there are probably 10 things that will cause a 1.5 year old buck to have small antlers and genetics is only one of them.....

Yes, but many management minded folks at least here in Texas, view it as if a 1.5 year old buck does not have branched antlers, they are not worth letting do any breeding.

It does not matter why a 1.5 year old buck is a spike, just like it does not matter if somone decides to shoot it.

If a person does not want to shoot 1.5 year olds, regardless of the rack lon therkir head, that is their business, just like it is a persons business if they are in an area where such a buck is legal, and they decide gto shoot that buck.

This whole discussion has gone beyond ridiculous, because all of the deer talked about are on private land, NOT PUBLIC, in Texas, where the management of deer is basicallt left up to the individual landowner and the people hunting that property.

Trying to compare deer management in Texas, which is 95 to 97% Private Land, with deer management in any other state is simply ludicrous and until a person has actually experienced how things are done in Texas they have no real time idea of the differences between Texas and states that have higher percentages of Public Land that receive a lot of hunting pressure.

Texas

Yes Ted, Texas. In case you had not noticed, this topic was started by a Texan, concerning Texas deer. Not Alabama, not Missouri, not Kansas nor New Jersey, but Texas!

Regardless of how you or anyone else feel about Texas or Texans, not a single one of you was forced to get involved in the discussion.

Deer hunting and deer management is different down here, primarily because there is very little Public Hunting Land compared to every other state in the Union, even Rhode Island has a higher percentage of Public Hunting Land compared to Private Hunting Land than Texas.

That is not my fault or Wade's fault nor James Kroll's fault, it is just the way things worked out.

From the time I killed my first buck in 1970 until now, deer hunting has grown into a multi-million dollar industry. While it has had its positive effects, it has also had plenty of negative effects.

Turn your nose up at Texas and Texans any of you that want to, that is your priveledge. Many Texas hunters are not enthralled with the direction some folks have decided deer management in our state should be headed.

I just find it interesting as to how many people are so quick to bad mouth Texas/Texans concerning our deer management practices, while an even larger number seem to have no problem what so ever coming down here and booking hunts on the various High Fence places.

quote:

Originally posted by slim buttes:


Now I don't know how many studies this Kroll person did, but one study also doesn't "prove" anything but should lead to more questions and research.

An interesting comment considering "this Kroll person" has probably conducted more studies on Whitetail deer than any other single scientist. Dr. Kroll has been conducting a myriad of studies pertaining to Whitetail deer on an ongoing basis for the past 30 years or so. To put a finer point on it as well, his research is not limited to Texas, but rather all acros the US. To state that his research only applies to high fence operations in Texas only reflects a lack of knowledge of the subject at hand by the poster.

Just a little research on your part should reveal a bit about who he is and what his qualifications are.

I was certainly not trying to belittle Dr. Kroll, I just don't know who he is.

I'm sure he has gathered a wealth of data for anyone who is interested.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Yes Ted, Texas. In case you had not noticed, this topic was started by a Texan, concerning Texas deer. Not Alabama, not Missouri, not Kansas nor New Jersey, but Texas!

Regardless of how you or anyone else feel about Texas or Texans, not a single one of you was forced to get involved in the discussion.

Deer hunting and deer management is different down here, primarily because there is very little Public Hunting Land compared to every other state in the Union, even Rhode Island has a higher percentage of Public Hunting Land compared to Private Hunting Land than Texas.

That is not my fault or Wade's fault nor James Kroll's fault, it is just the way things worked out.

From the time I killed my first buck in 1970 until now, deer hunting has grown into a multi-million dollar industry. While it has had its positive effects, it has also had plenty of negative effects.

Turn your nose up at Texas and Texans any of you that want to, that is your priveledge. Many Texas hunters are not enthralled with the direction some folks have decided deer management in our state should be headed.

I just find it interesting as to how many people are so quick to bad mouth Texas/Texans concerning our deer management practices, while an even larger number seem to have no problem what so ever coming down here and booking hunts on the various High Fence places.

