big bucks !!!!

[huntforme7909]

I read and read about people that believe tn doesn't have the soils to produce big bucks and all the hype about ky, il, and oh and northern states having better soils.....can I get some professional input or can someone please teach me how this can be....I see big bucks in tn on public land....there are big bucks in cades cove, presidents island, and other places that deer hunting is very restricted or you can't hunt at all....that being the "key" in my belief and opinion that if the deer get old they can get big....not always about soils and such....I don't disagree with the soil theory 100% but its definitely not why tn has less big bucks than the northern states....its plain to see just riding through cades cove or looking at what is killed at PI every year that tn has very much the same ability as any other state to grow big bucks....I don't want to get into regs and all that because im one that truly loves to get out and hunt and don't always focus on a "big buck"....but it just blows my mind at the people that believe so much in soils that they believe that tn can't produce big bucks just like any other big buck state.....

 

[Mike Belt]

No hunting or very limited, restricted hunting allows for more bucks to reach whatever their potential may be. It also allows for seeing them more often than in pressured areas. That's why you see the top end bucks sporting larger racks than typically seen in those areas. They still aren't 200 inchers nor will they be. That's not to say there aren't any out there but Tn is not conducive to growing giant racked bucks.

 

[TheLBLman]

Just an observation:

Notice how people, seems to be most people, both hunters and non-hunters alike, get SO MUCH MORE EXCITED, when they simply observe a large-antlered buck. :tu:

It has to be something in our genes, and no one should be demonized for loving to see large antlers, or focusing their hunting mainly on those bucks which are older and have larger antlers. Nor should anyone demonize other hunters mainly because they are less avid, less experienced, and/or simply aren't as excited by larger antlered bucks as some. As far as I'm concerned, ALL deer hunters are "trophyists", just an issue as to what degree.

IMO, generally speaking, the most important single criteria for growing larger antlers on any particular buck is AGE.
This is especially the case when comparing areas of somewhat similar soils, as well as areas of decent soils to areas with better soils.
Bucks generally do not approach their maximum antler potential any younger than 4 1/2 years of age.

So if we hunters consistently kill off the largest antlered 2 1/2 & 3 1/2-yr-old bucks, we're destined to see far fewer of those larger antlered bucks see those older ages where they reach more of their potential. In large part for this reason, we see areas of very poor soils, such as Cades Cove, allow us the opportunity to observe some fairly large antlered bucks (as this is a no hunting area). Most of those larger antlered bucks we see at Cades Cove are generally 5 1/2 years old (or older).

Comparing KY to TN, overall, KY has slightly better soils, so has a little advantage from the get-go.
But because of a myriad of other reasons, it appears more of the larger-antlered younger bucks live a year or two longer in KY.
This is in part because of a 1-buck limit and about half as many gun-hunting days.
It's a trade-off many hunters wouldn't want, to forfeit half their hunting days (with an effective weapon), and to forfeit the opportunity to possibly take a 2nd buck, especially should a hunter get lucky on his first day of hunting for the year.

 

[Hunter 257W]

Nobody is saying that TN can't grow some truly big racked bucks. What they are saying is that TN will never grow nearly as many as some of the other states with better soil. It's just that simple.

 

[BHC]

This has basically already been said, but tn does not have the trophy potential of other states. The fact is tn may produce numerous 120"-165" bucks every yr. However we aren't producing nearly as many two yr olds in that range as some other places. You hit the nail on the head with your statements about the areas with restricted hunting. When bucks are allowed to reach 4,5,&6 years old regularly you will have many more "trophy" deer. On mour lease the main management tool we have is trigger restraint. But theses other states are producing far more 2 and 3 yr olds the size of our 4 and 5 yr olds. Which makes more of their "trophy" deer much more visible and killable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ronnycl]

fact: President Island Bucks are eating plants grown on the same dominant soil that is in the the State of Arkansas which grows grain fed deer (delta). So, soil does matter, plants in the delta grow bigger and produce more yield and the bees make more honey fact! So I would believe antlers would be bigger in area where soil is better.

 

[Deer Assassin]

there are a few good ones in tn

 

[redhunterZ71]

Cades cove never been hunted and you do see good bucks up there but they are no bigger than anywhere else in the state just more of them in one area Biggest I've seen there is 140,s.

 

[Matador]

Cades cove never been hunted and you do see good bucks up there but they are no bigger than anywhere else in the state just more of them in one area Biggest I've seen there is 140,s.

