Right Some people don't mind feeding a buck until 3.5-4.5 to get a stronger understanding of what he has(based off the performance of other deer with similar frames from years passed).

Some also know they are going to sale 10-1 management hunts to 170 class hunts.


The one thing Marko has is some of the best native genetics in the south.... When you have the historical data hard to not take chances every now and then IMO

So what I am missing. Seems like one is based off the herd in general and one is geared more to the exceptions? Do you just exclude the 1.5 yo's in the management plan? That wouldn't seem logical simply due to the fact that they make up part of your herd?

I personally have a problem with the verbage, ie: Management Bucks, or Management Hunts..If one were raising livestock they would most assuredly sell the male of the species with the exception of the very best, and would also get rid of enough of the females so that the ranch would sustain the population. We
can be polite about all this and dance around it all day, but one
must kill, or cause to be killed, or transferred the animals that
are unwanted and that overstock the property. That's why ranchers feed Angus, Brangus, Herefords, ect..not Longhorns..they
are hobby cattle...Whitetail are bred and raised for the horns mostly...Now we have developed an industry to sell the resource and we feed the wildlife...and charge more than several grown fed
steers would costs for one 170lb or so Buck that may have 80lbs of edible meat on it..Our value systems have changed. Ranchers do not usually keep substandard animals in their herd for one reason...Profits..it costs as much to feed a substandard animal or more than a fit, quality animal and with a smaller return. Any way you try to dodge the issue, one who runs a hunting opr. has to address population, habitat, and overall quality of the herd. This isn't something new..or we'd still be eating Longhorns and skinny Brahmas and paying .50cents a lb. for beef.
I know many are hunters who have never tried to make a living off
the land, however, our value systems continue to change over the yrs. and most of it is directly related to wealth...and the ability to sell a product to someone willing to pay for it..And
that's all Management is...making a profit...Don

Maybe this is a dumb question, but I will ask it. I have hunted Kansas for over 30 years and seen maybe 2 spikes that were over 2 years old. I have maybe seen a dozen yearling spikes (spikes over 5 inches that is).

Does Texas just have more than an average amount of spikes? This culling of spikes just isn't a concern up north.

Btw, my definition of a cull/management buck on my land is: A 2.5 year old buck with either spiked horns or missing two or more points on one side (by missing I don't mean damaged or broken off, I mean not there and never been there). Now, if I was seeing lots of 1.5yr old spikes, i would probably start culling them too, just never has been a problem for me.

Management is making a profit!.....Or if you want to better your deer herd on your own property for your own benefit, or if you lease property that the landowner hasn't managed then are you making a profit for your leaser?...Probably down the road sometime.

Management is just what it is, and anything we do is about profit because without profit we would be a third world county and killing everything just to survive.

Cull should be a buck that is never going to reach trophy caliber. You have to know what a trophy caliber is before you can say what a cull is and every ranch will be different.

I thought I stated this earlier, but I will say it again....

In my opinion, culling should not be done (on bucks) until age 2.5. If a buck is a spike or 3 pointer at age 2.5....shoot him. Once again, there are just too many variables that may cause a yearling buck to be small. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY to have even the slightest idea what a buck will look like at maturity, by his rack at age 1.5....NONE!!

Another point I would like to make is that yearling bucks do a minimal amount of breeding, so there really is no reason not to let them go until age 2.5 to see what they have. I would guess that yearling bucks do, at the very most, MAYBE 5%-10% of the breeding in a well managed deer herd with a proper age structure and buck:doe ratio.

I also do not understand those who justify shooting yearlings because "2.5 year old bucks are harder to kill". Every 2.5 year old buck I've seen was just as dumb as a 1.5 year old. They wise up a little bit at 3.5....and then really start getting smart at 4.5.

I hunt the Kansas/Oklahoma border, difference is deer density, ratio and cc. You and I have light density with externally high nutrition/cc. Combine that with a more balanced ratio you have tighter breeding window. You don't see as many late born dawns either, most wouldnt survive winters anyway.

Why people up there laugh at our management practices...they just aren't use to seeing or feeding those numbers. That's why they can't understand the difference between a quality deer management program vs the Texas type trophy management..programs... In there mind all you have to do is let them get age and you rocking a 140+ deer.


Think of a spike as a runt...all a runt is the last egg in the litter to be conceived...so naturally it is locked down on us at first.....bring all those dogs back at age four and and tell me which was the runt...you won't be able to tell.

Or

It's momma wasn't the best momma to that dog so it was lighter in stature until it matured

First culling especially on lf has nothing to do with changing genetics, just what you don't want to see or feed ..period...your not going to change the genetics and will always have undesired genetics.

Buck culling is also the very last step of any management plan....very last... But in Texas due to having two buck tags apparently we think its the first( ironically most leases /ranches don't have enough tags to even control deer numbers significantly much less effectively lesson the sighting frequency of lessor bucks.

