Is it luck or skill?

[Winchester]

Skill can be overridden with the right property for the most part IMO. Local guy I know has close to 18,000 acres to hunt that very few people can legally hunt.His pictures make him look like Daniel Boone but all he is doing is riding around in a truck (private roads) during the rut.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thats not even hunting, just shooting.

 

[Mike Belt]

There are all kinds of theories said about killing mature bucks. You need lots of acres under a management program is one of them. This can be a bonus but not necessarily true. The same can be done on small parcels. In fact, on some of those smaller properties travel routes, etc. can be easier to pinpoint than on massive properties. Everything is relative: hunting pressure, deer populations, cover, etc.

Ames is a good example of a property with a hefty amount of acreage and under a management program. We have hunters that on a fairly consistent basis kill at least a buck every year and sometimes two. None that I know of are regularly killing 4.5 year old or older bucks. Ten years into a buck management program and you wonder why. We have that caliber of buck but not as many as expected. I'll give my opinion why (and I'm biased towards 4.5 year old bucks)... Our minimum legal buck has to score 125" or be at least 4.5 years old. This is to allow more of our bucks the opportunity to reach maturity and give them a chance to express more of their antler potential. It's not a trophy club by any means although there is a remote possibility of killing a buck with really impressive headgear. Over the years I've seen both ends of the spectrum; young bucks that scored our minimum and then some as well as older bucks that just scored or failed to do so. Most of the bucks I've seen in the 2.5-3.5 year old ranges that did score had the potential for adding another 10"-30" or more of antler growth if allowed to reach 4.5 years old. Our club is set up to give hunters an opportunity at a better than average buck. A 125" 2.5-3.5 year old buck is probably better than average statewide and is a reasonable expectation there. Here's the grey area for me and no fault to anyone in particular. 125" is our legal minimum. My way of thinking places that as the bottom line rather than a required shooter. Many of our new members as well as some of the veterans don't see it that way and continue taking out those bucks BEFORE they can express whatever potential they might have had by reaching maturity; the reason for the buck program to begin with. Legal though so I can't really fault the hunter and I can't fault management because raising that minimum would be crossing into unrealistic expectation territory. Sort of a Catch 22.

I may be sidetracking the original topic... and maybe not. In a typical hunting scenario you have a mixture of hunter philosophies and goals. Anything from a spike on up may be fair game. That may actually allow for many of those better than average bucks to slip through the seasons. In a buck management hunting scenario those better than average bucks are the ones being targeted and thus killed in higher numbers (a form of high grading) allowing for fewer of them surviving to maturity. Even a skilled hunter can be radically disadvantaged searching for a needle in the haystack.

 

[fairchaser]

Mike, I agree 100% on this one. A buck that will make the minimum score at 3.5 will more often than not will be harvested at Ames. The 3.5 year old that doesn't will pass to the next season but only a small percentage of those will now make the minimum score. Many of those 4.5 year old bucks that don't score will be passed on forever and will do a lot of the breeding and fighting. For a buck that will score the minimum 125 at 3.5 to get by hunters without being shot until 5.5 or 6.5 are very very slim and maybe unkillable using traditional methods. If hunters were willing to harvest some of these older bucks that will never score and pass on the younger ones that will, we could greatly improve the average age and scores.

 

[Winchester]

Mike/FC, I see what your saying and I agree to a point. High grading can definitely be a factor, especially when point restrictions are in place as many say 8 pts are 2.5 yrs old. Now going to 125" as a minimum I dont think you have a very high % of your 2.5 yr olds that will score 125, very few I would think actually. You guys probably know the actual #'s killed as im sure Ames keeps records? My point is, Im sure a lil high grading may be happening with a 125" min in place, but this is a much better answer vs. antler point restrictions, especially with the 4.5 yr old rule in place as well, to allow the killing of the older bucks that simply wont ever grow a rack that exceeds 125"
Im curious as to what system or what changes you guys would implement to better this?

 

[iowavf]

Honestly, I think it has more to do with who has access to land where the deer are not pressured and have the chance to mature. A sorry hunter is a LOT more likely to kill a mature buck on a private managed area than a highly skilled hunter that hunts heavy pressured public land. Of course there is always going to be a certain amount of luck involved with killing a mature deer but skill can up your odds.

I agree because even the best hunter can't kill big bucks if the property doesn't have any on it. So I'd say habitat is a big percentage of having the chance to kill big bucks, followed by skill with a little luck mixed in.

 

[fairchaser]

Mike/FC, I see what your saying and I agree to a point. High grading can definitely be a factor, especially when point restrictions are in place as many say 8 pts are 2.5 yrs old. Now going to 125" as a minimum I dont think you have a very high % of your 2.5 yr olds that will score 125, very few I would think actually. You guys probably know the actual #'s killed as im sure Ames keeps records? My point is, Im sure a lil high grading may be happening with a 125" min in place, but this is a much better answer vs. antler point restrictions, especially with the 4.5 yr old rule in place as well, to allow the killing of the older bucks that simply wont ever grow a rack that exceeds 125"
Im curious as to what system or what changes you guys would implement to better this?

Winchester, short of putting ear tags on 4.5 year old bucks. I'm not sure much can be done that they aren't doing. They have lowered the fines to veterans for mistakes. The will put a few older bucks that have a history on a kill list. They have educated hunters on aging deer on the hoof. The problem is that aging deer is very difficult with the habitat we hunt in and hunters would rather kill large antlers than age.

