TPWD Paper on Spikes

I have seen a few posts on here lately mentioning the myth that spikes can somehow grow into great bucks if you leave them alone long enough. I'm linking a great paper published by TPWD that absolutely dispells that myth. I'm relatively new to the forum, so this paper very well may have been posted before, but I figured I would post it as we're about to head into the season, and many of you will encounter a yearling spike or two in the first month or so of the season. Bottom line, you don't want yearling spikes in your herd.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_0827.pdf

hmmm

Lol oh the famous kerr study that brought God like powers to mer mortal man giving them ability to change the genetics of their herd, with out bringing in outside genetics. To bad no body has been able to replicate it.


Kerr study proved if you take a fork horn with documented heredity(doe and buck) and line breed him to his offspring, year after year. And then take you a hill country spike and doe and line bred him for generations that his off spring would be by percentage wise of BC will be smaller.

Why didn't they cross over does?

ASSUMING read the pdf file posted donkey

Do y'all know if this is available in print form for purchase ? If so would you give me a heads up where to purchase it....I would really like to buy a copy....

rick

First off, with all due respect I have never seen the TPWD get anything right. This is a dip stick study with so many holes and variables that the only purpose it served was for someone to get grant money from TPWD.

So all these bucks were fed a controlled diet. If the controlled diet were the main factor, all the bucks would look the same. It depends on the genetics of the father, the genetics of the mother, the resulting genetic mix of the son, the diet each family members have all their lives, and the weather. And I'm sure there are a dozen more factors that I'm not aware of.

I know a deer breeder. Bucks that are dinks up to their 2nd year will often hit a growth spurt and meet or exceed B&C numbers (which aren't applicable to them).

This report rates right up there with the goober that said an AR15 wasn't a viable deer rifle. BYW, just my

Its kerr. Still. Lets play genetic gods and skip over everything else that truely matters. Lets ignore the barriers and abilities of the majority to even control population numbers, let jump to the very last stage of any management plan.

if your going to hammer spikes then hammer ever deer under 2.5 that's not 10pts. How many years is it going to take to eliminate the not 10pt Genetic.

Better yet lets whip the herds out 100% an reintroduce

Control print

So I take this as a no that you did not read the PDF file posted. You can preach what you tried and failed with and I can preach what I have tried and been successful with. In the end we will both be correct...in our own minds.

I skimmed, its the same thing. Spikes at maturity will be smaller percentage wise of BC, then forked counter parts.

It works for you, but does the average leasor, have the same abilities to regulate their herds the same as you did?

I'm sure there are plenty of holes / unaccounted for variables in the study. I'll admit I haven't read the whole thing. But, I do think it's conclusions are accurate. If it's right, and you choose not to follow it, you're going to damage the genetic quality of your herd. If its wrong, and you do follow it, your only downside is that you culled out bucks that MIGHT hit a growth spurt in year 3 or so.

hmmm

Read as in read not skim the whole PDF. It addresses your first question about crosses with data results. But don't read the data results on the pics but rather the data they post below- I saw one error.

It would work for the average lease or landowner IF everyone in the state did the same thing for at least 7 yrs. There in lies the problem getting everyone to participate. That is the beauty of allowing landowners/managers to manage as they see best for their property. To answer another question your posed about replicating the study, I have seen a LF ranch first hand that has been culling all spikes since the late 90's and continues. The results speak for themselves.

"Continues" key word and trend. 20years later and the "trend" is still there.

I'm sure they do have exceptional deer, they have the resources to year in year out tcontinue feeding exactly what they want to feed.

They aren't changing genetics. They are simply elimating what they don't want to feed, only allowing certian deer to reach an age class were they can actually express their potential.

question should be what has had the greatest impact on their success that the avg hunter can try to replicate. .. you truly believe its soley spike harvest?

I've yet to see a LF place line breed to the point of having infertility issues in a deer herd. If all data is correct and spikes actually weigh less than their counterparts then you'd have to admit gumby was not a spike. Considering what their multipoint sires look like that are posted, they'd fail miserably as deer breeders.

You cannot say it will still continue 20 yrs later with the "trend" since you nor I nor anyone has taken it that far..yet. Till you have done it you can really speculate what might happen since never have tried or carried to that extreme.

This ranch did not feed during the first 8 yrs I know when, they might have started feeding after that in a test area. But as far as feeding when culling spikes and does they did not when I was going there a lot.

What you are changing is what is doing the breeding...you keep what you like and if they are only bucks left to breed then you are changing it for your satisfaction.

Do I solely believe it is a spike harvest? It depends. But if the range is at or above CC, then killing all spikes and enough does to keep your numbers at CC will benefit the range and the deer herd. At that point that spike is a mouth, that is eating forage that another buck or a doe(bred to a non-spike sire is eating to feed non-spike sired offspring).

I know a well known wildlife biologist who took a Kinney County ranch and they shot the doe numbers down to what they wanted then killed off every buck that year but 4. He told me the results were much better than what they expected over the next 7 yrs.

You have not killed Gumby yet to weigh him to know that answer. My WAG is that he will weigh a lot less than your better bucks (with bigger antlers and better scores).
But you are forgetting they are starting with deer from their herd in those pens not hand selected sires from the best of the best. Also all those deer never live past 4 yrs of age in that study. At the time they were doing this they had some really great deer for their age class.

I'll start shooting spikes after there is nothing else I want to cull or take as a trophy and still need to take deer off after reaching my doe quota for the season

There's also the speculation that deer just don't like being in a pen in Kerr Co...lack of rain causes them to be clinically depressed and that stress affects their growth. The protein % data disputes their genetic findings if antler size is dependent on how much protein is put to them....

Your WAG will be wrong on gumby's weight. It's not like I haven't seen him up against other deer....

Confucius say:

A statement or opinion can be right but not be vital.

A fact or a truth is not necessarily fundemental.

No give woman grand piano, give upright organ ...

Set hook... now reeling in the catch.... prove it

Just how many year have they been in those pens and been doing research again?
Their protein % work is what sold me on killing spikes. They took branched antler sired buck fawns and stressed them with a limited daily diet for their first year. Then took them back to regular diet. Did the same with spike sired buck fawns. The results from that study is what convinced me.

I have been hunting for around 24 yrs and i have been lucky to have hunted in a lot of counties and have scene that this can go both ways as stated by others !!! If there is a chance that a spike that is on his first set of horns and is only 3 or 4 '' tall and has good mass and not all messed up to me i would rather wait and see what happens..... but it's hard to keep an eye on them and track them if your not high fenced ( IMO )
Also take in account that a spike might be one that is going to bread many does at all because it will most like be rejected by the doe or ran off by other bigger bucks .Just my .02!

It takes away from the genetic argument, IMO. Ppl who never feed protein should have smaller deer than those who do.....

Nope it just shows that feed is not the issue. Shows that even on low quality habitat or drought years that better genetics should outshine the poorer genetics.

Your last paragraph is my point.

20years is a life time for most hunters.

We tried the spike harvest for 8 years(shooting 4-5 yearling spike/3pt to every .5 mature bucks).. all We did was elimate our buck herd. We switched to age only harvest and we broke the consistant 160. Fruits of those age restriction are really showing off 8-9years later with higher numbers of mature bucks.

With our lower densities we could really watch the history of our bucks. Spikes, 3pt 8pts etc.


Instead of hunting and seeing 1 mature 5.5 year old buck per 1000 acres we are seeing 3-5 5.5 year old bucks and hunting 1-4 6.5 year old bucks

Our deer have always exploded at 5.5 with many taking 20" jumps. Very rarely dId we ever see a deer not break 140 at 6.5.

Our success wasnt based off soley the stopping of spike harvest, our success was based up switching to higher whitetail value ag crops, and allowing bucks to actually mature/express their gene, and structuring the doe to buck ratio

What would those results have been if you kept harvesting spikes and you still did all this?

The average lease in Texas is less than a thousand acres. You can't control genetics, diet, water or disease on a low fence plot that small. Deer range over miles, not acres. The deer are moving about according to a variety of pressures and there are few residents on any single lease. So management efforts have to be on a county and state level. We pay TP&W to do that. I'm confident using their guidelines. I'm gonna try to keep a few deer near my lease during hunting season with a feeder and other amendments. And I hope to shoot one spike, one trophy buck and at least 2 does yearly. By obeying and following TP&W rules and suggestions, I think the deer population will continue to be strong. Those high fence places are on their own.

Still have a lot less mature bucks.

Spike numbers are still about as consitant as they were before.

Biggest reason we stop shooting spikes was year after year the numbers weren't changing.

If we hadn't changed our ag crops I bet our deer wouldn't have that big of jump at 5.5-6.5 year mark.

We are also holding more mature bucks with it in the fall/winter. Those that's summer home range don't include our property

what is the reason for this?

