I thought you guys might like to see this (I'm very interested to hear what stxranchman has to say as well).

For me personally, this is why I do not believe in shooting yearling spikes. This amazing buck was shot by a good friend of mine. The buck was captured and tagged five years ago as a spike at age 1.5....during the spike study conducted by Dr. James Kroll in South Texas.

My friend shot the buck this past week at age 6.5....and he should score in the 180"-190" range. He would most certainly have been shot as a "cull" on many Texas ranches.

Beautiful deer!! Congrats to my friend!!

Wow. That is one hell of a buck.

I won't speak for STX, but my guess is he would say he has produced a lot of deer that big and bigger with his tactics

What do all the other deer that were spikes look like or are you showing the exception?

And I guess they take the tag out of the ear for the posing picture?

And my reply to that argument would be.....those who have produced big deer on ranches where they shoot all the yearling spikes have done so IN SPITE of shooting the spikes, not because of it.

All I can say is WOW! Luckily I've never seen a spike that I thought was worth using a tag on, just don't see many anyway.

wow what a good lookin buck.

You win. The majority of spike deer turn into 180" deer and we should all manage for them

Can't wait to see my next spike now!!!!

I would also recommend that everyone read Dr. Kroll's study about this very subject. It is very clear, and is conducted with truly scientific methods. It proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that a buck's first set of antlers is absolutely no indication whatsoever of what he will be at maturity.

That is an incredible deer. There are multiple factors that contribute to a spike being a spike on a yearly basis so it is hard to say which one should be taken out or not, if any should. Rainfall, when the buck was born the previous season, and genetics all play a role depending on the buck and when it was born IMO. Just depends on the property and the way it is being managed(or lack thereof). I won't shoot anymore on my place after reading several things over the last few years, but my place is different than others by a large margin and no one place is the same, even neighbors.

Cool deal and would have been a loss for him to get culled. Saw earlier today where Cable had pretty much this exact scenario with a Kroll tagged spike.


(Stx would have shot him for a) less than 6pts b) no brows

I will "cull" one of Krolls tagged spikes...in six years. Free of charge

I will have to read the full paper at school where I can access it for free but Eland do you know if these deer were being fed protein on all, a few, or none of the ranches?

Abstract: Past studies using penned deer provide conflicting results on the age when reliable predictions about antler growth potential in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) can be made. We captured wild whitetail males via aerial net gun on 12 ranches in 5 counties in south Texas, USA, from 1999 to 2007 to determine if a reliable juvenile-to-adult relationship in antler development existed. We individually marked and released captured animals at the trap site after we took antler and body measurements. We recaptured marked animals as possible in subsequent years or until we obtained final measurements after legal harvest. Amount of growth in the first set of antlers in whitetail males was a poor predictor of antler growth at maturity. By 4.5 years of age there were no differences (P > 0.05) in antler measurements regardless of the amount of development of the first set of antlers at 1.5 years. We concluded culling of yearling males based on number of antler points would have little positive effect on overall antler quality in future years.

Wasn't there a link posted a few months back with data that supported shooting spikes. Not because they would always be spikes but because thy remain inferior to framed deer of the same age and under the same conditions.

Well, until we can genetically predict a young buck's potential per the mother doe's genetics also, and your management plan calls for removing bucks from the lower age groups, it still makes the most sense to remove the deer which is the least likely to sport the relative "best" headgear. It's a coin toss in that situation, so if ya gotta remove one, may as well be the one that's already behind for whatever reason.

Yes. It is easy to find data to support both.

In my opinion, the success of a management practice does not ride on the taking or not taking of spikes. There are too many other variables that have to be in place and if all the other variables are in place and being properly managed, spikes surviving or not is not going to play a major role in the end result.

There are very few ranches and even fewer LF ranches that should consider taking spikes as a management practice. I don't think it hurts the herd but I am pretty sure you aren't making a difference by doing so.

Exactly, lets see the buck from the same age class that wasn't a yearling spike on that HF ranch which was provided supplemental feed and water and was completely unaffected by drought conditions. Managing HF deer and free ranging deer are two different topics all together.

Kroll's study proves that is NOT the case.

So because Kroll did it, any study that contradicts it is wrong?

No....where did you get that from? Kroll's study addresses that very topic, and addresses it directly.

Have you read the paper?

That probably depends on if you're comparing apple to apples & not native to imports.

Well no...you just told me too and I haven't had time.

Do you know how many papers have been written on this subject. There is "proof" that they are inferior and "proof" they aren't.

As was said, a link had been posted "proving" that was the case but you are saying Kroll addresses it and says it isn't so...so therefore it can't be true.

Kroll is good at what he does and I will read the paper (would prefer a link) but he is also very public and is not held in as high of regard, that you seem to hold him at, by some of his professional peers.

My point is that Kroll is not the end all of research. It is a study based on a theory and supported by data. No different than thousands of other studies.

Exactly...for most places that are trying to get into managing ratio, nutrition(or getting herd to CC), and age structure should all come before considering removing spikes. Most properties across the state are so many years of managing away from being to the point where removing spikes would make an impact on antler growth of a herd, if it made any at all.

All of TPWD data supports taking out spikes

Maybe this is off topic, but am I to understand that those tags stayed in for 6 years?

Duly noted...

But I believe if you read the paper, you will agree with the conclusion Kroll comes to. I honestly do not understand how anyone could read it and not agree with the results. They are very straight forward and easy to understand.

I would give you a link to the paper if I had one, but I don't believe there are any free versions of the paper online. I paid for it, and have it in PDF format.

Mind emailing it? I would be interested in reading it.

Honestly, I got to a point that I quit paying attention to most the articles on spikes because 1) you can find data to contradict both and 2) as I said before, it is almost irrelevant on most ranches.

Another issue is that all of these studies focus on individual deer, but isn't the point to find something out about the entire herd? That is another major issue because it would be impossible to determine conclusively the effect of removing spikes on overall antler quality of a herd...pen raised or wild all of these studies follow individual deer...the pens they have family histories controlled nutrition but it is not a natural breeding ground that factors in competition, the Kroll study is natural breeding ground but impossible to determine antler quality across all bucks over time in a herd on a large ranch and nutrition can vary greatly year to year