Too predictable....funny but I knew you'd bite.....same ol CHC

Todd, a little research on your part would reveal that Kroll left the Public sector, TP&W, and went to work in the private sector because he was not able to have complete control over his research.

No one, me included is saying that Kroll is not an extremely intelligent person and has done a lot of research.

But as with ANY researcher, they only talk about and publicize their succeses, without going into a lot of great detail on how those results were obtained.

Kroll went private so he could have complete control over the methods being used and because he could conduct his research on properties where the deer could be intensively controlled/managed.

I do not have a problem with what he has done or how he has done it, my problem lies within some folks belief that his findings are the be all, end all of deer management, when from 40+ years experience hunting and studying white tails, they are not a blanket solution for deer management statewide, nation wide.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Todd, a little research on your part would reveal that Kroll left the Public sector, TP&W, and went to work in the private sector because he was not able to have complete control over his research.

No one, me included is saying that Kroll is not an extremely intelligent person and has done a lot of research.

But as with ANY researcher, they only talk about and publicize their succeses, without going into a lot of great detail on how those results were obtained.

Kroll went private so he could have complete control over the methods being used and because he could conduct his research on properties where the deer could be intensively controlled/managed.

I do not have a problem with what he has done or how he has done it, my problem lies within some folks belief that his findings are the be all, end all of deer management, when from 40+ years experience hunting and studying white tails, they are not a blanket solution for deer management statewide, nation wide.

Crazy,

Dr. Kroll was a professor at the university I graduated from and was teaching while I attended there. I now of his studies. Trust me, I have done "a little research" on him. I think he has been fairly detailed about ALL of his studies and how his results have been obtained. He has published numerous peer reviewed studies. He has hardly hidden results or methods of study as you insinuate here.

It is obvious that you are not a trophy management minded hunter. That's fine. Not all who hunt are. We are all motivated to hunt for different reasons. The OP in this thread was directed to the folks who ARE oriented toward Whitetail trophy management.

I do however, get a kick out of the anecdotal expert opinions that are based on nothing more than a few years of casual deer observation while hunting "during the season". I've yet to see your collection of extensive, science based, peer reviewed data gained from close, year round, multiple year observation of the species gained from studying a large cross section of North American Whitetail habitat. Just sayin!!

Todd, do you understand how silly it sounds when you insinuate that anyone's opinion, like yourself, that does not have the credentials of Dr. Kroll are somehow invalid. Bullshit. One does not have to be an automotive engineer to know the tire is flat. Years of observation and experience DO matter, just as yours would.

That's like saying we can not understand the economy is going south since we do not have degrees in economics. We can see from our own experience.

Todd, it does not take a genius or a college degree to make observations, and not just ancedotal ones. If insulting someone you know actually nothing about makes you feel better, mpore power to you. To me it merely shows an elitist/snob attitude because someone doed not view things the way you do.

Not sure, because I do not really know anything about you, but my bet is that I was hunting and killing deer before you were born or not long after you were born.

But that is all ancedotal to you isn't it? Does not matter that I have witnessed first hand the changes, both in practices by TP&W and the attitudes of hunters. But that is all meaningless to you.

The fact that I have seen deer hunting evolve from any deer killed was considered a trophy and a quality animal, to the point where only animals meauring a certain number of B&C points are considered quality, does not matter.

The fact that I have been spending 100 or more days annually since the 1970's hunting and observing deer in the field does not matter.

The fact that I have watched deer move into and take over new habitat where there had been no deer previously does not matter.

Well Sir, you are wrong. I have nothing against Dr. Kroll and his research, I merely judge it for what it is, and as I have said, his research has always been done, after he left TP&W, in situations where he had practically complete control over the outcome of his findings. He is not the first researcher, nor will he be the last, to operate that way.

If you choose to believe totally in his findings, that is your perogative.