Study period is over and they have no need for those bucks nor do they have room in their pens for that many deer.

The unknown variables that could contribute to a yearling being a spike is the sole reason I never have and never will shoot one.

But wouldn't those same unknown variables still come into play on the rest of they yearling bucks that grew forked antlers?

That wasn't in the protein graph they were selling....

But it was what they were selling when I was a seminar where they explained it in full.

IMO, most cases of spike yearlings are caused by environmental conditions, not genetics. I hear hunters speak of having numerous spikes one year and very few the next, or vice versa, on the same property. This cannot be attributed to genetics.

I tend to agree with this. Body condition/age of the mother, how early the buck fawn was weened, and forage availability probably play just as much as a role as genetics in a first year buck being a spike vs. being a forky. I wouldn't specifically target them until I had met all other harvest goals for the year and still neeeded to remove some deer.

Maybe, maybe not. A few questions. Was it born in May or was is born in late August? Was it the smallest in a set of tripletts? Did the doe die before it was fully weaned? What was the milk guality/production of the doe? I don't know the answer to these questions and they all play a huge role and could contribute to a yearling buck being a spike.

If they did them they wouldn't be unknown...bucks from twins, later born, later to wean, from a less dominant doe, etc....

The issue has been beat to death on these forums, with the QDM worshipers saying the TPWD study is totally incorrect, and others like me who decide for themselves. I find merit in it myself through my own observations since AR's were first introduced in East Texas several years ago.

While I firmly believe in the need to harvest doe, I have seen nothing that has hurt our sport more than the QDMA's war on antlerless deer.

IMO, the TPWD department did us a tremendous favor by uncovering a method to remove inferior bucks sooner rather than later. But of course, the QDM flock with their "let every spike walk" mentality would have no part of it.

You should have asked for your $ back.. bc it also would include a buck pulled back during its first set of antlers....you can't pull back up what you shoot....

You know what I got out of this post? About 99% of the members here claim to be meat hunters. Not only do they claim not to be trophy hunters, they marginalize them. Then all of a sudden everybody is an expert deer herd manager for trophy racks. If deer hunting has become this much work, maybe you ought to find another hobby. Or become a deer breeder and let your obsession become your vocation.

When it was born is not the question to ask since deer born along the gulf coast in April are still spikes and deer born in August in deep South Texas can still be 8 point yearlings. The answer is genetics not age. The same applies to nutrition to the buck, the fawn and the doe. If the doe had triplets and a doe had one fawn and the triplets all grew into 6 point or better yearlings and the one single fawn grew into a spike? Was it genetics or nutrition(if nutrition was the same for both does and fawns that year)? What if that smallest set of the triplets had 10 points and his brothers all had 6? Was it genetics or nutrition? If nutrition in drought years is the answer then why do herds that have lots of spikes still have lots of forked antler yearlings?
What you are doing shooting spikes is playing the percentages. Fewer spikes will become better deer than forked antler offspring will be. You need to read the report or go up to Kerr and sit thru a seminar.(they are free)

But if that buck pulled back on his first set of antlers was standing next to another buck with forked antlers his first set of antlers was it drought or genetics that effected them both? I have never questioned a shot I made on a buck, you are playing the percentages when you pull the trigger. IMO if you have to question really hard to keep or cull then you already now the answer.

This topic always makes for an interesting discussion. No one is right and no one is wrong. You do what works best for you and I do what works best for me and we are both successful in producing quality deer while employing different techniques.

Of course this is your opinion you know nothing of QDM nor the rest of the states deer herds. On top of that you flip between being a meat hunter and then try to agrue TDM which doesn't make a ton of sense.

Ironically your support TWPD's QDM approach with supporting age structure, yet dive right in and embrace their TDM spike harvest. How can you blame QDM when you agree with them?

For the 500x QDM is not TDM. It is simply managing for the up most health and age structure of your herd. QDM is Protecting young bucks and the quest of an under CC and balanced Ratio herd.

You think you are ready and have the resources to implement a TDM plan? Hardly, not even close, hell only part of a TDM plan you know is spike harvest for the reason of Genetics...which makes zero sense if you don't have resources or time to implement it fully.

Your exactly what's wrong with the entire TPWD idea on blanket Management. You want to go straight for your buck tags, with zero regaurd for anything else.



As far as QDMA as a company, I no longer support them as a business do to their disregard for property owner rights in their political addresses.

QDM is a stepping stone into TDM. Having a balanced herd, that's under CC allows you to then Implement a TDM plan. Very few people have the ability or stomach to go full throttle into a true TDM plan from the start.

What if that buck has different groceries to eat before his mama ran him off....lot of stuff left to the unknown. Here's a question I've never figured out: Why is it that some does are able to have twins (or even singles) during severe drought, but others end up aborting...and why does that happen during good years as well?

Exaclty. I just like playing the spike hater guy to keep the thread lively and input going from all.

So you believe you can feed genetics out of a sack or grow it then?
There are better doe mothers than others. I have never seen a doe abort. What I have seen is a doe have a fawn(s) and put everything she has from her body to keep it/them alive. When she knows she can no longer do it she walks away from the weakest one first and if it continues to get worse she walks about from the other. She then is alive to recoop and rebreed for hopes of raising more the next year. The answer which is obivious is the same in good years.

No..so much of what a deer is it's first yr depends on that development it's mother provided...you seem to agree.....

I have a cpl mamas that always seem to give me 6-8pt yearlings....bet the same buck isn't breeding them every yr.

Maybe those does have good antler genetics inherited from their parents? Deer hunting and management would be forever changed if knew which does to shoot and which does to let walk.

No I don't agree...it is about the genetics more that what the mother can or can't do. Again, can you feed genetics to the doe/offspring?

Blood thirsty deer manager.

I say kill them all, if any deer can live past three then its a trophy! Oops thats AR's.

So you are saying that the buck only controls the genetics then? SMH

Finally you are seeing it my way you strongwilled German. The truth HAS set you free.

Targeting spikes is foolish in some situations, period.

A friend had a 5,300 acre HF ranch that had been following a very prominent south Texas private game biologist's advice to kill all spikes and cull as many 3 year old 8's as you could.

They had been following that advice religiously since 2004. Stands to reason that if targeting and culling works to improve your genetics that they'd be at least on their way to improved genetics.

Then came the drought of 2010. And they kept targeting spikes. And they killed 47 spikes that year about 30 more than they usually killed. They essentially killed their entire buck fawn crop. Because their biologist told them to.

If you want to target spikes I have no problem with it. But if you do it in a drought year, you're not paying attention.. And that's as kind as I can say that.

Ah hell here comes STx...."awesome, now you only have the best sires left"

Ironically no will be able to shoot a trophy buck for a couple years. ..lol

What does the total buck herd look like in 2013?

Why wait to cull them at 3 yrs old? Notice he said "essentially killed their entire buck fawn crop" not "killed them all". So there will be no bucks that are younger or older than that crop ever again to hunt from? You kill every trophy age class buck off a 5300 acre ranch every year? Man if you guys do you are better hunters than I am.

Not La Salle County by chance?

Ya but your also going to have natural death loss, so you do loose esentially an age class.

You are already HF'd so you probably already have well established age classes. So most likely 6 year down the road your only going to be hunting the 7.5 year olds and culls. Assuming 6.5 is target age.

Its the practically of 47 spikes and other culls and doe being shot by low fence lease hunters that I agrue. The means......

BOBO I'll ask it this way. As a cow/calf operation how do you cull your herd in dry times and in wet times? How do you manage your forage? Do you pick top of the line bulls to breed or just any cull? Do you pick top of the line cows or just anything that runs thru the ring that day? Then why would you manage a deer herd any different?

If QDM is not TDM, why take issue with AR's? After all, they're allowing hunters to take more deer, which only works toward a better CC. Your cover is blown by focusing so much attention on protecting spikes.

You sound like a city mayor trying to justify red light cameras as only being a way to promote safety.

Here's why you don't cull spikes in a drought year. If you're trying to make money, you killed not only trash deer, but your good bucks.

You took those thousand dollar bills and threw them in the fire.

BTW, no, that was Zavala Co. And that same biologist is stuck in the old paradigm that you should only have 1 deer to 20 acres if you want to produce trophies.

I have NEVER had a biologist successfully explain how, if you are supplementally feeding, you can't have higher deer densities and produce consistent trophies.

Typically I let him spread his line of BS pretty deep (if I have time), and then I just walk him over to the deer pens and show him some REALLY high densities with some REALLLY good trophies and ask him how in the hell that happened.. ;-)

Works every time.

Penned deer are hardly a fair comparison to their free ranging counterparts and I can guarantee the habitat shows the density of animals in those pens.

