Sure, one of the longest running most extensive research programs stacked the books/bucks and spent tons of money to prove a point everyone already knew. Please..............

So "hill country" deer suck and all offspring bucks are spikes? Sorry Central TX ranch owners you shi't out of luck. What about East TX, North TX or West TX? The trends can be applied to any deer herd and will hold true. Fact is, this requires tons more work than weekend warriors and armchair quarterbacks are willing to do.......its easier to say just wait and see

Well its a good thing I'm in South TX and don't have to worry about blasting spikes then worring about if they were the one in a thousand that could a, should a, possibly was a,............

LMAO...Never said hill country deer sux... But tell me how many Book deer come from the Hill Country compared to S.TX. And those that are breaking that threshold are doing it with introduce genetics for the most part, some aren't but most are. Thats book deer not 150-160's

I actually feel that the panhandle has some of the best genetics in the state. Combine that with low density and abundant food.. you got a winner



Look into it. Actually read the Study..then ask them directly.

You take a gene pool that already better the other and then line breed it... the differance between the two will increase. Thats excatly what they did, thats excatly what breeders of just about ever animal out there does. Not rocket science.

Wonder what would of happened if they rotated does every year? Bet you the numbers get a whole lot more even.

Yes your right a very long ran publicly funded study.



Not agrueing that one bit. Thats why I said culling doesn't work on low fence. Even the ones with best resources ($$$/time) can hardly do it effectively.

I give up. I think that everyone has already formed their own opinion on this subject.

But...if you can control "numbers" (get the ratio down to 1:1) then in effect you can control genetics. Only the highest quality bucks would reproduce by natural selection and you wouldn't see many spikes.

What JGILES said - He took the words right out of my mouth.

If you control numbers you are in effect making habitat improvements leading to a more abundant source of nutrition. That would be one reason you wouldn't see many spikes, not because you changed the genetics. You are giving the deer every opportunity to reach it's genetic potential.

"I have no problem with anyone shooting a spike or any other buck for that matter. It is supposed to be fun. It just annoys the you know what out of me when someone justifies shooting a buck because of genetic reasons and thinks that herd improvements are being made."
I just want to ask that if you have a 1.5 year old spike and or 5 pt, fork what ever and other 1.5 yr olds with 8 point racks and they all have the same feed and supplement opportunity why wouldn't you believe they lack the genetics for the larger rack. And especially by the 2.5 yr old time you will see it. I have seen 3.5 yr old fork horns no one wanted to shoot that had 13+" spreads and I'm here to tell you they were big enough body size to win breeding rights.

Personally I'll let first yr spikes walk. Second year with a non branched antler or no brow tine and it's donated to the church pantry.

It can irritate the "you know what" out of you all day. I think you're talking out the side of your neck on 75% of what you're saying. The other 25% while some what agreeable with what I believe I know is still over shadowed by your obvious lack of real time, multi-year, close record kept and very diciplined on what you take off the property managing of a hunting area.

"Eons of breeding and genetic influence cannot be altered by removing so called inferior deer from the herd. We cannot determine or alter the gene pool of free range deer. Once we arrive at this realization and accept this fact, we can then focus on the factors that will bring out or enhance the deer’s ability to live up to it’s genetic potential."

Also crap. No matter how you slice it, you feed up and age up a deer with better genetic potential and he is more likely to grow the rack we who give a darn desire. Does have to be considered too.

You can't expect someone with the genetics of my family history to drop a kid who will grow up to be a lineman for the Dallas Cowboys. If he grows to 5'9" and of average body weight he'll be taller and better in stature than all of his predecessors but not a prime athelete of above average stature that can compete on that level. No matter how I feed the boy he might as well play in the band.

Genetics matters and we can and do make a difference. We make a negative difference taking out too many of the desirable deer as well.

Think what you want, I really don't care. You don't agree with me, I really don't care. You know nothing of my time spent with and around deer, my record keeping practices, my management practices, nor my experience. Keep those comments to yourself.

Because everything does not occur under controlled conditions. We don't know that everything afforded all yearling bucks is equal. What about the buck fawn that was born in September, does he have the same opportunity that one born in April does? Does the buck fawn that was orphaned at two months of age have the same opportunity? What if he was one of a triplett with a marginally milk producing doe? What if his mother raised him with poor milk production due to poor habitat? Everything is not the same.

No kidding. That is what I have been talking about. Control what you can control, age and nutrition. You cannot control genetics. You cannot DNA every deer to determine it's genetic makeup through parentage verification.