To insult another person simply because they do not buy in to Kroll's ideas, or try and belittle them and discount what they have experienced just because they don't have the credentials of James Kroll is also your perogative.

Why not in the future, since all that I have learned and experienced about white tail in North Texas, where I do not believe Kroll has done a great amount of research, does not meet your criteria as being credible, just ignore my posts.

I do not buy into Kroll's findings and actually believe he has done more harm than good as far as deer management on free range/low fence/non-intensively managed properties in Texas are concerned.

Also, you are correct concerning my attitude toward trophy deer management, I feel that between James Kroll/Texas Trophy Hunters Association/BuckMasters/QDMA and to an extent TP&W, deer hunting has been placed out of the reach of many people, and at some point in the not to distant future people are going to wake up to the real situation concening free ranging deer in Texas.

Larry,

Of course people are entitled to have opinions. I have mine as do you. I have observed and hunted deer for most of my life as well. Started when I was 7 and will be 51 in January. Seen lots of deer and observed lots of different behavior. Enough so that I can usually find an old boy, learn his habits, and score on harvesting him most years that I try real hard.

However, my opinions on what makes for good Whitetail management practices would not necessarily be accurate based on anecdotal evidence of what I've seen while in the field. In other words, there are opinions and there are informed opinions. A fellow like Dr. Kroll, who has conducted extensive research under scientific controls, is likely to have a large amount of verifiable, repeatable data that will stand up to peer review instead of just a few nods of the head over pancakes in the local coffee house after heading in from the deer stand.

In other words, I might have formed an opinion on whether or not I think spike deer will always be spikes. But what am I basing that on really. There is a difference in seeing a spike this year and then seeing one next year that "might be" the same one from last year, but I really don't know, and so on, and studies such as Dr. Kroll's where he and his teams have captured spikes, tagged them so that they can be positively identified throughout their lifetimes, then actually observed those positively identified deer over their life, occasionally recapturing them, taking measurements of same deer at different ages, compiling those findings, and publishing that data and having it subjected to peer review. And, mind you, he is doing this level of research on properties throughout North America, not just the couple of ranches I have permission to hunt.

Yes, I have an opinion and so do you. They may be spot on and then they may not. But there is a level of knowledge above opinion. Do I have that higher level of knowledge about Whitetails. Maybe on some aspects but overall, no, I do not. But when I set out to learn something of value about them, I tend to believe someone like Dr. Kroll over someone who doesn't have his credentials.

Again, as to your comments about it being silly to state that opinions of someone without Dr. Kroll's credentials are invalid; I would have to say that statement is inconclusive at best. What I mean by that is this: If the person holds opinons that are wrong, then they are invalid. If they hold opinions that are correct, then they are valid. It has nothing to do with what I say or don't say. The question is, how do we KNOW what opinions are valid or not. Well, the best way I know to determine that is to identify a issue, put forth a hypothesis( opinion), test that hypothesis extensively through experiments using different control groups over varying circumstances and timeframes, attempt to account for any and all variables, publish the findings, and have other qualified scientists review your methods looking for errors. Then if your opinion holds up to that scrutiny, I would say it is valid!

Have a nice day now!

Crazy,

I don't think I insulted you at all. I have 40+ years of hunting under my belt as well so spare me the "Old Timer" attitude. I simply addressed your statements that insinuated Dr. Kroll is hiding results, findings, or what methods he employed in conducting his research. If your are going to make those type of accusations, what is the basis of your statements to that effect? You seem to have an axe to grind against him. I don't think it is an insult to ask what your beef with him is. But then again, I've seen you go off many times before over nothing, so I'm not surprised. In fact, and I've pointed this out numerous times before, you've picked fights with me when I was agreeing with you and trying to support your stance. I'm not sure debating with you is worth the time as you always want to make the discussion personal. I actually just like to debate the facts for what they are. We often have differences of opinion on how we interpret the facts and that is where the fun is in campfire discussions.