You can't compare the two because I control "exactly"what breeds and which cows it breds. On top of that in drough my oldest cows and bulls go first. And I'm always importing bulls. Only yearlings ever held back might be heifers not bull calves

So what percentage of spikes become your high dollar bucks you want to do the breeding? Do you have documented proof that 5% or 10% or 40% or??? become trophies?

If you are in it for the money then how did feeding all those (insert %) of cull yearling till they are 5 or 6 yrs old pan out? With $400-$500/ton pricing of feed how does the math work out to feed a spike till he is a 5 yr old 125" point. How is it profitable when you have $1250 in feed in him besides all the other underlying costs?

Kill him as a yearling and cut your losses.

Why can't you compare them? It is about forage and breeding results correct? Money surely has no play in it all either?

You are controlling 100% of the breeding (if you are removing buck fawns and doe fawns before breeding season) and 100% of the diet in the pens. You might control one of them in the wild...I'll let you take a guess at which one.

I don't agree with the deer to 20 acre thought process either. Some recent research work in South Texas with densities and feeding is showing different results of forage utilization and regrowth. Strong willed minds are changing a bit...maybe.

I'm no biologist, and the only thing I know about deer herd management is what I've read on the internet. Who knows how much of that is true.
I have participated in two management hunts at the Kerr WMA however. They have done some remarkable things with native hill country genetics. I saw several bucks that were far nicer than anything I had seen previously in the wild. Of course, I just had to let them walk, it was a management hunt.
On those hunts, we weren't told to just kill spikes and does. Fork horns were fair game as well.

It appears as though someone is familiar with the comanche/faith ranch studies.

BLAH BLAH BLAH....If it is an 11 point with horns as big around or bigger than my thumb it hits the dirt!

Very interesting data come from the research so far. Kinda makes the old myths about destroying habtiat with high numbers of deer from supplementing hard to swallow for some. But time will tell about what happens in future.

I think they are other legitimate reasons beyond habitat preservation to keep deer densities from getting too crazy, but it is interesting stuff nonetheless.

I fully agree. Just look at what years and years of heavy grazing of goats have done to some ranges.

Actually, they are an extremely fair comparison for my point. My point is, if you are feeding it makes no difference how many deer are stacked in a pen. They'll be trophies if they have the genetics.
And you can apply that to the field as well, if they have the food (that you are feeding them), it doesn't matter how what their density is. The proof is in the pen!

First, what is high dollar? I have watched spikes from good years turn into 120-130" deer on a regular basis. I can get decent money for a 120-130. A lot more than a spike. No, he's never gonna make 140-150+, but I don't need him to to turn a profit.

I don't do a lot of supplemental feeding on my south Texas property. Nothing i can feed will be better than what they can browse. If I get a decent rain that is.

Some people are just more focused on challenging the results of those who demonstrate a knowledge greater than their own.

I never look at the screen name of those who share their comments here, instead only focusing on the comments made. But I feel safe saying there are those who first identify who made a comment before deciding how they will respond it.

These are always so fun

For the record I agree with STX's line of thinking, but believe it is an all or none type of management. You have to make a job out of and do it to the fullest to see the results. Most, myself included don't have the time effort and probably skills to execute it as intended thus they don't think it works. JMHO

High dollar for me will be bucks scoring 170 or better. The will be the hardest deer to raise consistently and make you the most return.


#1 Ok you stepped in it on the first red quote, so or it never happened.

#2 Now for the second one, you define "good money" for the 125-130 buck "if" doesn't rain or it has rained and he still is a cull.

My issue with AR as a whole is its a blanket program. Other then that, spike tag is just an appeasement to get their spread requirements approved. Nothing more nothing less. Guys like you eat it up.... brilliant politics actually. Guys that think growing big deer is all about
Focusing on and Controlling Genetics... your wall is proof of that from in your age deer thread

you get on here talk smack about management programs you know zero about nor have the ability to implement effectively, including simple spike harvest

guys like STx manage only what they have the ability to control, ever wonder why the pinnacle of goverment deer management programs ( TX MLD program) has three levels.... you know what the first two level focus on? Probably not, why your so eat up with killing geneticly inferior spikes as the pinncale of deer management and degrade the QDm program that would eventually (assuming you have the resouces)give you an ability to make those spike gambles to try to get your program to the next level.

I have alway said focus on what both programs have in common. If you can accomplish that then and if you still have the resources to then focus on "effective" genetic culling....knock yourself out. At that point in a management plan you have enough history, background, and resources to make educated gambles.

You can't change your native genetics there is always a ceiling, hence breeder deer

Ok. Just where did breeder orginate from again? Did they fall from the sky or they dig them up from the ground or heaven forbid they poured them out of sack?

"High dollar for me will be bucks scoring 170 or better. The will be the hardest deer to raise consistently and make you the most return.


#1 Ok you stepped in it on the first red quote, so or it never happened.

#2 Now for the second one, you define "good money" for the 125-130 buck "if" doesn't rain or it has rained and he still is a cull."
VERY few people raise every buck to 170 (I'm pretty old and I've never met that man). It's a great goal, but a tad lofty IMO.

I do have pics of one spike that made it to 120+ verified. But to me a better proof is that I've only seen 2 mature bucks on my place in the past 7 years that scored less than 120. And I've NEVER shot spikes. Now, I'll go grab some pics. You're sure costing me time.!

You are killing me. You have some slow carpet installers! !!

You are right those combination of genetics are available in ever native herd in texas

Just one?!?!?!?!?
I started managing a 5000 acre ranch in La Salle county in 2003. We killed 75 bucks the first season, 85 the next season and 58 the next season from spikes to mature. You want to guess how many of the mature bucks scored over 130? They had never killed any spikes nor done any culling when it was LF. My cutoff for a 120 was a 3 yr old. It does not take to much antler for a 3 yr old to top 120.

I see a new sig line in that right there, thank you very much.

I'm sorry, I missed your point. Can you explain further? Did I say something wrong?

My current position is based solely on what the evidence suggest and comes without former bias. All I know is the area where we hunt in East Texas is now producing quality deer like never before.

I also view the policy on spikes and spread as being complementary to one another. The spike rule helps protect the herd from high grading that would otherwise occur if harvesting was only done at the top. Wildlife agencies in other states learned that the hard way with their earlier restrictions based on points alone. It was restrictions that used a faulty criteria for measuring older bucks that protected inferior younger deer that led to a quick reduction in average spread in those states. Unless you have harvest criteria at both the low and high end of the scale, high grading is going to happen. And you need not be a biologist to understand that.

Simply put, the current restrictions combine what has been found through BOTH study and experience, as the best way to harvest at both the low and high ends of the scale.

So, the bucks over 170... did the 3 of them bring in more total dinero than the 50 deer over 120??? Might wanna put on those knee highs before you answer that...

Ok....but first (since we are changing the rules as we go) can I just tell you what the three biggest one brought instead? They were all over 200". What price are you getting for 120-130 class bucks?

So essentially you think we are removing our high and low end deer only leaving the middle
Which would be those that take the longest to meet AR's, yet you still support it?

As I said its a blanket approach, that really doesn't accomplish anything genetic wise, Other then push death age up a year or two and protect your narrow racked bucks, assuming again that you actually have enough tags to affect buck numbers.

Absolutely.

Any good harvest approach includes criteria that identifies what you want to keep and what you want to remove at the low end so that the "middle" includes only those deer with the greatest potential. That leaves criteria at the high end that gives them time to reach a minimum high standard.

Obviously, no approach is perfect with some inferior deer getting past you at the low end. But that isn't reason to ignore the results that still be achieved.

Still, middle ground might exist with a change in the current minimum to any deer with only one, unbranched antler. But on second thought, wouldn't that protect those notorious cow horns?

All this spike talk amuses me.

Truth is, for 99% of the places people hunt, shooting more does is BY FAR the most effective management practice they could implement. Like Bobo said, most are nowhere near ready to even think about influencing genetics-though it is highly debatable how effectively that can be done (if at all) without an intense MLD plan.

How many buck tags did you use last year?

Guess I should have foreseen that type answer...was just looking for a printed copy so I wouldn't have to use up that much ink, paper and put up with my slow printer....

rick

You might be able to google it. It's not really a book publication

You obviously feel what's on their head is dependent upon feed if you can pull deer up...



No...which also helps discredit the research.

Btw..just bc you don't see a doe abort, doesn't mean she didn't. It will just give the appearance that she didn't get bred. Their bodies can naturally absorb it depending on how far along it is. So why would some does do that and others not?

You can't pull a Gumby up with any amount of feed. You could ship up to BOBO's irrigated alfalfa and all you will get is a fatter cull. All the feed in world will not help a cull. All the feed in the world will help a swing deer. A deer with good genetics will be better than all those deer every year no matter what the feed is.
Just remember it take two to tango. Two good ones and you can dance all night long. One good and one bad and you dance for a while when the music is good. Two bad ones and well the fat lady is singing before they even start to dance.
Just because a doe does not raise a fawn does not mean she did not have one and walk away from being a PP mother either. I check every doe I kill for laction and breeding. Pretty easy to see if a doe had a or how long she raised a fawn.

