That may be a great article, but unless you got the cliff notes version i would miss the season trying to read it. My one question just from glancing it over, Is that article based on fenced in texas deer????I don't believe once a spike always a spike, but I do disagree with not harvesting. I talked with several Texas Parks and Wildlife Biologists and all said you are better off harvesting spikes from your property. Here's a link to an article justifying their position.
I agree with everyone else on here about a spike's potential. However, I remember reading about this topic a while back and the issue of nutrition came up (I apologize if any of the previously linked articles happens to be the one I am referring to), and it got me thinking. Two years ago while hunting in WV I was holding off for a nice buck (by north central WV standards) or a nice doe. I had no less than six different spikes (judged by antler size/characteristics) walk by me. While frustrating, it was also interesting. In the area I hunt, the deer density is off the charts. Lots of cover and water and moderate climate. The food is also there, but it isn't the quality of what you typically see in the midwest and the competition for the food is great. Now, all those spikes that crossed my trail may have had the genetic potential to be nice deer in the future, but I'm not sold on the idea that if those deer didn't end up in a freezer by four years of age that you would see them in a magazine some day either! Maybe this false theory of "once a spike always a spike" came from a similar area where the nutrition "held them down" throught their observable life?
Spreadin' the Mountaineer love!
2015 Hoyt Nitrum 30 28"/65lb
Spot-Hogg Boss Hogg sight, Limbdriver Pro Rest, Treelimb Premium Quiver
That may be a great article, but unless you got the cliff notes version i would miss the season trying to read it. My one question just from glancing it over, Is that article based on fenced in texas deer????
Yes, it is from the Kerr Research Facility. Basically they split bucks into 2 groups- 4 points (forkhorns) and better or 3 points (unbranched antler/antlers) or less as yearlings. 26 years of study proved that the spikes, more often than not, do not attain the size ( both weight and score) that branched antler yearlings do. In the article there is a picture of several buck's sheds that illustrates this point . They also experimented with different nutrition levels. Nutrition didn't determine the number of points a buck produced. It did affect the size of that year's rack.
Now I know this contradicts QDMA. I am not trying to tell someone how to manage their property. I am just replying to this article because of the comments of how dumb or stupid people are for suggesting shooting spikes. Texas P and W may not be perfect, but I think they are doing a good job managing our deer herd.
my opionon is that a lot of spikes just have a small genetic disadvantage to start with or nutritional. I think some will grow up big, others will not. I do think that a 8 point yearling should become a better deer than that 2-3 point yearling, so if i am looking to shoot a buck for meat i would rather shoot a spike than a 8 point yearling.
Plus the little guys tend to be homos
a bow with wheels, and one that is a stick
"SAVE PAPER! Use the animals as targets"
"If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles." ~Doug Larson
"If god didn't want us to eat animals, then why did he make them out of meat?"
Now there's something you don't see every day. Funny