One last thing Crazy, I acknowledged that you are not a trophy management minded hunter. You hunt for a different reason than I. I think you'll look long and hard to find where I've ever disparaged that attitude toward Whitetail deer hunting. However, I've often been on the receiving end of the "you can't eat horns" comments. The fact is that the meat hunter and the trophy hunter are both valid pursuits. There isn't a need for one to put the other down. My acknowledgement of your not being interested in trophy management wasn't meant as an insult. Just a statement of fact. However, I will again state, the OP on this thread, was attempting to address the trophy management hunter in drawing attention to the fact that not all spikes will remain inferior deer. No where did he state that ALL spikes will grow to exceptional proportions. To see how this thread was turned against him makes one think twice about participating here at all. And that is unfortunate.

Todd, first off, I did not take your comment about me not being a Trophy Management minded hunter as an insult. You simply stated a fact. I work for a man that is Trophy Management minded and have no problem with helping him achieve those goals. I have no problem with anyone who only wants to shoot trophies, that is their thing and I am happy for them.

Using my years of experience comment was not meant as an "Old Timer" ploy. It merely means, at least to me, that the 40+ years of experience I have, while not better, is diffrerent. Conditions are not the same state wide. The methods and attitudes concerning deer hunting are different among hunters state wide.

You are a supporter of James Kroll and there is nothing wrong with that. I am not, and I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. The bulk of Kroll's work has been done on intensively managed properties and not all of Texas is made up of intensively managed properties.

It is easy for someone to state that Kroll is not saying that all spikes will grow up to be trophies, but, if folks actually believed that, there would not be conversations such as this one. Everytime, and I do mean everytime someone starts one of these discussions, and there seems to be one of these type discussions going on continually on the Texas based hunting forums, people divide into supporters of not shooting any spike or into supporter of shooting ALL spikes regadless of age.

I fall into the group that supports shooting all spikes, regardless of age. Over the years I have gotten fairly accurate at aging deer on the hoof and judging their potential. If I see a yearling buck that is a 3 point or small 4 point/fork horn, he gets to walk. If however he is a spike, he i going to get a ride in the back of the truck.

My idea of management is that in many areas, we have an artificially high deer population due primarily to supplemental feeding, with selective shooting for trophies only along with not shooting enough does, adding to the situation. With most of Texas experiencing drought conditions for 2c years now, on the propertie I work on, I believe the only way those bucks that have readily discernible potetial as future trophies are going to reach that potential is to be able to get enough food in them to get thru this period of stress. To me that i especially true for the 2.5 to 4.5 year olds that have been active during the rut. They are coming out of that in a stressed condition themself. With hunting season winding down and feed prices what they are and probably going to increase, many hunter will shut their feeder down and that food source is going to dry up.

Pastures around this part of the state at least are in poor condition with little or no browse left, and the wheat that has sprouted is being grazed down and without rain it is not growing fast enough to help the deer out, especially those fields where stocker cattle have placed. Our ground water sources, creeks/ponds/lakes and even the Brazos River are shrinking. In the bigger picture of things, at least in my opinion, leaving spikes and excess does in the herd which only adds to the pressure being placed on the existing/dwindling resources, makes no sense what so ever.

What are ranchers across the state doing, reducing their cattle numbers in hopes of hanging on thru this tough patch. The same thing needs to be done with the deer herd in many areas of the state. Why or what incentive is there for me to leave an unknown quantity, a spike, out there walking around eating food, drinking water that a clearly discernible better quality animal could be taking advantage of. If I am setting in the stand or looking at game cam pics and see a spike, and also see a 2.5 or 3.5 year old basket racked 8 pointer, with range conditions the way they are, I am going to place my money, actually the boss's money on the 8 pointer and he will be getting the food that the spike would have been eating.

While genetics does play a major role in producing trophies, it is not the be all, end all, herd numbers and carrying capacity of the existing habitat play their part. Right now with conditions what they are over a large portion of the state, herd numbers and carrying capacity are going to play a bigger role in trophy quality than genetics, especially if range conditiond do not improve.