At yr 1, how do you know which one is the swing deer? It's easier to see does that never fill out like they're even going to have one. Obviously they were on weight watchers.

Would yearling does or 2yos make better candidates for being PP mothers?

The ones that are not spikes will fall into that catergory of swing deer IMO. But most of those will fall into the 3-5 point range. IME any buck with more than 8 points as a yearling will never have to worry about being anything but bigger than the rest of the bucks in his age class no matter what the nutrition is. I do not want to manage for swing deer. You might have to wait for 5 yrs in this state to get a good rainfall year for him to swing if he hasn't gone down hill or died of old age.
So an old doe with an already sagging belly carrying one fawn is going to look slim and trim? SMH...again. How big are fawns at birth in your area?

There is no age for PP mothers from what I have seen. You can tell the good ones though as they will be skin and bones in a drought and still have two huge fawns. We had one like this on a ranch next door to us in the Hill Country. That old doe raised twins every year wet or dry. She looked like heck by July or August every year but still raised twins and bred back. In some areas the deer are just going to raise more fawns than other areas will. You can also see how protective a doe is if you catch her nursing a very young fawn. That can greatly effect survival rates also.

Big enough to tell the preggo does from the not preggo when they drop and that utter starts to swell. 2 you can really see...can also tell what's going on with them by protein consumption and watch as they split from the group (or if they don't). So why would some not have fawns while others do? Would a younger doe not be able to stake claim to better food sources for getting ran off?


Since you don't manage for swing deer at 1.5 or spikes it's really throwing a wrench in the nutritional aspect of things....can't say it doesn't play a factor in what's on their head at any age, that's why we all constantly pray for rain.

Like I said almost all have fawns where I have been just some are better mother doe than others. When we were pulling doe numbers way down and killing every doe fawn to slow reproduction we had very high fawn crop numbers with the (somewhat) older age does. I am talking 140%+ crops the first fawn crop after starting this. Every doe had at least one fawn except the few doe fawn/yearling doe that did not get killed. Even a low % of those got bred and raised a fawn. Older does are really bad IMO for management of a deer herd. IMO your best genetics should always be in your younger deer if you are keeping the right bucks to do the breeding and keeping your doe herd young.

You also have to remember is that the nutrition was managed year round on that ranch. Food plots spring/fall, irrigation when needed, year round free choice protein, shredding of areas to increase forb growth, discing, we were even setting up for prescribe burns finally, etc all increased nutrition even in drier years. So if they can't reproduce or grow antler under those conditions then they need to go. Very tight buck to doe ratios also made sure the healthy doe herd is bred in short order and not drag the rut out for extra months.

With that nutrition were there not a bunch of fawns getting bred...and what type of irrigation was in place for all those plots?

You missed the part about killing almost all the doe fawns for a few years. The few that were left had a % of them getting bred. Irrigation was a buried mainline and then a grid system in each food plot with a riser pipe. Then screw on a sprinkler head on the riser pipes.

Agree

Man, I didn't mean to set off such sh** storm with this post!

One thing is certain. Only "best effort" results should be expected from ANY methodology on WT deer management. Too many unknowns to expect anything more.

Lol, you didn't. Stx and rifleman will probably flip roles next week and agrue the other side.

I won't argue to shoot yearlings unless there's a fence involved.

I agree with this also. You need to get your population and nutrition where you want it before you worry about genetics. People were having deer starving and dying in the droughts over the past several years need not worry about culling genetics.

It appears we have two separate assumptions at play here, that being conditions inside and outside HF.

The TPWD has demonstrated good results in controlling deer numbers in East Texas. And I've yet to see any reports that indicate the current AR's are not working anywhere in Texas. So at the end of the day, perhaps it's an approach that just doesn't agree with their current lobby that drives some hunters against it

First let me say I am not trying to stir the pot or set the world on fire but I have a few observations...I live in NE Texas and until last year I have never hunted anywhere but Henderson, Harrison and Marion Counties....I am not a trophy hunter...I have one set of antlers mounted on a plaque and they barely make the current 13" AR....but in '92 they were a pretty nice rack. My son has a nice European mount 11 point but nothing like the South Texas Deer we saw south of Sonora last season. That being said I believe that AR and the big spike debate effects "antler hunters", pay for hunt ranches and deep pocket hunters. TPWD wants to improve the herd by stopping the harvest of younger bucks..< 13"....why ? Does it improve the taste or quality of the venison ? I think not. Have they considered the basket rack or tall but narrow antlers that we see in East Texas all the time...these will never be harvested and will breed so those genetics will continue in the herd. These deer will die old, get hit on the road or starve. TPWD by managing for antler quality/size is only managing for those that either "sell/market" trophy bucks or can afford the mega dollar lease costs we are seeing. It is great to sell that high dollar hunt or pay for that trophy buck if that is your desire. But some of us can't afford to play...now I am a true believer in free market and land owner rights but the TPWD is trying to sell antlers to the deepest pockets.......so be truthful do > 13" spread antlers make your sausage taste better ?

rick

Truth be told AR's don't affect the big money ranches/leases because they are or have already bypassed AR's with the MLD program

True BOBO ...I realize you pros are much smarter than an old East Texas boy but it sure seems like TPWD is selling antlers....

rick

I wouldn't say smarter just more entrenched in growing deer

I'd say your right, but its the general public that got it approved.

Personally think management decisions other then tag numbers should do to landowner.

I find it humorous that Level 2 and 3 MLD permits provide an exemption to the 13" rule. You would think that a good manage protocol wouldn't provide for blanket exceptions. I also find it odd that the prevailing theory behind the 13" rule is to protect young bucks from being harvested, but provides no protection for spikes. Seems contradictory in principal.

Concur

IMO What MLD is doing is limiting or taking the buck/doe harvest by what survey numbers and habitat will support. It can work for you or against you no matter what the spread is.

Well I agree that the landowner should be more involved in harvest (heck if a land owner wants to allow basket racks or whatever shot then so be it)...I attended two of the meetings concerning AR. Harrison County and Gregg County...I would say the majority attending were not in favor. A Gregg County Sabine River MLD spoke favorably but he doesn't have to follow the rules...they have a very effective program or at least did. I understand they harvest basket racks, spikes and narrow racks to improve the herd...

rick

Think that's more fact then opinion, they are rewarding stewards that have a documented CC and a corresponding healthy managed deer herd by giving you the ability to manage you bucks how you see fit, with a few exceptions.

Infact in most cases they are rewarding you with the ability to actually control population as it corresponds CC with increased tag numbers. Of course the opposite could happen if you have a very low deer density, and you receive less tag numbers

What I am really shocked at is the number of LF places and sizes of them that are now under MLD. I tried back in the late 90's to get a 1700 LF ranch with good records and really good ratio/age structure on MLD to control numbers and start to cull more. The guy listened to me then said he had enough info and never heard from him again. IMO the fear back then was someone LF would over shoot the upper end deer and not manage a place as strictly as before. Then it was only used on really large LF ranches or HF only. If you did not manage to their liking and use the permits you had they pulled them from you. If you strictly used it to kill the bigger deer in Oct and not use the tags you were not going to back in the program.

Can anyone go beyond their personal speculation and theory and point out a report and data from ANY source that provides clear evidence that TPWD AR's have created a negative impact on Texas deer?

Because someone is sure to ask, the article at the link below reports strong evidence and data of a very positive impact.

"Since the adoption of antler restrictions in Texas, the inside spread of bucks has increased significantly. By the third year of the new rules, only 29 percent of bucks killed by hunters were younger than 3½ years. After the third year of antler restrictions, the plan was fully adopted in all six counties, and 15 adjacent counties followed suit in 2004.

“Allowing hunters the opportunity to take spikes seemed to make most people happy,” Carroll said. “And believe it or not, the antler restrictions were easier to sell to youth hunters than older hunters.”

Data from Texas show that 25 percent of all yearlings are spikes, while 93 percent of spikes are yearlings. In other words, hunters could take every spike from the yearling age-class, and that would still leave 75 percent of the yearlings alive.

Prior to antler restrictions, if the typical hunter did not see a buck in the first three to four hunts, the chance to even see a buck the rest of the hunting season became slim,” Carroll said. “Nowadays, it’s not uncommon for a hunter to see several bucks every time he goes out. Many hunters are now passing on bucks in the 13-inch range in hopes of seeing exactly how big some of these bucks will get."

Link

RM has said it before and i too think game cameras probably have more to do with that than AR's, and i am pro AR. hunters are able to see a lot more of what they have running around and are more prone to pass younger/smaller bucks.

