high dollar protein fed spikes taste.

Finally we agree!! That's some expensive guisada tho!

Man, you use parts that would go into deer nuggets to make that stuff.

Deer nuggets?

Like chicken nuggets, only deer.

Oh I use different parts but if you ever sink your teeth into backstrap guisada

I've never seen an antler I could eat. I have no problem shooting a spike or even a small buck where legal if I can't take does. I haven't shot a deer for anything besides meat in a long, long time. Never understood the fascination with bone. For me hunting is about meat for the table and not antlers on the wall.

But, to each his own as long as it is legal.

Just a thought but if we are talking late season fawns only wouldnt you need to feed them an extra year to get them to harvest age? They are going to be behind their peers in age during the time of year they are growing a majority of their antlers.

Agree 100%

Exactly. Just videoed some deer that were born the same year as the spike that turned into a 10 point. They have a little more mass and some junk. But it's because they're a few months older.

from the article in the deer hunting section...

The next question, are spikes inferior, is a question that is old as — well, it’s old. It’s certainly been debated for decades, and it’s still being debated.

To answer this question, Hellickson again turned to data collected from the South Texas buck capture study. Researchers calculated the average gross B&C score of yearling bucks with two to three antler points versus the average gross B&C score for yearling bucks with four or more antler points when those bucks were recaptured at 2.5, 3.5, 4.5 on out to 7.5 years of age.

In every age class, the bucks that were forked antlered as yearlings outscored the bucks that were spikes as yearlings. In the 4.5 age category the gross B&C score of the bucks that were spikes as yearlings ranged from 85 inches to 145 inches, with the average being 116 inches. However, the gross B&C score of the bucks that were forked as yearlings when recaptured at age 4.5 ranged from 90 to 160 with an average of 130. Looking at the data another way, 11 of the 15 bucks that had a gross B&C score under 110 were spikes as yearlings, Hellickson said, and 12 of the 13 bucks scoring above 140 were forked antlered yearlings.

In the 5.5 age category, the bucks that were spikes as yearlings had an average gross B&C score of 125 while the forked antlered yearlings at 5.5 years of age had an average B&C score of 144, though one buck scored 210 inches. Looking at the same data another way, 13 of the 16 lowest scoring 5.5 year-old bucks were spikes as yearlings while nine of the 10 highest scoring bucks at 5.5 years of age were forked antlered yearlings.

They also compared spike yearling antlers to yearling bucks with six or more antler points at the various age classifications. In the 5.5 years or older category, researchers never captured a buck that was a spike as a yearling that grossed above 160. In fact, Hellickson noted that two-thirds of the bucks that were spikes as yearlings never broke 130 at maturity. However, only 18 percent of the yearling bucks with six or more antlered points failed to break 130 at maturity and 36 percent of the yearling bucks with six or more points broke 160 at maturity.

“So are spikes inferior? Based on our data set, we say yes. These data show that yearling antler size is a good predictor of antler size at maturity.”

He added that all bucks that were spikes as yearlings were grouped together. In other words, they did not try to determine if the bucks were spikes as yearlings for nutritional reasons or for genetic reasons.

“In my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether a buck is a spike for nutritional reasons or for genetic reasons,” Hellickson stated. “I say that because in this study, in every case, spikes were inferior to the forked group.

“A few spikes raised in pens have turned into big deer at maturity, but it’s rare,” he continued. “But, in the wild, in this study we never had a buck that was a spike as a yearling gross score above 155,” he reiterated. “I think biologists should never let the exception be misconstrued to be the rule when it comes to spike buck harvest.”

You just ended the thread! lol

Nah he didn't end the thread. Ive just been busy.

That study didn't address what I'm seeing. It had nothing to say about deer that were born so late that they didn't turn to nubbins until the next year.

Hellickson made a grossly incorrect statement as well: “In my opinion, it doesn’t matter whether a buck is a spike for nutritional reasons or for genetic reasons,” Hellickson stated. “I say that because in this study, in every case, spikes were inferior to the forked group.

That's obviously incorrect since there were some spike deer in the study that scored better than the deer with forked antlers.

There are also lottery winners.

Here's a good read about everyone's deer herd and what it's genetic potential consists of.

https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-normal-distribution.html

www.mathisfun.com huh, I awlays pegged you for the life of the party!

Knew you'd be one to click on the link, so needed to find one with pictures.

The problem is you're examining a small handful of outliers in a population that is already separated from the norm. What his evidence proves is that in a general population there is a very strong correlation between inferior antlers at a young age and inferior antlers at an older age.

Except for orange ear tagged deer number #717 from Webb county.

Fun debate that means nothing either way to 95% of hunters and ranches

You live life the greatest possibility of favorable outcome. You want to make money so you go to college and get a good job and work.(fork horned yearling approach)

The others taking the less traveled road to making money get a job at 7/11 and burn all their money hoping to win the lotto (spike approach)

Right now, average welders make more than the majority of college grads.

Sorry to ruin your point, but it was just to easy. Put some English on that pitch next time!

