the deer numbers argument is a very relevant argument if you actually know what you're talking about. there's too many hunters out there who are simply trying to justify a reason to kill something and say they did it for the good of the land.

a hunter has done no good for the population if he shoots a young spike because its the only deer he saw. he also has done no good for the population if he tags all the younger deer with potential that he sees and then also kills the spike. in that instance he still just found a reason to kill every deer he saw. same with does. shooting does in an area where the population is not an issue will not do anything for your deer herd.

in areas though where there is plenty and then some deer density, and a person has actually spent some time and survey work to know this. and if bucks with potential are being protected, and only mature age, and lesser deer are being removed, along with excess does. then this logic will undoubtedly improve your deer herd. you have to do the research and put in the time though. finding a reason to shoot every deer you see will only leave you with less to look at in the following year.

you have taken the time to know your property and your area too. I hunted the kendall co property above as well. after we beat the numbers down some, buck quality improved, deer health improved. the number of deer we saw dropped a lot. some of the other hunters on the place who were used to seeing 30 deer complained that we were killing all the deer when they started to only see 10 or so. some of those same folks who were not very attentive hunters who still saw many deer because the deer were practically starving to death, started to not see hardly anything once the deer weren't so hard up for corn.

of course every situation is relative. that's why you need to have done your research and your homework. spend some time learning what your situation really is and what your goals really are. nobody should ever go off half cocked on something they read online or saw on TV.

in kendall co, we'd see 30+ deer every sit. if you threw corn out before you got in the blind, the deer would be following you around before you finished throwing it. if you shot a deer, the others would not run off if there was still corn on the ground. they were hungry. as neat as it is to see deer, I don't like to see them like that.

we hunt far south now. the situation is VERY different. deer density for that land is really different than hill country. the most deer I've ever seen in a sit is about 15. many times its 5-10, and in a green year like now, you see nothing sometimes. the deer aren't hurting for anything. we harvest numbers as necessary. we shoot does as needed, and try to harvest our deer from the top end of age structure, and then also the lower and middle end of age structure with regard to antler quality. try to spread it around. our old/top quality bucks get very elusive. they're hard to hunt. our top quality 2.5-3.5yr old deer are protected. we won't shoot any of them. many are 8-11 or 12pt. nice deer. we just won't shoot them until 4.5+....at which point you really have to hunt for them. the rest of the season is just numbers. take a couple does, take a few spikes, maybe some larger middle age 8pts as they are around. and then sit on your hands and hunt the old boys.

and this year....shoot a lotta quail. the rain was really good for the quail this year. makes for darn good camp meat.

I saw the results of this first hand many years ago in Mississippi when the entire state was managed as a whole by the MDWFP. The general message given to hunters was that, "We have too many deer." As a result, hunters throughout the state started shooting every doe they saw, literally. And with no tag system in place, it was not uncommon for a hunter to take 20 or more doe in a single season. With our small tract being adjacent to a large lease with many hunters that followed the practice, we went from seeing a few doe on most hunts, to seeing very few over a single season, with zero bucks taken.

You aged them by horn mass?

Some people hit growth spurts at 10 some 16

Does the runt of the litter stay the runt and never get as big as his brothers?

You can look at a 1.5 year old deer on basically his first set of hard horns and say what he will be in 5 years? Or tell me he had the same nutrition based off horn growth? Especially when 99% of nutrients are going to skeleton? A Skelton system that my be trying to catch up, from being winged earlier then normal or born late...

You know you can take twin bovine calves and wing one off 4 months earlier then his twin and his twin will have 50 plus pounds on him? Ever wonder why that is?

Playing geneticist on baby deer makes zero sense especially when you don't have the tag numbers or acerage required to truely cull.

The article already said one place lost 75% of thier buck herd culling for spikes.
1st tell me how many tags it would take to do that
2nd tell me how many people are willing to do that same mass slaughter year after year until they think they have it whipped and can STOP culling. Second you take 75% of your bucks you just really messed up your ratio. Now your down to 25% of the orginal herd. Are you really ready for that?