The comments you reference clearly speak of deer sightings made while hunters are on the stand and without regard to game camera. It also follows my own experience where I've seen as many as four bucks during a single morning hunt that were all larger than my first buck taken in East Texas.

Perhaps what drives many of the AR objections, is a hidden belief they give the average hunter (who doesn't see themselves as being very knowledgeable in the sport or the animal) a much better chances at bringing home some nice deer.

After all, we all know that deer hunting can be an extremely competitive sport.

ok dan.

thats it dan, you win.

No winners or losers in any good discussion. Just clarity of what is fact and opinion.

Again, some good data that reflects how the current AR's have created a negative impact would take that position to the next level.

This entire thread began with a report and data, but like most of our debates over AR's, is filled mostly with nothing but opinions.

Let's now turn our attention to the most recent facts.

do you run game cameras dan?

and did you read my post? i am for AR's and THINK they have helped in the areas that i hunt. what i KNOW to be a fact is that me and my buddies have passed several bucks the last few years because we had pics of bigger/older ones on the property. the pics are what kept those deer alive.

I'm not challenging the truthfulness of your comments, but only that the comments you reference in the article are based solely on "live" sightings made while hunters were on stand.

Lol... recent facts....

How do you do your population surveys? You so called facts in your bowhunter mag are opinions based off visual sightings. Just FYI, and also a very select geographical area.

There are well managed ranches in north east texas that have 10 years worth of deer info numbers (population, ratio, age class break downs) thank can show facts that their deer populations are lower after AR's.

Can you provide reference to any reports and data that provide evidence the current AR's aren't working?

With Texas being such a large state with great diversity of deer habitat and numbers, one would think reports of a negative impact would be likely.

I could get a few friends to probably post their historical population data, harvest records and the DECREASE of their MLD tags numbers year after year since AR's.

The stuff they have to turn into the state as FACTS for their MLD program

Your last comment adds to the fact the AR program is a very broad blanket program that does not work well for the ENTIRE state

In the link for the report just who gave the data and input for the report again?

Do you honestly think the state would post facts that its not working? Its easy to figure out using the smaller MLD properties.

Let's make it easier.

Can someone point out a newspaper article, magazine article, or other media source in which many Texas deer hunters have reported seeing a negative impact since AR's have been implemented in their county?

Can you point to a source that is not using a TPWD source for their report to say that they are working?

Information from hunters is almost always included in TPWD reports.

Let 's lower the bar for those who oppose the AR's. Can anyone provide ANY evidence of ANY efforts by hunters, or the TPWD for that matter, to have AR's lifted in any Texas counties.

Been some on the THF posted by sig226fan (Rguns.com) over the years in his efforts to get some changes started in his area where he hunts. Search is posts for his data he has and IRRC there is even some portions of emails he has had back and forth with TPWD officials over the years.

Would it really make any difference if such evidence was present outside TPWD sources? I feel they will do whatever they want regardless of public opinion or evidence provided by hunters. I could care less about AR's. I'm on Level 3 MLD, so antler restrictions do not apply to me. They apply to my neighbor, but not me. Go figure.

The organization has always demonstrated a strong desire to solicit and consider hunter input, based on the number of emails and notices that I have seen or received from them in the past.

Still, your point brings to mind that the TPWD can do nothing without the approval of the Wildlife Commission, a group of men and women who like you and me, are not TPWD employees. These are the ones you should really focus your attention when needing to voice a concern or opinion. And the TPWD makes it very easy for you to do that through their public meetings and website. You can also reach out to them directly since their contact information is posted on the TPWD website as well.

I beg to differ, those commissioners are not like you and I they do not have to worry about ARs and if they did they have the means to get around them. Do a little research on the backgrounds of the commissioners, they are not your average lease hunter.

They look to all be politicians.

how many do you think hunt 100 acre tracts in the pineywoods?

I know one and his family is in the Top 25 landowners in the USA. He is not a politician.

The majority of them are rich, well-connected men with an interest in hunting. HF hunting and big antler guys have traditionally been well represented. But being a big Perry supporter is the main criteria of course.....

I don't believe they would listen to jack anyone says. But they will generally listen and do what TPWD biologists recommend unless it conflicts with their own agenda (see:refusing to reduce season/bag limits on quail).

Now he's a politician.... you have to be somebody to get appointed to those positions.

Kind of like the "little people" in Colorado pushing to do away with the landowner vouchers or make them all for private land. The fact their wildlife commission is made up of land & cattle barons makes the push humorous. For their efforts vouchers jumped from 15 to 20%.

Some of you guys are starting to get me worried. I guess you'll tell me next they don't pay any taxes.

Dan all well put...I am a venison hunter...Antlers do not improve the quality of the end product. The only opinion I was trying to make: TPWD is doing everything it can to increase antler size...period. Large antlers bring higher fees for leases and outfitters/management pros. They are in the business of providing "Wall Hangers". That is great for some hunters. Meat hunters or those of us that don't own land or don't have the funds to compete with the big boys lose out. I ask you again...do antlers with a spread wider than 13" make the venison taste any better ? Is the quality of the venison of a higher standard ? BTW from my little area of Texas we have seen a decrease in deer population....now I don't think it has anything to do with AR but I will tell you that something is going on...

rick

Venison hunters are needed in a great deal of the hill country. Does a buck taste better than a doe?

Spikes taste the best

No, no, no...button bucks taste the best

We're probably going to start shooting some this year. I had four in front of me yesterday afternoon, along with a forky and five point (all yearlings as far as I could tell).

Well unfortuntly you only have two tags...decisions, decisions

No sir I prefer a doe...in NE Texas we have a time limit on does...if you don't kill one during that time then you are out of luck for the year...

rick

I'll have quite a few more than 2

I know...but according to Dan the Man and TPWD only 25% of bucks are spikes

TAGS

I wish that were the case here. Had a decent spring along with a bumper acorn crop last year, and the majority of our yearlings are still spikes.

STX, do you have anything you look for when deciding to harvest a spike? I know that none are safe under your watch, but if you had multiple spikes to choose from under the feeder, which would you shoot first?

Well time to fence, massacre an re-introduce

I shoot the one the fartherest away and drop him so the others aren't spooked so I can keep shooting. No, I really don't cause a spike with 1/2" or 10" long spikes is still a spike. They both were born and raised under the same conditions. Once you start warvering on your management plan you will want to change it again down the line. If you set you plan in place you need to stick with it for at least 5 yrs or more so you can review the past data you have collected to see if it working or not.

No need to do that just work with you have. Might be ugly for a while and take a bit longer but you can work with what you have.

Well only fail proof plan... a.documented herd

I just have a feeling that we're gunna have to take off more bucks than just age appropriate shooters and 3.5+ culls. The only logical place I can see to harvest excess bucks is in the yearling age class. May as well take out the bottom of the barrell of that age class.

Just where did those "documented" deer get their roots from again?

When shooting off numbers it really depends on what your criteria will be for a "shooter" later on. Then most critical factor after that will be who does the shooting. Taking out yearling spikes is the easiest way to turn a hunter loose to sit alone in a blind to help with culling for numbers. I think your real problem will be is once you start shooting spike early with the MLD that you find others moving in during the rut. That is going to put a stress on your MLD tags you are given. You are going to really have to think out your management plan and how to stay with it.

All over the nation. They culled all the bad performers over a decade ago











I would sale out and buy another ranch before I would release deer. That's just me. But its the only plan that is quick and has the best chance of inferior genetics not surfacing and resurfacing. Assuming your fence is actually deer proof.

Hummm not enough permits to cull all the genetically inferior runts? You don't say.

Blasted, well guess their their to stay then.

But I thought you said culling would not work in our lifetime?

As far as selling out, not me. I would never sell out, bring in breeder deer on my place and HF would be the last resort. I would work with what I was given and take it to the best quality I could. If and only if I could not improve on it (which I doubt) then I would fall back on the TTT program to move in new genetics. Not everyones idea of what is a trophy is the same.

That depends on how aggressive his TPWD man is and how giving. My guess is he will work with you.

I like solid 8's just fine as long as they have good G3's and decent spread (at least 14 inside preferably). The rut is a damn free for all here. I saw quite a few mature bucks last year cruising though that I haven't seen since (our neighbors couldn't have killed them all). We've got a property owners meeting over Labor Day weekend that I'm hoping we can discuss management objectives and find some common ground. I'm not gunna shoot out an entire age class. Maybe just 2/3 of the spikes that have made our ranch their home. I'm sure more will trickle in, but hopefully if we shoot enough each year, we'll slowly begin to see less and less spikes.

Killing yearling spikes to improve the genetics of a native deer herd is a dead issue.

People that do it for genetic reasons cannot let go, or have tricked themselves into thinking that it helps them.