What do you think the 'average' welder makes right now? I did a bunch of searches and it seems to be ~$20/hr. Nearly every college grad I know makes more than that. Not to mention you picked one small niche field versus the whole field of college grads. All college grads avg >>>>>>>>>>>>>> All HS grads avg

You love you some outliers, don't you.

All the welders working for me make an excess of $30/Hr + and the rig welders are making in excess of $55/hr. Pipeliners are making more than that in the oil fields.

Yeah but they blow it all on big wheels and tires so they can fit into the welder club!

Does that count for anything?

All those welders are certified and went to some form of a technical school no?

This is just getting plain dumb.

Wonder why I have 2 extra weeks of hunting in January to shoot spikes?

Passing an on the job test. Some yes some no.

Nope...jacked up dually with big wheels and tires, yeti cooler, and bull balz hanging from the back only requirements.

Not outliers at all. Given your lowest number of 20/hr. Base pay for a beginning welder would be 41,600. We ALL know that welders work at least 10% (usually a lot more) OT.

Average college grad in 2014 made 45,600.

Sorry. But, like I am about spikes, I'm right again.

FIFY

You're not right at all. You're either a troll or incredibly dense.

I'm 100% right about the spikes on my ranch. And as you say, I might be a troll and/or incredibly dense. But, when someone posts facts that prove I'm wrong, I don't cry like a baby and call people names.

Like I suggested earlier, therancher is just here to get under the skin of anyone that will allow it. He takes shaky premises and puts them forth as fact, which many of us know, or think, they aren't even close to fact. And, of course, some just have to put him straight. I think he's having a good time with ya'll.

He's not 100% right about anything he's said. You know that.

dumb debate, in which only a handful of people can show you their own historical data that supports either the taking or not taking with the same variables. Makes you wonder why that is....

I got an idea look at your license and if you have deer density problems where mouths have to be cut, the single biggest impact isn't going to be your antlered tags.

If you are going to eliminate every spike you see for the next ten plus years and then increase that antler point total to 1.5year old 3pt, 4pt, 6pts etc you aren't going to go it with a regular license tags...majority are going to have to be on a level three MLD program. Not an average Joe management plan but if makes you feel better it's your money, your lease or property, your bullets your tags have at it. Most people don't have enough stand time or historical data to tell you what a deer was at three much less one.

In reality ... It's all hunting in the end and we need not forget it.

Roger that.

It is a fact that I have two nubbin bucks that were born in nov of last year. It is a fact their moms and dads are from improved genetics that would make it extremely hard for them to be less than 160 at maturity and highly likely that they'll be in the 180-200 class at maturity. It's a fact that my house pet was a 6" spike last year and is a 130 10 or 12 this year. I am 100% right about all of that. I stated my opinions as opinions, I never stated them as fact.

Closed minded people stay stuck in false paradigms until they let facts challenge their false paradigms. If I remember right, you were one who was skeptical about oct. Nov. births. Hopefully you at least listened to others who verified those facts.

I cant argue with the facts about the deer on your property, in fact I am sure you know what you are talking about with the animals on your land. It just I don't see the spike argument you are making, being the same for the vast majority of the rest of the land in the state. Seems like apples and oranges to me. But it is something to ponder in the grand scheme of trying to manage deer to have large antlers.

I am not jumping on any band wagon on either side. If I ever get to hunt a place that is high fenced, and the genetics are known. I would certainly think that your logic could be valid and possibly used in a management program there. But on less controlled, or non managed land, I will most likely use the philosophy of shoot spikes, especially older spikes.

You are destined to learn much in life. Remaining open to things that challenge convention is a dying asset.

I've seen October buck fawns on all my ranches. Most have been low fenced. It made me change my view of when a small buck needs to be harvested.

can you please tell my wife this?

so when your nephew comes out to help you remove some mouths you have no problem with him taking a 6pt yearling over the spike? thats the situation that most guys are in, they are on some random lease in random town, trying their best to feed and manage the herd, when it comes down to removing mouths you cant say that spikes and forked horns are on the same level in the pecking order.

That depends on the age. I personally don't allow killing any antlered deer under 3yo because I believe you can't tell much about what a bucks gonna do until he's 3.

I've never seen a spike over 2. Does are more important to "manage" IMO.

I realize my situation is different from the norm but I'd handle bucks the same no matter what.

and I like this, and I tend to agree. we don't kill young bucks on either of my places, regardless. i'd like to see as many of them mature as I can.... but, on highly managed places, where they almost HAVE to remove mouths, it can be difficult...unless you are STX

The people that have the biggest deer don't shoot spikes.

Looks like both the people arguing bouhgt deer and put then in a fence.

I guess if a person is going to spend a considerable amount of money on a lease you should try to improve the herd especially if you intend to hunt there a while.
On the other hand old Joe Below who barely can rub two nickles together in his pocket, and has to save for that small low fence deer lease, shouldn't be concerned about spikes and just shoot what he wants to shoot.
Unless you have a large managed lease where populations can be controlled and monitored, shooting spikes is a moot point.

You sir are incorrect.

Carry on with the debate.