Good luck…. With that on average TX ranch/farm/ranchette with free range whitetail deer herds.


You are doing exclusive breeding. You control everything from Male and female traits, including line breeding with NO random dispersal coming or going. You are not doing that in a low fence ranch in TX where it’s basically a buck successfully breeding “A” doe a year, with “two” does being the exception. This matrix goes for all “breeding” age bucks… So that includes year old bucks. If you can’t influence dispersal good luck genetic swamping to get a prominent gene to be expressed.

I love hunting enough that I know an increase in age class in male part of the herd(except in bears) increases substantially of the herd, direct correlation to survivability and herd size increase. Why do you think the Hill Country doesnt have AR’s? They have to many deer!!

If you are only killing young deer because that’s all you have…. Enjoy it while it last because you are KILLING out your herd.

You are the problem with hunting today. You run your mouth in circles… one minute you are flapping anger @ QDMA practices(which are NOT trophy deer management practices, they are ecologically and habitat based principles) then lecturing on how we need to kill spikes etc. the whole goal of AR’s was Age class and herd increase. Unfortunately some people had to fight toget more doe tags and spike tags which is counter intuitive to the goal, unfortunately that appeasement isn’t the end all be all, but it’s definitely why NETX still has low herd numbers.

I love antlers so much I’ve killed three WT bucks in ten years(two would be considered mgt/cull by most) but shot 50 plus does. And I’ve shot zero WT deer in last two years, I love hunting, I don’t have to be trigger happy, to enjoy it. You just want to argue. You have basically told several biologists and wildlife managers they are clueless

Sig has valid reason not to like AR’s. The pressure there needs to change, herd is not growing. It needs to be limited to 1 AR buck 0 doe’s, period. But it won’t because people focus on current NOW not the future.


I personally care zero about what other people kill, I just do me, but don’t make an asinine argument for something that is counter productive in reality

I love mature bucks so much I don't see why there is ever a reason to kill a buck that is less than 3 years old. It has nothing to do with antler size (although they are a byproduct of age). I would be happy to see a 5 year old buck scoring 120" at a meat pole and unhappy to see a 2 year old buck scoring 120" hanging next to it.


I practice what I preach on the properties I have control over, I don't think it should be a mandated law but feel that personal ethics should take precedent. Its about personal greed.....hunter A spends time, money and resources to go hunting. He ultimately just wants to shoot something so instead of a doe or mature buck he blasts a sub-adult deer. Hunter B spends the same time, money and resources to go hunting, he wants to kill a mature buck but its much harder for him because of people like Hunter A. Hunter A is never affected at all, but Hunter B is, when both could be happy if he either shot a doe or waited for a mature buck. I grew up in 1 buck no doe counties so i remember what its like to be limited to one deer a year, but lets be honest your not living off one deer a year so you can't say your doing it for the meat

Thats what you and so many others fail to understand....its the "i gotta get mine, as long as its legal" crowd that cries foul over AR's, Cries foul over high fences, deer breeding etc. yet they were the root cause of most all of it

Very true, but if you could. Look what the outcome would be if AR's IMO are going the wrong way. They should try for a few years AR.s to be. Only male WT can be harvested that are either 13 inches or less and at least 6 points inside spread or do not have a branched antler.

I'll take that as a "yes". Everything else is besides the point.

Then you easily eliminate an age class of very young deer. You would end up killing the majority of 1.5 year bucks assuming you had the hunters numbers. Again AR’s originally were put into place to increase age structure.
Let’s put it a simpler way the king ranch did a cull study between I think two 7k pasture, with extensive culling they still couldn’t up the b/c average score of the control pasture top end deer.

Only way to change genetics is to swamp the genetics(think 1 buck breeding 15 does in a DMP pen) and deter dispersal. Very few low fence ranches actually have had the resources and the long term stomach to influence genetics.

All this is why AR started in low density counties looking to grow and protect young age classes why growing herd numbers. Not saying that the AR expansion was a good thing, or that it was warranted in every county that it’s currently in. Not even saying it was implemented correctly. I’m just stating the why.

Example -I think mule deer AR’s are dumb but I understand they want to increase the population, increase age classes while still offering Hunter opportunity.

If the original WT AR counties were ALL public land it would be easy, they would just do draw tags and cut the tags tremendously. With that said the best approach would be properties doing their own population surveys, and adjusting tag allocation to address their issues they are trying to solve while still maintaining a substantial herd. Welcome to the evolution of MLD properties and MLD partnerships. If you hate AR’s start looking to forum MLD Co-ops.

Everything in this world is cause and effect, and unfortunately w/ very short memories

That would be me. Easy to see 20-30 per day on our place, but zero decent bucks. End of December last year, I saw two great bucks, one totally massive.

Thats why imo the spike rule makes no sense....you expose an entire age class of deer to harvest when thats the one you need to protect. Again, the Kerr is the only study that promotes the harvest of spike antlered yearling bucks.


The Comanche ranch did a similar study and found that they could not influence the genetics thru culling on a low fence pasture.


In a high fence scenario with intense management....sure, you can enough to make a noticeable difference. But not in a free range situation we are dealing with in Texas

Well y’all know I’m not a biologist I’m just another internet expert. But I can’t resist it any longer and I’m all out of popcorn.

Antler point restrictions work a whole helluva lot better than no restrictions. You gotta give it time.

Using the 4 on one side rule is a really good start. Down the road, you can always change it to a minimum antler spread rule or use other rules in conjunction.

You have to start somewhere. One thing we know for sure is culling spikes does not work in the real world. Antler point restrictions or anything else you can do to grow bucks long enough to breed a couple seasons is always better than nothing.