Makes sense to a point and we don't shoot spikes on our place. We don't care if someone does, but we have bigger problems than spikes to worry about. (I posted one earlier that was shot. He needed to die)

Where I can see the logic in shooting spikes is in very limited situations. If all others factors have been addressed and you are at a point where you are managing the herd specifically and numbers, why would you leave the 1.5 yo out of the equation? Seems that if you are going to take out some mature deer and a percentage of each age class in order to maintain the herd, the lower end of EVERY age class would need to be addressed.

On many deer farm operations, they sure don't leave the 1.5 yo spikes in the pen. Many have to have 8-10 points showing or they are gone. If there is absolutely no way to tell what they will be, why don't they just keep em all for another year?

You ask why would you leave out the 1.5 year olds?? I told you....TOO MANY UNKNOWN VARIABLES to make an educated assessment of the buck.

Also...

You cannot compare breeding operations to self-sustaining deer herds....two totally different situations.

If a breeder has determined that a spike at 1.5 is inferior and won't give them a chance, why is that spike different than one in a self-sustaining herd?

Because that spike has been pampered under perfect conditions since he was born. He has had perfect nutrition, abundant water, low stress, and was even possibly bottle-fed as a fawn (which gives the runts the chance to survive when they may have otherwise died in the wild). Deer in breeding pens don't have to worry about any of the problems that wild deer do....therefore you cannot compare the two.

Spikes are almost non-existent in breeding operations because of all the extra care they get. They are much more prevalent in the wild, due to all the UNKNOWN VARIABLES I was talking about earlier.

Apples and Oranges...

Just where did pen deer come from anyways?

Another thing to note is that with deer breeders, they are usually trying to grow the biggest deer they can the FASTEST WAY POSSIBLE. Typically they are not interested in keeping bucks to maturity to see what they can turn into....but are simply trying to turn a profit, usually selling bucks by age 3 (hence why they want all their bucks to be as big as possible at that age). Many people do not know this. I worked at a deer breeding facility, and before I worked there....I was not fully aware of their strategy either.

Interesting. So genetics have nothing to do with it in a pen it is all feed, lack of stress, bottle feeding every deer and age. Does every deer breeder manage their pens this exact same way?

So, you are saying that under ideal conditions a spike is an inferior deer?

Where did you come up with that??? I never said genetics have nothing to do with it....

But it's a proven fact that NUTRITION comes first. It does not matter how awesome a buck's genetics are....if he does not get the proper nutrition (and all-over care), he will not grow a big rack.

If there was some magical way to know that every spike you were looking at through the binoculars had a perfect up-bringing to that point in his life, and had proper nutrition, health, etc....then I would be completely on-board with shooting him.

Unfortunately, that is not possible....and you have no way of knowing if a wild deer had a rough start to his young life, which contributed to his poor rack at age 1.5.

Under absolutely PERFECT conditions....yes, a spike probably is inferior.

But ranch conditions are far from being "ideal". As long as there is the possibility of him getting sick, or his mother dying before he is weaned, or him being injured as a fawn, or drought, or him simply being born late and not getting his fair share of food during his first year....then it is not "ideal enough" to justify shooting yearling spikes.

That is the difference in pen deer and wild deer (even if those wild deer are inside a high fence).

So you would rather keep an animal that by your assement has possibly had issues with health and cannot handle stress and keep breeding that bloodline vs a deer that starts out life very healthy and has more points under the exact same circumstances. So instead of having one deer you now have a pen or pasture full of them. Interesting.

Since nutrition is the key over genetics in your Elands Book Of Management then every deer that gets ideal nutrition will grow into an absolute monster. Just show him the bag or the green and all will be good? Interesting.

You are saying the two deer are raised under the exact same circumstances....but they ARE NOT!!

One deer had some "bad luck", if you will....(mother died before he was weaned, got bitten by a snake, etc...)

Just because two deer live in the same area does not mean they are given the exact same circumstances to display their genetics as a yearling....not by a long shot.

So you rather manage for the weak and not the stronger healthier deer. Give them all a chance to pass on their genetics. I can understand that.

Please stop putting words in my mouth....

I never said nutrition is more important than genetics. I said it COMES FIRST. Also, I will go ahead and lump in nutrition with the overall health of the deer.

It is scientifically proven that a buck will only grow a big rack, once his body (overall health) is taken care of FIRST!! Only then is a buck able to properly show what he's made of (genetics wise). That is why I said nutrition COMES FIRST.

Perhaps I should have said "overall health of the deer comes first"....

I thought that there was ABSOLUTELY no way you could EVER tell what a 1.5 yo deer would be.

Seems that, even factoring in range conditions, the spikes would be the inferior deer. Managing for a poor mother or weak deer that may or may not catch up seems to be managing for the exceptions rather than the average.