Looking for buck high-grading

[BSK]

Buck age structure plateaued out about 2 or 3 years ago, but we are running around 10-12% mature bucks. But the difference in my place and yours is that our bucks will routinely live until 6.5 if not shot by hunters, and we have had one 7.5y/o and one 8.5y/o.

That absolutely does help. I tell hunters/clients that in hilly/mountainous hardwoods, anything in the 10-12% mature bucks range is excellent, and rarely exceeded, because bucks over 6 1/2 are exceedingly rare. However, it can be higher in flatter country with mixed agriculture, as bucks can live to 7 and even 8 years old. That increases the percentage of mature bucks in the population.

Perhaps the decline in younger buck antler scores is due to the number of mature bucks during the summer. My buddy went scouting yesterday evening checking out the bachelor groups, and he thought of the 12 bucks he saw in 2 groups, 4 were mature (small sample size)

A real possibility.

 

[Ski]

Why does TN not produce as many booners as the Midwest? Soil and nutrition.

That's kind of what has me confused. My experience with deer hunting is largely Ohio and the midwest. I've only been here for 8yrs. A 110" 2 year old is uncommon up there and 120s are virtual unicorns. Although those deer are non existent around this part of TN, it seems they exist to some extent in other parts of TN that this conversation is even possible.

My hiccup is that in the midwest a deer like that continues to grow into world class racks, but in TN it appears that doesn't happen. The logical part of my brain tells me that if soil nutrition was the limiting factor then the 2 and 3 year old TN bucks wouldn't be on par with the midwest bucks. They'd be smaller at every age class. But that doesn't seem to be the case. It is seeming like high end young bucks are notably more frequent here than up there, but then it flip flops at maturity. That's where I'm getting confused and considering non biological/environmental causes. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing. I'm only trying to understand exactly what's going on.

 

[BSK]

That's kind of what has me confused. My experience with deer hunting is largely Ohio and the midwest. I've only been here for 8yrs. A 110" 2 year old is uncommon up there and 120s are virtual unicorns. Although those deer are non existent around this part of TN, it seems they exist to some extent in other parts of TN that this conversation is even possible.

My hiccup is that in the midwest a deer like that continues to grow into world class racks, but in TN it appears that doesn't happen. The logical part of my brain tells me that if soil nutrition was the limiting factor then the 2 and 3 year old TN bucks wouldn't be on par with the midwest bucks. They'd be smaller at every age class. But that doesn't seem to be the case. It is seeming like high end young bucks are notably more frequent here than up there, but then it flip flops at maturity. That's where I'm getting confused and considering non biological/environmental causes. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing. I'm only trying to understand exactly what's going on.

I wish I had an answer for you Ski, but I don't. There's a lot about deer in different parts of the country that are a real mystery. And what exacerbates the mystery is the difference between how a researcher sees things and how a hunter sees things. A hunter sees huge bucks being grown/killed out of Midwest and wonders why this doesn't occur as often in the Southeast. A researcher doesn't care about the one individual monster buck and wants to see the entire data set - a graph of all antler scores per age-class. The difference is, the hunter sees the big bucks killed and thinks that's the norm. The research sees the entire data set and realizes those monsters are somewhat statistical anomalies. That being said, why is it that those statistical anomalies occur almost never in the Southeast?

I have a few management friends that work in the Midwest (a couple each in Illinois and Iowa) and we've compared data a few times. What I find fascinating is how different their bell curve distribution of antler scores per age-class are from the data I have from TN (all of this data coming from camera censuses). In TN, the bell curves for an age-class will be very "normal" in distribution/shape. In essence, the leg of the bell curve to the left of the mean (below average) is a mirror image of the leg to the right of the mean (above average). However, in the Midwest, the bell curves will be heavily positively skewed (skewed to the right). And the left leg will be truncated not far below average (no very low scores in that age). The averages for the same age won't be that far off from location to location (max 10-15 inches for the oldest age-classes) but the rightward tail of the Midwestern curves go way, WAY out to the right, and don't fall off fast like they do in the Southeast. Plus, the left tail is truncated, in that few very low-scoring bucks for that age are ever photographed in the Midwest. But this heavily rightward skewed bell curve explains much of why 150+ bucks are so much more common in the Midwest than in the Southeast. The question is, why? Best guess, very fertile soils in the Midwest that grow a much wider assemblage of plants deer can eat and grow a lot more digestible plant material per plant.

 

[TheLBLman]

Why does TN not produce as many booners as the Midwest? Soil and nutrition.

Those two (soil & nutrition) may be the biggest two,
but there is a 3rd reason which may be 2nd to nothing else.

The 3rd reason is LESS deer hunting in the Midwest,
or should say less effective deer hunting.
THIS leads to LESS ANTLER HIGH-GRADING compared to a state like TN
as well as most Southeastern States.

In most Midwest States, their "gun" deer seasons are less than half as many days annually as is TN's. What's more, many these states only allow shotguns or muzzleloaders during their "gun" seasons. You don't legally hunt deer with a centerfire rifle in many "big buck" states such as Illinois.

Looking a little closer to home, look at Kentucky.
Why do so many more larger antlered bucks come out of KY than out of TN?
1. Better Soil
2. Better Nutrition
3. Less Deer Hunting (therefore less antler high grading)

Although KY does allow the use of centerfire rifles, KY's "gun" deer seasons are less than half as many days annually as is TN's. KY also has a 1-buck annual limit whereas TN has a 2-buck limit.

Although the differences between TN & KY's "potential" are closer today than in times past, the difference in potential will always be dramatically more in KY than in TN, even if deer regs were exactly the same in both states.

If you think it's bad now, go back to the mid-1990's when TN had an 11-buck limit vs. KY's 1-buck limit. Our TN buck buck limit going to 2 or 3 has certainly helped us produced more older bucks in TN (as a percentage of bucks) compared to times past. But there's no way we can have twice-plus the gun hunting days, double the buck limit, with less fertile soils, and ever compete with our neighbors in KY.

And along a similar vein of thought, KY (statewide) will never be able to compete with the antler growing potential of it's neighbors, like Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Illinois will always have better statewide soils & nutrition than does KY. Kentucky can only somewhat mitigate its potential vs Illinois' via differences in regs, such as KY's 1-buck limit vs. IL's 2-buck limit.

I'm sure some of you think I'm crazy to say this, but most TN hunters have a better chance at a 150-plus class buck on most public lands in Illinois than they have on most very expensive private land leases in TN.

In fact, I've found some of the more expensive TN private leases have more antler high grading than TN public lands. How could this be? Because the costs are so high, more hunters, and mostly very avid hunters (who hunt a lot) go in together just to be able to pay for those expensive leases.

 

[Ski]

I wish I had an answer for you Ski, but I don't. There's a lot about deer in different parts of the country that are a real mystery. And what exacerbates the mystery is the difference between how a researcher sees things and how a hunter sees things. A hunter sees huge bucks being grown/killed out of Midwest and wonders why this doesn't occur as often in the Southeast. A researcher doesn't care about the one individual monster buck and wants to see the entire data set - a graph of all antler scores per age-class. The difference is, the hunter sees the big bucks killed and thinks that's the norm. The research sees the entire data set and realizes those monsters are somewhat statistical anomalies. That being said, why is it that those statistical anomalies occur almost never in the Southeast?

I have a few management friends that work in the Midwest (a couple each in Illinois and Iowa) and we've compared data a few times. What I find fascinating is how different their bell curve distribution of antler scores per age-class are from the data I have from TN (all of this data coming from camera censuses). In TN, the bell curves for an age-class will be very "normal" in distribution/shape. In essence, the leg of the bell curve to the left of the mean (below average) is a mirror image of the leg to the right of the mean (above average). However, in the Midwest, the bell curves will be heavily positively skewed (skewed to the right). And the left leg will be truncated not far below average (no very low scores in that age). The averages for the same age won't be that far off from location to location (max 10-15 inches for the oldest age-classes) but the rightward tail of the Midwestern curves go way, WAY out to the right, and don't fall off fast like they do in the Southeast. Plus, the left tail is truncated, in that few very low-scoring bucks for that age are ever photographed in the Midwest. But this heavily rightward skewed bell curve explains much of why 150+ bucks are so much more common in the Midwest than in the Southeast. The question is, why? Best guess, very fertile soils in the Midwest that grow a much wider assemblage of plants deer can eat and grow a lot more digestible plant material per plant.

