BSK: Reasonable expectations

[scn]

BSK,

The thread on buck age structure has been one of the best discussions in this forum in a while. To avoid taking it in another direction, I thought I would ask you my question in this one:

I'm guessing that bringing reality into a discussion with a prospective client is a pretty tricky deal. Since probably the majority believe they should be killing multiple booners every year, and want to hire you be their magic wand to get there, how do you politely (and with data) let them know they are living in lala land?

What type of data do you use to provide realistic expectations for managed properties? Is there a similar data set for unmangaged properties that might let "regular" hunters know what they should reasonably expect as an upper end deer so they aren't constantly holding out for something that is very rarely there?

 

[Hunter 257W]

People are nuts and I'd say that no matter what BSK may tell them about realistic potential, they are going to expect to outdo bucks from the best states. A guy I know in my area was saying that surely we could grow a bunch of 130 or 140" bucks as if that was nothing and anything less than that was odd. The frame of mind of so many hunters has become that of a competition where the deer's rack score equates to the hunters score as a hunter. A 100" 3 1/2 year old is still a fine trophy and a realistic one but even that can't be expected with every 3 1/2 year old as many are going to fall far short of that.

 

[Shed Hunter]

People are nuts and I'd say that no matter what BSK may tell them about realistic potential, they are going to expect to outdo bucks from the best states. A guy I know in my area was saying that surely we could grow a bunch of 130 or 140" bucks as if that was nothing and anything less than that was odd. The frame of mind of so many hunters has become that of a competition where the deer's rack score equates to the hunters score as a hunter. A 100" 3 1/2 year old is still a fine trophy and a realistic one but even that can't be expected with every 3 1/2 year old as many are going to fall far short of that.

TN can and does grow a lot of 130-140" deer. Over 140 you will start to see a rapid decline and a sudden drop once you get to the 170" mark, but 130-140" deer are not an unrealistic expectation for TN. Will you kill one every year? Not likely, but it isn't unrealistic to go into the season hoping for a 130

 

[Snake]

Even with ideal conditions I am not naive enough to realize that genetics plays a very important role . Why do you think these monster growing farms are buying these geneticly superior farm raised deer to put into their herd ? Also this is not Kansas or Iowa but with that being said there have been some great bucks here in this state but just not as many those states, lets get real . But by managing deer and letting reach maturity you will reach your properties potential . I would say it can get frustrating with some property owners who think just what your comment was BSK . Some think that throwing money at the problem will cure it not being realistic .

 

[Hunter 257W]

People are nuts and I'd say that no matter what BSK may tell them about realistic potential, they are going to expect to outdo bucks from the best states. A guy I know in my area was saying that surely we could grow a bunch of 130 or 140" bucks as if that was nothing and anything less than that was odd. The frame of mind of so many hunters has become that of a competition where the deer's rack score equates to the hunters score as a hunter. A 100" 3 1/2 year old is still a fine trophy and a realistic one but even that can't be expected with every 3 1/2 year old as many are going to fall far short of that.

TN can and does grow a lot of 130-140" deer. Over 140 you will start to see a rapid decline and a sudden drop once you get to the 170" mark, but 130-140" deer are not an unrealistic expectation for TN. Will you kill one every year? Not likely, but it isn't unrealistic to go into the season hoping for a 130

Some areas maybe but not all. And hoping for one and it being realistic are two different things too. I've personally never gotten a single trail camera picture of a buck even remotely close to that on my land in 12 years. 100 inches is tops and I get excited over those. It's like saying people win lotteries all over so there's a real chance you will - then expecting it to happen. For something to happen to a few dozen hunters in a county is not the same at it being realistic for any individual hunter. Didn't we decide that there are about 240,000 deer hunters in the state? How many of those are going to kill a 130" buck? When you have the total number then convert that into a % and look at how realistic it is to expect a 130" buck.

