Once a spike always a spike? In some cases, yes.

[Wild Bill]

Came across this on the gram and found it pretty interesting.
We've all heard some old timer spout off "once a spike always a spike" at some point in our lives and either laughed or snarled at them in response. More recently, there has been much evidence to disprove that theory. Typically the reference is made in regards to genetics being the major factor, but not overall health of the deer. This article was pretty interesting to me, and touches more on the role a mother's health plays in to the health of the fawn. It seems as though the old timers maybe stumbled into being (partially) correct on this.

Link to article ->Study: Deer’s lifelong fate is affected by mother’s health at birth

 

[Nick87]

So more like once a spike once once in a great while still a spike?

 

[MThuntr]

In region 7 once a spike always a spike on its way to Washington. Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[sclancy27]

And yet, habitat doesn't matter.....

 

[MThuntr]

And yet, habitat doesn't matter.....

NOTE: I think this comment was sarcasm but felt compelled to reply anyway. No offense or true argument intended

I would argue that good habitat is part of the doe's diet. Good condition habitat is resilient enough to handle a short-term drought and be minimally affected in long-term droughts which should prevent the spike used as an example in their article. Unfortunately, a lot of the reserved habitats are open up to livestock grazing which can negate any habitat/forage value that land. Even worse, in MT, FWP and DNRC have decided to open up haying and grazing on wildlife management areas to bail out ranchers at the expense of critical winter ranges and I wonder if we'll see an impact to deer and elk growth in those areas.

 

[sclancy27]

NOTE: I think this comment was sarcasm but felt compelled to reply anyway. No offense or true argument intended

I would argue that good habitat is part of the doe's diet. Good condition habitat is resilient enough to handle a short-term drought and be minimally affected in long-term droughts which should prevent the spike used as an example in their article. Unfortunately, a lot of the reserved habitats are open up to livestock grazing which can negate any habitat/forage value that land. Even worse, in MT, FWP and DNRC have decided to open up haying and grazing on wildlife management areas to bail out ranchers at the expense of critical winter ranges and I wonder if we'll see an impact to deer and elk growth in those areas.

It was sarcasm. I think a lot of our habitat problems in MT, with respect to mule deer, are an issue of decadence and succession. I believe habitat would improve markedly by changing grazing techniques (think highly intensive grazing) across the state. Obviously, it would be nice to have more prescribed fire, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Scott85]

This is a whitetail. https://www.realtree.com/deer-hunting/galleries/photo-gallery-from-buttons-to-booner

 

[D_Walt]

I killed this buck three weeks ago in South Texas on a fairly intensively managed ranch. He was 4 years old sand had the same tiny spikes three years in a row.

He was 4 years old based on our observations and post harvest tooth wear. I’ve watched thousands of whitetail bucks over the last thirty years and this is the first one I have ever seen that stayed a spike after age 1.

 

[BuzzH]

So, what exactly is the problem with deer, elk, pronghorn, etc that remain less than B&C animals their whole life?

I don't see why it's a bad thing to have some mule deer that stay a 2 point their entire lives, or pronghorn that max out at a 13 inch buck.

That's happened forever, why is that now a problem? Because the Monteith shop says so?

I'm about over trying to manage wild herds like an extension of a game farm...actually, I am over it. Human arrogance in regard to herd management is truly something.

I find no problem with a wide variety of genetics, age classes, etc on the landscape.

Trying to turn wild herds into B&C factories...what a joke.

 

[mevertsen]

So, what exactly is the problem with deer, elk, pronghorn, etc that remain less than B&C animals their whole life?

I don't see why it's a bad thing to have some mule deer that stay a 2 point their entire lives, or pronghorn that max out at a 13 inch buck.

That's happened forever, why is that now a problem? Because the Monteith shop says so?

Agreed. I am not sure why we have to have a certain number. There are plenty of animals out there with known ages which never make B and C.

The average man's height I the US is 5'9" I think?

There are some taller and some shorter.

No different than male ungulates regardless of the age. We top out as humans at a certain age 17 or 18. I don't know why we seem to think animals can somehow change their genetics after they are born.

 

[wytex]

Study in Texas on WTs shows diet can affect antler growth and spikes can become better bucks over time with good nutrition.

 

[sclancy27]

I don't see why it's a bad thing to have some mule deer that stay a 2 point their entire lives, or pronghorn that max out at a 13 inch buck.

I guess if you could get a big enough dataset you could judge changes in habitat over time by changes in phenotype (antlers). That would require ALOT of data

I'm about over trying to manage wild herds like an extension of a game farm...actually, I am over it. Human arrogance in regard to herd management is truly something.

