Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

I have a piece of private property we hunt and have planted a nice food plot. I have put out calcium and saltblocks from tractor supply as well back in February. From one stand last yearI saw two button buck fawns that would always hang together in this area. This year they are spikes but their antlers are only 3-4 inches long. The food plot is chicory and clover and has been hit but still provides more food than they can eat. I would expect a 1 to 1.5 year old deer with plenty of nutrition to have more bone. Do you think it is genetics? Last year I saw a couple of 1.5 year old bucks with similar spike racks. This seems to be the norm at this spot. I did see one descent buck once on trail cam pics last year but never on stand. So do you leave bucks with pitiful spike racks in the herd or take them out? This picture isn't a very good one, one spikeis turned around and you can see the back of his head. Thanks

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

That’s not uncommon at all and really doesn’t mean anything. There’s a large variety of reasons why a deer is a spike at 1.5 years old, nutrition only being a very small one.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

You're also assuming that you're seeing the same deer each time, odds are that you're not unless they have very distinctive markings.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

I am relatively sure they are the same deer. They were little button bucks then, I watched their spots go away and watched them for 3 months from my stand. I have hundreds of pictures of them from last year as well.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

I would shoot them and get them out of the herd, they will be good next year for sure but I would shoot them, we used to have the same problem by us with all spikes at 1.5, then we had a nice 7 pt 1.5 year old that made it through the season and lets just say he got around big time, now all the 1.5 year old bucks by us are at least 6 pts or better

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

It's simply not true that there is any advantage to culling out spikes. The antlers a deer has at 1.5 years of age mean absolutely nothing. There's also very little chance that a 1.5 year old deer will do any breeding unless the herd is extremely out of whack. Even if he did, there is no effect of culling out antler traits, despite what some "ranch" managers like to say on TV. That's simply advertising.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

You are also assuming that the deer are only eating out of your food plot...deer travel all day while eating....I would not worry about it...you are taking positive steps for your herd with the food plot...there is no reason to shoot spikes....like said before...the spike will grow into a bigger deer....Over the years, most of the spikes on our places turn into nice 6-8 points the following year....

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

I agree with what most have said -
Especially that you cannot evaluate 1.5 year old deer for potential on your hunting property -

Especially since most 1.5 year old deer re-locate in the summer of their "1st rack". Usually more than 5 miles away. Its nature's way that deer do not interbreed signifigantly, so while that spike may well be a fawn you saw last year - odds are that he will relocate away from your hunting property - usually about the time their velvet is shed.

A small % stick around -but there is also an "influx" of new 1.5 year old bucks passing through and looking for a place to call home.

FH

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

Don't shoot the spikes or those with 'poorer' antler growth. That yearling spike could still wind up to be a booner at some point. With adequate nutrition, the genetics start showing at around 3.5 years of age. It is better for rack development to manage for a balanced herd and age structure in the buck segment. Set your harvest age and learn to evaluate taking a deer on that basis, then you will see a much greater response in antler size, I guarantee it. That's what I get paid for. ;)

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

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)

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

One thing guaranteed, if you shoot them they won't get any bigger.

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.

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.

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.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

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.

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.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

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.

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

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

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

That was a very informative link. Thanks for the Info.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

There are many reasons that these deer, assuming they are the same 2 that have been seen over a long period of time, are carrying spikes.

Age could be one reason. They could have been dropped late in the season and are not as developed as the other animals because they are younger. These deer my be right on schedule for their age, but not the age class as a whole.

Deer grow into their bodies over the course of several years. The skeletal system is the first to mature then their muscular system matures later in life. While they are developing these systems they are utilizing nutrients differently. Each system has requirements that need met and until these requirements are met there is little extra to be used for antler developement. This is a time were nutrition is very important. Being able to provide the devoping body with the best available food will allow these animals to meet their bodies nutritional requirements and hopefully provide them with extra nutrients that can be directed towards antler development. This is were we need to implement land management practices that will allow the land to produce at its maximum. If the land and the forage produced from the land is not at its maximum then the wildlife using the land will not be at their maximum.

A good example of this is where I hunt in West Virginia. The neighbors and I have tried to increase the average age of the Bucks harvested by putting in place harvest guidelines. We try to harvest Antlered Deer that either meet criteria for antler development or body development relating to age. We have seen and harvested several deer that met the 3.5 year old body development criteria but did not meet the antler development criteria. One of the main reasons for this is that we are hunting in a totally forested piece of property and there are no food plots. We rely on mainly native species management. The soil is poor and thus the nutrient uptake of the plants is also poor. Because of this the deer are having to work twice as hard to get the same amount of nutrients to maintain their bodies. When we have a bad mast year this puts them into a deficit. When this happens antler development is poor. All available nutrients are use to maintain body condition so that they are able to make it through the winter. Have this happen 2 or more years in a row and the herd is really behind the curve. We know genetics are good because quality deer have been harvested from this area in the past.