 

[Shed Hunter]

People are nuts and I'd say that no matter what BSK may tell them about realistic potential, they are going to expect to outdo bucks from the best states. A guy I know in my area was saying that surely we could grow a bunch of 130 or 140" bucks as if that was nothing and anything less than that was odd. The frame of mind of so many hunters has become that of a competition where the deer's rack score equates to the hunters score as a hunter. A 100" 3 1/2 year old is still a fine trophy and a realistic one but even that can't be expected with every 3 1/2 year old as many are going to fall far short of that.

TN can and does grow a lot of 130-140" deer. Over 140 you will start to see a rapid decline and a sudden drop once you get to the 170" mark, but 130-140" deer are not an unrealistic expectation for TN. Will you kill one every year? Not likely, but it isn't unrealistic to go into the season hoping for a 130

Some areas maybe but not all. And hoping for one and it being realistic are two different things too. I've personally never gotten a single trail camera picture of a buck even remotely close to that on my land in 12 years. 100 inches is tops and I get excited over those. It's like saying people win lotteries all over so there's a real chance you will - then expecting it to happen. For something to happen to a few dozen hunters in a county is not the same at it being realistic for any individual hunter. Didn't we decide that there are about 240,000 deer hunters in the state? How many of those are going to kill a 130" buck? When you have the total number then convert that into a % and look at how realistic it is to expect a 130" buck.

I don't think we're looking at realistic expectations of what we can kill here. That'd be mostly up to the hunter. I think it's better to look at what we can realistically have the opportunity to pursue.. Whether or not we kill it os up to us. And yes, not all areas of TN are the same, but I assure you within a reasonable driving distance of your home, you have access to a few 130+

 

[Hunter 257W]

I'm just keeping it in the context of SCN's original post regarding what a typical property owner who hires BSK might expect on their land. To define "typical" here, I'd say that is somebody who owns a couple hundred acres at most. Remember this is what that person can expect for deer on that piece of land. Not many - if any - deer will live exclusively on that small a piece of land so even if they do begin to grow older deer, all the neighbors will bunch up on the property borders like buzzards to reap the rewards of your work. Half the older bucks or more can never reach 130 inches no matter what so take out those from your population. I still say the odds are so slim for any given hunter to have a chance at a 130" buck that it might as well be zero.

 

[Os2 Outdoors]

People are nuts and I'd say that no matter what BSK may tell them about realistic potential, they are going to expect to outdo bucks from the best states. A guy I know in my area was saying that surely we could grow a bunch of 130 or 140" bucks as if that was nothing and anything less than that was odd. The frame of mind of so many hunters has become that of a competition where the deer's rack score equates to the hunters score as a hunter. A 100" 3 1/2 year old is still a fine trophy and a realistic one but even that can't be expected with every 3 1/2 year old as many are going to fall far short of that.

TN can and does grow a lot of 130-140" deer. Over 140 you will start to see a rapid decline and a sudden drop once you get to the 170" mark, but 130-140" deer are not an unrealistic expectation for TN. Will you kill one every year? Not likely, but it isn't unrealistic to go into the season hoping for a 130

Some areas maybe but not all. And hoping for one and it being realistic are two different things too. I've personally never gotten a single trail camera picture of a buck even remotely close to that on my land in 12 years. 100 inches is tops and I get excited over those. It's like saying people win lotteries all over so there's a real chance you will - then expecting it to happen. For something to happen to a few dozen hunters in a county is not the same at it being realistic for any individual hunter. Didn't we decide that there are about 240,000 deer hunters in the state? How many of those are going to kill a 130" buck? When you have the total number then convert that into a % and look at how realistic it is to expect a 130" buck.

Here's the problem with the numbers and % thrown around with that 240,000 thousand.

Your NOT accounting for variable change. Lifetime holders that don't hunt (4 in my family alone), one weekend a year hunters, etc etc. I'm willing to bet of that 240 that that most don't spend more than a couple hunts a year actually hunting, along with most of those #'s being gun only hunting VS. somebody like me who hunted 125+ different trees this past season, Yes I get a chance a 130+ almost annually in TN, way more chances overall including out of state hunts.

It's like playing the lottery one week in your life VS. Somebody who plays religiously every week. Do they win every week NO, but most ppl that play every week win occasionally. Do they all hit the powerball (Booner) NO, but most win something regularly (130").