I find no problem with a wide variety of genetics, age classes, etc on the landscape.

I agree. At some point we are just ranching them, which I think way too many people would be fine with. Just look at how most treat predators...the same way a rancher does. They are eating all my *insert game animal*, kill all the *insert predator*.

 

[D_Walt]

Agreed. I am not sure why we have to have a certain number. There are plenty of animals out there with known ages which never make B and C.

The average man's height I the US is 5'9" I think?

There are some taller and some shorter.

No different than male ungulates regardless of the age. We top out as humans at a certain age 17 or 18. I don't know why we seem to think animals can somehow change their genetics after they are born.

I perused the article quickly, I don’t think it has one thing to do with genetics, just a commentary on how the mother’s health during pregnancy and early development can effect long term health/growth of an individual. Shocking conclusion: healthy, well fed animals tend to reproduce better, grow bigger and are better able to withstand adverse conditions.

 

[BuzzH]

I perused the article quickly, I don’t think it has one thing to do with genetics, just a commentary on how the mother’s health during pregnancy and early development can effect long term health/growth of an individual. Shocking conclusion: healthy, well fed animals tend to reproduce better, grow bigger and are better able to withstand adverse conditions.

Right, nothing earth shattering and largely common sense.

The bad thing is some of the management decisions from this.

 

[Wild Bill]

So, what exactly is the problem with deer, elk, pronghorn, etc that remain less than B&C animals their whole life?

I don't see why it's a bad thing to have some mule deer that stay a 2 point their entire lives, or pronghorn that max out at a 13 inch buck.

That's happened forever, why is that now a problem? Because the Monteith shop says so?

I'm about over trying to manage wild herds like an extension of a game farm...actually, I am over it. Human arrogance in regard to herd management is truly something.

I find no problem with a wide variety of genetics, age classes, etc on the landscape.

Trying to turn wild herds into B&C factories...what a joke.

I agree. Nothing wrong with varying genetics on the landscape. I guess maybe its ignorance, but I figured that, although not all bucks will grow up to be B&C record book bucks if given the time to grow, most of them will out grow their spikes or forks and get grow into a medium 3x3 or 4x4 maybe with some stickers, etc., which is why I found this interesting. As a primarily public land hunter that doesn't own any land besides my urban home, I've never had the opportunity to "manage" a herd of deer on a property or have long enough access to somewhere where I could watch deer grow over a number of years. Like I said, probably just ignorance on my part.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Study in Texas on WTs shows diet can affect antler growth and spikes can become better bucks over time with good nutrition.

That's fine and dandy if you're going to farm your deer like they do in most of TX.

 

[jt13]

I've got a friend that has had all of his whitetail deer aged over the last few decades and he has a few that look like run-of-the-mill 2-3 yr olds that came back at 7+. I like the nuance the occasionally older-aged, but small antlered deer provides to the conversation of herd dynamics.

Around here we have a 3-pt to one side antler restriction for most adult hunters. It saves all the spikes and y-bucks to grow into little 6's and 8's. People are pretty happy with that. Only once or twice have i seen what I believed to be an 3+ year old buck that didn't meet the antler restrictions. However on the western side of the state, its 4 pts to one side, and there have been quite a few example of "Super 6's". Bucks that lived until they died of old age as a massive 3x3. People get pretty pissy about having to let those walk.

 

[antlerradar]

So, what exactly is the problem with deer, elk, pronghorn, etc that remain less than B&C animals their whole life?

I don't see why it's a bad thing to have some mule deer that stay a 2 point their entire lives, or pronghorn that max out at a 13 inch buck.

That's happened forever, why is that now a problem? Because the Monteith shop says so?

I'm about over trying to manage wild herds like an extension of a game farm...actually, I am over it. Human arrogance in regard to herd management is truly something.

I find no problem with a wide variety of genetics, age classes, etc on the landscape.

Trying to turn wild herds into B&C factories...what a joke.

I agree with all of this. What yanks my chain is when managers tell me age structure is great because people are still finding some older 2 and 3 point bucks that most likely wandered off to private were paying hunters will not shoot them.
This study also illustrates why attempting to slow CWD by targeting older bucks will eventually fail. Hunters will not target older bucks, they will target the bucks with the best antlers. This is especially true on private land. Bucks with the best potential/start in life will die young and bucks with poor potential will live to old age.

 

[TheTone]

I don’t think the issue is because monteith says so, I think it’s a matter of a pile of hunters that think they should kill big stuff every year with minimal effort and that the belief that the anecdotal stuff they hear in the bar is better than real science

I truly thought we had known for years that late or small buck fats were starting life behind the curve of other buck fawns born earlier or bigger?