Spikes...Too shoot or not to shoot???

[qzilla]

You win Quad!.

It's not about winning or losing. Sometimes it take a hard headed person to make someone look and see there are alternate solutions or that sometimes what seems like the problem isn't.

I have no dog in this fight, I don't get paid for it, I do not lobby for anyone and I don't recommend biologists. I have spent the money, made the mistake, felt the pain and also reaped the rewards.

We feel the AR rule diminishes our ability to remove cull bucks from the herd that don't reach our expectations as "Trophy Hunters" is that better?

I get it but, I don't think you will cull that gene out. All you are doing is removing a mouth. Shoot more does, feed protein and those deer will be fewer and further in between.

Our family place is HF and all native genetics were removed.. It was stocked with deer from 4M, Sawdust, and MPR. :d I have some knowledge on what it takes to grow big deer

I have one of those places too. That is not growing big deer. That is buying big deer and maintaining them. Nothing wrong with it and actually the best way to really. It happens faster and you get what you want. I am an advocate.

Another... That would now be illegal to remove from the herd. 6 year old from 2007.

You had 27 years of shooting them that didn't change things. The last 3 of not shooting is not likely to change it either.

[krisw]

I have seen a few large mature 3 and 4 pt deer. Were they spikes to begin with? Dont know and dont care. I've never shot a spike or a doe. That said, I have no qualms about shooting one. One would think that by killing spikes that you would reduce the number seen. But its your lease, feel free to shoot whatever you like.

[bowhuntntxn]

snipe the comparison stands. it is not about 18YO vs *YO. it is about saying the smallest kids(spikes) should be taken out of competition because the are visually not as good as the bigger kids(branched antlered deer) at the same age.

that is what is happening when spikes are shot. only visual measures(antlers) are being used to determine this mentality. have you tagged or marked any of the spikes you have not killed at LG to see what they turn into over time? or is the big kid is obviously better mantra self taught?

for those who say TPWD has study results, please post a link to a set of reports or data that is something other than the Kerr study . please.

[Jarhead0311]

[QUOTE=for those who say TPWD has study results, please post a link to a set of reports or data that is something other than the Kerr study . please.[/QUOTE]

Yes please post a link to that study i think itd be an interesting read. TPW must have done at least some research on spikes. Also the topic of does being 50% of the genetic makeup of the bucks intrests me. I know its important to cull out the undesireable traits in bucks, but how in the heck to you tell if a doe has undesireable traits?? I mean unless she has like a broken leg or tumors all over her body there is no real method to distinguish a good doe from a bad doe only by age, am I right? or just completely missing the point.

[JW]

Hell i guess im just gonna start alternating. Shoot a spike every other year. That way i can only be half wrong either way!

[Jarhead0311]

Tpwd did do some research, heres one study

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_0827.pdf

[Bobcat]

Contact the Noble Foundation. Speak with Ken Gee. Ask him if a spike or any other wild/low-fence deer is an inferior deer. Then listen and look at the year by year photographic evidence taken during sampling. Very compelling... that no wild deer is certifiably a "cull". You must also consider the current state of the habitat and harvest pressure since this will impact every facet of the deer herd's development.

Look at some well known refuges that produce MONSTERS. How many people hunt a refuge to shoot a cull? Yet, those unhunted (for the most part) lands consistently produce trophy bucks... simply because their harvest plan concentrates on the carrying capacity of the land first. Being a wild spike does not decisively mean the buck is "inferior" in a wild herd or even a threat to producing trophies.

In fact, shooting a immature spike only ensures one thing. That deer is dead and what he would have been is unknown.

[canny]

Tpwd did do some research, heres one study
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publicat...w7000_0827.pdf

That is not TPWD research, instead just a summary and reiteration of the Kerr study.

[Jarhead0311]

I found it on the TWPD site, but i guess not, But what is so wrong with this study? I read it and it seemed to make sense. The spikes will not always be spikes, but they will never have the same genetics as a forked horn 1.5 year old. But im still learning, and can use all the help I can get.

[canny]

I found it on the TWPD site, but i guess not, But what is so wrong with this study? I read it and it seemed to make sense. The spikes will not always be spikes, but they will never have the same genetics as a forked horn 1.5 year old. But im still learning, and can use all the help I can get.

I am not going to go into alot of detail regarding why the Kerr study has some errors.

Instead I will give you a broad synopsis of the key error that I see. First the Kerr study was done in pens, ok that's fine but take into consideration that these deer were fed a pelleted food ration that the researchers chose. This is no where close to what the diets would be like in a natural setting, even if there were supplemental feeders on the property.

Second, when they tried to replicate the study in a natural setting they found there was no significance difference in the antler production of spikes and forked antlers. They then went on to contradict their findings by saying that the data trend indicated that there is a difference.

To say that there was no significant difference in the natural setting and then come back and say that there is because the trend data said so is BS IMO.

Instead of the Kerr study. Let's look at the Kroll study. Now I do work for him, but I am looking at this from a pure objective POV. His study came after the Kerr study. His study did not take place in breeding pens. Instead it took place on multiple ranches in south texas over a period of many years.

The deer involved in his study chose their own diet and just like the Kerr study they found no significant difference at maturity between deer that were spikes and those that were forked as yearlings.