So if you were a deer, you would need to be culled. Sorry, couldn't help it.

Got to Love our State

Good luck to all the hunters this season, weather you choose to shoot spikes or not for what ever reason

Personaly I can see more than just an "11"ptr in my near future. Pics will be sure to follow...............

Hope you get a stud

I am going to shoot a free range spike as soon as I see "him" this season.

Just going to shoot him once????

I figured you shoot him at least three times

depends on if he has grown kickers on his spike. There are 2 of them, both 5 pts, but one appears to be slick horned and the other appears to have some trash around the base on the side that is a spike.

On low fence operations that have an abundance of deer and the goal of trophy buck management there is no reason to keep spikes.

If you have a low fence commercial operation and are selling bucks for harvest you may not want to shoot spikes because someone down the line will shoot the inferior buck as their trophy and maximize $$$.

You can't convince me that shooting a spike doesn't increase the quality of the herd. Maybe you guys with big places have the luxury of watching a yearling spike mature into a 5 year old 150 class 10 point. I'm not convinced it even happens as they allready start out with the deck stacked against them by my way of thinking.

And I do think genetics have a role to play. I have a 5 or 6 year old buck on my place with no eye guards - and his progeny run all over the place, again with no eyeguards..I'd rather have a yearling 8pt left in the heard to breed later than a yearling spike as (just my opinion) I think that yearling spike isn't going to have as good an offspring as a yearling 8pt. Otherwise, why would a breeder pay thousands of dollars for a buck that is proven to produce record book class offspring? Hell he might as well save him some money and start with a heard of spikes! I'm sorry, I just don't think it works that way.

I hunt a small place (100 acres) so management is relative but even on it I have a combination of spikes, bucks without brow tines, and what I consider to be nice quality dear (130-140 class mature bucks).

This is my 3rd year on the place. The first 2 there were pretty good rainfalls, forage, acorns, etc. so browse and water didn't fit into the equation - as I had yearling 4's, 6's, and 8's too.

This year fortunately we've still had a fair amount of rain, tank is full, and there is browse everywhere so I expect it to be another good year - but there may be spike backstrap in my freezer's future...

Earl

ROFLMAO

That was good. Prolly true too.

Attitudes like that, on both sides, make it pretty clear that this issue will not soon be resolved.

Agreed. But I do follow the law. If TPWD adopted the stance that all 1 year old spikes needed the chance to live because they genetically are in no way different than any other yearling and will in all cases reach the same potential given the same conditions, circumstances, typical diet (not some protien on steroids), etc. as their forked brethren - I'd follow the law that said "No spikes" happily.

But I've not seen a TPWD study that says that (infact the ones I've seen say the opposite) and so far they haven't adopted that stance. Until then they are fair game.

Granted I understand there is alot of opinion here that TPWD doesn't know what they are doing when it comes to conducting studies and setting game laws but since it is the law it's neither here nor there I abide by it.

Don't get me wrong, it isnt' like I'm clearing out all the spikes I see, in all the years I've hunted I've only taken 2.

Earl

I believe you are either confused or misguided. There is no TPWD law, code or statute that would require you to shoot a spike. It is only department policy and opinion.

I would go where the nutrition was the best in either of the 2 locations. South Texas creates a more condusive environment for deal to grow larger antlers due to the offering of the land. The hill country on the other hand has less to offer from a high protein standpoint. South Texas range is better range that that of the Hill Country. Better nutrition = Better/Healtier Bucks (Larger Antlers)

In the Hill Country on our place, there are plenty of deer. Culling to me means that we are removing deer from the population. I beleive the best way to remove numbers of deer from the population is to kill does and their potential to have twins year after year, just like their offspring will do. We cull does which gives the bucks and other does more to eat and hopefully to reach their potential. In my opinion, a cull buck has more potential of becoming a good buck than a doe does, so consequently we kill does as our culls

If ya got lots of deer and lots of spikes kill em and have some backstraps if not let em live another year and see if they are worth shootin.

Pretty sure those does also have backstraps.

soooooo....neither one of these should be culled?



(one on left)


this one lucked out...

In regards to taking him based on his antlers... I always judge a deer via age and his good side. Single horned spikes are mainly a result of injury to the body, pedicle, and or injury during velvet.

We can all agree that does and buck should be killed each year to keep the population under control while keeping the ratio as close to 1:1 as possible right? If so, than why in the heck would anyone shoot a young 8, when they can take a spike or a messed up rack. No you can not change genetics, but if you are going to kill a buck anyways to keep the ratio where you want it, it is only smart to kill the ugliest rack out there.