Yes I do understand there's parts of the state that this is unrealistic and those areas need they're own personal management plan, but there's a huge swath of the state that produces many bucks of this caliber yearly and they need a totally different management plan IMO.

https://m.facebook.com/1shot1soul

 

[BSK]

BSK,
What type of data do you use to provide realistic expectations for managed properties? Is there a similar data set for unmangaged properties that might let "regular" hunters know what they should reasonably expect as an upper end deer so they aren't constantly holding out for something that is very rarely there?

I'll start with the most important "metric" first Steve, and surprisingly, it isn't a metric it all. It's the hunters themselves. From the time a prospective client first calls me through the first time I tour their property, I'm subtly "interviewing" them to get a feel for their past hunting experiences, hunting style, knowledge, and personality. And of all these factors, the most important towards setting realistic goals is how teachable they are. By "teachable," I mean how open are they to new ideas? How set in their ways are they? Are they new to deer hunting or have they been hunting all their lives, hence believe every old hunting wives' tale ever told? Are they a product of today's outrageously unrealistic hunting media? Are they eager to learn, or more interesting in proving their knowledge and skills?

Why this is so important is twofold. First, some of the things I'm going to recommend for their property may sound crazy to the long-experienced deer hunter. They may not fit any of the crap the hunting media champions. If they don't have an open mind, they're going to reject my recommendations immediately. In addition, you wouldn't believe how many times I run into land-owners who hire a professional for the exercise of having that professional confirm exactly what the landowner already believes needs to be done. Any recommendations contrary to what the landowner has already decided upon will be consciously or subconsciously rejected out of hand. Secondly, you wouldn't believe how often the problem with a property isn't the property or the habitat (not to say it can't be made better--they usually can), but the problem is the way it's being hunted. As we tour a property, and I see where stands are located, and the hunters describe how they've been hunting the property, I realize very quickly the problem is simply poor stand choices and/or hunting styles (and it's usually stand choices). If the hunters are not teachable, it doesn't matter what I help them grow/attract to the property, they're never (or vey rarely) going to kill those bucks. This idea that killing older bucks is simply "a matter of having them" is total HOGWASH. Over and over again I've seen hunters NOT be able to kill what exists on their property, and it's all about hunting knowledge and stand choices. A HUGE part of the successes I've had with clients involves the simple matter of teaching them how to hunt older bucks. It doesn't matter how many older bucks I can help them grow or what their antler scores are if the hunters can't kill them. Ultimately, what's hanging on the meat pole is the true measure of success for a management project. And that's a monetary fact. We can wax philosophically all we want about the value of having "good" bucks in the woods to hunt, but if those bucks don't end up on the wall, the management will be deemed a failure. I guarantee it.

I'll get into the numeric side in my next post.

 

[scn]

Thanks, Bryan. I always listen when you speak.

 

[Os2 Outdoors]

BSK,
What type of data do you use to provide realistic expectations for managed properties? Is there a similar data set for unmangaged properties that might let "regular" hunters know what they should reasonably expect as an upper end deer so they aren't constantly holding out for something that is very rarely there?

I'll start with the most important "metric" first Steve, and surprisingly, it isn't a metric it all. It's the hunters themselves. From the time a prospective client first calls me through the first time I tour their property, I'm subtly "interviewing" them to get a feel for their past hunting experiences, hunting style, knowledge, and personality. And of all these factors, the most important towards setting realistic goals is how teachable they are. By "teachable," I mean how open are they to new ideas? How set in their ways are they? Are they new to deer hunting or have they been hunting all their lives, hence believe ever old hunting wives' tale ever told? Are they a product of today's outrageously unrealistic hunting media? Are they eager to learn, or more interesting in proving their knowledge and skills?