Have to agree with this.

 

[Roost 1]

Cades cove never been hunted and you do see good bucks up there but they are no bigger than anywhere else in the state just more of them in one area Biggest I've seen there is 140,s.

Have to agree with this.

BUT..... How many deer bigger than 140 have you seen anywhere? How many hunters never see a 140" in their lifetime. I know guys that have hunted KY thier whole life and never have seen a 140" deer....Many different reasons for this.

 

[fairchaser]

Big antlers are a product of age, genetics and diet pretty much in that order. Bergman's rule states that colder temps produce larger bodied animals. Thus, Canadian whitetails are larger than Florida whitetails. Big bodies have larger racks, in general. All things being equal, and they aren't, KY would have larger deer than TN. The Midwest is much colder and will have larger bodied deer too. Sure you can kill a larger racked buck in TN than Iowa. I have. But, what does that prove? Where you have the best concentration of those three elements anywhere, you will get larger antlered bucks, in general.

 

[Matador]

Cades cove never been hunted and you do see good bucks up there but they are no bigger than anywhere else in the state just more of them in one area Biggest I've seen there is 140,s.

Have to agree with this.

BUT..... How many deer bigger than 140 have you seen anywhere? How many hunters never see a 140" in their lifetime. I know guys that have hunted KY thier whole life and never have seen a 140" deer....Many different reasons for this.

I agree most have not seen a 140 and even if we increase the percentage of bigger scoring bucks, I still don't think many will be killed. I just don't think many hunters with a family and job and the responsibilities that go with it have the time to develop the skills to hunt these older bucks. Its going to be a very small percentage of hunters who will kill one of these bucks. Also the ones that kill one, will they be able to do it consistantly. Lots of questions

 

[Mike Belt]

I don't suspect there are many Tn hunters going to the woods expecting to take a 140" class buck although they'd be happy if one came along. If that's your goal then lay off the trigger until it happens...when and if it happens. If not just hunt and be happy to do so. If it happens consider yourself lucky knowing you've taken one of the top tier bucks the state has to offer.

 

[easy45]

I just scored two bucks a couple of days ago, one is in the pic in the earlier post and the other grossed 150", there are plenty of big bucks around, they were already here, all the regulation changes are just for the rich folks with power that think stricter rules will lead to even more and bring in more out of state money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZachMarkus]

There are plenty of big ones around, maybe not as big or near as many as other states but they are here and have been here for a while.... Just ask MRUTVOL on here if there are big bucks in Tennessee lol.

 

[Matador]

I just scored two bucks a couple of days ago, one is in the pic in the earlier post and the other grossed 150", there are plenty of big bucks around, they were already here, all the regulation changes are just for the rich folks with power that think stricter rules will lead to even more and bring in more out of state money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. I agree.

 

[huntforme7909]

Big antlers are a product of age, genetics and diet pretty much in that order. Bergman's rule states that colder temps produce larger bodied animals. Thus, Canadian whitetails are larger than Florida whitetails. Big bodies have larger racks, in general. All things being equal, and they aren't, KY would have larger deer than TN. The Midwest is much colder and will have larger bodied deer too. Sure you can kill a larger racked buck in TN than Iowa. I have. But, what does that prove? Where you have the best concentration of those three elements anywhere, you will get larger antlered bucks, in general.

you have explained it best I think...age being the first and foremost important...and diet being the last.....Im not one to wait on a 140" class buck every time I walk into the woods but neither will I shoot a yearling or small buck either.....everyone has their own goals of what they want to accomplish...I tend to bow hunt more than anything and it still excites me everytime I kill one as much as the first one I ever killed with my bow at 12 years old....I was just wanting to understand how people don't think tn has or can have bucks as big as other states or that soil is the main factor in the equation....I now understand more from your post...thanks...

 

[BSK]

I really do not want to go over this basic stuff again, for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, you have those hunters who are absolutely convinced age is everything when it comes to antler growth. NOTHING--NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE THE INFORMATION--will sway their opinion. Showing these hunters the facts is like talking to a brick wall. They'll hear none of it and all your effort is wasted. Second, this topic bores the Hell out of me.

But here it is...

