|
Post by huxbux on Sept 28, 2006 21:40:03 GMT -5
You guys are a bunch of homossssapiens.... who cares about the world record, go for the supermodel! Don't waste your time Travis, ain't no meat on 'em.
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Sept 29, 2006 5:26:56 GMT -5
I have to disagree with article and some of the posts, a buck reaching 170" is not as rare as the statistics make it seem. What is rare is that someone kills a buck with enough age to attain that size. The record books are populated by young deer that grew big racks quickly, most of which are not over 3.5 yo. Bucks that reach 4.5 or older might as well be considered as entirely different animals from their younger brethren and most those that are killed are killed by accident, often after their racks have started to go downhill.
I believe it is entirely possible that a potential World Record buck is walking around somewhere any given year, but very few of these will even be seen by very many hunters let alone taken by one. One good deer state is just as good a pick as the next, including Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by Decatur on Sept 29, 2006 6:16:52 GMT -5
You guys are a bunch of homossssapiens.... who cares about the world record, go for the supermodel! WHAT?? AGAIN?? Nah, they are over rated and several of them snore. Sleep with them one at a time then! Just make them take turns!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Sept 29, 2006 10:49:08 GMT -5
You guys are a bunch of homossssapiens.... who cares about the world record, go for the supermodel! WHAT?? AGAIN?? Nah, they are over rated and several of them snore. Good one Woody. LOL LOL!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Sept 29, 2006 10:49:58 GMT -5
WHAT?? AGAIN?? Nah, they are over rated and several of them snore. Sleep with them one at a time then! Just make them take turns!! ;D D you're an animal!!!!!!! LOL LOL
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 29, 2006 11:43:58 GMT -5
The article in print actually had IN listed as a sleeper. Sorry to break it to you guys. YES IT DID....TY
|
|