Why this is so important is twofold. First, some of the things I'm going to recommend for their property may sound crazy to the long-experienced deer hunter. They may not fit any of the crap the hunting media champions. If they don't have an open mind, they're going to reject my recommendations immediately. In addition, you wouldn't believe how many times I run into land-owners who hire a professional for the exercise of having that professional confirm exactly what the landowner already believes needs to be done. Any recommendations contrary to what the landowner has already decided upon will be consciously or subconsciously rejected out of hand. Secondly, you wouldn't believe how often the problem with a property isn't the property or the habitat (not to say it can't be made better--they usually can), but the problem is the way it's being hunted. As we tour a property, and I see where stands are located, and the hunters describe how they've been hunting the property, I realize very quickly the problem is simply poor stand choices and/or hunting styles (and it's usually stand choices). If the hunters are not teachable, it doesn't matter what I help them grow/attract to the property, they're never (or vey rarely) going to kill those bucks. This idea that killing older bucks is simply "a matter of having them" is total HOGWASH. Over and over again I've seen hunters NOT be able to kill what exists on their property, and it's all about hunting knowledge and stand choices. A HUGE part of the successes I've had with clients involves the simple matter of teaching them to hunt older bucks. It doesn't matter how many older bucks I can help them grow or what their antler scores are if the hunters can't kill them. Ultimately, what's hanging on the meat pole is the true measure of success for a management project. And that's a monetary fact. We can wax philosophically all we want about the value of having "good" bucks in the woods to hunt, but if those bucks don't end up on the wall, the management will be deemed a failure. I guarantee it.

I'll get into the numeric side in my next post.

Good post.

The people factor is the biggest contributing factor I believe. As bad as I hate it the commercialization of hunting and the PRO hunting TV shows have made hunting better in the sense that a lot of ppl actually allow some young bucks to walk.

Which directly agrees with your post SCN, I can imagine how tough it is to try and train ppl that its not that the bucks aren't there but it's their hunting methods.

 

[Hunter 257W]

I think it's obvious that most hunters would expect to personally kill a 130, 140, 150 or bigger buck most every year if they own property and hire a deer biologist to help them with their property. Talk about putting on the pressure to deliver. :mrgreen:

 

[BSK]

I think it's obvious that most hunters would expect to personally kill a 130, 140, 150 or bigger buck most every year if they own property and hire a deer biologist to help them with their property. Talk about putting on the pressure to deliver. :mrgreen:

As the professional consultant, it's my job to tell them what realistic expectations are. If those expectations are below what the hunters desire, I simply don't work for them. I don't need the paycheck bad enough to set myself up for failure.

 

[BSK]

Reading my above post, I realize I didn't get around to mentioning exactly why I need to know how "teachable" the landowner/hunters are. I need that information to decide what age bucks the hunters will have a reasonable chance of killing each year. What age bucks they can kill on a regular basis determines what score bucks they can expect to kill. Big difference between hunters that can only regularly kill 2 1/2s versus hunters skilled enough to regularly kill 4 1/2s.

 

[Shed Hunter]

BSK,
What type of data do you use to provide realistic expectations for managed properties? Is there a similar data set for unmangaged properties that might let "regular" hunters know what they should reasonably expect as an upper end deer so they aren't constantly holding out for something that is very rarely there?

I'll start with the most important "metric" first Steve, and surprisingly, it isn't a metric it all. It's the hunters themselves. From the time a prospective client first calls me through the first time I tour their property, I'm subtly "interviewing" them to get a feel for their past hunting experiences, hunting style, knowledge, and personality. And of all these factors, the most important towards setting realistic goals is how teachable they are. By "teachable," I mean how open are they to new ideas? How set in their ways are they? Are they new to deer hunting or have they been hunting all their lives, hence believe every old hunting wives' tale ever told? Are they a product of today's outrageously unrealistic hunting media? Are they eager to learn, or more interesting in proving their knowledge and skills?