As to removing these animals from the herd based on the available info, I personally would not harvest them just yet. I prefer to wait until the deer are older and beginning to mature. Take into consideration all available info about the deer, the property and management goals when making decisions. If you wish to harvest these deer because it is legal to in your state or you have set the property up so that junior hunters can take a deer such as this, go for it. Removing them because they need to be culled due to poor development at age 1.5, I feel is not a management decision that I would make.

Just my $.02

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

Guys, this is 2008. It has been proven that spikes can grow into 150 and 160 inch bucks.

Whoever says you should cull a 1.5 year old spike needs to do some reading :eek:

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

I have. I am also more than willing to share my reading with the rest of the class.

Here is probably one of the most statistically complete and accurate study I have read:
Kerr Wildlife Area

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

That is a study on penned deer where not only the male side of the breeding was controlled but the does as well. There are no studies of free ranging deer that support culling deer.

There are studies showing spikes turning into decent or even trophy bucks though. There was a recent one in Louisiana where a spike was collared and it ended up getting shot the next year as an above average 2 1/2 year old. There are many other examples as well.

Here's a summary of the most recent study of free ranging deer by Kip Adams, a certified wildlife biologist and director of education and outreach for the QDMA.

(Emphasis added by me)

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

I have read most of those studies in depth, and have had the opportunity to view the underlying methodology and data of a few of them. Those studies are the most accurate studies regarding spikes, in both potential and regarding harvest recommendations because those studies had controls. Through those controls, they are able to eliminate the effects of all other factors and isolate the genetic factor in buck growth and development.

I'm not certain which specific studies you are referring to, but without more specific information on the conditions and controls of the study, management re: culling spikes and average antler size is meaningless. Although genetics affect antler growth, they are not the only factor. It is very possible to cull for spikes and have antler size decrease. Drought and other conditions will do that. That doesn't make culling wrong, and in fact it doesn't prove that it is a poor management decision.

Were those part of some sort of study? If so, I would like to see the results of the study.

That's the whole point of management. Most places, at least in Texas, are at, near, or over carrying capacity (k). When the population is at that level, that means all of the natural resources available are being utilized by members of the population. For a new member of the population to survive, another member has to be taken out to make room.

With a spike, the genetic potential is just not there. That buck will never have the potential of a deer that has 5 or more points in the first year. That means they are an unproductive use of the resource. They are consuming resources that could be going to that 1.5 with 5 or more points, which has much greater odds of becoming a real trophy. If you don't get rid of the animals that aren't efficiently using your resources, then you are wasting time and money with any other management practices.

I'm going to shoot the spike every time. I'm not sure where those statistics came from, but I' not shooting a 3.5 130". It meets neither of the criteria I have for a shooting a buck. First, I'm not going to shoot a 3.5 deer unless its antlers have some kind of deformity. I'm going to allow that deer to age and continue to develop, because he hasn't reached his potential yet. Second, I'm not going to shoot a 130" deer unless it needs to be removed from the herd as well. If and when I shoot a buck, it will be because it is a trophy buck or it is a management buck. For me, that's going to be a lot closer to the 180" range. If I don't see a deer that fits either, that may mean I don't shoot a buck this year.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

Here's the problem. Just culling spikes and measuring antler size does not accurately gauge the effects of culling, because genetics is not the sole factor at play. It could very well be that had they not culled, antler size would have been even smaller.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

You do realize that the infamous Kerr study is based on deer that have been raised in an research area that is a whopping 16 acres and the breeding pens are less than an acre each. These deer have been under controlled breeding since 1974. If you are after those kind of results you could fence off your backyard and buy a stud buck and a few proven does andshoot your own 200" deer any time you felt like it.

I'm not arguing that in a completely controlled environment that you can't improve the genetics by extensive culling. You most certainly can and the Kerr Study proves that. I'm saying thatculling is not a viable alternative in a free range environment and studies have shown this.

In the King Ranch study they did have a control group where they did not practice culling. Under the same environmental conditions that population actually improved in average antler size during the same 6 years. These are degreed wildlife biologists doing these studies, not random individuals. They might actually know what they are doing.

The bulk of the study was pusblished in an issue of Quality Whitetails Magazine. I can't find it online though. I'll try to find which month it was in.

Here are some online articles that I found on the QDMA site.

Here's the full article that I pulled the quote in my previous post from - http://www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=124

Here's another article on culling - http://www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=84

Here's another article on spikes specifially.It waswritten in part by Dr. James Kroll (sometimes referred to as "Dr. Deer") - http://www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=23

If you are really interested in learning about Whitetail deer you should really consider becoming a member of QDMA. The magazine is worth the membership price alone.

The key in free ranging spikes is that you really don't know why they are a spike as a yearling. They could have the genetics to become a 160" deer at 4 years old and just been born late or born to a young mother with poor lactation or a number of other possibilties. They could have the genetics to be a 120" deer at 4 years old too. In a controlled pen raised environment where you control the timing of the breeding and their entire food supply you can have pretty decent assurance that a 1.5 year old spike is a result of genetics and those studies are valid on pen raised deer. But not on free ranging deer. You could actually make a better argument on culling a 120" 4 year old deer than culling a spike yearling but even then it is not recommended on free ranging deer.

