>No, I made the assertion that
>killing spikes WILL improve the
>genetic make-up of a free-ranging
>WHITETAIL DEER herd. This
>has been proven to be
>true. I said NUMEROUS
>TIMES that I don't know
>if it applies to elk.
> Like you, I have
>not seen any data for
>elk. I suspect that
>it is true for elk,
>but I am not willing
>to make that leap of
>faith to say that it
>is. I'm merely pointing
>out what we've learned about
>whitetail deer in Texas.
I researched for hours last night, even elk game farm sites, and I couldn't find a single study that says culling spike elk makes so much as a ripple in the genetic makeup of an elk herd. I would contend, that if it were as cut and dry and you assert, elk ranches would have this as part of their management policies. Since they do NOT, I believe common sense says culling spike elk out of a free-range elk herd will make ZERO difference in genetic makeup and future quality.
>For elk, I have not seen
>it proven, and I make
>no claims that it is
>true. I merely postulate
>that it may be true.
> And hopefully your elk
>herds are managed by BIOLOGISTS,
>using research results. I
>know from reading posts on
>this site that many don't
>believe this to be true,
>but I like to believe
>it is. Call me
>an optimist.
Spike management is a hunter management tool, NOT an elk management tool, at least how it is used here in Utah.
>It's too bad that you don't
>care about expanding your horizons
>and gathering data outside your
>immediate proximity. Sometimes you
>can learn things by looking
>in other places...
I do gather info that is RELEVANT, and whitetail results in extremely controlled environments in Texas are NOT relevant to wild elk in Utah.
>It is not flawed logic.
>It is being done successfully
>with FREE RANGE herds in
>Texas with whitetail deer.
>It is also the principal
>that QDMA preaches, and it
>works in many other states
>with FREE RANGE herds.
>Again, this is data for
>WHITETAIL DEER.
Not so fast my friend. Doing a little research last night I say conflicting conclusions within the QDMA itself on the effectiveness of removing spikes from whitetail herds. If the results don't bring consensus in a CONTROLLED environment, I highly doubt there would be conclusive evidence in wild elk.
>Please point me to studies that
>back up your claim that
>it has not worked and
>will not work in our
>lifetimes. You state that
>you have not seen studies
>demonstrating that it works, but
>have you any study results
>that show that it has
>NOT worked? Undocumented/untabulated observations
>do not constitute data that
>can be used to form
>a conclusion. You can
>form a belief, but there's
>a big difference between a
>belief and a conclusion.
>There has been a lot
>of great research on whitetail
>deer management over the last
>several decades. Surely there
>must be some data out
>there on elk management.
>Let's find some data before
>jumping to conclusions...
I have looked, and as of yet NO data located on the matter.
>OK, but where is the study
>refuting that theory? In
>the absence of all data,
>you cannot claim that it
>isn't true, just like I
>can't claim that it is!
I can, because success rates for spike hunts in Utah have stayed steady for 15+ years. If there was a decline in the percentage of spikes in the herds, logic would lead one to believe there hasn't been much, if any, change in the ratio of spike yearling bulls to branch-antlered yearling bulls.
>There are two problems with your
>example. First, you're picking
>one single example and throwing
>it out to draw conclusions
>on entire populations of elk.
> That's a statistical no-no.
> Secondly, we've had bucks
>in our herds cycle between
>trophy and average several times
>(trophy in year 2, average
>in years 3 and 4,
>trophy in year 5, etc.),
>all depending on the availability
>of adequate browse. If
>we feed supplemental protein when
>browse is dried up, those
>trophies stay trophies year after
>year. Yes, environmental conditions
>are extremely important, but genetics
>are, too. For example,
>if you have a very
>harsh year, you may not
>have any trophies that year.
> But, if you have
>absolutely horrible genetics (not usually
>the case in nature, but
>I use it as an
>example to prove a point),
>you will NEVER have trophies.
> All the high-protein browse
>in the world can't overcome
>bad genes!
I didn't single out just one example, I just used a very obvious one. Being as most elk in the wild are not easily identified year to year, it is hard to get accurate data on what size spike bull elk become at their peak antler growth. But, since we have the same number of spikes in a herd today as when spike hunting was implemented, evidence is leaning to it having no measurable impact on elk genetics.
Even with controlled breeding, and with highly specialized diets to maximize antler growth, and with ideal conditions, farm elk are not assured of reaching the 400" mark. So, to expect such an outcome in WILD elk defies logic, science, and reality.