Thank you for the explanation. Correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm understanding is that the southeastern and midwestern bucks age/grow relatively similarly in the beginning with southeastern bucks maybe being even slightly more aggressive growers, but midwestern bucks still have growth at the ages where say a southeastern buck would be peaking or post peak? I'm sorry if I'm incorrectly interpreting/paraphrasing your words.

That's a lot to wrap my head around. Truly weird. The discrepancy of data points between your colleagues and you put an exclamation point on my confusion! I'm still not entirely biting off on the nutrition theory but I have no doubt it's a factor. Climate I suppose could be a factor as well. At least now I know I'm not the only one stumped lol

 

[BSK]

Each deer is an individual. Some grow fast early, some grow fast late. But as a general rule, I do find that Midwestern bucks keep growing considerably larger with age. On average in TN, I see very little increase in score from 4 1/2 to 5 1/2. Of the thousand-plus TN mature bucks I have pictures of, the average difference in gross score between 4 1/2s and 5 1/2s is only 5 inches. Now some individual bucks can grow a lot between those two ages, but I've also seen plenty of TN bucks peak in score at 4 1/2 only to go down in score (but add mass) at 5 1/2. That isn't the case in the Midwest. They seem to keep growing right up to 7+.

 

[Ski]

The 3rd reason is LESS deer hunting in the Midwest,
or should say less effective deer hunting.

TN's harvest report falls in the middle when compared to the "big buck" states. KY had slightly fewer while IL had slightly more. WI had a staggering number of deer killed. I do agree that folks would have a better chance at bagging a 150" buck on IL public ground than an expensive TN private club, but I'm not convinced it has as much to do with antler high grading as it does TN simply doesn't have a lot of 150" bucks to hunt. The reason why is a mystery to me. Could be as you suggest hunting practices, or nutritional as BSK suggests, or you both might be correct. I sure don't know. But by sheer harvest numbers TN isn't killing a huge amount of deer compared to some of the big buck states, even though we have what I'd consider a very liberal season.

2021-2022 season

TN = 162,555
OH = 210,977
KY = 144,515
IN = 121,854
IL = 180,811
MO= 299,721
WI = 595,169
IA = 110,000 (couldn't find exact number)

 

[Ski]

Each deer is an individual. Some grow fast early, some grow fast late. But as a general rule, I do find that Midwestern bucks keep growing considerably larger with age. On average in TN, I see very little increase in score from 4 1/2 to 5 1/2. Of the thousand-plus TN mature bucks I have pictures of, the average difference in gross score between 4 1/2s and 5 1/2s is only 5 inches. Now some individual bucks can grow a lot between those two ages, but I've also seen plenty of TN bucks peak in score at 4 1/2 only to go down in score (but add mass) at 5 1/2. That isn't the case in the Midwest. They seem to keep growing right up to 7+.

That explains the discrepancy I've noticed. I sincerely appreciate you making the effort to help me understand it. I've been comparing apples to oranges and trying to figure out why things aren't adding up.

 

[TheLBLman]

2021-2022 season

TN = 162,555
. . . . .
KY = 144,515

It's not just about "how many" deer are killed per square mile, but specifically "which" deer are killed.

KY is approximately the same size as TN.
But KY killed 17,740 fewer deer than TN.
Does that mean KY had 17,000-plus more deer live another year than TN?
No. But it also doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Raw harvest numbers are of limited value.

Of the 144,515 deer KY killed, 45.2% were female;
of the 162,555 deer TN killed, 41.7% were female.

In the absence of much other data, just what does this mean?
We can only speculate.

But I do know KY has better soils, and far less opportunity for a hunter to actually kill a buck, much less multiple bucks in any year. Therefore reasonable the average KY should be older & larger antlered than the average TN buck?