People that are killing them because they just need to kill tons of deer... well... something has to die, and if you are going to HAVE to kill yearlings for population control i'd rather a short spike die than an 8 pointer.

I cannot believe we are STILL after all these years reading this study that brought deer from WEST TEXAS, EAST TEXAS and SOUTH TEXAS and compared their body weights...

People thinking that they can change genetics in a statistically significant way by target harvesting any target group... are entertaining to watch.

But as has been proven over and over again, they never achieve their goal.

Oh, and the people who believe the tripe about carrying capacity to drive harvesting to a certain deer:acre ratio.... have never seen the giants in a pen I guess.

Funny and entertaining.

You can regulate diets in a pen....you take a 5ac pen and put 30 bucks in it, quit feeding them and see what you end up with.

Hunn?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I can put 30 bucks of the right genetics in a 5 acre pen and feed them all they can eat and grow giants.

It's the same principle outside the pen. The fence means absolutley nothing when determining how many trophy deer a plot of ground can produce.

All that matters is genetics, age, and food. And if you can feed them in a 5 acre pen, you can feed them outside that pen just as well.

Caveat: Outside that pen, they will usually not score quite as high, for the simple reason that they can eat some things in the range that are not as high protein as you can force them to eat in a pen.

No darling, you have me confused with someone else...

Has everything to do with what you said and concerns for CC.

You make that statement, but you can't refute anything I said. Noted.

Where to start...carrying capacity is what the land naturally can support. You throw that scenario into the pen and you'll have hi$ crap deer. I've also never been able to force a diet onto a low fence deer. The comments were concerning CC, not artificialized playpen.

How can you say cc doesn't matter? The higher you are over CC the less top quality food your going to have because its going to be depleted or severely stressed/depressed therefor your deer are going to have to utilize less then optimum food and having to consume more to make up for it.

But if that's how you feel so be it.

It doesn't matter if it's 5 acres or 10 thousand acres. If you're feeding 30 bucks you feed what they need. Hi$ crap deer? That's what you call 300" deer raised in pens that breed to stock "playpens"?

Fine. That's your opinion. But the FACTS are it doesn't matter how big the area. You can feed to make the deer healthy. And the "carrying capacity" is yours to adjust as you see fit on 5 or 10 thousand acres.

Fences don't matter and neither does the acres. It's what you want it to be.

Quitit. You're smarter than that. What's the carrying capacity in a pen full of trophy breeder bucks???


Each landowner controls the CC, if they so desire. CC is pie in the sky BS. I don't own a place less than 1200 acres. And thats a pretty big pen. But I control carrying capacity. If I don't get rain I feed.

I don't kill any does or bucks to adjust for CC. I recognize that evey deer on my ranches is worth supplemental feeding if needed.

How ignorant would I be if I killed my cash crop to save browse????

The thought never even occurred to me. And I have some BIG deer. Actually, I have a LOT of BIG deer. Thanks to not falling for that "kill all spikes" and "kill your cash crop" philosophy to meet some arbitrary TOTAL BS CC ratio to produce trophies.

I submit all deer pens with trophy bucks as the proof that CC is bogus.

Its not bogus. An arbitrary number is bogus, not taking into account supplementation, but a place with a browse line is above carrying capacity.

Deer pens have browse lines... if there is even any shade at all besides metal roofs...

Carrying capacity isn't just about deer amigo. Carrying capacity is about the whole ball of wax. Stop thinking like a sheep and goat farmer. They were bad enough on the habitat...

It's your place (places). Do what you want on it. Ruin your country for 4 or 5 years.

Carrying capacity matters.

If you were shot in both legs... and I heal one... Can you walk better?

Sure you can...

Are you all the way healthy?

Shooting spikes makes no sense in the AR rules...

AmoCuernos wrote:
"Its not bogus. An arbitrary number is bogus, not taking into account supplementation, but a place with a browse line is above carrying capacity.

Deer pens have browse lines... if there is even any shade at all besides metal roofs..."

And yet, the biggest, most concentrated deer on the planet are in those pens.

Most I've seen don't have a browse line, they dont even have a green sprig.

And yet, there they are, the best proof that your CC is bogus.

Don't dis the guys who kill all spikes in spite of hard data against it, if you can't see the forest for the trees on CC.

Yes...hi$ crap deer if you aren't controlling a large portion of their diet. Worst place I ever saw was a 7k acre HF place that a family quarrel left it unhunted for years...amazingly the more we shot the more that population exploded. To this day there are still better deer on the unfenced 7k acres adjacent to it. If the herd growth is naturally being stunted during really good years, something is wrong. Fences matter a lot, deer don't have enough food or water, they'll leave. Doe groups split to fawn and stumble upon a jackpot of browse there's a chance they won't rejoin. Fence also creates a line in the sand on what you can hold and allow you to plan for the worst instead of gambling on nothing but good years.. Think every deer will get their daily allotment of protein from the feeder and there'll be dominant deer that have staked claim to them to insist they don't.

"Think every deer will get their daily allotment of protein from the feeder and there'll be dominant deer that have staked claim to them to insist they don't."



Explain how that works in the 5 acre pen with 30 bucks please... (all of them pushing 200")

Yall are making this way too easy.

"amazingly the more we shot the more that population exploded."


That's truly incredible. Creating deer out of thin air. I thought only God could do that.

And you can't see that carrying capacity has been exceeded when their isn't even a green sprig?

Hah... Carrying Capacity isn't just about deer. Carrying capacity is about habitat and maintaining healthy balance on your ranch.

If you are just trying to raise deer and don't care about anything else... If you are just a farmer looking to create a monoculture in neat little rows to maximize a cash crop, carrying capacity doesn't apply to you. It doesn't make it irrelevant as a concept to people who care about their habitat.

Explain how you'd get it to work w/o the fence...




More feed created by fewer deer created larger fawn crops.



Quick question: in the breeder pen, does the bucks food consumption lower any throughout the year?

I guess if you ignore genetics then shooting spike wouldn't make sense. But what I read is given enough or the right amount of forage then genetics does come into play. Deer are not that much different than cattle in that sense. You feed them in a pen or let them browse open range and if they can eat enough then genetics does matter. I have raised cattle in both conditions and small cow bread to a small bull will likely produce a small calf.

I think much of the conclusion of the research presented in the paper follows this line of thinking. If you feed deer or have sufficient CC then shooting spike 1 1/2 yr old bucks makes sense from an attempt to control the genetics side of the equation IMO. Just my 2 cents...but everyone has the right to their own opinion.

Yeah, if this isn't about deer maybe it should be moved to the snail darter thread?

Well, you got 1 out of 3 right...which just happens to be the breeder pen question.


I'm glad I'm giving you a chuckle with my lack of knowledge on this subject matter.

Ahhh... You're one of those.

Never mind.

All in fun. Please don't take anything I say personal. Just pushing buttons (or making an attempt). Hasta manana.

Yes. And based on the links on your sig line, someone you know is too. It's all about big deer. And the money they generate.

Hah...

No I meant hard core deer factory in a parking lot habitat be damned people.

Whatever. Not worth talking to you about management. You are solely a farmer. You don't belong in the conversation... Which is what I said a couple posts ago.

Dang.. You sure do make some pretty bold assumptions. You play elitist much anywhere else?

Just a hint: you might be wrong about me.

And from what I've seen here, it's a pattern.

I'm not judging. If its about money to you then so be it. You haven't said anything to dissuade my impression.

This is exactly my view on the topic. In Ag Science, you spend lots of hours studying which bull produces a certain size calf so as to not put him with a cow that can't handle a large calf. To me, this appears to be studying genetics and determining what ratio works best for what you are trying to accomplish. I don't see how that is any different for deer.

In a small pen its not, in open pasture large hf or low fence, your not control breeding. You have virtually zero idea of the does genetics, then on LF how do you control dispersal coming in and going out. Just because a buck is born on your place doesn't mean that will be his core area.

You can shoot every spike on your place for 10 years (assuming you have enough tags).
At year 11 are you still shooting spikes? Of course you are.

So now after eleven years spikes keep showing up, Why?

Many ranches try to eliminate 8pts. After years of culling why do the still have them?

You cant control genetics. You either have genetics for 170"+ deer or you don't. Only thing you can do is help insure those genetics have the best food and age to allow those genetics to express themselves.

I nor anyone else can look at a yearling and tell you what he will score at 6.5 years old.
What does inferior mean anyway? 120vs130, 140vs150, 160vs170?

TPWD/kerr study did nothing more then say spikes will not score as high as their forked yearling counter parts as a percentage of B/C at 4.5 years old as a whole. Cool again what does that mean 120 vs 130, 140vs 150, 160 vs 170?

If people want to try to control genetics, good for them. They want to kill 25-40% of their yearling buck crop right off the bat every year cool. Their place, their dollar, their freezer.