Within one given location--say a single property or part of a county--age is statistically the largest factor in antler size. But that doesn't tell the whole story. I've never run a long-term census in the Southeast where I didn't find that the largest racked yearling buck was larger than the smallest racked mature buck. Everywhere I've worked in the Southeast I've found this to be true. I'm going to find a mature buck scoring down around 50 gross and a yearling buck scoring well over that. My point is, age is only statistically the largest factor in antler size when looking at averages, not individual bucks. In addition, in any one geographic area, there will be such a huge range of antler scores grown by all the local bucks of the same age that every age-class overlaps with all the others. For all age-class above yearlings, the range of antler scores grown will generally exceed 100 gross inches. That means there will be 2 1/2 year-old bucks with antlers of less than 20 and more than 120. There will be 3 1/2 year-old bucks with antlers below 40 and more than 140. And so on. Once again, what I'm getting at is age is only a major factor when looking at averages per age-class, not when comparing individual bucks. In many parts of TN, a 100-class buck has just as much chance of being 2 1/2 as being 5 1/2.

Now when comparing bucks between geographic regions, habitat statistically plays the largest role in antler size. "Habitat" is a broad term. It includes the soils and the plants growing in them. High-quality soils grow high-quality deer foods and a wider variety of foods. Agriculture is usually more prevalent in the highest quality soils, and agriculture can provide a phenomenally productive food resource for deer, both in volume and in quality. The studies done by MSU are probably the best examples of what a huge role habitat plays in antler growth. Those studies found that in the poorest habitat regions of Mississippi, bucks must reach 2 extra years of age before growing antlers as large as bucks in the best habitat regions of the state. In essence, bucks in the poorest habitat region had to be 5 1/2 years old before they grew antlers as large as 3 1/2 year-old bucks from the best habitat regions of the state. Even data from TN shows that the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from the better habitat regions FAR exceeds the antler growth of the average 3 1/2 from the poorest habitat regions of the state. In fact, 2 1/2 year-old bucks from Williamson County in Middle TN (one of TN's trophy hot-spots) are larger than the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from the eastern mountains. And if I remember the data correctly, the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from Williamson County exceeded the average size of ANY age buck from the eastern mountains, including 5 1/2+ year-olds.

When comparing bucks in one given location, ON AVERAGE age plays the biggest role. But only when comparing averages, not individual bucks. When comparing bucks from two different areas, habitat can play the biggest role in differences in average antler size per age-class.

 

[Andy S.]

The studies done by MSU are probably the best examples of what a huge role habitat plays in antler growth. Those studies found that in the poorest habitat regions of Mississippi, bucks must reach 2 extra years of age before growing antlers as large as bucks in the best habitat regions of the state. In essence, bucks in the poorest habitat region had to be 5 1/2 years old before they grew antlers as large as 3 1/2 year-old bucks from the best habitat regions of the state.

You can read more about the research at this link: http://www.msudeerlab.com/docs/articles/Managing Bucks and Expectations.pdf

 

[landman]

I really do not want to go over this basic stuff again, for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, you have those hunters who are absolutely convinced age is everything when it comes to antler growth. NOTHING--NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE THE INFORMATION--will sway their opinion. Showing these hunters the facts is like talking to a brick wall. They'll hear none of it and all your effort is wasted. Second, this topic bores the Hell out of me.

But here it is...

Within one given location--say a single property or part of a county--age is statistically the largest factor in antler size. But that doesn't tell the whole story. I've never run a long-term census in the Southeast where I didn't find that the largest racked yearling buck was larger than the smallest racked mature buck. Everywhere I've worked in the Southeast I've found this to be true. I'm going to find a mature buck scoring down around 50 gross and a yearling buck scoring well over that. My point is, age is only statistically the largest factor in antler size when looking at averages, not individual bucks. In addition, in any one geographic area, there will be such a huge range of antler scores grown by all the local bucks of the same age that every age-class overlaps with all the others. For all age-class above yearlings, the range of antler scores grown will generally exceed 100 gross inches. That means there will be 2 1/2 year-old bucks with antlers of less than 20 and more than 120. There will be 3 1/2 year-old bucks with antlers below 40 and more than 140. And so on. Once again, what I'm getting at is age is only a major factor when looking at averages per age-class, not when comparing individual bucks. In many parts of TN, a 100-class buck has just as much chance of being 2 1/2 as being 5 1/2.

