Antler size over-estimation

[T.J.]

I was at that meeting as well and he emphasized he was only taking a guess at the average score of a 3 1/2 and if my recollection is right said the average score would be in the 120 to 130 range. I think you are rembering when someone asked what a 3 1/2 would be on Ames and Allen said in the 130-135 range. That's just the way I remember it. and im not saying any of them were wrong or right.

 

[BSK]

I'm becoming more and more disappointed with the QDMA's mis-use of data.

 

[nick2720]

Well I can believe that there are alot of high 120 2.5 yr olds, I'm just a mile up the road if that from Ames plantation. But I wouldn't say the average is that high for a 2.5 yr old BC it varies so much at that age some have the genetics and some just dont. I've had a lot of deer on cam. Shot and filmed some nice 2.5 that are high 120s. It SEEMS in our area if it is 3.5 or older you'll be taking it to taxidermist cause it'll be over 130 or probably a really good deer. I get on the Ames website a lot and look at the can pics I think those pics show a lot about the ages structure and genetics. I think its hard for a lot to believe that a 2.5 can be that big just because its not what what most are used to seeing in ten. But that area is managed, food is there, and good genetics. All I can say is I have seen a big difference in the last ten yrs just on my farm but still wouldn't say the average is that high by no means.

 

[BSK]

nick2720,

Be careful in over-estimating AVERAGES by just looking at the top-end of each age-class. Yes, a few 120 2 1/2s exist. But just as many 60-class 2 1/2s exist. That brings the AVERAGE way down. The same with 3 1/2s. Sure, some whopper 3 1/2s exist in good habitat. But there will also be some bottom-end 3 1/2s that don't come close to breaking 80, hence the AVERAGE is well below the top-end. NOWHERE in TN do 3 1/2s AVERAGE over 130. Absolutely nowhere.

 

[TheLBLman]

NOWHERE in TN do 3 1/2s AVERAGE over 130. Absolutely nowhere.

I agree. Not even in Lake County.

Another thing which skews hunters' perceptions regarding scores of known age bucks:

Hunters tend to kill more of the larger antlered bucks of every age class. In other words, hunters, myself included, may let a small antlered older buck walk, while we may be more eager to take a larger antlered younger buck.

 

[nick2720]

I agree. I don't think averages are that high. I may be only seeing 10% of the bucks true population on my property and the ones I see killed probably are the higher end of the scale. This will skew any data. I'm just saying from neighbors kills and sightings as well as my own if its older its probably going on the wall. Not stating it can't be small or that its automatically over 130 either.I don't think averages can truly be calculated unless its a controlled environment WO variable to affect the outcome.

 

[MRUTVOL]

I have found that not only are they overestimated there are also a lot who do not know how to correctly measure. I have had deer brought to me that were measured by a friend of a friend and so forth that were 15 to 20 inches less than what they scored. Soon as I seen them I could tell that 150 score would be closer to a 130. For some reason a lot of people want to add 2 width measurements, the inside and outside, when only one is accepted.

 

[102]

In my travels all over Tn and Illinois, I frequently cross paths with hunters who regularly mis-judge and over estimate scores.

Without a doubt, the vast majority of those I encounter suffer from TV itis. No doubt, TV "legends" are largely FULL OF CRAP when it comes to stating the score of their recent TV kill..

TINE LENGTH....TINE LENGTH....TINE LENGTH roughly 70 percent of score.

Trust me...a 125 inch buck is a DANDY. It tickles me to pinkness when I hear folks talk about a 130 this or 140 that. AND THEN THEY SHOW ME PICS!!!!

There is a good reason why Tennessee has a 115 entry level for their Registry.
And a 140 for gun.

IMO...(and I said this to BSK MANY years ago, QDM is a BAD idea.

Very poorly understood and BADLY mis-represented!!!