Thats not a management plan as a whole.

Bobo...we have 10 people hunting 500 acres HF. Trust me when I say we know every deer on our place.

Couldn't have stated it any better except for one thing. It actualy is a management plan. It's just not based on facts, and it will never acheive the goal of significantly changing the genetics.

It's about money to the people that own the ranch in your links too. And that's not what you assumed about me. I told you that.

What you assumed was that I own a parking lot sized ranch and that I ruined/didn't care about my habitat, and that I was a "farmer". And because of that, I didn't "deserve to be in this discussion".


All those assumptions couldn't be more wrong. I'll put my habitat up against anyone's. And I'll pm you my "parking lot" size.

Man...you just gotta' love Texas!

Speaking of assumptions......

Hey! He challenged my parking lot!!!

I'm waiting for y'all to start arguing who has more oil wells. Gotta complete the full cycle!

Shhhhhh... you'll scare him away!

No kidding! You gotta admire Amos' ability to bite his tongue.

Only From pure management cycle, you've introduced to up genetics, and may even currenty release to add upper age bucks to harvest.

How much do you know about the owners of the Las Raices ranch?

Now that would be interesting...

Some people bite off more than they can chew.

I don't think he is biting his tongue, he got the info that he was looking for and choose the highroad.
Playing poker has different rules when your stacking and adding to the deck, not his type of poker that's all

Whatchu think?

More interesting who has the most % of participation in their wells

Needs more salt and butter....and a larger supply I am afraid.

I agree

No sir, read his posts a little more. He said I managed a parking lot. Said I was "one of those who didn't care about the habitat".

And you would be assuming too much if you believe I've "introduced to up genetics" (not that I'm so elitist that I would ever denigrate a fellow rancher /hunter that does).

I don't know anything about his linked ranches other than (based on the statements on their website), that they have a "slight" bend against foreign genetics.

I did buy a ranch a couple of years ago where the previous owner put some northern bucks with some ST does. But they've been released and I don't even have a breeder's license.

My personal opinion: I think it's very counter productive to look down our noses at each other in the hunting community.

I think he got caught in some wrong assumptions. And wisely chose to cut his losses.

You have made just as many wrong assumptions about him.

Please enlighten me.

I don't look down at any one for what they choose to do on their ranch...I'm probably to the extreme on land owner rights. Your land, your right to do what ever you want with it and anything that walks or flys through it.

You don't have to have a breeders lic to release just the right paper work.

What is it now $250/deer?

Did ya'll assume from this that I didn't think he owned his linked ranch? Or cared about money himself?

"It's about money to the people that own the ranch in your links too."

If you did, you'd be wrong. I was avoiding accusing him of the "sin of 'farming' deer for money". Cause whether or not they import genetics at Raises (they obviously don't), they do farm deer for the money. A noble endeavor IMO.

And based on the posts by others, he might have oil money. Awesome! That doesn't mean he doesn't care about money. It's my experience that most people who have money care about it. But I could be wrong in his case.

Either way. Whether or not he cares about money, has a bias against deer "farmers", or whatever his preferences, I'd never attack a fellow hunter's chosen methods. Ever.

From BoBo's previous post
"I don't look down at any one for what they choose to do on their ranch...I'm probably to the extreme on land owner rights. Your land, your right to do what ever you want with it and anything that walks or flys through it.

You don't have to have a breeders lic to release just the right paper work."


[/quote]The deer were on the ranch in pens when I bought it. I released them when I bought it. I don't have "the right" or any paperwork for that matter. Not that I'm against it. Just trying to keep the record straight.

And I never implied you looked down your nose. It's very obvious Mr Cuernos did.

I have absolutely no idea.

I didn't get caught in wrong assumption. I don't care how big your places are. When I said parking lot, I want referring to size I was referring to habitat diversity.

Carrying capacity always matters. It's the nutrition element of the 3 part equation.

If you aren't feeding it relates solely to habitat.

If you feed supplementally it relates to both habitat and your wallet.

If you feed as a staple, it relies almost exclusively on your wallet.

Carrying capacity to someone who is relating it exclusively to their wallet is talk g apples and oranges to someone who isn't supplemental feeding.

To say it doesn't matter doesn't make sense. You aren't talking a out the same thing.

To YOU, your wallet is integral to carrying capacity. If you can only afford to feed half the deer that your neighbor can on the same acreage... That changes carrying capacity.

That's all I'm saying. Other than that, don't be so combative. Life is too short.

We all farm deer wether we want to call it that or not, especially when it comes to animals that don't migrate. As far as Amos I can't speak for him, but I took it as overstocking strictly as a resource for a higher money opportunity, isn't smart or safe land management. His view of ROI on his land is different then yours that's all.

my view of CC and yours is different. You view CC as none existant because you will feed for substainabilty not peak performance. I view CC as an overall impact my deer will have on my ranch, just like l look at how my cattle stocking rates will effect my deer herd, and how what i plant will help balance both and substain year round.

You like really high densities, I choose very low. You pay for your CC weekly at the protien feeder, and use hunting as your ROI. I don't

I have not read this entire thread (way to long) butt...
It my understanding that a doe is responsible for the largest part of deer genetics. Isn't shooting spikes just an attempt to control a small part of your genetic population?
Sure it is the only part that you can see, but isn't it kind of a crap shoot?
I shoot inferior bodied spikes, but I feel like it would take 20 years to really see a difference.

I don't get combative till someone says I don't belong in the conversation because of an incorrect assumption.

You assumed that my "parking lot" somehow was inferior habitat based on another wrong assumption.

All from this condensed statement I made and stand by. "CC is moot when you supplementally feed. And that the land owner has complete control over CC and can adjust as they see fit WITHOUT harvest."

It all depends on how much you're willing to spend.

Which is almost exactly what you said above.

So you DO care about what your habitat looks like?

If you take offense to me saying it looks like a parking lot... Because it doesn't... Sounds like you are below carrying capacity of the habitat.

Amos and my disagreement over densities wasn't what I was ragging him about. It was simply his assumption and statemnt about me.

I don't think anyone really cares to be told they don't "deserve" to be in a conversation.

On my Zavala Co. ranch I have been watching a neighbor manage similar to the way you are managing. I have been increasing density since 2006. And with about 18 inches of rain there already this year, I haven't fed ANY protein.

My theory is that the genetics are there, age and nutrition are all up to me. And that with more deer, I'll have more chances to raise a higher % of trophies than if I cull. So far, I'm kicking my neighbor's butt on native trophy/acre.

As soon as I bgin to see a problem with overal mature buck score I'll dial it down. But I can't imagine I'll ever see that if I feed when I need to.

This is silly. When you say I "don't belong in a conversation", it's gonna get me to rag on ya. Guaranteed.

I just challenged the assumptions (parking lot deer introducer) you made to justify your statement. Regardless of what my place looks like, I think I belong in the convo. I think you do to.

We in fact share several opinions.

And of course I care about what my habitat looks like. But I don't have a problem with my buddies who raise penned deer, and I'm willing to learn about CC from those examples too.

You and I are similar in our approach. ..biggest difference is my densities are much lower so in years of drought, I'm not having to supplement feed.

You should kick your neigbhors butt on number of trophies, but he can probably say his cost less per head, and likely have a higher percentage of BC score. Because he probably doesn't care to feed his lower end.

No right or wrong just different approach. His lessor denisties afford him more gambles on upper end deer and less cost in each deer also. Drought years he will probably crush you though on B/C scores for the same cost in supplemental feed.

I don't sell hunts so my motivators are different, there for my cost restraints are different also

What happened to the discussion on spikes? Y'all aim to tell me that if there will be no change in incidences of spike antlered yearlings after years and years of culling "your" deer and "neighboring" deer that pass through? I tend to think that if you shot enough and provided better groceries, you'd see a marked decrease in the percentage of them. Not claiming you'd ever get rid of spiked yearlings completely, but it would be nice to see less of them as a total percentage of yearling bucks.

That got culled

You don't belong in a conversation if you are applying variables to it that others weren't talking about. If you don't care about habitat.. Then carrying capacity As it was being discussed isn't relevant to what you were saying.

You will also noticed I never said you were a deer farmer. I said farmer, which fit with my monoculture cash crop analogy. I understand the confusion. That's on me.

Maybe I should have said the deer pen correlation doesn't belong in the conversation.... instead if saying YOU don't. It doesn't have a habitat component. EVERY OTHER discussion on deer management and capacity has a habitat component.


You understand that you saying habitat doesn't matter... Is just as absurd as someone saying feed doesn't matter.... Or I hope you do.

Yes. I gave an example of people who culled every spike for years high fenced. When 2010 rolled around they culled another 47. Previous years they were culling in the 10's to 20's. Food is what matters. You can't significantly change genetics by culling unless you cull all deer and replace them. You don't get to select who breeds on the range.