The radio collared deer were actually part of a study on deer movement.

Here's one of the collared deer:


Here's a link to the thread on the QDMA forum showing some of the other radio collared bucks - http://www.qdmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=13582

The spike above was by far the smallest buck collared both in weight and antler size when it was originally captured but had nearly caught up when he was shot a year later. Given another year it would have probably caught up completely.

Here's another set of pictures of a spike that a fellow QDMA member has taken trail camera pictures of over the last several years. He was able to keep track of the deer year to year based on the white socks on his feet.

Here is a picture of him in 2005 as a yearling spike (okay he is technically a 3 point but for all intents and purposes he would have been considered undesirable under the Kerr study):


Here his is3 years later as a mature 4 year old.


P.S. - These aren't the only pictures this guy has of this deer. He has watched it mature over the years and is 100% positive that it is the same deer.

So what do I take from this?

#1 - Shooting spikes in a free ranging deer herd has not been proven to improve antler size of the remaining deer.

#2 - You might be shooting a deer that could end up becoming a monster buck a few years down the road.

That's my 2 cents.

Nathan

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

great info...you can't argue those results...

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

It sure doesn't prove it'sa GOOD decision. :eek:
Is it 1980 again? It's been proven over, and over, and OVER that culling deer based upon antler traits is worthless. It's nothing more than a advertising gimmick used by deer "ranch" owners on television shows. I guess some people still buy it.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

That's just it. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

That has never been proven.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

I think you missed the entire point of the study.

They have not shown this. Nothing I have read here or anywhere else has conclusively proven it doesn't work.

They are not the same conditions. Similar maybe, but not the same. Unless they had the same acreage and amount of each soil type, range site, and vegetation, they are not the same. How similar is up for debate.

Further, can anyone say 6 years is enough time to conclusively prove culling does not work?

I appreciate the articles. But those articles are still arguing conclusions that are not fully supported by the facts. Do they have some factual basis? Yes. But so does the theory that supports culling.

Born late or to a mother with poor lactation are both traits that you want to select against.

He may catch up, and he may never catch up. And it is likely some genetic factors lead to his poor development. If he is culled, those factors are removed from the population.

He may be 100% positive, but I am hesitant to believe anyone that says they can ID a deer from one year to the next. More times than not, they are wrong.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

The place I hunt was managed poorly up until the 1980's. The old rules were no does were shot, and spikes were not culled. Over half of the buck population did not have brow tines.

In 1994, we started filling doe tags and culling spikes. A 5.5 spike was culled in 1995, along with several spikes that were 2.5 or older. For the first 5 or so years, very few mature bucks were taken, because so many tags were filled with culls (1 buck county).

I've seen one spike the last two years, and no mature cull bucks. Size and quality of the bucks has gone up noticeably, with all hunters able to fill their tags with quality deer. This is on approximately 700 acres free range.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

It most certainly has been proven, many times over. But, you're welcome to believe anything you wish.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

You can lead a horse to water.....

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

Start worrying about your spikes when they're 2.5 years +. Male fawns that are born late in the yearwill typically be spikes in their first year with hard antlers (another scientific fact).

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

For anyone actually interested in learning something about the subject, next weeks episode of Quality Whitetails Television on the Outdoor Channel is on this exact subject.

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

We hunt relatively poor soils (Upland Soils - NY) - but with OK Genetics. I've never seen a 2.5 year old spike taken in the 25 years I've hunted. I've seen some 2.5 year old 4 points, 5 points and 6 points. We hope that in our program - our 2.5 year old bucks will sport 8 points - but more often only about 1/2 do. Still.......... we never see Spikes at 2.5 years or older.



FH

RE: Shouldn't they be bigger?
 

First post. Couldnt help but laugh at this thread. No expert by far, but those'controled studies' are just that. Controled! Those spikes in the study are getting adequate nutrition, and are 'true spikes'. As many of the guys here have pointed out, free range spikes could be spikes for several reasons. Late birth, drought, low nutrition, etc. I dont know about you guys, but I dont think everything on my property is 16% protien. That study is probably spot on when dealing with 'true spikes' that are spikes genetically and not because of countless reasons previously mentioned throughout the thread. Like somebody else said. Some bucks are better than no bucks in most places. Most of us cant 'properly' manage anyway. I know Ive never had a 3 digitor 4 digit acreage to manage. I hunt 60 acres. I try to do my part, but for the most part, my neighbors have a say so as well, as to whether he makes it past a year and a half....and sadly enough (Ive done it before too in the early years), makes it past 0.5. That being said, we have had a loyal 6pter than needs to be taken out. I saw him as a 2.5 y/o and though gosh, he's going to make a good deer hopefully (by typical NC standards). Was 6pt and about 14" wide. Not big by national standards, but oh well. Well I didnt see him last year (3.5) but picked up his sheds this spring as a 3.5, appears to have same width, same tines, just a little heavier. Hard to manage a tract that small and kill the deer than need to be taken out. They get smart when theres a tom, d!ck, and harry every 400 yards in a tree during gun season around here.