I know this has been discussed many times before and the overwhelming majority of you (at least the frequent posters) believe that a 1.5yo spike has just as good a chance (or at a minimum a reasonable chance) of becoming an exceptional mature deer as a basket 8 1.5yo. I know that there is a well documented study done by Charles Alsheimer in this regard which proves this point (or at least proves it is POSSIBLE) and I am sure there are others as well. But are there any studies that quantifies the probality percentage that goes with it when comparing all 1.5 spikes as opposed to all 1.5 6's and 8's. In other words is it truly a zero correlation between their first year headgear and future or are the studies such as Alsheimer the occasional exception rather than the rule? And then these type of studies get hyped up, publicized, and taken out of text, kinda like some of the Global Warming data. The reason I ask this question is that this is the first year that in our area of Texas that they have extended the doe season 2 weeks beyond or buck season as they are trying to get the numbers in check. But also within this time frame you are still allowed to kill a Spike so long as you still have a buck tag. So if this premise that a spike is just as likely to be the next Booner as any other 1.5yo is such accepted science amongst Game Biologist, why would Texas Game Dept. go against it and encourage more of them to be killed as opposed to other "basket racks". Are the powers to be in the Texas Game Dept. that poorly schooled? Before the flaming begins,. I have no doubt that there is x% of spikes will turn out to be very fine specimen and blossom into amazing racks. I just have always had trouble believing that the probability factor is just as high for the spikes as compared to their bigger racked peers in ever becoming a 140 class deer or better. I have always been of the opinion that if one is so inclined to kill a young buck and has an option, shoot the spike rather than the basket 8. Apparently the Texas Game Dept does too. So anybody know of any studies that involved multiple replications and tries and measure the "correlation" factor'?
Me, too. ONLY time I ever cringe is when I hear people talk about "culling" a spike. If the hunter killing the spike is happy with him....I'm happy FOR him/her. My qualifications to post on this topic (the question at hand) begin and end at: I have a computer and an internet protocol address.
There was a study done in Texas that showed that spikes and fork 1.5 y.o. bucks tended to never catch up to the basket racked 1.5 year olds.
Ive never been one to think a spike buck would ever turn into anything less then a 8 point 1.5 year old could. Deer can add 20-30 inches a year easily with nutrition and genetics. Alot of deer make a huge jump from 2.5 to 5.5 years of age if they get the chance. A buck could easily go from a spike to a 70" to a 110" to a 130" to a 150" at 5.5 years of age.
So if we're gonna assume they grow, equally......The 1.5yr old that started at 70" would go to a 100" to a 140" to a 160" to a 180" at 5.5 years of age. Right? Just asking.
Probably not in typical situations, No. I was going more off what i have seen personally in my area for top end bucks.... Remember, i recently had a buck rough gross scored at 205" that was believed to be 4.5 come off my farm. Were going to get him officially measured and aged of course. But think of the year to year growth on THAT buck if true....beyond astronomical.
THIS is what JF and I are basing our opinions on. There's ALWAYS going to be the "exceptional" examples. We're talking apples to apples chances.
If they are young let'em grow. A spike gets to be a 140" or better deer in 3 to 4 years he then becomes a target for me. I saw a 115" 6 point several times this year he was 17/18" inside. Even though you could tell he was an older Buck I would never have shot him. He might be a 130" next year, but he got popped about a mile away by a young hunter. He was thrilled and I was happy for him, but I'd still like to have seen him next year. Why would I want to any young buck? I can eat Does just as well ;-) Dan
There was a spike here that we saw a lot with a chunk missing out of his left ear. He was a small bodied 1.5 year old (guessing late birth). At 2.5 he was a small 8 that numerous 1.5 year olds were as big as (rack wise). At 3.5 he was a decent 8 point but both my father and I passed on him numerous times b/c his rack was about as big as most 2.5 year olds (I would guess low 100's). Never seen him since then. That is all of the emperical data that I can definitively give you. I have my guesses about some other former spikes around here, but with his ear it was definite that it was the same buck every time. Extrapolating from this "data" I would guess he would always be roughly a year behind other bucks of his age. However, that would still make him a good 4.5 or 5.5 year old. Obviously, this is a very small data set.
I am not advocating shooting them or culling them or any of that. My only contention is that I do not believe that the same percent of spikes will turn into "shooters" as oppposed to the percentage of 6's and 8's of the same or similar age. I may be mis-paraphrasing others' beliefs, but I think that there are those that believe that the potential for a spike is just as good as any of his peers. Which leads me to my question. If this latter belief is correct, how did Texas Game Dept. miss this and allow/encourage Spikes to be killed at the expense of other bucks by allowing a two week additional hunting season on themas opposed to other bucks. Thanks Christine. I will try and find that study. I am assuming it was probably done on the King Ranch over a large area of low fence habitat? That is where most of the Texas research is done.
Here's a pdf of the study: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_w7000_0827.pdf
Here's my take on things and its purely derived from "common sense" and connecting the dots. No scientific data. If you have 2 fawns born within a few days, living in the same area with the same food available, same health of the momma and one turns out to be a spike & one an small 8 pt, I believe the small 8 will always be bigger throughout the course of thier lives. Now, factor in that fawns can be born weeks, even months apart, have mommas with varying degrees of health, and have various nutritional diets even when living a short distance apart. I don't think there is a scientific study that CAN predict exactly what is going to happen for any given case. Seems likely that given time and nutrition, a buck pre-programmed to reach a certainly level, will. It just may take an extra year. Maybe we need to make a dozen buck clones. Have half be simulated "born late" half normal. Feed them all the same diet and see how they grow over the course of thier lives.
Read the study that Christine attached. I have only gotten through the first 30 or so pages but it has some very interesting data in it that is contrary to many of the "perceptions" that get bantered about on this subject. One is obviously free to dispute/discount their data, but based on their study/analysis the birth date of the fawn had little to no bearing on whether or not is was a spike as 1.5yo. As already noted, there are always exceptions but what is the norm? I am not familiar with some of the other studies but the one that many reference done by Charles Alsheimer has more to do, if not completely with the nutritional aspect of the deer's antler growth rather than proving anything about genetcis. Alsheimer repeatedly reminds people that the spike buck he followed over the years was transplanted at the age of 1.5yo from a very poor nutritional area with harsh winters to a research facility where the animal had the best nutrition possible available to him year round. Thanks for the link Christine. Very interesting stuff indeed.
While I agree with your views, I can't see how the doe has anything to do with it being a spike (apart from genetics). A buck doesn't get his first set of antlers until he's a year old. Therefor [typically] he's been on his own for roughly 6 months and has been fending for himself. Correct me if I"m wrong. So does it really matter if the buck was born later or earlier in the spring? BTW, here's a good read from the QDMA by Dr. Kroll http://www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=23
Like I said, nothing I posted was based on scientific studies, just opinion. They say a lot of a bucks energy/nutrition goes into growing his body/skeletal system and then to his rack. IF a buck was born late to a mom who had a harsh winter, her milk was poor & his body growth was set behind from the start...why couldn't that translate down the line to his rack being slow to reach its potential? That's all. Ain't it kind of like doe fawns making weight & coming into heat thier first fall? A doe born in mid may is likley going to weigh more in december than a doe born late june.
Jackflap it varies from county to county here in Tx also. In Marion co.as in most of east Texas we have a late 2 week ML season that runs at the same time as the late youth season. The TPWD handbook states," Bag limit- As specified for general open season all restrictions established for the take of buck deer during general open season remain in effect." So it varies from region to region. I would think that with the antler restrictions we have in place the state biologists don't believe a spike will ever equal a same age basket 6 or 8.