Focus on the one thing every program has in come regardless of spike killing it no spike killing. A proper ratio, at or under CC, with strong representation in each age class.

"Does the runt of the litter stay the runt and never get as big as his brothers?"

Does every pup that comes out of the litter grow up and show equal ability to track and point?


"You can look at a 1.5 year old deer on basically his first set of hard horns and say what he will be in 5 years?"

The point isn't to judge a buck by what he "might" become, but how he obviously compares to others of the same age living in the same area with access to the same amount and types of browse.


"Playing geneticist on baby deer makes zero sense especially when you don't have the tag numbers or acerage required to truely cull."

You need not own a large tract of land to create a genetic impact on the local herd. Remove ANY deer capable of either side of reproduction, and you impact the genetic pool.

Pointing, tracking and backing are taught. Not genetics. When it comes to dogs it's isn't how good the nose is is if he/she wants to follow its direction. We are talking genetics color, size etc. explain to me what a runt is and if it never catches up to its siblings size wise?


Again you can't compare deer at 1.5. Their skeleton system consumes all nutrition. The lack of points says nothing because of the open ended questions I asked above. You simple can't compare deer at 1.5 years of age, way to many enviormental factors that can cause limited horn growth at that age.

And no, CULLING on small acreage is dumb. You arent killing deer born on your property you are killing babies that dispersed. You effect nothing other then filling a tag. You don't have 10th of the tag numbers to affect genetics. When you can kill a gene out of a herd, you need to become the God father of deer management... Lots of ranches have tried to WHIPE out the 8pt genetic and that still hasn't happened. They have way more acerage and resources then you could with 15 years worth of hunting licenses. So again why do you think you can cull a trait out of a herd, especially on small properties where majority of the deer consume a home range larger then the property?

You can't.

You keep trying to justify your trigger pulling. If you want a young tender venison awesome, but don't say it's in the name of genetics that's a waste of time and disrespectful to the little guy.

It's a simple and proven concept Bobo. Not every living thing has the same genetic potential. If it were not so, everyone would grow up to reach the same height. Why then, make the assumption that every young buck has the potential to be a good buck, or that every pup in the litter will pick up good hunting skills? The truth is, they ALL grow up differently. So then, it only makes sense that if you only the best bucks to stay in the gene pool, you must remove the ones that lag their peers, and do it sooner rather than later.

But I can see where some might be financially driven to allow every young buck to walk in order to ensure a good supply of deer for paying customers. It provides a wider and deeper pay scale on what customers must fork up for the buck they chose to take.

Is it? It's not.. it has been proven, then disproven time and time again. It's circular in agruement.

Again you can't control a genetic that you can not see or specificity bred or bred out. You are trying to look at management and genetics like you do cattle. You can't you don't have historical and generational data on individual deer. Nor can you control dispersal. Nor doe genetics. It's all Theory right up until you figure out you will always being culling, it never stops. Also you can't look at a 1.5 year old and tell me why he is what he is and what he will be in 6 years. Hell 99% of people can't tell you what 6.5 year old buck looked like at 1.5

You can't control genetics of a 2500 acre herd when you only hunt 300 acres of it.

You always start these spike debates yet you have zero historical data on your deer, that includes: numbers, cc, ratio's, age classes, weights, etc.

Again refer back to your article..... Are you ready to cull up to 75% of your herd? Do you have the tag numbers to do so?

Keep shooting spikes, let me know when you run out. Then you can talk about genetics...

Amen

Damn Jon, epic responses, "mod" material I say

You'll never eliminate spikes no more than you can expect every young buck to be a trophy. The goal is simply to reduce their impact on the local gene pool, while increasing that of their better peers.

I have no idea why so many people come up with reasons to not shoot spikes. Some of those reasons, like time of births, are considered myths by a lot of wildlife biologists, and I am surprised that article actually cited it as a reason. The only logical reason in my mind is density concerns. As long as you control the number of overall kills, there is no reason in my mind not to shoot them. Not to mention they are pretty good to eat.

The fact that some yearling spikes grow up to be big bucks is not by itself a reason to not shoot them.