Contributors to this thread:
How old are these little bucks
I have several little bucks feeding in my clover food plot. In your opinion, are they 6 months or 1.5 years old?
Could be 2 yrs, big body's for a yearling.
They could be either, especially if born the early part of the fawning period. Only sure way to know is to look at the lower jaw if they're killed this year. If the first 2 teeth have 3 segments or cusps it's a 6 month old.
Extremely short nose... 6 months.
If these little bucks are 1.5 years old, they need to go. Don't want their genetics in my area..
95% sure they're 6 month olds. At least the one with the side profile pic is.
Really hope they are only 6 mo. old. Would hate to have 1.5 yr old buck around with 1" horns...
Hard to tell from those pics, I’ll say 1.5. There have been pen raised giants that had spikes as a yearling. I think you’d be better off “culling two year olds that weren’t 8 points or better than culling spikes. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between a 1 and 2 year old so that might be tough too. I think it would make the most sense to cull three year olds. By the time they are three you can see where they’re headed. Yearlings and two year olds probably account for less than 5% of the breeding where I am so waiting until they are 3 doesn’t hurt much.
6 months. The big body appearance is probably the puffy winter coat. Short nose is another strong indicator.
C5ken- killing them will not alter your genetics in a wild deer herd by any measurable way, but if you need an excuse to kill em, feel free to justify that way. If they are 6 months however , you have killed a buck that could have been a real magnum
Yearlings IMO, meaning more than 12 months old. We have a few like that each year on our place. I think in most cases they were just born to a late-bred doe, late in the season the prior year, and nothing to do with genetics.
Culling doesn't do any good, you can't improve your genetics in anyway shape or form - as OneBooner said. The second photo has the head of a fawn, really tough to tell on the other photos. So, if you want to fill a tag, go for it. In our area we would let go, to grow. BC
The first one is definitely 1.5
The second one looks like a fawn.
You can't be sure it is due to genetics. If these are yearlings (over 1 year old) it could be caused by multiple reasons. Late bred doe (as was mentioned), fawn of a fawn that was bred late, a twin of a late bred doe. I shot one of these late season a couple years ago in MN. He was a yearling for sure.
Shot one this year as well, as with 1” antlers be qualified for an antlerless tag ;)
But ya, no amount of shooting and passing is going to alter the genetics in the area. Plus you have no idea what they’re carrying for genetics at that age. Always remember half the genetics even in regards to antlers comes from the doe. You can have dinks running around with booner genetics. You can have a doe kicking out giants one after another and likewise you can have a doe kicking out bucks with small rack genetics one after another.
Even if for some reason, you could pinpoint what does and what bucks are carrying what genetics which is impossible, the number of deer you kill will alter that equation not at all.
I do find the “you can’t alter your herd genetics” argument hard to buy. Forget the does genetics. What would you rather have breeding does, a 130” 8 point or a booner of the same age class? Sure the doe has a say in what’s passed on. If a doe has poor horn genetics I still prefer my chances when she’s bread by a genetic stud. I realize there are short couples that have 6’8” sons but the norm is children that reflect their parents genetic attributes.
If you have enough tags/ manpower, enough time and a big enough piece of property you can certainly influence the herd genetics. Especially so in areas that don’t have a huge deer density.
I would disagree Link. I think there's actually a study they did on the King Ranch in Texas where they culled the heck out of bucks in a fenced in huge area--like 9,000 acres, and never could make progress on the genetics aspect of it
I think the only benefit to "culling" bucks is making room for another buck or a younger buck with more desirable headgear. I don't believe you can influence genetics
The only thing you can positively conclude from those photos is that if you shoot them they will not grow any bigger. You would hate to have those genetics in your area? Umm they are already in your area bud whether those deer live or die.
1.5 or older. While I'm no expert, I have been interested in this question personally. From most of the scientific reading I've done regarding fawns and potential for antler production, the consensus from researchers seems to be that it would be nearly impossible to have antlered (hard antlered) fawns at this time of year. Much of the research that the articles I read was done in penned environments where antler genetics were the goal, and even in those places (i.e. not in more stressed, natural environments), they were finding that fawns in limited cases could develop antlers that protrude through the scalp (and therefor could be rubbed), but it wasn't until later in the winter months and it was only the early born, faster developing deer. Essentially, the research suggests that antlers don't begin to develop until a deer reaches a certain stage of physical and sexual maturity, and fawns don't hit that point until they are closer to a year old than to 6 months. With that in mind, small antlered yearlings (or commonly called 1.5 year olds) are just as likely due to being late born fawns the season before than due to genetics.
Not to say these are older, but a female friend of mine shot a buck with the tiniest spikes I've ever seen more than a decade ago in Northern WI, the registration station aged it at 3.5 yrs - but that's not to say they were right either. The first pick, the deer has a deep chest and a girthy neck, the second one actually has a crown on the pedicals, so neither of those are fawns IMO. Just because the one looks to have a short nose, it could be the camera, or he's rather short in the face. Also, can't rule out an antlered doe, especially the second one.
Yes, culling the herd is now considered an unproven piece of deer lore. I wonder what Arnold Schwarzenegger looked like when he was a youngster?
My guess, late born fawn now a yearly from a young doe a year ago... He's a yearling, meaning one year old, but likely late born last year probably late summer or fall... Just a guess, kill him so we can see his teeth...8^)
One more baby buck..... there everywhere...... I have several doe tags & friends that can help but I think I'll let them walk to see what happens next year. Thanks for all the advise/opinions
Many studies in Texas have proven what Bake and Dutch Oven said. If culling to remove mouths is desirable to protect the forage for deer you want to keep, that’s one thing, but it’s pointless unless the buck is given enough time to prove or disprove its potential. How many times have you heard or read that a certain buck “blew up” at age 4 or 5 ? It’s not rare that a buck adds 10”/20” from one year to another at that stage in its life. Twenty inches ain’t much but it turns a 150” deer into a booner, at least in theory, if you’re into that.
Yep.... They get a pass...
Michigan, Pa, NY and other states I say 1.5 no doubt. Get out into thje mid-west and plains states than they could be fawns 6-8 months old. I find 1.5 year in the states I mentioned may average 15-20# lighter than those midwesten deer that grow on corn, soybeans and milo. I have also seen fawns with 1-3" polished spikes out west and you rarely see that here in the northeast. Shawn
I’m saying they are 1.5 year olds.
X2 with Zbone. Last year’s late born deer
Those are really old bucks going down hill.
No actually they’re young bucks. Shoot a doe if you want meat and let those bucks grow and have their impact on your herd.
*Stop the Steal. Democrats stealing the election