And I think the deer pen analogy does belong in the conversation. Because it proves that habitat is irrelevant as long as you feed the deer.

I feed...why don't I have 100% fawn recruitment & 200+" deer?

Irrelevant to your goals, doesn't mean irrelevant to anyone but you.

When you can put fawn cover in a bag, call me. You have a new client.

Irrelevant is a big all encompassing word... water is part of habitat... that's relevant. Fawning shade, grass cover and edge are important as you get out of a pen... that's relevant. Forbes as a nutritional kick are habitat... those are incredibly relevant. No one has ever figured out a delivery system outside of a pen environment in south texas to negate the absence or presence of forbes.

The deer pen doesn't translate on those issues.

I give up... you cull spikes?

Nope...and have a good amt of 7-8pt yearlings

Well don't you think it is about time you started

Why when I get flooded with new yearlings after season is over.

...and I'm still not shooting your namesake buck...

East Texas + Spotlight + Rancher Season = No more spikes

Don't blame you....they are making more that look just like him...everyone needs a ranch full of them...

Kind of like how I have a ton of no brow tine deer....

"Irrelevant to your goals, doesn't mean irrelevant to anyone but you.

When you can put fawn cover in a bag, call me. You have a new client.

Irrelevant is a big all encompassing word... water is part of habitat... that's relevant. Fawning shade, grass cover and edge are important as you get out of a pen... that's relevant. Forbes as a nutritional kick are habitat... those are incredibly relevant. No one has ever figured out a delivery system outside of a pen environment in south texas to negate the absence or presence of forbes.

The deer pen doesn't translate on those issues"

I don't over graze cattle, and I don't have any places that don't have shade, forbs, fawn cover, edge and grass cover. They can't live without water so that's a given.

And I don't cull or "manage" anything but the feed bucket.

I let people harvest bucks when they're 6 or older. And even the spikes at 1.5, are money makers at 6.5 and older. I shoot VERY few does.

And my places are crawling with bucks.

Deer can't "ruin" my habitat as long as I'm managing the feed bucket.

It's impossible.

No... It's not because you can approach pen like conditions in the pasture at high enough densities.

I'm not talking acres/deer... I'm talking deer/acre. A 300 acre "feed lot" ranch with a browse line in the hill country is a classic example, though exotics usually help that out as well.

I'm 57. I plan on living quite a while longer. But I don't believe (based on 17 years of observation that has consistently proven that my habitat "with feeding" is damage proof), that I will live to see the day that the deer on my ranches are adversely affected by over browsed native habitat.

I guess we'll see.

If you didn't adversely affect it in the last 5 years of drought with the densities you are running now, you probably never will.

But saying it is "immune" ignores that there is a threshold somewhere.. where there are too many deer...

I run about 1:6.5 in Webb with a feeder to 80 acres... feed station per 150... I've seen a place that is 1:2 with just deer...

I've seen places with 500 exotics on 300 acres...

You can see the difference... no matter how much is fed... because you are approaching the "not a green sprig" of a deer pen at those densities...

And on those larger scales... you lose all the efficiency that a 5-20 acre enclosure provides you as a steward of individuals... so that green sprig matters.

This was a fun argument.

Lets keep going on this thing. Should we talk about habitat from a bag again? This spike argument is pretty much dead.

Spike argument won't be dead until I have STX believing he should let them live so he has more mature options in the future.

+1

Ha! I just saw this resurrection.

And how ironic, the feed truck woke me up this am filling the feeders here on the hill country ranch. I may go take some pics of the browse and grass. Incredible considering the number of animals (exotics AND wt) I have here.

And rifleman, I don't think u can fix stx's propensity to kill his trophy spikes. It's a congenital defect IMO...

Spikes are great for commercial hunting operations where they are selling all bucks for $$. If you are managing a private lease and not needing maximum buck numbers to sell you don't really have to carry the extra spike weight.

Exactly.

Mature deer tend to price out higher....

Every time.

Sold a 128" straight 6 for $2500 bucks. He was worth feeding for a few years.

I'd rather carry that than an extra doe that's going to produce offspring if it's a CC issue.

Last slick 6 I had at 3 started out as a yearling 5pt though so he wouldn't have been lumped in with the spike debate.

I have no idea what mine started as. He just showed up. You can get a pretty penny for a high scoring six.

I just wanted a big 6 and was letting him be a science project since he was so reliable when it came to corn, then he grew brows at 5 and at 6 went AWOL. Then again, both of his running buddies got shot so maybe he wised up a little.

? anyone change their mind in the last 5 years?

No, no point in it for 99.99% ranches or leases on THF.

Ask Stewart Stedman

I personally think spikes should not be legal to shoot.

Sure do taste good though

Someone said to ask Stewart Steadman. I know a little about him but don't know his opinion on spikes. Can you enlighten me.

Nah not really... on average spikes will not be what there fork antlered siblings/class mates will be at maturity. Doesn't hurt to take them out as a spike if you don't want to feed them another 5-6 years.Really depends on what your goals are.

Nope

I have to say just for fun....spikes don't develop any different...only genes will tell. Spikes will develop just like all other branched bucks. Some will grow large and some won't. Those that don't....will convince hunters that all spikes are inferior....those that do grow to maturity and grow big racks will not make any statement at all. Some hunters believe you can change the gene pool by taking out the spikes....not true as the does have a input of 60% of the genes. That doesn't say bucks will not have input ...they do pass on some genes for the horns. I love this conversation...For my lease we don't take out bucks until they are four years old. Doesn't matter if they come from a spike or not. I don't see a lot of lessor bucks. You would think that if spikes developed lessor bucks...you would have many bucks with small horns. I find age helps most to develop the best racks. All bucks have spikes as a fawn...the next year the ones with spikes as a 1 1/2 yr. old I believe will have natural normal racks. Now...this should put a few logs on the fire...lol.

If TPWD really thinks that spikes are inferior, why do they wait till the end of the season after them spunky boogers have been spreading their supposedly inferior genes, to give us a special late season for them.
I would think they would let us have an early season (September ) to eliminate them from the breeding pool.

Just spikes or are there others that should be protected as well?

I’ve never thought about it like that. Most excellent point

Why wouldnt you just shoot them opening weekend if you have a problem with them? Why do you need a special season to shoot them?

I have a very detailed management plan that I will write below. Please consider taking 5-6 hours to sit down and read this, as I've put my life's observations and data collection into this study. with that said, here it is..


STOP SHOOTING 1 year old bucks!

I hear that!!

Theres exeptions to every rule but basically Kyles management plan covers 99% of leases, IMO.

A 1.5 year old deer probably wont breed anything, nor will a 2.5. TPWD probably allows them to be shot late season because they're still stupid enough to be showing up consistently.

for the same reason the doe season is extended...... no one does management work early. nearly all of our hunters sit in a blind opening weekend thinking the buck of their life time is about to walk out any second and they do noting for 2-4 hours but sleep read or play on the phone...... and pass on a million opportunities to contribute to the management plan.
"why can't we do it in Sept argument" is retarded.... that's when bow season is...

Try again, in a unbalanced herd, they can and will breed. Even in a highly managed balanced herd they still get their shots in, just not as prolifically. No such thing as pair bonding in Deer. Watched numerous 1.5 deer breed.

Agree, I don't know where the thought comes from that only the "Bull of the Woods" breeds.

No bow season in sept unless you are hunting elk or mule deer in another state, even under MLD. A lot of people do the bulk of their doe and cull management early. They just aren’t on THF talking about talking about theorized deer management. I’m normally tag out doe wise(Non MLD) by first sit, some times takes two sits. If I don’t use left over buck tags I may hunt extended doe, normally I mule deer hunting then though.

A lot of ranches try to get bulk of doe and cull early, and then chip away at whats left through out season,

wait.. what?? no bow season in sept.... lol

A lot of ranches try
..... all i ever hear, especially w/ MLD, is "we didn't kill enough"... or hey can you come help we need XXX killed this weekend. of our 25 lease hunter there are 2-4 guys that will use opening weekend to harvest there does. I have begged pleaded and threatened, to try and get the doe kill right off the bat.... but it never happens

Sept bow season would be cool though.


Just switch to have to kill x number of does before you can kill a buck. I hate sitting to kill does in Jan. Buck are back dominating feeders then. Safari style with road feeders always works but much different “style” for doe control

Kind of yes. I never did try to shoot all spikes, but after several years of including a decent number of spike harvest in our total harvest, it seemed like we didn't have as many bucks as I hoped/thought we should have. Try to shoot more does and if I shoot spikes I try to pick out bigger ones. I have shot 2 or 3 spikes since we have hunted our place that were over 130 lbs, they fall right in line with the typical size/weight/appearance of our 2.5 YO deer and at 2.5 im shooting a slick spike.