The "spike" controversey is really pretty simple.

In most of the US population, anywhere form 60%-90% of the buck
population are 1.5 yrs old. In areas wher its more like 80% (much of the Eastern seabord) a good percentage of the yearling deer are spikes. These deer, while having the potential to be genetically inferior, are not neccessarily so. Lets assume that 1/4 (high assumption) are genetically inferior. If we cull spikes, 75% of them may have been genetically fine. In other words, for every 4 yearling spikes we cull, only 1 genetically inferior buck is removed.

It is the opinion of almost every major deer biologist I'm familiar with that culling of any bucks, should only be considered after they are 2-1/2 years old.

So if you see a 3-1/2 yr old Spikehorn, BY ALL MEANS cull it. In most areas of the country, it could be considered a rare trophy, as its about as likely to occur, as a B&C buck being taken.

Also, its important for the hunter to consider that 50% of the genetic code comes from the female. By "turning the doe population" more fequently, you stand a far better chance of reducing genetically "inferior" bucks. This is true because even in stressed populations, very few spikehorns will have the chance to breed, but nearly every doe gets bred. Do you see my point? With a "young" doe population, you increase the odds that their mother was likely bred by a dominant buck, and not a lowly spikehorn.