yeoman

rgarza, I went through the article "Understanding Spike Harvet" on the webpage above. This is a very extensive study and yet I come away with the feeling that they were out to prove that spikes are genetically inferior and wonder if they could have arrived at a different conclusion had they been seeking a different end. Here are some concerns:

1) the most glaring error I find is right where I believe the problem lies; late birth. How can a study so firmly based in science default to complete non-science in this part of the analysis. Their conclusion is, since most agree that late birth dates are those fawns born after Aug. 1, and 95% of the harvest consists of deer born by July 31, late birth is not an explanation. This is not a scientific conclusion. Perhaps the problem lies in the publics perception of late birth. Perhaps late birth is any fawn born later than average.I find it impossible to believe with all the data they had and years of study, they did not have the birth dates of the fawns studied. Why then did they not simply supply charts similar to all the others provided, showing the correlation or lack there of, of date of birth and antler production of these yearlings? I'm guessing because there was a very high correlation of antler mass to birth date and a pretty strong correlation of other antler growth characteristics to birth dates as well. The result would have weakened their argument. We have no way of knowing, but doesn't this strike you as a bit odd, that they don't provide that data?

2) If genetic propensity to produce antler growth begins at birth, then that portion of the cohort with inferior genes are likely to be within the spike component of the cohort, regardless of birth date. Consequently, selecting spikes for line breeding is going to put spikes with inferior genes for antler growth in the line along with spikes with average or superior genes for antler growth, where late birth may be the cause for spike antlers. On the other side, they selected a buck with clearly superior genes for line breeding.Comparing the results downstreamwill yield the result they were after and is not a big surprise. But does it really prove ALL spikes are genetically inferior?

It would be my hypothesis, that 20% of all bucks fall on the tail ends of a bell curve for genetic propensity to over or under produce antler. Split about 50/50, with 10% lying in either camp, inferior and superior. For every 100 buck fawns, about 40 will be spikes as yearlings(according to the study). 10 of thesewill begenetically inferior antler producers. 30 are later than average birthdates, and will, on average,remain a year behind the cohort in antler production. And no,even thespike with superior geneswill never achieve the antlers of a superior gened fork antlered yearling, but if he eclipses 80% of the fork antlered cohort with average genes, by maturity, isn't he worth keeping around in an unfenced, managed for the public, herd?

My answer, already stated, is of course, no. Not because all spikes are inferior, but because in that unfenced public environment his chances of living long enough to reveal his superior gentics, if he has them, are so remote that removing him by gunfire as a spike is little different than his being removed at 2 1/2 years of age,as anaverage8 pointer in that cohort.

Your thoughts?