Now when comparing bucks between geographic regions, habitat statistically plays the largest role in antler size. "Habitat" is a broad term. It includes the soils and the plants growing in them. High-quality soils grow high-quality deer foods and a wider variety of foods. Agriculture is usually more prevalent in the highest quality soils, and agriculture can provide a phenomenally productive food resource for deer, both in volume and in quality. The studies done by MSU are probably the best examples of what a huge role habitat plays in antler growth. Those studies found that in the poorest habitat regions of Mississippi, bucks must reach 2 extra years of age before growing antlers as large as bucks in the best habitat regions of the state. In essence, bucks in the poorest habitat region had to be 5 1/2 years old before they grew antlers as large as 3 1/2 year-old bucks from the best habitat regions of the state. Even data from TN shows that the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from the better habitat regions FAR exceeds the antler growth of the average 3 1/2 from the poorest habitat regions of the state. In fact, 2 1/2 year-old bucks from Williamson County in Middle TN (one of TN's trophy hot-spots) are larger than the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from the eastern mountains. And if I remember the data correctly, the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from Williamson County exceeded the average size of ANY age buck from the eastern mountains, including 5 1/2+ year-olds.

When comparing bucks in one given location, ON AVERAGE age plays the biggest role. But only when comparing averages, not individual bucks. When comparing bucks from two different areas, habitat can play the biggest role in differences in average antler size per age-class.

:super:

 

[fairchaser]

I really do not want to go over this basic stuff again, for a couple of reasons. First, and most importantly, you have those hunters who are absolutely convinced age is everything when it comes to antler growth. NOTHING--NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE THE INFORMATION--will sway their opinion. Showing these hunters the facts is like talking to a brick wall. They'll hear none of it and all your effort is wasted. Second, this topic bores the Hell out of me.

But here it is...

Within one given location--say a single property or part of a county--age is statistically the largest factor in antler size. But that doesn't tell the whole story. I've never run a long-term census in the Southeast where I didn't find that the largest racked yearling buck was larger than the smallest racked mature buck. Everywhere I've worked in the Southeast I've found this to be true. I'm going to find a mature buck scoring down around 50 gross and a yearling buck scoring well over that. My point is, age is only statistically the largest factor in antler size when looking at averages, not individual bucks. In addition, in any one geographic area, there will be such a huge range of antler scores grown by all the local bucks of the same age that every age-class overlaps with all the others. For all age-class above yearlings, the range of antler scores grown will generally exceed 100 gross inches. That means there will be 2 1/2 year-old bucks with antlers of less than 20 and more than 120. There will be 3 1/2 year-old bucks with antlers below 40 and more than 140. And so on. Once again, what I'm getting at is age is only a major factor when looking at averages per age-class, not when comparing individual bucks. In many parts of TN, a 100-class buck has just as much chance of being 2 1/2 as being 5 1/2.

Now when comparing bucks between geographic regions, habitat statistically plays the largest role in antler size. "Habitat" is a broad term. It includes the soils and the plants growing in them. High-quality soils grow high-quality deer foods and a wider variety of foods. Agriculture is usually more prevalent in the highest quality soils, and agriculture can provide a phenomenally productive food resource for deer, both in volume and in quality. The studies done by MSU are probably the best examples of what a huge role habitat plays in antler growth. Those studies found that in the poorest habitat regions of Mississippi, bucks must reach 2 extra years of age before growing antlers as large as bucks in the best habitat regions of the state. In essence, bucks in the poorest habitat region had to be 5 1/2 years old before they grew antlers as large as 3 1/2 year-old bucks from the best habitat regions of the state. Even data from TN shows that the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from the better habitat regions FAR exceeds the antler growth of the average 3 1/2 from the poorest habitat regions of the state. In fact, 2 1/2 year-old bucks from Williamson County in Middle TN (one of TN's trophy hot-spots) are larger than the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from the eastern mountains. And if I remember the data correctly, the average 3 1/2 year-old buck from Williamson County exceeded the average size of ANY age buck from the eastern mountains, including 5 1/2+ year-olds.

When comparing bucks in one given location, ON AVERAGE age plays the biggest role. But only when comparing averages, not individual bucks. When comparing bucks from two different areas, habitat can play the biggest role in differences in average antler size per age-class.

Good explanation BSK . I didn't find it boring at all. Thanks for sharing.

