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.