|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Nov 14, 2007 21:16:10 GMT -5
I'd have to double check, but I do not believe the majority of research on the subject indicates most B&C class bucks are 3 1/2 years old. I think they need a little more age in most areas to get to that class. However, in areas with good nutrition, a 3 1/2 year old buck is unquestionably an adult deer, and should produce a decent rack if it's ever going to have one. ( The hanson buck was aged by some at 3 1/2!) Some 150# three year old spike is not going to suddenly "Mature" at 4.5 years old, gain 70lbs, and sprout a booner rack. I think magazines and videos trying to sell mineral supplements, as well as an industry that revolves around abnormally large antlers gives us unrealistic expectations. There seems to be this idea that if you let a buck live to be six years old and feed it some clover it will automatically be a huge trophy, and that is just not the case, at least from the deer carcasses I have looked at.
|
|
|
|
Post by fullrut on Nov 14, 2007 22:11:48 GMT -5
I just got off the phone with the father of the boy who shot this deer, I'll let you know later about the score. Should be scoring it next week.
|
|
|
|
Post by WhoDey78 on Nov 14, 2007 23:41:59 GMT -5
The only way to accurately age a deer is by removing a tooth, cutting it and counting the rings, like a tree. Just because a deer has a smaller body doesn't mean it isn't old. Consider the 6'6" 23 year-old basketball players and 5'4" 60 year-old man. Genetics has much to do with the size of the deer and their rack. They can definitely be supported by supplements, but some deer will never become giants simply because of poor genes.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Nov 15, 2007 0:25:27 GMT -5
I want to know why it matters how old a deer is anyways? Really, if it is the deer you are after what does it matter? I really don't understand, my background in biology states mature as being able to reporduce, maybe some of you with a psycological backgound can say you base maturity on their habits, actions, and such but come on what does it really matter?  |
|
|
|
Post by parrothead on Nov 15, 2007 7:47:54 GMT -5
I saw the pictures with the concrete deer stuck on top of it and two arrows sticking out of the buck. It was pretty neat.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 15, 2007 8:02:32 GMT -5
I have no doubt that the "vast majority" of B&C whitetails are not 3.5 or younger. I was throwing a little sarcasm at such a fantastic claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Nov 15, 2007 8:15:56 GMT -5
I want to know why it matters how old a deer is anyways? Really, if it is the deer you are after what does it matter? I really don't understand, my background in biology states mature as being able to reporduce, maybe some of you with a psycological backgound can say you base maturity on their habits, actions, and such but come on what does it really matter? I think for most of us, it's just another interesting aspect of deer hunting to study and learn about. I'm like you in that I just hunt for deer, period, not just for a certain animal---not that makes me better or worse as hunter, mind you. Like stated above, the only sure way to tell age is by the teeth, but there are ways to get a pretty close judging by eye. Why deer are the way they are and do what they do is always fun to speculate and debate about. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 15, 2007 8:26:39 GMT -5
I think saying the ability to reproduce is the gateway to maturity is a little lacking .... most 13 year old girls are able to reproduce.
|
|
|
|
Post by bschwein on Nov 15, 2007 9:14:42 GMT -5
What part of the county was that killed in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier Hunter on Nov 15, 2007 9:41:57 GMT -5
Well IMO I care less on how old the buck is. He's got a fine set of head gear. Most old bucks taste nasty anyway  |
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Nov 15, 2007 10:55:20 GMT -5
It looks to have been a fairly young buck, 3.5 yo or less. The vast majority of the bucks that qualify for the state record book or even B&C are 3.5 or less, not fully mature deer. Really? Where did you find that information? I had no idea the majority of big whitetails killed were not mature animals....... I cant even imagine a 2.5 or a 3.5 year old 170" whitetail. Interesting information. I've read reports about the age of B&C qualifiers several places (which I can look up if you are interested) but if I'm not mistaken, the very topic is covered in the last copy of the HRBP record book that I have (the 2003 edition I believe). JB has mentioned it a time or two also. FYI, some high profile examples include the Hanson buck (current world record typical) which was estimated to only be 3.5 yo. The James Rath buck (huge non-typical) was also aged at 3.5. Also, according to Buckmasters, the biggest 1.5 yo ever recorded was a 12 pointer that scored 155". |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 15, 2007 11:00:50 GMT -5
There is a difference between exceptions to the rule and claiming a "vast majority". I am sure there are plenty of 170" deer running around that are 2.5 or 3.5 years old .... But I also would bet that the majority of those actually killed and entered in B&C are 4.5 or older.
