If a person hunts on a place that has a let's say has a 10:1 doe to buck ratio and the hunters on this place take 10 does and 2 spikes during the doe and spike season, haven't these hunters just added to the ratio problem? To me the ideal situation is to remove does until you get to a much improved doe to buck ratio, preferably 2:1 and then start removing spikes or inferior bucks.

Actually, no. Because does will have multiple fawns over their life span. Two fawns per year is not uncommon in good years. So each doe could potentially have as many as 10-15 fawns over it's life.

Bucks typically only breed a few does per season. So in the long run the killing of the does (and their potential offspring) will offset those two spikes.

Shooting spikes...that's a whole other argument all by itself.

Really it just depends on the capacity situation. If you've got under capacity population and especially if you are feeding protien, spikes are culls.

I've seen good genetics yield 8 points the size of your hands placed wrist to wrist in a young bucks first set of antlers without added protien feed.

If you choose to wait to cull the geneticly inferior bucks out of your popluation you only promote more does breed by geneticly inferior bucks.

IMHO good management practices mean that you strive to cull does to reach the 2.5/1 doe to buck ratio but you cull geneticly inferior bucks when you see them to keep from them passing on their genes.

It equates to 12 less mouths on the ranch at this point. That is more feed for the remaing deer. More feed means more fawns this summer which are born at a 1 to 1 buck to doe fawn ratio. Your ratio will change faster with a better fawn crops. If you had 100 doe and 10 buck before and 90 doe and 8 bucks after your ratio is worse today but by this summer if factor in your fawns that you have now that ratio will change dramatically by Sept. As an example if you only have a 50% fawn crop on the 100 doe before harvest you will have 25 more bucksf from the fawn crop to add to the 8 from this season and 25 more doe from the fawn crop to add to the 90 from this season in Sept this year. Your ratio at that point in Sept will be 3.5 doe to 1 buck. If you ranch is below carrying capacity then that is fine but if you are over then more doe need to be taken off now. Less doe can raise more fawns on good habitat when below carrying capacity than more does can on over populated habitat. What I mean is 70 doe can raise 50 fawns where 100 doe can raise maybe 25 or so.

Got to kill the does and culls!! Let the mature bucks walk for another year or 2. It's not gonna hurt the herd, but help it You'll be much happier when you get the opportunity to kill a 5 1/2yr old or older throphy buck also!

My moto is.......Kill the does and culls now and let the good bucks mature for another year!!

With all the controversy over spikes and with a low fenced ranch in the Hill COuntry, hunting the late season spike and doe hunt, it seems you should kill does rather than the spikes. In lots of cases the spikes are spikes because of lack of nutrition aren't they?

Not necessarily, but I'd only kill older spikes. Not the year old 4-5" spikes. One lease I was on required the spike to be longer than 8". IMO, if they are that long the deer is probably a 2yr old.

If the spike only has spikes because of lack of food maybe you should kill only does for a few years? Most guys won't do that so the management plan for free-ranging deer usually doesn't work that well unless y'all are strictly on the same management plan.

For instance, we saw a good 10pt that was 2yrs old. Most of us would pass on it, but a few wouldn't. Needless to say it was killed the first time one hunter hunted on his first morning hunt of the season. It had good genetics and should've walked. So, it is up to the hunter to make the right decission.

If you feel the spike should walk. Let it and kill a doe in place of it if you can. I'd rather kill does than a young imature buck anyday.

I assume many or most of you have heard of Dr. Deer, AKA Dr. James Kroll?

I have never been a big fan of his, but in the not to distant past, I read two articles that he wrote, and the jist of it was, as T.P.&W. has preached for years, spike bucks, at 1.5 years old are inferior animals, and regardless of the amount of supplemental protein these animals have available to them, they will never produce a set of trophy antlers.

Proper management practices have to involve the entire herd, not just the trophy segement.

Basicly it boils down to number of mouths you can remove. The more mouths you remove the more room you make for fawn survival with increased nutrition. If you do not have that many branch antlered 1.5 yr old bucks then I would keep the spikes. How many yearling bucks do you see? If you have enough branch antlered yearling bucks then I would shoot the spikes. The length of the spike has nothing to do with the age of the spike from what I have seen. In all the years of killing spikes I have only encountered 2 spikes that were over 1.5 yrs of age. Some areas it is genetics and some it nutrition. One way to improve nutrition is the shoot as many does as you can. This can create more feed and if you then keep great records on your sightings of spikes and see if the numbers of them drop. If they don't and your records show increasing body weights and fawn survival then nutrition has improved and now it may be genetics.

Man, I don't know how you interpret studies and results that Dr. Kroll has done, but he is opposed to the findings of TPWD. He has for years, preached to let all yearling bucks walk. I talked to him about this personally on the Paloma Blanca Ranch in Stephenville. His exact words to me were, "If you kill a yearling spike, you could be killing the largest buck you will have on your ranch in 4 years." He told me of the study he had done in ranches across 5 different counties in South Texas and found there was no significant difference in 4.5 yo bucks (on avg) no matter their rack as a yearling.

So in short, a 4 point yearling or a spike yearling, can either one outscore the other. You can't cull them that young.

Dr. Kroll's info needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well. I'm not goin to say why, but you have been warned.

338 we do see some things the same!lol

KWppd_TSU,

If you are going to make a statement like this you should at least document why...

He's made some false statements is all. Now I'm not goin to say anymore than that.

Kroll's study and the overall Kerr study both tried to breed spikes... and they were successful.

They are assuming that spike oriented male and female deer try to mate the same way in reality, which luckily is not the case.

You are calling a man a liar, I'm thinking that you need to back that up.

I'm calling BS on you bud. I think you might have a beef or disagreement with him, but normal people would clarify what kind of false statements he has made. If it's public knowledge, then it is easily verified. If not, then they aren't false statements if they weren't in one of his scientific studies. If you have undeniable proof that he lied or gave false information in one of his studies, then you need to speak up, otherwise why make accusations like this and not have the cohones to back them up?

What do you think of the kerr wildlife study?

Kroll had nothing to do with Kerr study. You have called Kroll a liar, please explain.

I'm not goin to explain anything. I will say I believe the Kerr Wildlife Study over Dr. Kroll anyday.

Also, cesar kleburg has a study going on right now, wait for a couple of years for it to come out, and that will help alot of things.

The Kerr Wildlife Study was done on deer behind a high fence. Krolls studies have been behind fences and on free range deer.

What does it matter what I know about the Kerr Study? The point in question is you calling Kroll a liar and then being a chicken $h!) and not backing it up. If you are going to run your mouth off, you need to have the balls to back it up with facts. If your too scared to say what's on your mind, then you shouldn't have been popping off in the first place.

Not scared, just not goin to start another yearling spike debate. Just spend some time researching different studies, and maybe you'll see for yourself that Kroll is not always right.

All he cares about doing is disproving the Kerr. You should really go visit the Kerr Wildlife area, great place, and very informational.

Also, dont care what some say, but yearling spikes is due to genetics just as much as nutrition.