So, you are correct, I am not trophy management minded, but I personally believe I have a little better grasp on the issue than some people may think. Again, just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:


While genetics does play a major role in producing trophies, it is not the be all, end all, herd numbers and carrying capacity of the existing habitat play their part. Right now with conditions what they are over a large portion of the state, herd numbers and carrying capacity are going to play a bigger role in trophy quality than genetics, especially if range conditiond do not improve.

So, you are correct, I am not trophy management minded, but I personally believe I have a little better grasp on the issue than some people may think. Again, just my opinion.

Genetics, age and nutrition are the necessary ingredients for growing trophy deer but without genetics you're pissing into the wind. I would say that genetics is the most important piece of the puzzle

Drummond, if range conditions were optimal and herd numbers were in balance, I would agree with you completely.

Unfortunately they aren't over much of Texas.

Genetics can only go so far if age/nutrition/and carrying capacity of the available range are out of whack. If a buck, with the greatest genetical makeup on the planet cannot get enough to eat, he will not reach his full genetic potential, antler wise.

Don't matter what the range conditions are

If you don't start with "Trophy" genes
You don't end up with Trophy Bucks.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Drummond, if range conditions were optimal and herd numbers were in balance, I would agree with you completely.

Unfortunately they aren't over much of Texas.

Genetics can only go so far if age/nutrition/and carrying capacity of the available range are out of whack. If a buck, with the greatest genetical makeup on the planet cannot get enough to eat, he will not reach his full genetic potential, antler wise.

Are you trying to tell me that nutrition plays a greater role in growing trophy animals than genetics?

Drummond, I ain't trying to tell you or anyone else anything. I am saying, and this is basic animal husbandry, if an animal, and the last time I looked, a deer is an animal, cannot or does not receive a certain level of nutritional
intake, their bodies will use what is required to maintain normal bodily functions.

If nutritional intake was NOT important, then people would NOT be feeding supplemental protien now would they?????????????

But they do feed protien pellets, and they feed them to help the bucks get the added protien that native browse and corn do not provide, to promote antler growth. It is basic animal science Drummond, such things as antler developement and fawn production demand/depend on a higher level of nutritional/protien intake. If that extra nutrition is not there, then what they do take in goes to maintain normal bodily functions.

That has been proven over and over again here in Texas, if it had not been proven, then the selling and feeding of protien pellets to help bucks grow bigger racks and does produce healthier fawns, then it would not have became a multi-million dollar industry.

If the animals cannot get enough nutrition to do more than maintain normal daily bodily functions, the genetics are not going to matter.

Go argue with James Kroll on this one Drummond, because he has proved over and over again that without adequate nutrition, buck will not reach their full genetic potential as far as antler growth is concerned.

Contrary to what some individuals on this site think, I do not totally disagree with ALL of Kroll's research and what he has suggested, and one of his suggestions has always dealt with a feed program to provide the added boost that normal native browse does not always furnish.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Go argue with James Kroll on this one Drummond, because he has proved over and over again that without adequate nutrition, buck will not reach their full genetic potential as far as antler growth is concerned.

But with shit genetics the best you can hope for in good years is getting the best shit deer possible. There is no question that nutrition is vital but even in bad years in areas with great genetics giant bucks will hit the ground. This will never happen in areas that don't have good genetics.

What is your point? Do you even have a point? Are you on some kind of mindless ramble? I have not disputed the importance of genetics at any point, other than maintaining that even with the best genetic background, not ALL spikes will grow to be trophy bucks. Can you prove that they will, No, even James Kroll cannot prove that, and he admits to it. He clearly states that because these yearlings have the genetic potential, they should be given the chance to mature a little and see what they are going to develope in to. Some folks, and I am one of them simply do not agree with Kroll's assessment of the situation, Big deal, who the hell really cares and who the hell thinks they or James Kroll are really going to change peoples minds?

