Archery Talk Forum banner

spike bucks...

2K views 31 replies 26 participants last post by  Nate331 
#1 ·
I was recently engaged in your typical small town deer-hunting discussion... I was always under the impression that spike-bucks were just young and could potentially grow up to be decent bucks. others have told me that spikes were destined to be those that should be weeded out. should I rid my land of spike bucks or let them grow up? thanks for the help! dan
 
#3 ·
IMO, year-and-a-half old spikes can grow to be great deer, and there has been studies that show that many of these spikes were born to does bred during the second rut. Because they were conceived late, and hence born late, their antler's the first fall are generally less developed that bucks born earlier that year. Now, if we're talking about a 2-1/2 plus year old deer and he's still a spike it's time to get him out of the gene pool. This is why it's important for all hunters to learn to judge the age of deer. I'm not great at it, but I can certainly tell the difference between a 1-1/2 year spike and 3-4 year old spike.
 
#5 ·
spikes

if you have the outdoor channel watch quality deer management. they have shown over and over this isnt true. spikes can amount to giants.
 
#6 ·
Sorry but those guys that said that are Idiots!! I will look for the bowhunting mag that has this exact study in it and try to get for you. I think dumb people that think that way is the reason some states can not have a good number of quailty bucks. I know that is the simple minded people around here's problem!!
 
#8 · (Edited)
i always asumed majority of the spikers are just the 1 1/2 year olds with the occasional older spike. My big bro about 10 years back killed a 14 inch spike that was 5 1/2 years old. that sucker was a brute, had the mass just forgot the points.

if we weeded out all the spikers that sure wouldnt leve much of a buck heard later on. I'e always let em pass other than the couple i took out when i thought they were does...dang ears :confused:
 
#12 ·
other than genetics, nutrition has a lot to do with antler growth. charles alsheimer captured a spike from the aderondack mountains in new york and put it in his 35 acre fenced area with high nutrition. by age 6 1/2 it was a 171 inch buck. most people shoot 2 1/2 year old deer and a deer doesn't get to it's highest potential til 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 years of age. i disagree with a lot of people saying they are weeding out bad gene bucks for this reason. although lesser buck might not develope to huge a 200 incher, 171 isn't too shabby to me.
 
#18 ·
According to a guy I work with....his land is full of "bad genetics" because they see so many 4 and 5 year old spikes and 4 and 6 pointers :confused:.....I've stopped wasting my breath trying to tell him that these are likely 1.5 year old deer. I guess the 150 class buck my buddy shot a few years ago must have been 20 years old!! :rolleyes:
 
#16 ·
do you think these 140 and 150 class deer grow that type of rack in the first year? that like planting a seedling and cutting it down the first year because it didn't produce apples.
 
#17 ·
Deer & Deer Hunting did a story on this subject. They showed the progression of 3 bucks. The one with the smallest ugliest rack as a yearling grew up to have the nicest largest rack. The yearling with the largest rack grew to be in the middle. Just never know about potential.
 
#22 ·
A mature monster buck has to start off as something don't he? I don't buy it that a spikehorn won't grow to anything big. If you shoot them how can they get to their full potential?

Let them go, let them grow!!
 
#24 ·
thanks, guys! as usually you have come through and thankfully (in this case) on my side. I'll enjoy the case of cold-ones your posts have won me and more importantly the chance to rub it in some faces. sure glad I didn't shoot the spike I ran into three times last year! great advice, pics, and posts! thanks, again! later. dan

:darkbeer:
 
#27 ·
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?
 
#29 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
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
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top