Age guess
- Thread starter AT Hiker
- Start date
8.5+?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Tooth wear suggests very old, was also thinking 8.5+.
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
Agreed 8.5 or older
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
To old to accurately age.
JJ3
Well-Known Member
Definitely a senior citizen! 8+
8.5 was my first thought. Very old.
tree_ghost
Well-Known Member
SEC":1yslz30k said:
I was thinking the same for my abilities in tooth wear aging. Just looks plum OLD to me...
Interested to see what the age estimate was when he was killed...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Definitely retirement age.
Stykbow
Well-Known Member
1.5 +. Guarantee I'm right.[emoji16]
If you're going to be stupid, you'd better be tough!
If you're going to be stupid, you'd better be tough!
The deer was aged at 5.5, antlers were nice (upper 120-130 type 11pt) body was nothing big but you could tell by the cape it had been through a few years.
Once I caped it out and seen the teeth I knew immediately it was a old deer, it just stood out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Once I caped it out and seen the teeth I knew immediately it was a old deer, it just stood out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here is another odd one. I'm extremely confident this deer is at least 5.5, very possibly a 6.5+. Multiple hunters have trail cam pics and sheds of him over the years. He is a upper 160 type deer with a absolute hog for a body.
What kind of age would you guess based on these teeth?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What kind of age would you guess based on these teeth?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
I agree your FIRST POSTED buck "looks" older than 5 1/2,
but some biologists will only go as high as "5 1/2, or older".
Some will go 6 1/2, but there is little aging accuracy from around 5 1/2 and up.
Also, actually having the jawbones removed allows for more accurate analysis than than simply quickly peering into a mouth with a flashlight.
I would not have been shocked had you said a biologist said "3 1/2 or older"
simply because, at a glance, such a mistake could have been easily made.
It can be easy to miss all the obvious wear with a quick view, initially more focused on dentine width vs. enamel,
and by some respects, this one was more in line with the enamel view of a 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 yr old.
but some biologists will only go as high as "5 1/2, or older".
Some will go 6 1/2, but there is little aging accuracy from around 5 1/2 and up.
Also, actually having the jawbones removed allows for more accurate analysis than than simply quickly peering into a mouth with a flashlight.
I would not have been shocked had you said a biologist said "3 1/2 or older"
simply because, at a glance, such a mistake could have been easily made.
It can be easy to miss all the obvious wear with a quick view, initially more focused on dentine width vs. enamel,
and by some respects, this one was more in line with the enamel view of a 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 yr old.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
As to your more recent pic nearest this post, I'd just have to say 5 1/2 or older based on the pic,
while wouldn't be surprised to learn he's known to be 7 1/2.
Every year older, there is significant loss in accuracy,
with a bent towards the deer being older than they appear.
Much like humans, individual deer each have their own genetics for either good teeth or bad teeth. Some individual deer's teeth will just wear much faster, even in the same cohort.
You could have two bucks which were brothers, born to the same mother on the same day, and one's teeth might look 3 1/2, the other 5 1/2, yet both might actually be 4 1/2.
while wouldn't be surprised to learn he's known to be 7 1/2.
Every year older, there is significant loss in accuracy,
with a bent towards the deer being older than they appear.
Much like humans, individual deer each have their own genetics for either good teeth or bad teeth. Some individual deer's teeth will just wear much faster, even in the same cohort.
You could have two bucks which were brothers, born to the same mother on the same day, and one's teeth might look 3 1/2, the other 5 1/2, yet both might actually be 4 1/2.
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
AT, the second buck is impossible to age by tooth wear models because it doesnt have normal chewing and wear due to the prior osteonecrosis and tooth loss. One could argue anything from 3.5 to 6.5 or older. It certainly is not a yearling or 2.5yo. Other than that, impossible to say.
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
megalomaniac":2mph36c4 said:
That's part of why I posted it. Based on trail camera history, I have a highly confident age but if that was unknown and the teeth were the only factor it would be a complete odd ball.
Just thought it would be fun to post the pics as these two deer are definitely not normal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As to the first deer, you cannot argue the tooth wear. However, I'm curious as to his diet (possibly genetics like LBL man alluded to).
I just suspect there is more to this deer than normal tooth wear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just suspect there is more to this deer than normal tooth wear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stykbow
Well-Known Member
On that second one I'm more curious how it lost that big chunk of jawbone than how old it is. That's crazy looking.
If you're going to be stupid, you'd better be tough!
If you're going to be stupid, you'd better be tough!