 

[BSK]

fairchaser,

What I DO find interesting is the growing body of research showing that taking bucks from a top-antler growing area, and growing them side by side with bucks from a poor antler-growth region--and feeding all the bucks the same food--eventually all of the bucks end up growing similar size antlers per age-class (on average). In essence, equalizing food resources ends up equalizing antler growth, proving that it is the habitat producing the differences and NOT localized genetics.

And what I find even more interesting is the research into how long this "equalization" process takes. To fully equalize requires a 2nd generation of bucks. And the reason for this is critically important. I turns out that an under-nourished female will produce a male offspring that is PERMANENTLY stunted in growth. That doesn't mean he will be small; it simply means that he will never be able to completely express his genetic potential at full maturity, no matter how good his food resources are after he is born. To more fully express genetic potential at maturity, bucks must be born to a very healthy doe, both healthy during her pregnancy as well as before. Basically, pre-natal health of the mother is a MAJOR determinant in the life-long antler-growth potential of her male offspring. What this means is that a buck's top-end antler potential is set by his mother's health before she even became pregnant with him.

And that's why it takes at least 10 years to see the maximum effect of a QDM-type management program on a given property. First you have to get a skewed sex ratio and poor buck age structure up to standards for QDM, as well as improve food resources, all of which is going to take 4-5 years. Then you have to get the OFFSPRING of that balanced, healthy population to maturity to see the full benefits, which requires another 5 years.

 

[Matador]

I didn't find it boring either BSK. I continue to learn things about the whiterail deer from your posts. Thanks for sharing.

 

[fairchaser]

fairchaser,

What I DO find interesting is the growing body of research showing that taking bucks from a top-antler growing area, and growing them side by side with bucks from a poor antler-growth region--and feeding all the bucks the same food--eventually all of the bucks end up growing similar size antlers per age-class (on average). In essence, equalizing food resources ends up equalizing antler growth, proving that it is the habitat producing the differences and NOT localized genetics.

And what I find even more interesting is the research into how long this "equalization" process takes. To fully equalize requires a 2nd generation of bucks. And the reason for this is critically important. I turns out that an under-nourished female will produce a male offspring that is PERMANENTLY stunted in growth. That doesn't mean he will be small; it simply means that he will never be able to completely express his genetic potential at full maturity, no matter how good his food resources are after he is born. To more fully express genetic potential at maturity, bucks must be born to a very healthy doe, both healthy during her pregnancy as well as before. Basically, pre-natal health of the mother is a MAJOR determinant in the life-long antler-growth potential of her male offspring. What this means is that a buck's top-end antler potential is set by his mother's health before she even became pregnant with him.

And that's why it takes at least 10 years to see the maximum effect of a QDM-type management program on a given property. First you have to get a skewed sex ratio and poor buck age structure up to standards for QDM, as well as improve food resources, all of which is going to take 4-5 years. Then you have to get the OFFSPRING of that balanced, healthy population to maturity to see the full benefits, which requires another 5 years.

Very interesting BSK. Especially as it ties into what we are seeing first hand at Ames. Their program is now fully mature at 11 or 12 years old. Some believed we would have more 150 plus class bucks by now but while they have produced a few, there is a topping process. I believe we have seen the clubs potential fully right now. Not that I'm complaining because it's pretty dang good. But it's always gonna be a 130-135 club. Last year we killed 31 mature bucks with these averages. That's a great kill rate on mature bucks. Also your research is the same reason they harp on killing does. The management tells us the does are eating the antlers off the bucks. Under nourished bucks may never catch up to their potential or be years behind their potential. Very cool. I never heard about this generational undernourishment effect. Keep the research coming. I know many of us appreciate it.

 

[Andy S.]

I believe we have seen the clubs potential fully right now. .......But it's always gonna be a 130-135 club. Last year we killed 31 mature bucks with these averages.

As long as the membership "as a whole" continues to "shoot the score" as we do year in and year out (average score of all bucks killed = 125" or very near), this will always be true. The only way around it that I see is to drastically reduce the number of members, improve on trigger restraint, increase the dues and not kill so many of our "good bucks" at 3.5. That choice would have a whole other set of ramifications (increased cost per member, more pressure on fewer members to kill doe quota, which members do you let go, etc), that I doubt we will ever go that route. With 90+ members and many being happy with a 125"-130" buck (mostly killed at 3.5), I do not see us progressing much. In short, I feel as if we are tapped out on upper end potential (150"+ bucks), and may even be trending backwards due to continuous "high grading" of our standing crop of 3.5 year old bucks every year. It has been two years since we killed a 150"+, whereas we used to kill a couple each fall.