 

[TheLBLman]

Another factor haven't noted mentioned on this thread is "stress". The less stressed bucks are, the larger their antlers (and heavier their bodies).

One of the biggest stressors to free roaming deer is people's dogs. In many areas household dogs cause more stress to deer than coyotes.

KY has a statewide population of around 4.5 million people;
KY has 39,486 square miles = 114 people per square mile

TN has a statewide population of around 7 million people.
TN has 42,143 square miles = 166 people per square mile

Guess which state has more household dogs running deer daily, majorly stressing those deer, as well as killing quite a few too?

By contrast, Iowa has 3.2 million people.
Iowa has 56,272 square miles = 57 people per square mile

Seems reasonable that Iowa bucks grow in an environment much less "stressed" by people and their dogs? This is yet one more "reason" why the average Iowa buck is larger than the average TN or KY buck.

Another reason might be that with fewer people, there is less top-end "trophy" buck poaching?
It's pretty bad in TN & KY. No idea about Iowa, but I'd bet less.

 

[TheLBLman]

Oh, less stressed deer also live to older ages, and do so more healthily.
This is part of why an average 6 1/2-yr-old Iowa buck has much larger antlers than an average TN 6 1/2-yr-old buck.

By the way, much of the antler high grading in TN is done by poachers, not just legitimate legal hunters. I do believe the high-grade poaching in TN is worse than in KY, in part because poachers can "pose" as legal gun hunters over twice as much in TN vs KY. Most of the top-end poached bucks are "checked in" as legal kills, most killed during deer season.

 

[Ski]

Wisconsin hunters kill nearly 10 deer per square mile annually, plus they have the same poachers, coyotes, and unkept dogs TN has, and they have wolves. Aside from MI and PA it's hard to imagine deer in any other state being more pressured. Yet they still regularly rank at or near the top of the list for producing booners.

 

[Henry]

Actually, I'm talking about social pressures within deer social groups. Subordinated bucks often grow lesser antlers until they move up the social ladder, at which time their antlers bounce back to what would be expected.

That's interesting.

 

[BSK]

Wisconsin hunters kill nearly 10 deer per square mile annually, plus they have the same poachers, coyotes, and unkept dogs TN has, and they have wolves. Aside from MI and PA it's hard to imagine deer in any other state being more pressured. Yet they still regularly rank at or near the top of the list for producing booners.

Parts of WI have deer densities exceeding 100 deer per square mile. Most of TN has deer densities around 25 per square mile or less.

 

[BSK]

It's not just about "how many" deer are killed per square mile, but specifically "which" deer are killed.

KY is approximately the same size as TN.
But KY killed 17,740 fewer deer than TN.
Does that mean KY had 17,000-plus more deer live another year than TN?
No. But it also doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Raw harvest numbers are of limited value.

Of the 144,515 deer KY killed, 45.2% were female;
of the 162,555 deer TN killed, 41.7% were female.

In the absence of much other data, just what does this mean?
We can only speculate.

Unquestionably, the best way to advance buck age structure is simply to kill fewer total bucks. Doesn't matter what age they are, just kill fewer bucks. I don't have good buck age structure data for KY, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have a higher average buck age than TN.

 

[BSK]

That's interesting.

The effects dominant bucks have on subordinate bucks is amazingly powerful. No one knows exactly how it works, but it is probably a combination of pheromones as well as physical intimidation. But researchers have found that by placing a mature, dominant buck into the same enclosure with younger bucks, the younger bucks' blood testosterone levels fall fairly dramatically. Remove the dominant buck and blood testosterone levels in the younger bucks go right back up. The same result was found simply by placing a signpost rub worked by a dominant buck into the enclosure.

This process makes biological sense, as younger bucks with lower testosterone feel less drive to breed, protecting them from the rigors of the rut until they are older, more fully developed, and able to handle the rut.

 

[TheLBLman]

Wisconsin hunters kill nearly 10 deer per square mile annually, plus they have the same poachers, coyotes, and unkept dogs TN has, and they have wolves. Aside from MI and PA it's hard to imagine deer in any other state being more pressured. Yet they still regularly rank at or near the top of the list for producing booners.