If you think or believe mal-nourished/under nourished deer, with quality genetics, are going to produce the same quality antlers as bucks with comparable genetics but having access to adequate or above adequate nourishiment levels, please get back to us and tell us how it worked out for you.

Genetics are important, I have not disputed that at ANY point in this discussion. But anyone that knows one damn thing about animal biology, knows that animals have to have a set level of nutrition, merely to maintain normal body condition. For antler growth/fawn production, deer require a certain excess of nutrition/protien to reach the potential of their genetics. What about that do you not understand?

ya'll get a room....yer both wrong. Age is the single most important variable in managing free range deer for trophy management.

Hi Drummond

troy

quote:

Originally posted by DTala:
ya'll get a room....yer both wrong. Age is the single most important variable in managing free range deer for trophy management.

Hi Drummond

troy

Great taste! Less filling!

The point I was trying to make to Crazy is that genetics, age and nutrition are all important but the easiest and cheapest to manipulate is nutrition.

Therefore, in order of importance I would say genetics is the most important because in a low fence, free range setting you really cannot manipulate the genetics. You have to go the the areas with good genetics if you want to kill big deer.

Age would be second. The only way you can manage for age is to lay off the trigger and to allow the deer to grow up. Your neighbors can have a huge impact if they don't manage their deer. if you cannot get deer to maturity you'll never see the true potential of the deer in your area

Nutrition would be at the bottom of my list. Not because its any less important to getting the maximum potential from your deer but because it is the absolute easiest to fix. Man cannot control drought conditions but can supplemental feed to offset the impact of the drought. It is the cheapest and easiest of the 3 major factors to manipulate and fix.

When you look at this objectively if you are missing good genetics the other two factors really don't matter. You're dead in the water.

Drummond, I believe you hit the three legged stool of deer management, at least from my perspective. If any of the three fall short, so will the deer antler size, and potentially body size and health. I believe they are equal for all of the reasons you state.

Without Genetics, the potential for large racks will not be there.
Without nutrition, the genetic potential can not be attained since nutrition feeds the antler, and deer growth.
Without age, we do not know if the potential has been attained, or not.

Now, if you are a meat hunter, as I am, you only care about animal health and size. If it is a healthy young animal (my requirement for taste and tender) and of better size, that is enough. That is why, for me, antler size means nothing. But I do understand the chase for antlers. I used to do it. Now I typically do not shoot deer over 3.5-4.5 years of age, unless they are spikes or rag horn 3s or 4s.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:


Great taste! Less filling!

The point I was trying to make to Crazy is that genetics, age and nutrition are all important but the easiest and cheapest to manipulate is nutrition.

Therefore, in order of importance I would say genetics is the most important because in a low fence, free range setting you really cannot manipulate the genetics. You have to go the the areas with good genetics if you want to kill big deer.

Age would be second. The only way you can manage for age is to lay off the trigger and to allow the deer to grow up. Your neighbors can have a huge impact if they don't manage their deer. if you cannot get deer to maturity you'll never see the true potential of the deer in your area

Nutrition would be at the bottom of my list. Not because its any less important to getting the maximum potential from your deer but because it is the absolute easiest to fix. Man cannot control drought conditions but can supplemental feed to offset the impact of the drought. It is the cheapest and easiest of the 3 major factors to manipulate and fix.

When you look at this objectively if you are missing good genetics the other two factors really don't matter. You're dead in the water.

I have to disagree here. The state of TX already has the genetics for large antlered deer. Just look at the historical B&C record books from before all of the high fences went up and people started using feeders for deer. Also nutrition is not really that cheap. How many millions of dollars do you think are spent throughout the state of TX on deer feed?

I see one major difference here, James Kroll and all of you arguing for his ideas on management are really only talking about micro managing an individual ranch to try to "Farm Raise" a few big deer on that property. I think Crazy is talking about what is healthy for the entire deer herd in the state of TX. I think he is absolutely right that environmental factors are going to play a bigger role than folks want to admit.

