Community
Wildlife Management / Food Plots This forum is about all wildlife management including deer, food plots, land management, predators etc.

Shouldn't they be bigger?

Thread Tools
 
Old 08-23-2008, 07:33 AM
  #11  
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ponce de Leon Florida USA
Posts: 10,079
Default RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?

One thing guaranteed, if you shoot them they won't get any bigger.
timbercruiser is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 03:56 PM
  #12  
Giant Nontypical
 
North Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 8,939
Default 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.
North Texan is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 03:58 PM
  #13  
Giant Nontypical
 
North Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 8,939
Default 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.
North Texan is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 05:21 PM
  #14  
Spike
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 61
Default 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.
jkm03003 is offline  
Old 08-24-2008, 05:49 PM
  #15  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Miami, Oklahoma
Posts: 422
Default 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)
Deer aren'tmuch different than people when they are showing their genetic potential...you have kids that shoot up to 6 feet tall when they're 12 (me) and others that may be 5' 5" until 15, then have a growth spurt to where they're as tall or taller than the ones that shotup in height early...you just never know what is going on'for sure'until about 3.5 for bucks.

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.
USFWC is offline  
Old 08-25-2008, 08:24 AM
  #16  
Fork Horn
 
mconwa951's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: New Brighton, MN
Posts: 480
Default 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.
mconwa951 is offline  
Old 08-26-2008, 09:20 AM
  #17  
Nontypical Buck
 
npaden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 1,401
Default 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.
Not to beat around the bush, but you are wrong on this. In free ranging deer culling does not work. TPWD has some studies on spikes and genetic potential but those are all with penned deer with control over their feeding and knowing which does are involved in the breeding process. In a recent study on the King Ranch over an extended period (I think it was 5 years) the average antlers as measured in inches actually wentdown in an area where they used extensive culling of "undesirable" bucks and in another area where they did not cull undesirable bucks the average antlers got better.

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.
npaden is offline  
Old 08-26-2008, 11:51 AM
  #18  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location:
Posts: 44
Default 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
midwesthunter1 is offline  
Old 08-26-2008, 01:16 PM
  #19  
Nontypical Buck
 
npaden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 1,401
Default 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


npaden is offline  
Old 08-26-2008, 01:34 PM
  #20  
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
 
LKNCHOPPERS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,282
Default RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?

That was a very informative link. Thanks for the Info.
LKNCHOPPERS is offline  


Quick Reply: Shouldn't they be bigger?


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.