|
Post by freedomhunter on Nov 15, 2007 21:32:09 GMT -5
World class giants make very few mistakes from the age 4.5 and older, that is why only a small percentage of hunters will ever see one. I've seen ONE, that is it, and it disappeared. Mostly, they are not going to be killed by a hunter, much less seen. Simply, you have to be extremely LUCKY to ever see one. Talking about 200" and up.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Nov 15, 2007 22:31:08 GMT -5
World class giants make very few mistakes from the age 4.5 and older, that is why only a small percentage of hunters will ever see one. I've seen ONE, that is it, and it disappeared. Mostly, they are not going to be killed by a hunter, much less seen. Simply, you have to be extremely LUCKY to ever see one. Talking about 200" and up. World class deer are rare regardless of age, that is why you won't see very many of them. If they were not rare, they would not be world class. There are fewer older deer in the woods then young deer, it's simple population dynamics. That in turn makes a hunter less likely to see an older deer. Add that to the probablility that the old deer has good genetics and has developed a huge rack it make for even more rare occurance. So is a 4.5 yr old 200"+ buck a smarter buck then a 120" 4.5 year old buck?
|
|
|
Post by fullrut on Nov 16, 2007 5:51:17 GMT -5
NO, There is just a heck of alot less of them. I think when you get a buck that big he is almost a freak of nature, because it just doesn't happen very often. Most people will go their whole life, and never even see a Booone and Crockett buck. You can't kill them where they aren't, and they aren't very many places.
|
|
|
Post by bschwein on Nov 16, 2007 8:52:20 GMT -5
That sure is a super buck, to bad thats how the story went.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Nov 16, 2007 16:09:04 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. Duff, why not take the time to do some research on the subject and deer biology in general for yourself? I'd be happy to point you in the right direction but it seems you have already made up your mind and would rather argue than learn something. The bottom line is a buck's age only matters if you care and are interested in such things. Shoot what makes you happy.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Nov 16, 2007 17:52:32 GMT -5
You're right I don't care enough to waste my time on it. But when I see junk data I can't help myself. Prove to me you are right.
Give me the real data (such as 52% book deer are </=3.5 yrs old, or a deer is considered mature when it is > 3.5 yr old) that you are quoting and the reference(s). Then I will see if I can find the source to learn from or you can scan the pages in for all to read.
I still get a kick out of 3.5 yr old deer not being "mature"...
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Nov 16, 2007 18:55:30 GMT -5
Is it junk data simply because you don't agree with it? Here you go for a start, here is part of it that addresses your main misconception. As for the rest, you will have to do the work to prove me wrong yourself. www.tpwmagazine.com/archive/2004/nov/ed_1/
|
|
|
Post by duff on Nov 16, 2007 20:58:56 GMT -5
I don't doubt body size changes or actions changes, we've discussed this before. I judge maturity of an animal strictly biologically speaking, it is the way I have been trained I guess. In the animal kingdom where the sole reason for an animal to exist is to breed means an animal atains biological maturity when the sex organs mature.
The junk data is in reference to stating most book deer are not fully mature deer (>3.5 yrs old) with no hard data to back it up with. I can not prove you right or wrong but I don't have to believe it without seeing the same data you based that statement on.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Nov 16, 2007 21:05:45 GMT -5
Thinking on the book deer I can believe the 3.5 yr old deer make up the majority of book deer. Once again population dynamics can be attributed to this fact (?) or statement. A minimum antler measurement that is met by few 2.5 but not many, more likely the majority reach that criteria at 3.5. Each year you go up in age the fewer deer there are in that age group, potentially change in habits too and guys targeting certain minimum sized antlers. Just like saying if you shoot the first buck by most likely it will be a small guy (more of them), if you shoot the first deer you see that meets a size requirement it will more then likely be a younger deer as the older they get the fewer there are.
|
|
|
Post by scrub-buster on Nov 18, 2007 12:22:44 GMT -5
, I thought I was reading about a big Jennings Co. buck, not an argument about deer age.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 18, 2007 12:42:53 GMT -5
, I thought I was reading about a big Jennings Co. buck, not an argument about deer age. It did kind of get off track, didn't it?
|
|
|
Post by booner1331 on Nov 18, 2007 19:26:11 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
|
Post by duff on Nov 19, 2007 11:43:43 GMT -5
Which one?
|
|