Here's a simple solution than no one will ever agree to because there is too much money involved in TX hunting. Pass a statewide law to limit all deer hunting to does only for 3 years. Set a management goal to significantly reduce the deer herd to a number that is actually below the maximum carrying capacity.
1. You solve your nutrition problem because you now have a smaller deer population that can get enough nutrition from what nature provides.
2. You solve your age problem because you are letting all of your bucks walk for 3 years.
3. You solve your genetics problem because first of all you already have good genetics in the herd and secondly when you significantly reduce the doe numbers and drastically change the buck to doe ratio I promise you nobody will be breeding except the larger deer.

quote:

Originally posted by MN Hunter:


I have to disagree here. The state of TX already has the genetics for large antlered deer. Just look at the historical B&C record books from before all of the high fences went up and people started using feeders for deer.

Texas is a BIG state and many areas of the state simply do not have the genetics to produce "record book" quality deer

On my families ranch in the hill country we were lucky to find 140" bucks and they more closely resemble a Coues deer than a south Texas buck

There is a reason that Rio Arriba County in NM has produced more record book deer than any other place in NM, its because of the genetics. You cant say that because Rio Arriba County produces a lot of big deer that the entire state of NM has great genetics. You want to talk genetics you have to be specific

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

quote:

Originally posted by MN Hunter:


I have to disagree here. The state of TX already has the genetics for large antlered deer. Just look at the historical B&C record books from before all of the high fences went up and people started using feeders for deer.

On my families ranch in the hill country we were lucky to find 140" bucks and they more closely resemble a Coues deer than a south Texas buck

You want to talk genetics you have to be specific

That is exactly what I'm talking about. If you are only worried about 1 specific ranch then forget about deer management and start studying about ranching and farming of deer. If your talking about the deer herd of TX or even regions within TX then talk about deer herd management. They are not the same thing.

There’s no way you can get a 150 class Booner without water.

quote:

Originally posted by CA Safari Hunter:
There’s no way you can get a 150 class Booner without water.

Or air

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:

Now, if you are a meat hunter, as I am, you only care about animal health and size. If it is a healthy young animal (my requirement for taste and tender) and of better size, that is enough. That is why, for me, antler size means nothing. But I do understand the chase for antlers. I used to do it. Now I typically do not shoot deer over 3.5-4.5 years of age, unless they are spikes or rag horn 3s or 4s.

This thread was about the trophy potential of spikes and was talking about growing "trophy" deer.

If you're like Crazy and not a trophy hunter then genetics don't matter. A deer tastes like a deer. If you're not a trophy hunter and don't care about antlers then why even become involved in a discussion about "trophy" bucks?

Umm, maybe because I did have an opinion on it regardless of my personal hunting. Didn't you read the part before that??? I know you don't understand the difference, but that's OK. I AM entitled to express an opinion on the trophy subject regardless of what you may think. I have opinions on pro football too, even though I don't play.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Umm, maybe because I did have an opinion on it regardless of my personal hunting. Didnt you read the part before that??? I know you don't understand the difference, but that's OK. I have opinions on pro football too, even though I don't play.

I was really directing this at Crazy. I quoted you because I thought you pretty much nailed it. Genetics really don't mean anything to a meat hunter. A deer tastes like a deer and as long as there are deer to fill the freezer not much else matters.

Crazy has stated time and time again that he is not a trophy hunter so to see him say that genetics are not the end all be all in a thread that was started to discuss trophy potential was a little odd. All factors considered if you are managing for trophy quality genetics are where it starts and ends. Without good genetics you'll never have trophy deer.

I have appreciated your input and apologize if you felt I was singling you out by quoting you. I quoted you because it was a perfect example of what I was trying to get Crazy to understand.

No problem. Sorry if I came off too abruptly as well. We're good.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
No problem. Sorry if I came off too abruptly as well. We're good.