 

[Mike Belt]

Pertaining to Ames, I'll divide hunters into 2 catagories; new members and veteran members. I think many of the new guys aren't accustomed to seeing many decent racks on bucks where they've previously hunted and when a 2.5 or 3.5 year old buck comes by them carrying a 120"-125" rack they immediately shoot, age be damned. Regretfully, there are some veteran members that do the same, especially after going most of the season without making a kill. Many of these bucks are killed without being judged for age. If the truth be known, many are probably killed in the hopes that they will score once the hunter walks up on his downed deer rather than knowing he will prior to shooting regardless of age. Why someone would join into a program designed to enhance the buck population and then disregard the principles of doing so is beyond me. Some don't think beyond that they have to make a kill and that what they're doing jeopardizes how effective the program may or may not be in the coming seasons. That is the PRIME reason that there are so few pics of 140" and 150" deer on the Ames website.

 

[fairchaser]

I agree Mike, but there is a difference between principles and rules. The rules are designed to advance the age structure of bucks and it does but the rules allow 125 inch bucks to be harvested and most of those will be 3.5 years old. Management understands this and is fine with it. Even though they allow any 4.5 year old buck harvested I believe this is only a cushion against killing too many bucks. If you look at the results over the years, management defines mature as 3.5 not 4.5. If they wanted to advance the age structure to 4.5 then they would increase the minimum score to include mostly 4.5 year old bucks.

 

[JeepKuntry]

There is a difference between killing a good book and consistently killing good bucks. This past year I increased my scout time and felt like I was more in tune with deer. I was able to get into the zone and stay on the deer for most of the season. To me, nothing beats scouting and putting in the time.

 

[muddyboots]

A random mature buck killed every few years can be labeled as luck, those killing them year in and year out, especially so on small private and even public lands, takes a whole other level of skill vs the random mature buck every few years by the guy who hunts a lot. Anybody that thinks you can kill mature bucks every year for many years in a row, simply relying on luck, will have a very rude wake up call when trying it for themselves! I know a lot of people who hunt, have many many friends who hunt, and its always the same few guys who are killing the older bucks, regardless of their situation as it pertains to the properties they hunt. This seems to be even more prevalent here in East TN where our deer herd is smaller than anywhere else in the state, hence making seeing/killing any deer harder, especially the old bucks, simply because we just dont have as many as other areas where the deer herd is larger. Luck imo is the very random acts that happen, far from the consistent episodes that some hunters produce year in and year out! All that said, it never hurts to have some things go your way, just dont rely on this for your success unless you want to be calling somebody else a lucky dog year after year.
To explain a lil farther, lets take 10 hunters and give them all access to the same 5 properties, every year for 10 years in a row, all 5 new to them every year , no previous knowledge of the land. At the end of the 10 years you will have a few that simply outproduced the others by a good margin when it comes to killing mature bucks. This is definitely not luck, especially with all the factors being exactly the same for everybody.

I agree. The same 2 or 3 guys kill mature deer every year on my leases and the others don't kill anything. I see it all the time.

 

[Mike Belt]

When all of you guys speak of people you know (including yourselves) killing "good" bucks are you referencing big racks, mature deer (4.5 or older), or both?

 

[7X57]

When all of you guys speak of people you know (including yourselves) killing "good" bucks are you referencing big racks, mature deer (4.5 or older), or both?

I love killing a big rack buck just like the next guy, but I'm looking for age class as my number 1 priority. I killed a 4 year old buck a few years back that wouldn't score 90". He's the second biggest body deer I've killed. He was tough to get on and I'm more proud of that kill versus some 3 year old 125" deer I've killed.

 

[muddyboots]

When all of you guys speak of people you know (including yourselves) killing "good" bucks are you referencing big racks, mature deer (4.5 or older), or both?

We target bucks 3 1/2 or older.

 

[muddyboots]

Now granted aging in the field is very hard and some mistakes are made.

 

[Mike Belt]

Winchester... I'll agree with fairchaser that I don't know much of anything management can do other than raise our minimum size limit. I don't see that happening nor would I want to. Above a 125" minimum may be getting into the realm of unrealistic hunting based on where we're located and it does give most of our hunters the opportunity at taking a buck. If we were in one of the Midwest states where 2.5 or 3.5 year old bucks were averaging 125" I'd feel differently. The thing we lack is a unified "mindset" across the board towards age. Rack size trumps age. Many of our bucks still might not exceed 125" at 4.5 but by the same token, many more would. Just speaking for myself, as a member of a club under a buck management program for the past 10+ years I feel like I'm hunting a buck population less than what it could be. Regardless of personally making a kill or not I'd feel much better seeing a few 140's and 150's brought into our checking station yearly as opposed to so many barely squeaking by our minimum. OK, rant over.

 

[102]

Don't be led into believing that what you see on TV has anything to do with reality. In MOST cases, it is not the type of hunting that any of us will be exposed to.

First of all, field hunting for 4.5 year olds in much of the State of Tennessee on public land is generally not productive. At least as far as my experience is concerned..

Secondly, talking out loud and saying "you on it", or "you got it" will send most pressured public land 4.5 year old into another zip code faster than you can say "I smoked 'em".

I do not know anyone who kills a 4.5 year old mature buck or doe on pressured public land every year or even every other year.
And I know a BUNCH of hunters who try.

 

[Simpleman.2]

Honestly, I think it has more to do with who has access to land where the deer are not pressured and have the chance to mature. A sorry hunter is a LOT more likely to kill a mature buck on a private managed area than a highly skilled hunter that hunts heavy pressured public land. Of course there is always going to be a certain amount of luck involved with killing a mature deer but skill can up your odds.

I agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MXB 400]

75% luck 25% skill being in the right place at the right time

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk