This MSU video articulately explains what a management or "cull" buck is. Really, really interesting way to make the point. I love these video series from MSU.
My thoughts on that term is it shouldnt be used outside of a high fence farm. Ymv
When it comes to harvest management strategies, everything depends on the size of the property and the hunters' goals. On smaller properties, where hunters are thrilled to kill any buck 3 1/2 or older, I agree, there is no cause for "management" bucks. However, on large properties (even unfenced ones) movement of bucks onto and off the property can be fairly limited, hence bucks may live much of their life primarily on the property. And if top-end antlers are the goal on this property, management bucks can play a role. And if bucks must reach a specific age AND antler criteria to qualify for harvest, management bucks can play a very important role.My thoughts on that term is it shouldnt be used outside of a high fence farm. Ymv
Nice. Been watching this series myself
Absolutely they do, on both accounts. Not sure why, other than ego I guess. I know some guys that are spot on with it though. A 130" deer is a big TN deer, especially for an 8pt.I've always suspected a lot of folks either grossly underestimate buck ages or grossly overestimate rack scores, or both. These MSU studies are reinforcing that suspicion.
Absolutely they do, on both accounts. Not sure why, other than ego I guess. I know some guys that are spot on with it though. A 130" deer is a big TN deer, especially for an 8pt.
There's some interesting stuff for sure. One thing I noticed is that in none of their studies did a 3yr old have a 120" rack. Even in their controlled environment captive deer experiments with optimum nutrition and minimal stress, no 3yr old had a 120" rack. I can't count all the times I've heard people say they let a 130" 8pt walk because he was only 2yrs or 3yrs old. It always made me raise an eyebrow, and apparently MSU feels the same because they can't even create that scenario in a deer lab. I've always suspected a lot of folks either grossly underestimate buck ages or grossly overestimate rack scores, or both. These MSU studies are reinforcing that suspicion.
I think it's always a bit dangerous to compare Deep South whitetails to MidSouth and especially Midwestern whitetails. I've seen plenty of bucks field-aged, tooth-wear aged, and cementum annuli aged at 3 1/2 that grossed near 150. Now how accurate are those aging systems? Controlled studies suggest, "not great." But I'll have to see if I can find the raw data from the King Ranch in Texas. Using only known-age deer (ear-tagged as fawns), they found, like in my area of TN, 3 1/2 year-old bucks average only around 105, but they did have known-age individuals that pushed the 150 mark as 3 1/2 year-olds.@BSK once mentioned soil quality being a driving force behind certain areas having very small deer, both in body and rack. The discussion was about how certain areas of TN had such drastically different deer qualities. Much of what MSU is putting out in these videos really drives his point home. In just a few short miles the deer they're testing can be categorized into three distinct regions, and each region had specifically different characteristics and potentials, all dependent on the soil in their immediate respective area.
A third of the bucks they studied were from the delta region of MS, an area well reputed for big bucks. That sample of bucks taken from a big buck area, born & raised in a controlled environment with everything a deer could need, still didn't hit 120" at 3yrs of age. That makes one wonder just how old a 130"-140" deer in the wild actually is. He's not the 3yr old it seems a lot of people think.
Most but not all grossly missjudge score and age that i know, especially when you only get 10-15 seconds to judge a buck in most scenarios where we hunt. There was a time i was hung up on big antlers until i finally realized in my area it could be 10 years before a magical 150 ever came by. If i can kill a 3.5 - 5.5 year old 100 inch deer in these mountains im tickled!There's some interesting stuff for sure. One thing I noticed is that in none of their studies did a 3yr old have a 120" rack. Even in their controlled environment captive deer experiments with optimum nutrition and minimal stress, no 3yr old had a 120" rack. I can't count all the times I've heard people say they let a 130" 8pt walk because he was only 2yrs or 3yrs old. It always made me raise an eyebrow, and apparently MSU feels the same because they can't even create that scenario in a deer lab. I've always suspected a lot of folks either grossly underestimate buck ages or grossly overestimate rack scores, or both. These MSU studies are reinforcing that suspicion.
I think it's always a bit dangerous to compare Deep South whitetails to MidSouth and especially Midwestern whitetails. I've seen plenty of bucks field-aged, tooth-wear aged, and cementum annuli aged at 3 1/2 that grossed near 150. Now how accurate are those aging systems? Controlled studies suggest, "not great." But I'll have to see if I can find the raw data from the King Ranch in Texas. Using only known-age deer (ear-tagged as fawns), they found, like in my area of TN, 3 1/2 year-old bucks average only around 105, but they did have known-age individuals that pushed the 150 mark as 3 1/2 year-olds.
Most but not all grossly missjudge score and age that i know, especially when you only get 10-15 seconds to judge a buck in most scenarios where we hunt. There was a time i was hung up on big antlers until i finally realized in my area it could be 10 years before a magical 150 ever came by. If i can kill a 3.5 - 5.5 year old 100 inch deer in these mountains im tickled!
In my opinion, if you can kill ANY buck older than a yearling in those mountains, you da' MAN!If i can kill a 3.5 - 5.5 year old 100 inch deer in these mountains im tickled!
They were statistical outliers. Just like the bottom-end 3 1/2s that gross 50-60. If I remember correctly, 50% of 3 1/2s fell within +/- 10 inches of 105.Any idea how commonly one of the "big" 3yr olds occurred?
And that's how I use the term "management buck." A management buck is a buck that will never be what the hunters want out of their management program. A perfect example is the 3 1/2 year-old buck I posted above as a bottom-end statistical outlier at 3 1/2. Odds are extremely low he's ever going to be a high-scoring buck. And I don't really care about removing a mouth from the environment. When I provide a club/landowner with a list of "management bucks" to add to their "hit list," it's because I'm trying to add harvest opportunities to a trophy management program that has few bucks on the target list. Basically, you've got a bunch of hunters chasing only a couple of mature/top-end bucks. Might as well give them a few more bucks to target, especially ones that would never make the target list otherwise. For me, "management bucks" are simply a way to provide more harvest opportunities in a very limited harvest opportunity setting without harming the results of the over-all management program.I understand the concept of a management (or cull) buck from a population control standpoint...but when hunter/managers use the term "cull" in an effort to try and control genetics I think they are mistaken....Even MSU deer lab studies say that in a wild deer herd it's practically impossible to influence genetics by killing a particular buck.
But I agree that killing a particular buck because he's a bully or to reduce the number of mouths to feed can have a benefit.
As a 3.5 year old 10 point, with all up tines? If so, he had it ALL to really be something at 5.5 ASSUMING he would have lived and flourished, not got sick, not been hit by car, no pedicle injury, not shot by a hunter, etc, etc. Not throwing shade at you, just making the case that MOST of our statistical outliers "on the high side" that we all dream about seeing in the wild, are killed by a hunter as a top end 3.5 year old as they roam the woods in daylight during the rut. I shot a non-typical several years back while hunting on the ground. I could tell he had multiple up tines and some non-typical trash. I could not see his little neck and body. I shot as soon as he presented himself from a sapling thicket. 136" 2.5 year old. Another buck that had it ALL to really be something, but I ended that before he ever had the opportunity to express his potential.The buck in the first two pictures scored 140 (I know because I killed him).