You didn't come off too abruptly at all. I'm glad you said something as I went back and reread my post and could see that it came off completely wrong.

All is good and I apologize. Good luck filling the freezer

quote:

Originally posted by nube:

quote:

.albeit on a large high fenced ranch of around 6,000 acres (I believe that's how large the property is, but don't hold me to it).

So is it wild or not. If it has a large high fence around it I would not consider it wild at all especially on only 6000 small little acres where you can manipulate the age and growth of a deer. My 2 cents and I know it everyone has their views on it so good luck. It is a nice deer and congrats to the shooter!

6000 acres is more than 9 sections of land.
A section is 1 mile square and is 640 acres.
A single block of land of 6000 acres is huge.
Get out on your hind legs an walk it all until you know it by heart. Then you will understand this was not some buck off of a small property.

On the other hand most spikes do not look like that spike photo. They can have any numner of twisted defective antler configurations including chalky nubs. Unless you have the means to trap, mark and trap each buck and keep records the belief that most spikes are good for the population is silly. I have shot too many crappy spikes.

Drummond, had you paid any real attention to what I had written, you would have seen, that while I personally am not a trophy hunter, the person I work for is and we sell hunts for free range trophy bucks.

At no point have I said that genetics were Not important! What I have said, and will say again, and you cannot prove me wrong, is that WITHOUT adequate nutrition levels, even with the best genetics available, a buck will not reach his genetic potential.

Contact James Kroll or anyone else you wish, but they will all say the same thing. WITHOUT the extra protein and nutrition, the most genetically perfect buck, WILL NOT reach the limits of his genetic potential.

Try reading and understanding, it might surprise you what is actually being said by people.

quote:

Originally posted by drummondlindsey:

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Umm, maybe because I did have an opinion on it regardless of my personal hunting. Didnt you read the part before that??? I know you don't understand the difference, but that's OK. I have opinions on pro football too, even though I don't play.

I was really directing this at Crazy. I quoted you because I thought you pretty much nailed it. Genetics really don't mean anything to a meat hunter. A deer tastes like a deer and as long as there are deer to fill the freezer not much else matters.

Crazy has stated time and time again that he is not a trophy hunter so to see him say that genetics are not the end all be all in a thread that was started to discuss trophy potential was a little odd. All factors considered if you are managing for trophy quality genetics are where it starts and ends. Without good genetics you'll never have trophy deer.

I have appreciated your input and apologize if you felt I was singling you out by quoting you. I quoted you because it was a perfect example of what I was trying to get Crazy to understand.

The truth is that the biggest bucks are a product of the combination of good genetics and good nutrition. It would be very rare for a good buck to be missing one of these.

465H&H

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

Try reading and understanding, it might surprise you what is actually being said by people.

Pot, meet kettle

The point I am trying to make is that when it comes to hunting and killing TROPHY deer the key is genetics. I would rather hunt mule deer on the Arizona Strip in a drought year than hunt eastern Montana during a fantastic year. Why? Better deer! Even in drought years you can kill trophy bucks in areas with great genetics.

Is nutrition important for healthy deer? Yep, sure is but nutrition can only take a deer with bad genetics so far.

quote:

Originally posted by larrys:
Todd, do you understand how silly it sounds when you insinuate that anyone's opinion, like yourself, that does not have the credentials of Dr. Kroll are somehow invalid. Bullshit. One does not have to be an automotive engineer to know the tire is flat. Years of observation and experience DO matter, just as yours would.

That's like saying we can not understand the economy is going south since we do not have degrees in economics. We can see from our own experience.

and true!

Back to the OP, if you are hunting in an area that is growing trophy quality bucks regardless of genetics and nutrition then yes dont shoot the spikes. But claiming not to shoot spikes because they could turn into a trophy is complete nonsense.

Here is Utah 30 or so years ago the Fish and Game wanted to create larger "trophy" quality deer so they required 3pt or better kills. Guess what that did? Wiped out any deer capable of achieving 4 pts.