Dr deer will be talking on this topic, on the Cabela's lone star radio show next sat morning........

i just might call in

Not me. I hardly ever debate anything on here...

I did.

In ten years I shot exactly one trophy whitetail.

Everything else I shot were does and culls, and I tagged out most years

I just wish I new what a big deer looked like.

The reason those ranches have few, if any, yearling spikes is because they have killed out a major portion of the gene pool that produced yearling spikes. There's no question that you can manipulate the genetics of a property to produce more 6 and 8 pt. yearlings....but that doesn't mean they are better deer in the long run than the yearling spikes. They are simply showing their genetic potential earlier in their life.

This same thing is being done with a lot of deer breeders....particularly the breeders that supply "shooters" to ranches. Most of these places sell bucks in the 150"-180" range to hunting ranches to be sold that year to hunters. In the past, it took 4 years for bucks to reach that size on average....then they were able to get them to that size at age 3....and now there are places getting them to that size at age 2. It means the breeders can sell them quicker, not feed them as long, and they are easier to kill than the more mature deer.

Once again, the reason there are some ranches with very few spike yearlings is simply because they are killing out the genetic trait of "late bloomers". The 8 pt. yearlings don't end up scoring any higher at maturity than the spike yearlings do. They just get there quicker. But in the end, at age 5, there won't be any difference in B&C score between the two groups on average. That's what this study was all about.....that it is simply NOT POSSIBLE to determine what a buck will look like at maturity by judging his first set of antlers as a yearling. If it were possible, then good gene pools would be obvious when you visited a ranch. The ranches with lots of spike yearlings would have crappy deer, and the ranches with no spike yearlings would have 200 inchers behind every bush...but obviously that isn't the case.

If anyone thinks you need to shoot yearling spikes to have a good deer herd....maybe you should take a look at two of the pioneers of growing big deer in Texas. Jack Brittingham (owner of Rancho Encantado and Briar Lakes Ranch) and Marko Barrett (owner of Las Raices Ranch) have grown and killed some of the largest native deer ever killed in the state of Texas....and neither of them support the shooting of yearling spikes. I have had extensive conversations with Jack on this very topic, and rest assured....there are no yearling bucks of any kind being killed on his properties. He fully supports my side of the argument.

But, but, but, the Kerr study says they are both wrong.

Done it myself as well. In the last 12 years, I've taken four bucks that weren't spikes; 2 culls, one mistake, and one trophy. During that time I've taken around 40 does, and probably 6-8 spikes. I'm doing my part. Ask my neighbor, who doesn't ranch, how many trophies they've taken during that time and how much better the deer are now.

However, you guys have persuaded me. I am no longer going to shoot every spike I see. I'm going to straddle the fence and shoot every OTHER spike I see.

Well if you live up to your screen name you wont shoot any that are 1.5 yr old.

the pedestal mount buck was one of the original counted in the first survey in 93' as 4.5 year old, he was taken in 98' as 9.5 year old main frame 8 with 4 kickers, in his prime he had 7 kickers on a pair of sheds we found.

The wide 10 was one of the worst mistakes taken, as he was 3.5!!!

The 9pt my uncle is holding I rattled up he scored 153 on the 9pt he had, he broke off a 7" brow if it matched the other side.

Just seeing if we've come to any knew conclusions. FWIW, folks would be better off getting rid of hogs/coons/yotes than shooting some unwanted deer.

I had a guy tell me today that he needed to thin a 7pt out of his 20ac herd. He said it was 1 of 4 bucks he's seen or had on cam this yr. Reminded me of this thread and thought I'd share.

Sounds like the guy may be misinformed about Mgmt. pratices but this thread was about the validity of Dr. Krolls findings... not your buddies 20ac plot.

Nope about a lf deer they tagged as a yearing spike that grew up big and strong with a big ol rack....

There is another one from same study on the green screen

Wonder what the scores were on all of them and the 66% that were culled before they ever made it to maturity

As I stated before, this is the biggest flaw in the study. Evan a low fence lover gets why doesn't Kroll

I have no issue with most HF's, I just enjoy the argument

It's valid, beggars can't be choosers on what bucks they have. Would you rather have 10 that avg to 150 or 4 that avg out to 150?

fist, I never beg. Until points 2 & 3 of the three issiues I addressed early in the thread can be clarified, Kroll's study is invalid or at the very least incomplete, sorry.

It is as valid to real world applications as the Kerrville study IMO.

Don't shoot spikes guys, seriously.....please.


ok, good talk

dont shoot 1.5 year old spikes, any older, hammer time

i can honestly say, i've never seen a spike that was older than 1.5 years old. not to say they don't exist, but its extreemly rare.

i have seen abunch of 2 year old "spikes" get shot that were actually fork horns broken off(again, no crime there either)

Seen a few injury related spikes... Saw one that was still an 8pt shot for being a spike on one side. 24" beam on 1 side, 8" of spike. That would be some odd genetics split between beams.

Who gives a bucket of piss about the Kerr study, we already know its faults....