And you can’t sit there and b!tch about what you are seeing on public ground. Most of the deer are on private ground. All the deer on public are almost all over hunted, what you’re looking at there is almost a moot point. Even in a state like Missouri with lots of public hunting access.

The NDA recently published results by the Southeast Deer Study Group which is suggesting 33% is "An estimate of the heritability of antler traits, which is similar to expressing the likelihood that a large-antlered buck will produce fawns that grow up to have large antlers also. In other words, it’s a weak relationship, therefore “culling” of bucks based on antler size isn’t likely to improve antler size of future bucks." For me I'll take this 33% "advantage". Frankly, that is a heckuva return and it's better than no "advantage". To me, it just means there is no quick fix, but 33% can compound over the ears.

I am trying to figure out how dog & cattle breeds were ever developed.

The essence of time. We forget the generations and decades of strict breedings it took. Now we have AI and DNA mapping

Agree with TxTro and Bobo. If STx was here he would jump in on killing spikes but he is used to intensively managed places. Killing off spikes in the general deer woods is all wrong, IMO. The Kerr study was about the only one that pointed to that and Bobo earlier mentioned its faults. The Comanche study blew holes in lots of ideas. I was told by a pretty good source that the main reason the spike killing was a part of the AR ruling was to throw a bone to the hunters to soften the blow of the ARs(Bobo has mentioned this in the past as well.)
edit. And Huds 33% article I have not read. Thats interesting and I need to think about it. Ill give Hud credit for "kind of" jumping on board on this one.

STX has done it to a successful degree but he also knows it takes a lonnnng time, if your don’t go the DMP route. Thus Why everyone goes DMP route. If you could completely cull out genetics with out gene swamping we wouldn’t have culls.

Regardless what one’s thinks about antlers since TX Dan is so infatuated with them, we are stewards of this earth and dominion over it, we owe it to our kids and grand grandkids to manage it on a sustainability model for future generations. You absolutely have the right to kill any deer that you will 100% utilize but if you have choice in what to utilize, pick the one that helps ensure a better long term outlook of a herd.

It just might be better to go with that option… then to think everyone gets a buck

Does are really good table fare!

Here's another way to look at the Spike rule. Let's say you don't want to take a doe because you have noticed a steep decline in deer numbers, (I'm in that position currently) but you still want to get some meat. You can take out a spike rather than a legal but not huge 3 year old 10 or 12 point. Taking the spike will have less effect on the future population, and will still allow those other two nice bucks to get some more age to them.

Absolutely, in fact that would have been the best way to do it over a 10-15 year period. Change it back to a one buck county, and make it be a spike/unbranded antler tag. And doe tags per survey…

It would have corrected herd dynamics and age class issues pretty quick. You could even do a property draw tag for a branched antler buck. Similar to how Utah does elk

You would never get it passed though

Sometimes I get a little worried from some on here that are self-proclaimed experts on all subjects. But I do enjoy the reading.

MEME was a joke BTW..

We hunt in an AR county, I'll shoot a spike for meat but only if its a 2yr old or older deer. No real reason that I apply to that other than a yearling simply doesn't yield enough meat to make it worth the effort and expense.With AR's our buck numbers across age ranges are exploding. Doe? Not so much. We saw a steady increase in both until a few years ago when TPWD changed the rules to allow doe during the first few weeks of rifle season. Sine then we keep getting more bucks every year, but the doe population seems to have plateaued.

So my suggestion to TPWD would be to take a closer look at the buck/doe ratio in our area and see if our experience is isolated or if it is a real problem that needs to be addressed.

I will say this on AR's though. I was not thrilled when they implemented them in Freestone county. Not because I didn't think something needed to be done. I just didn't like that we were already management minded on our place and their rules might inhibit us from taking a deer that we truly felt wouldn't damage the herd. But we are a smaller parcel among other smaller and larger parcels, and over the years I've seen the place go from the 70's when the "brown is down" mentality ruled, into the 90's when we actually started seeing more deer, better deer and got fully on board with management practices and habitat improvement, to now when I see enough deer to literally have a dozen or more a year named with that many or more filling out the ranks that constitute what I consider the herd in our immediate area. I have truly witnessed a complete turn-around in how things are done and the effect it has on the population. However, I do not feel the system in place at this time is perfect either. Every change they make in the rules will have an effect, and I think the pendulum has swung a bit too far on this most recent rule change.

Not discrediting what you see on your land, but I wouldn’t read too much into observed doe numbers in most cases. They are almost always under reported in my experience. If we followed camera surveys to a tee you would think we would have a 20:1 buck:doe ratio. Actual observations, probably a 5:1 buck:doe ratio. Helicopter, we see a 1:2 buck doe ratio and the increases in yearling bucks confirm that. Doe are almost always pressured out of feeding areas by bucks. If your buck population is increasing it’s likely because your doe population is as well, after all those bucks have to come from somewhere

I've definitely seen less does the last 2 years after they increased the doe season in the area where I hunt. Last time I stopped by the processor it looked like 2/3 of deer in the cooler were does. I know it's a small sample size, but I do think it is having an effect. Doe season used to only be for 5 days I think, and now it's a little over 2 weeks.

Best bet is to call neighbors and start a MLD co-op. More acreage you get under it the better it will be.

I like the basic principle of the Antler Restriction rules, need to find a way to adjust it so you can cull inferior mature bucks from the herd whose antlers are well between the ears.

Maybe take a pic of it, send to game warden and get a go or no go on it?

What do I know so here it goes. I think TPWS is like the Federal Government in a lot of ways. They launch a bunch of trial balloons. They get feedback from them. Guess who gives the most feedback. Not the actual folks that may know management but the couch potatoes that know squat and the ones that a change in regulations may line their pocketbooks.