 

[TheLBLman]

Andy, that is a very insightful post you just made, and I totally agree with your thoughts.

 

[BSK]

With 90+ members and many being happy with a 125"-130" buck (mostly killed at 3.5), I do not see us progressing much. In short, I feel as if we are tapped out on upper end potential (150"+ bucks), and may even be trending backwards due to continuous "high grading" of our standing crop of 3.5 year old bucks every year. It has been two years since we killed a 150"+, whereas we used to kill a couple each fall.

I agree with your conclusions Andy S. But I will also say most of TN tops out around 150. Not that a rare larger buck doesn't exist, but they ARE rare. Just about everywhere, the largest buck I will photograph is going to be in the 140-155 range. Over all the years I've been running full-season camera censuses (since 1999), I've now collected pictures of more than 1,000 unique mature bucks in TN, and of those 1,000+ mature bucks, I don't believe a single one will NET over 170. A couple might break 170 gross, but not net.

 

[TheLBLman]

BSK, however, IF only a somewhat small percentage of those top-end 2 1/2's & 3 1/2's (let's just say 20%) had not been most specifically targeted and killed by human hunters, I'd speculate that would turn your net 170 numbers (5 1/2 or older fully mature bucks) from more like 1 in 1,000 to more like 1 in 100?

At the very least, even "not killing" 20% fewer of the very top-end 2 1/2's & 3 1/2's would result in a huge increase of 150-plus class 4 1/2's and older bucks?

I'm often seeing the opposite in so many "trophy-minded" groups (including Ames), whereby the best antlered 2 1/2's & 3 1/2's are specifically targeted to a much higher degree than maybe even in the average TN county under just "statewide" regs. IMO, we often have a better chance at a 170-class buck in a hunting area that has no "special" rules regarding which bucks may be taken, i.e. just "same as statewide".

From a more "personal" perspective what would you estimate your personal best scoring 3 1/2-yr-old buck killed might have scored had he lived to be 4 1/2? 5 1/2? That's what I'm talking about. Of course, I have no issue with your taking that buck, just have issues with those claiming to so greatly want larger antlered bucks as they continuously kill off their best potential for achieving their "stated" goals.

 

[fairchaser]

I believe we have seen the clubs potential fully right now. .......But it's always gonna be a 130-135 club. Last year we killed 31 mature bucks with these averages.

As long as the membership "as a whole" continues to "shoot the score" as we do year in and year out (average score of all bucks killed = 125" or very near), this will always be true. The only way around it that I see is to drastically reduce the number of members, improve on trigger restraint, increase the dues and not kill so many of our "good bucks" at 3.5. That choice would have a whole other set of ramifications (increased cost per member, more pressure on fewer members to kill doe quota, which members do you let go, etc), that I doubt we will ever go that route. With 90+ members and many being happy with a 125"-130" buck (mostly killed at 3.5), I do not see us progressing much. In short, I feel as if we are tapped out on upper end potential (150"+ bucks), and may even be trending backwards due to continuous "high grading" of our standing crop of 3.5 year old bucks every year. It has been two years since we killed a 150"+, whereas we used to kill a couple each fall.

I agree with you Andy except the going backward part nevertheless we are topping out. If we did increase the minimum score to 140, even after several years, the kill rate would be a lot lower. I guess only 5-10 bucks annually. For somebody like me almost 60, the thought of killing one buck on average over the remainder of my hunting life is not very appealing. I think I have a decent chance of killing a 140+ while shooting several 130+ along the way. I know these are conflicting goals but I like it where it is and wouldn't want it increased. Twenty years ago, I might have a different opinion.

 

[TheLBLman]

Not necessarily suggesting this, but,
wonder what the outcome might be if Ames simply said, "Shoot ANY fully mature buck you want"?

By "fully" mature, I'm meaning 5 1/2 or older.

Do understand there would be lots of mistakes in bucks being 4 1/2, and a few being 3 1/2.
But it would result in a lot more of those top-end 2 1/2's and 3 1/2's living to 4 1/2 and older, instead of being immediately shot by the current antler restrictions.

Since Ames has such a great management team, and every buck killed gets scrutinized and aged, this type simple "rule" COULD work well at Ames, although it might be very impractical under many other circumstances.