Why this is so important is twofold. First, some of the things I'm going to recommend for their property may sound crazy to the long-experienced deer hunter. They may not fit any of the crap the hunting media champions. If they don't have an open mind, they're going to reject my recommendations immediately. In addition, you wouldn't believe how many times I run into land-owners who hire a professional for the exercise of having that professional confirm exactly what the landowner already believes needs to be done. Any recommendations contrary to what the landowner has already decided upon will be consciously or subconsciously rejected out of hand. Secondly, you wouldn't believe how often the problem with a property isn't the property or the habitat (not to say it can't be made better--they usually can), but the problem is the way it's being hunted. As we tour a property, and I see where stands are located, and the hunters describe how they've been hunting the property, I realize very quickly the problem is simply poor stand choices and/or hunting styles (and it's usually stand choices). If the hunters are not teachable, it doesn't matter what I help them grow/attract to the property, they're never (or vey rarely) going to kill those bucks. This idea that killing older bucks is simply "a matter of having them" is total HOGWASH. Over and over again I've seen hunters NOT be able to kill what exists on their property, and it's all about hunting knowledge and stand choices. A HUGE part of the successes I've had with clients involves the simple matter of teaching them how to hunt older bucks. It doesn't matter how many older bucks I can help them grow or what their antler scores are if the hunters can't kill them. Ultimately, what's hanging on the meat pole is the true measure of success for a management project. And that's a monetary fact. We can wax philosophically all we want about the value of having "good" bucks in the woods to hunt, but if those bucks don't end up on the wall, the management will be deemed a failure. I guarantee it.

I'll get into the numeric side in my next post.

I scout a lot of public land and I can definitely agree that based on what I've seen the biggest problem with why people do not kill mature deer is a complete lack of knowledge on how to select the right spot to sit and the determination to find multiple spots. All too often I find where a guy has been using the same spot countless times. Even more commonly I find spots that I can't imagine why they chose to sit there.

And I can also think back on many of my own set ups and think "what was I thinking?"

 

[AlabamaSwamper]

I've cataloged 100s of bucks over the years on camera. Dozens 4.5 Year old + in that mix.

I've had one that might have went 140.

I can count on one hand the number of 130

Most mature deer on my place are about 110".

Some exceptions on both sides of that number.

 

[Os2 Outdoors]

I've cataloged 100s of bucks over the years on camera. Dozens 4.5 Year old + in that mix.

I've had one that might have went 140.

I can count on one hand the number of 130

Most mature deer on my place are about 110".

Some exceptions on both sides of that number.

Have you watched these bucks from an early age with distinguishable rack geometry until they're 4.5+ or are you aging on the hoof new bucks from trail camera pics?

 

[AlabamaSwamper]

80% of my yearlings are spikes. So I can't distinguish them starting at 1.5.

But once they hit 2.5, most times I can. After doing this so long, it gets easier every year to identify bucks from year to year.

I killed a 5.5 this year and have sheds off him from his 3.5 and 4.5 years. My biggest from tn and he won't touch 130. Probably 125".





I have very, very little range shifting here also. Have talked with BSK many times about this. I have very few if any new bucks show up during season. Although Idid kill a nice 3.5 that just showed up post rut.

 

[vabuckbuster]

Given that there are a lot of factors combined that will determine what the management will produce....wouldn't the size of the land be a major factor in the quantity of trophies produced by the property management?

Maybe that's not quite the way to put it. Not nessesarily the quantity produced....but what trophies are produced are staying on his land, meaning mush greater odds of meeting his expectations.

If they only have 200 acres to roam, then you are pretty much assured that you aren't holding those bucks 24/7 on your land.....thus someone else is getting a stab at them too. I would imagine on 200 acres....they are probably roaming several farms.

I realize that the idea with management is to provide everything they need on the given plot of land.....so that they don't have to roam for anything, but it seems that the larger the land the greater the odds that you (BSK) are able to meet his "greater" expectations.

Just how much land is considered ideal for holding them exclusively on one farm? Providing it has everything they need?

 

[AlabamaSwamper]

I'm amazed at how many bucks once they 4.5 never leave 200-300 acres. Never, not even during the Rut.
At least if they do, they don't visit plots or active scrape lines and they aren't gone very long, like more than 24 hours.

The 5.5 I shot this year, in three years I got one picture of him outside of a 300 Acre area And this is 100 more common than the older bucks that do leave.

I'll have 10+ cameras on 1000 acres and at any time there will be 15 or so with a few others running a couple a piece.