Shouldn't they be bigger?
#12
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
Cull them. They may never grow out of being a spike and will certainly never mature into a trophy.
I've never read or seen a scenario where eliminating spikes was a mistake. I have seen several that had a policy of leaving spikes, and on each of those, it was clearly a mistake 3-4 years down the road.
I've never read or seen a scenario where eliminating spikes was a mistake. I have seen several that had a policy of leaving spikes, and on each of those, it was clearly a mistake 3-4 years down the road.
#13
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
Cull them. They may never grow out of being a spike and will certainly never mature into a trophy.
I've never read or seen a scenario where eliminating spikes was a mistake. I have seen several that had a policy of leaving spikes, and on each of those, it was clearly a mistake 3-4 years down the road.
I've never read or seen a scenario where eliminating spikes was a mistake. I have seen several that had a policy of leaving spikes, and on each of those, it was clearly a mistake 3-4 years down the road.
#14
Spike
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 61
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
Younger Does that typically conceive late will drop fawns late and these deer have a hard time catching up with the fawns that were dropped earlier in the year by more mature does. These later born fawns will usually have small spikes initially, but by the time they are 2 1/2 will likely catch up with their peers.
I believe the time to cull bucks is at the 2 to 3 mark, not 1 1/2.
I believe the time to cull bucks is at the 2 to 3 mark, not 1 1/2.
#15
Fork Horn
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Oklahoma
Posts: 422
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
ORIGINAL: RackLuster
i hear a lot of people saying you cannot judge a deer by the rack they had when they were 1.5 (spike). i find that hard to believe. typically, a deers rack gets bigger every year until they start to decline around 6'ish years old. why would 1.5 be different?
wouldn't it be reasonable to think that a 1.5 yr old w/ 8 points is going to be bigger at 2.5 then a 1.5 with 2 inch spikes?
what i'm saying is i think a deer's genetics show up before 3.5. i've seen some absolute bruiser 2.5's and some 2.5 spikes. i'd have to say they don't have the same potential.
(this is a serious question, not trying to be a jerk)
i hear a lot of people saying you cannot judge a deer by the rack they had when they were 1.5 (spike). i find that hard to believe. typically, a deers rack gets bigger every year until they start to decline around 6'ish years old. why would 1.5 be different?
wouldn't it be reasonable to think that a 1.5 yr old w/ 8 points is going to be bigger at 2.5 then a 1.5 with 2 inch spikes?
what i'm saying is i think a deer's genetics show up before 3.5. i've seen some absolute bruiser 2.5's and some 2.5 spikes. i'd have to say they don't have the same potential.
(this is a serious question, not trying to be a jerk)
That's not to say though that those that are showing great antler growth at a young age won't be the biggest-racked bucks at maturity...just that you do not truly know or are able to gauge what any buck will be at maturity as a yearling or a 2-year-old.
#16
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
My general rule of thumb is always let them go and let them grow yeah they might only get to be eight points some day but I think any deer that hasa 150" rack is a great deer and you never know what they could be if you kull them out.
#17
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
ORIGINAL: North Texan
Cull them. They may never grow out of being a spike and will certainly never mature into a trophy.
I've never read or seen a scenario where eliminating spikes was a mistake. I have seen several that had a policy of leaving spikes, and on each of those, it was clearly a mistake 3-4 years down the road.
Cull them. They may never grow out of being a spike and will certainly never mature into a trophy.
I've never read or seen a scenario where eliminating spikes was a mistake. I have seen several that had a policy of leaving spikes, and on each of those, it was clearly a mistake 3-4 years down the road.
I've seen several instances where radio collared or other wise distinguishable young bucks that were spikes turned into deer that would be at or over Boone and Crockett guidelines. Does that mean that all spikes will end up as B&C entries? No, but neither will all yearling 8 points.
Could the yearling 8 point have a better chance at reaching B&C status than a yearling spike? Maybe, I personally think so, but there haven't been any good studies to show one way or the other yet. But the studies do clearly show that a yearling spike will more than likely end up apope and youngclass deer at 4 years old if you let them live that long. I personally feel that apope and youngclass deer is a trophy to most folks. I know I would have difficulty passing on one.
P.S. - Which would you rather shoot, a yearling spike or a 3.5 year old 130" deer? Based on statistics that is basically the choice you are making based on "average" antler growth in most areas. If you need the meat for the freezer shoot a doe and down the road you will be thankful when that 130 class buck walks by.
#18
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location:
Posts: 44
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
so much plays into this, they could have been late born fawns, bad genetics, and you cant get that out of a herd unless you know what doe was breed, its 50/50 buck doe provides, try a better mineral supplement like 30-06 by whitetail institute
#19
RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
FYI here is a similar thread that was posted on QDMA's forums as a poll. Right now the votes are 42 to 1 in favor of letting him walk. The original poster then posts pictures of the buck later in life and he is a legitimate 150 class deer.
http://www.qdmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=18435
http://www.qdmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=18435