Goes back to the soil & nutrition as being better than TN's.
It's apparently SO GOOD in Wisconsin, that this state can HEALTHILY support a very high deer density.

So basic math, if you have a lot more deer per square mile, you can kill a lot more deer per square mile, therefore expect more to be high scoring (again, assuming good herd health). I also suspect there is less antler high grading in Wisconsin than in TN. IMO, TN is one of the worst states in the U.S. for hunters' antler high-grading, but still in the ballpark of other Southeastern states.

While I keep making antler high grading an issue, eliminating it (which isn't really possible) would not be some magic cure all. Wisconsin, Kentucky and Mid-Western states will continue to produce more high-scoring bucks (so long as they don't over-harvest their bucks, such as by dramatically increasing their gun buck hunting days).

It's just that in any one person's hunting area, personally making the decision not to kill off your best stock before it's aged to perfection, that is the one thing you can do that can make the most difference for you personally. Killing a top-end antlered 2 1/2-yr buck is like a farmer just mowing down his best field of corn mid-way thru it's growing cycle, say in July, getting no corn harvest from his best field.

The more of your hunting buddies you can get to do this along with you, the better the odds any young top-end buck you pass will live another year. For certain, if you yourself kill him, 100% chance that buck doesn't survive. My personal "rule of thumb" is I just expect half what I pass to survive another year.

 

[BSK]

It's just that in any one person's hunting area, personally making the decision not to kill off your best stock before it's aged to perfection, that is the one thing you can do that can make the most difference for you personally. Killing a top-end antlered 2 1/2-yr buck is like a farmer just mowing down his best field of corn mid-way thru it's growing cycle, say in July, getting no corn harvest from his best field.

The more of your hunting buddies you can get to do this along with you, the better the odds any young top-end buck you pass will live another year. For certain, if you yourself kill him, 100% chance that buck doesn't survive. My personal "rule of thumb" is I just expect half what I pass to survive another year.

I completely agree with this, again, if your goal is top-end mature bucks. Perhaps at one time this was my goal for my family's property. Now, not so much. As we've aged, we're now focusing more on wanting a fun, more carefree hunting experience. And because we draw so many bucks to our property during the fall and rut months (upwards of 50 unique bucks), we can afford to kill 5 or 6 bucks each year without doing harm to the buck population or age structure. That's basically one per hunter. If someone wants to kill a top-end 2 1/2, more power to them. Are we producing high-grading? Almost certainly. But year after year, we can have fun hunting and still have a realistic chance at a decent buck. Maybe we're not producing as many monsters as possible, but we still photograph the occasional great buck, which keeps anticipation high.

 

[TheLBLman]

But year after year, we can have fun hunting and still have a realistic chance at a decent buck. Maybe we're not producing as many monsters as possible, but we still photograph the occasional great buck, which keeps anticipation high.

The key is simply not to over-harvest the living bucks, regardless the age of the bucks you kill.

 

[Andy S.]

It's just that in any one person's hunting area, personally making the decision not to kill off your best stock before it's aged to perfection, that is the one thing you can do that can make the most difference for you personally.

I do this year in and year out, but I do not think I "alone" make much of a difference in the free range herd in my area. Why? Because I know most of the neighbors do not subscribe to this approach. It's their land, they can do as they please.

IMO, most TN "buck" hunters who have the desire to kill a buck each season are going to shoot top end bucks from each cohort (2.5s, 3.5s, etc). Not all hunters, but most. Essentially, they are going to hunt X number of days and shoot at the first "good buck" they see. Many times, that first good buck is the careless rutting 2.5/3.5 year old buck with above average headgear that loves to roam daylight hours in November.

I have hunted in hardcore QDM/TDM clubs and "it's brown it's down" clubs, and the majority of TN deer hunters who must kill a buck annually high grade the standing crop of bucks that are on the landscape. No two ways about it, they are focused on shooting the best antlers per age class, thus leaving the underperformers to live, breed, fight and pass on their genetics in out years.