 

[UTGrad]

I used to overestimate. My wife caught me at it though. :(

OMG LOLOLOLOLO

 

[BSK]

I don't think averages can truly be calculated unless its a controlled environment WO variable to affect the outcome.

Actually, you can get very good averages by looking at trail-camera data. Trail-camera data does not suffer from selectivity by hunters. And trail-camera data will show where many hunters are misjudging age based on antler size. Hunters see a 70-class buck and assume that the buck is young, when in reality, the buck might be a small-antlered older buck, even possibly a mature buck.

How many hunters realize that in parts of the East TN mountains 3 1/2 year-old bucks only average a 12" OUTSIDE spread and have only 6-7 points? I bet 90 out of a 100 hunters would misjudge the age of a 6-point 12-inch wide 3 1/2 year-old buck. And that's the AVERAGE 3 1/2 in that area, not the bottom end.

How many hunters are going to a realize a 60-class buck like the one pictured below is 3 1/2? And I promise you, TN--including West TN--is full of 3 1/2 year-old bucks that look just like that one:

 

[TheLBLman]

I don't think averages can truly be calculated unless its a controlled environment WO variable to affect the outcome.

Actually, you can get very good averages by looking at trail-camera data. Trail-camera data does not suffer from selectivity by hunters.

I agree you can get better averages by looking at trail-cam data, but with the exception of pre-season yearling bucks, even the trail-cam data sufferes from the selectivity by hunters. Exception would be in a very large unhunted area, such as Cades Cove.

In most areas hunted, today's hunters are going to harvest a much higher percentage of the larger antlered bucks of all age classes, leaving relatively more of the smaller antlered to advance into the next year's age class. And this is particularly the case with yearlings, 2 1/2's, and 3 1/2's. Thus, regarding the 2 1/2 and older bucks we get pics, those cohorts have already suffered from the selectivity of hunters in the prior year.

 

[nick2720]

How would putting cams up in an area where there might be a preferred food source or hunting pressure not affect the data collected on cams? Say if I put it in a highly pressured area I may be only getting few deer on cam and may not be correctly represent what is in the 50 acre woods. Same for the rut a hot doe may draw smaller or bigger off a neighbors? I wonder if there is a correlation between genetics and competitiveness.. I wonder if a 130 in 2.5 is more competitive and aggressive BC it is bigger than most other 2.5 yr olds... I just feel like without a constant to compare to how can you test your hypothesis? That's where I say variables would affect the outcome. And how accurate are cams that take photos? I wonder how many deer aren't caught on cam. I did a project 2 yrs ago. Ran 4 cams 2 strapped to a tree one took stills other took video clips. I was amazed how many doe that triggered cam had bucks following seconds behind. But the stills only caught the doe in some cases the bucks weren't captured. In a controlled environment I think you could get an accurate average but just don't see how weather food pressure natural predation human error or genetics can't skew data. I've seen scientific research papers that had this same problem and I've seen the statistical model they use and alot of people say it isn't accurate and I'm not saying either or iv just seen controversy with it. I know you use them a lot but want to know how you compensate for these variables?

 

[TheLBLman]

Nick2720,

BSK has done many photo deer inventories on properties consisting of many thousand acres each. The large size of the sample, and his consistency allow for much better data than say me or you placing a couple cams.

 

[nick2720]

I agree and understand, I had to use power analysis to verify may sample size was big enough to get an accurate sample in another research study I did. I was just wondering how he compensated for uncontrolled variables BC I know others have had issues with this. But your saying since he has vast studies and info and its consistent he has essentially created a constant to compare to proving its accuracy? Or am I totally off? Haha

 

[BSK]

I don't think averages can truly be calculated unless its a controlled environment WO variable to affect the outcome.

Actually, you can get very good averages by looking at trail-camera data. Trail-camera data does not suffer from selectivity by hunters.

I agree you can get better averages by looking at trail-cam data, but with the exception of pre-season yearling bucks, even the trail-cam data sufferes from the selectivity by hunters. Exception would be in a very large unhunted area, such as Cades Cove.

In most areas hunted, today's hunters are going to harvest a much higher percentage of the larger antlered bucks of all age classes, leaving relatively more of the smaller antlered to advance into the next year's age class. And this is particularly the case with yearlings, 2 1/2's, and 3 1/2's. Thus, regarding the 2 1/2 and older bucks we get pics, those cohorts have already suffered from the selectivity of hunters in the prior year.

You're absolutely right Wes. The trail-camera data will display the effects of high-grading by hunters.

But that said, trail-camera data will still provide what the ACTUAL averages are as they exist. That may not be what is possible (again, due to high-grading), but it is the real averages that exist in the wild.

 

[BSK]

nick2720,

The photo census process is a scientifically tested, verified, and peer reviewed process. Accuracy in the original study was 95+%. My personal studies suggest 98% accuracy (98% of deer are captured on camera) using mark-recapture methodology.

 

[nick2720]

Gotcha I was just curious.. which cams do you use ? Does the blackout style ir's differ from flash cams in your studies. I hear it on commercial s but always wondered if there was scientific studies to back it up. Also shutter noise, trigger speed, and size or color / style ever made a difference?. I use the ir by wildgame innovations and I know there is a little noise and trigger speed giant as quick as other premium cams. It seems they can pick out the blocky black cams out to easy. Just wondering what you use or thinks best. I know I'm asking a lot but how many cams per acre do you run. I'm just wondering if I wanted to run cams on my place yr round and try to figure an average what all id have to do. My place my not be big enough though

 

[Adam Jackson]

I agree with you Mike. I believe it is smart to give yourself some insurance at Ames. There is so much pressure it seems to score the minimum at Ames. You almost always need to give yourself some insurance. A lot of those deer you let walk have the possibility to go another year, which in turn, lets that buck go from 3 1/2 to 4 1/2. Better yet, possibly graduate from 4 1/2 to 5 1/2.

 

[BSK]

nick2720,

Camera type and model make a huge difference. I wrote a lengthy article on the subject of black-flash cams versus visible flash cams (red-glow [IR] and white-flash) published in Quality Whitetails. With visible flash cams, the number of pictures declined dramatically over time as these cameras were left in one position, primarily because deer learned to avoid the flash. In contrast, the number of pictures from black-flash cams INCREASED dramatically over time, most likely because deer eventually get over their initial fear of the camera set up, once the camera proved inert.

Personally, I wouldn't use any camera that is not black-flash. A quiet camera (one that does not produce an audible "clunk" when switching filters) is also important. And how cameras are monitored (how and when memory cards are swapped) plays a huge role in data collected.

The biggest issue with camera model is reliability. Some brands have an excellent reputation for reliability while others, terrible. Probably the worst brand of camera is Wild Game Innovations. Their camera quality is very low and failure rates exceptionally high. Reconyx makes the most reliable camera, with their units often lasting many years without problems. However, their cost is prohibitively high (but they are the model used in almost all research, due to reliability). In addition, personally, I'm not a huge fan of their image quality. Because of their lower resolution (to allow rapid writing of the image file to the memory card), their images have a bit of "fuzz" to them. As a "middle of the road" choice between cost and reliability, I recommend the Trophy Cams, Coverts, and most recently the Moultrie black-flash cams (Moultrie has only just recently improved their camera quality to the point I can recommend them). I constantly switch between brands of cameras trying to find the best features. Right now, I'm using quite a few of the Uway VH200B models. These certainly aren't perfect, but they have the best combination of features (for my uses). In addition, when monitoring open areas, like field edges or food plots, I attach a black-flash flash extender to each camera, to greatly increase flash distance at night (black-flash cams normally have very poor flash range, due to the amount of power required to produce black-flash).