I have read that the Hanson buck was estimated to be 3.5 years old ... I assume that means it was never really aged? If so then there is the very real possibility that whomever "guessed" was wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Nov 15, 2007 11:32:29 GMT -5
I am just trying to remember all the good bucks I have seen .... I would Imagine that a 170" 3.5 year old buck is entirely possible but had no idea that it was the norm. And to think that the vast majority of B&C bucks are that age or even younger is just mind boggling. A 170" 3.5 yo is certainly not the norm, nor even really common in the best areas, but it is more common for one of these over-sized young deer to be killed than it is for 4.5 year old or older buck to be killed. When fully mature bucks are killed, they are usually much older than 4.5 and often past their prime. I have read a couple of very interesting studies where radio-tracking was used to study bucks as they aged. In nearly every case the bucks being studied became almost exclusively nocturnal once they were 4.5 years old and remained so for 2-3 years, becoming less nocturnal as they passed their prime. This was true even with individual bucks that had been highly visible during daylight hours as 3.5 year olds. It makes sense and helps to explain why the majority of record book deer are 3.5 years old or younger. Although bucks between the ages of 4.5 and 6.5 years old are the most likely to have racks big enough to qualify for the record books, they are also the least likely, by a large margin, to be killed. |
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Nov 15, 2007 11:42:16 GMT -5
There is a difference between exceptions to the rule and claiming a "vast majority". I am sure there are plenty of 170" deer running around that are 2.5 or 3.5 years old .... But I also would bet that the majority of those actually killed and entered in B&C are 4.5 or older. I have read that the Hanson buck was estimated to be 3.5 years old ... I assume that means it was never really aged? If so then there is the very real possibility that whomever "guessed" was wrong. If better age records were taken of B&C entries I'd take that bet. The majority of the entries for which the age is known are 3.5 years old or less. The hanson buck and others were examples only. Unless teeth are removed, sectioned, stained and viewed under a microscope, aging is never more than an estimate but a skilled person can be very accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 15, 2007 11:53:08 GMT -5
This is interesting... anyone have any data on the age question on B & C?
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 15, 2007 12:33:43 GMT -5
Different web searches havent really turned up anything.
I wonder how many entries are really aged? I think there are roughly 5500-6000 or so entries for Whitetail dating back to the early 1800's. Im sure very few of the early entries were aged or there is even a reliable record if they were. I would say the number of entries 3.5 or younger, if it were possible to know the age of each entry, would be relatively small.
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 15, 2007 12:39:35 GMT -5
Yep ... there is our problem .... we will never know.
|
|
|
|
Post by duff on Nov 15, 2007 18:02:06 GMT -5
This kind of stuff cracks me up...lets claim most book bucks are not "mature" (>3.5 yrs old)then unable to prove anything. Lets see the records, stats, real numbers not what someone thinks...
I will wait for one of you all to produce the numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by fullrut on Nov 15, 2007 20:35:27 GMT -5
This deer was taken in the Southern part of the county. Just a few miles from Crosley fish and wildlife area.
|
|
|
|
Post by solohunter on Nov 15, 2007 21:06:45 GMT -5
Funny, but to me this deer is the same as a road kill....guess I have an odd way of looking at hunting.....
|
|