 

[TheLBLman]

Very informative post from the BSK! :)

Personally, I wouldn't use any camera that is not black-flash. . . . . . The biggest issue with camera model is reliability.

x 2

Probably the worst brand of camera is Wild Game Innovations. [color:#FF0000](For me, it has been Uway, followed by Cuddeback.) [/color] Their camera quality is very low and failure rates exceptionally high.

[color:#FF0000]Seriously, I almost entirely stopped running trail cams because of my experiences with the time-wasting failures of the Uways --- this after those cams had good reviews on Chasin' Game's website. I've said many times I would never buy another cam made in China, but have done it again with the testing now of three Covert cams.[/color]

As a "middle of the road" choice between cost and reliability, I recommend the Trophy Cams, Coverts, and most recently the Moultrie black-flash cams . . . . . I constantly switch between brands of cameras trying to find the best features.

Same here, only I cannot currently recommend the Bushnell Trophy Cams based on my personal experiences (and I have no experience with Moultrie). I'm currently testing three Covert Extreme Black 60 cams. Initial testing has been positive, and daytime images may be the best I've seen. They are less expensive than the most similar Bushnell, and so far, have worked as advertised.

 

[BSK]

And that's the problem with recommending brands of camera. Every brand has its downsides, even Reconyx. For such an expensive camera, they sure take sub-par pictures. And they have a really weak flash. But for reliability, and customizable settings, no one else can touch Reconyx.

As you know Wes, I too experienced very poor reliability from the Uway NT50Bs. I had 6 of them. All made it through 1 year of use, but only 1 of the 6 made it through a second year of use. That's unacceptable. I also tried their U250B, and although it has proven reliable (so far), I don't like the image quality. Very fuzzy day and night pictures. SO FAR after 1 1/2 years of use, all of my VH200Bs have been reliable, and they have the best combination of features of any of the cameras I've tried. However, their weaknesses are unproven long-term reliability and a slower trigger than I would like (1.5 seconds). But I love how they are designed for a plug-in flash extender, and the extender can be controlled through the cameras menu system. I also like their image quality.

Although I like the reliability, trigger speed, and image quality of the Trophy Cams, I have problems with the flash. It is not truly black-flash. I can see it and I have a lot of evidence that the deer can see it.

So far, I'm hearing good things about the Covert Black 60, but I don't own one. However, the "test" pictures I've seen posted are a tad fuzzy.

The Moultrie i990s, appear to have the best black-flash, but I hearing that some of the newer Moultries' produce a noticeable "clunk" when the filter arm moves over the camera's lens. This is a big no-no for me. That's worse than a visible flash.

 

[fairchaser]

We were told that the Tn 3.5 year olds average 134" and the 4.5+'s averaged 142".

And where did they get that data? Totally bogus.

I asked the question myself in the meeting whether this was the average buck "killed on Ames" or the average buck walking around and was told it was the the average 3.5 yr old buck walking around was 132-134. In previous meetings, we were told that 125 was on the tail end of the bell curve for 3.5 year old bucks. I am not sure what has changed. May-be its the Dical we are using. :)

 

[BSK]

I don't buy those numbers for a second. I believe they supposedly got those numbers from trail-camera data, but again, I don't buy those numbers for a second. I've not seen anywhere in America where those numbers would hold true, not even the best managed areas of Illinois (and I have friends who manage trophy-managed areas in IL who have shared their data with me).

 

[lockon]

This is by far probably one of the best threads thats been on this site..

 

[Scioto]

http://www.qdma.com/articles/will-he-be ... -next-year

I think this is a good article from QDMA website. Will he be a good one next year? By 3 and 1/2, a buck is at 80% of his gross B&C score and should gain 10 to 90% of his gross by age 4 and 1/2. So a 140 at 3 and 1/2, although extremely difficult to pass up (and I doubt I could) should be left to pass because he should be 170 next year (assuming no natural or other mortality). Problem is, we let the 110 or 120 who is 3 and 1/2 pass and take the 140 when that nice 110 or 120 is about maxed out.