This MSU video articulately explains what a management or "cull" buck is. Really, really interesting way to make the point. I love these video series from MSU.
Management Buck
- Thread starter Ski
- Start date
Let's say you own some acreage that you manage for enhanced habitat with the purpose of increasing your odds at killing a big buck. That's a pretty common scenario. No fences. You manage timber, fields, browse areas, water sources, and run a food plot schedule. That's time, effort, and money you're pouring into the place for one purpose, to hopefully kill big bucks.
When does begin to crowd out the bucks to the point that you begin seeing fewer & fewer, and the ones you see are younger & younger, then how do you get the property back on track? You kill does. By killing does you are freeing up space & food, and relieving social pressure. Kill enough does and big mature bucks feel attracted to your property again. Is that not a means of managing?
Now just like the does let's say you have one 5yr old 250lb slob with 115" rack hanging around all the time devouring everything in sight and chasing away any competition. He's not likely to get a bigger rack by letting him stay to 6yrs or 7yrs old. But for that entire time he'll be preventing you from having a big rack buck to hunt. Would you not want to get rid of him? And if you do, are you killing him because he gets you excited or are you doing it because he's wasting your time & money and you want to see other, better bucks on your property again?
JCDEERMAN
Well-Known Member
Nice. Been watching this series myself
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 13,575
Doesn't apply to the miles of mountains and ridges we hunt so a management buck we kill is a buck we manage to shoot because we wanted to kill him
BSK
Well-Known Member
When it comes to harvest management strategies, everything depends on the size of the property and the hunters' goals. On smaller properties, where hunters are thrilled to kill any buck 3 1/2 or older, I agree, there is no cause for "management" bucks. However, on large properties (even unfenced ones) movement of bucks onto and off the property can be fairly limited, hence bucks may live much of their life primarily on the property. And if top-end antlers are the goal on this property, management bucks can play a role. And if bucks must reach a specific age AND antler criteria to qualify for harvest, management bucks can play a very important role.
There's some interesting stuff for sure. One thing I noticed is that in none of their studies did a 3yr old have a 120" rack. Even in their controlled environment captive deer experiments with optimum nutrition and minimal stress, no 3yr old had a 120" rack. I can't count all the times I've heard people say they let a 130" 8pt walk because he was only 2yrs or 3yrs old. It always made me raise an eyebrow, and apparently MSU feels the same because they can't even create that scenario in a deer lab. I've always suspected a lot of folks either grossly underestimate buck ages or grossly overestimate rack scores, or both. These MSU studies are reinforcing that suspicion.
JCDEERMAN
Well-Known Member
@BSK once mentioned soil quality being a driving force behind certain areas having very small deer, both in body and rack. The discussion was about how certain areas of TN had such drastically different deer qualities. Much of what MSU is putting out in these videos really drives his point home. In just a few short miles the deer they're testing can be categorized into three distinct regions, and each region had specifically different characteristics and potentials, all dependent on the soil in their immediate respective area.
A third of the bucks they studied were from the delta region of MS, an area well reputed for big bucks. That sample of bucks taken from a big buck area, born & raised in a controlled environment with everything a deer could need, still didn't hit 120" at 3yrs of age. That makes one wonder just how old a 130"-140" deer in the wild actually is. He's not the 3yr old it seems a lot of people think.
BSK
Well-Known Member
I think it's always a bit dangerous to compare Deep South whitetails to MidSouth and especially Midwestern whitetails. I've seen plenty of bucks field-aged, tooth-wear aged, and cementum annuli aged at 3 1/2 that grossed near 150. Now how accurate are those aging systems? Controlled studies suggest, "not great." But I'll have to see if I can find the raw data from the King Ranch in Texas. Using only known-age deer (ear-tagged as fawns), they found, like in my area of TN, 3 1/2 year-old bucks average only around 105, but they did have known-age individuals that pushed the 150 mark as 3 1/2 year-olds.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2010
- Messages
- 13,575
Most but not all grossly missjudge score and age that i know, especially when you only get 10-15 seconds to judge a buck in most scenarios where we hunt. There was a time i was hung up on big antlers until i finally realized in my area it could be 10 years before a magical 150 ever came by. If i can kill a 3.5 - 5.5 year old 100 inch deer in these mountains im tickled!
Any idea how commonly one of the "big" 3yr olds occurred? I don't have the extent of data that you have, and certainly not the King Ranch. But with what limited info I have been able to keep, I don't think I've ever once personally seen or killed a 3yr old buck that would meet the 125" P&Y standard. That's with trail cam monitoring and hunting several OH, WI, and TN properties over roughly 10yrs. I've hunted Ohio my entire life and heard of such bucks but am not convinced I've actually seen any. Here in my area of TN I have been fortunate enough to kill most of the oldest, largest bucks I've been able to monitor. Four of them were for certain 5yrs minimum and only two of them busted 120" but just barely. To be quite honest I find it difficult to judge age age without having some history with the buck to know for sure, especially with these southern deer.
Agreed. And don't feel bad. Seeing a 150" buck around these parts would be as likely as seeing a unicorn, even on well managed ground.
BSK
Well-Known Member
In my opinion, if you can kill ANY buck older than a yearling in those mountains, you da' MAN!
BSK
Well-Known Member
They were statistical outliers. Just like the bottom-end 3 1/2s that gross 50-60. If I remember correctly, 50% of 3 1/2s fell within +/- 10 inches of 105.
Below is a 3 1/2 year-old buck that the previous year, as a 2 1/2, was passed up by hunters multiple times, including by myself. At 3 1/2 he hadn't added much. What would he score in these pictures as a 3 1/2? 50? 60? Bottom-end statistical outlier.
Attachments
BSK
Well-Known Member
Using the same field-judging age techniques, here are two bucks I also believe to be 3 1/2 years old. The buck in the first two pictures scored 140 (I know because I killed him). The buck in the 3rd and 4th pictures I believe will score at least mid 140s.
Attachments
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
I understand the concept of a management (or cull) buck from a population control standpoint...but when hunter/managers use the term "cull" in an effort to try and control genetics I think they are mistaken....Even MSU deer lab studies say that in a wild deer herd it's practically impossible to influence genetics by killing a particular buck.
But I agree that killing a particular buck because he's a bully or to reduce the number of mouths to feed can have a benefit.
But I agree that killing a particular buck because he's a bully or to reduce the number of mouths to feed can have a benefit.
BSK
Well-Known Member
But to agree with a point made by several, do hunters misjudge age and score? Oh heck yes! I'm guilty of it myself. I'll see certain characteristics on a rack and think, "Holy Moly that's a stud!" Until you put a tape on them!
I was chasing the below buck for two years. I really though he was going to seriously score. But what was he when I finally killed him as a 5 1/2 year-old? He grossed just 129. Had to remeasure and add up the score 4 times before I was convinced that's all he scored. But he's still my widest-racked buck at 23". I just thought he would score so much higher than that.
I was chasing the below buck for two years. I really though he was going to seriously score. But what was he when I finally killed him as a 5 1/2 year-old? He grossed just 129. Had to remeasure and add up the score 4 times before I was convinced that's all he scored. But he's still my widest-racked buck at 23". I just thought he would score so much higher than that.
Attachments
BSK
Well-Known Member
And that's how I use the term "management buck." A management buck is a buck that will never be what the hunters want out of their management program. A perfect example is the 3 1/2 year-old buck I posted above as a bottom-end statistical outlier at 3 1/2. Odds are extremely low he's ever going to be a high-scoring buck. And I don't really care about removing a mouth from the environment. When I provide a club/landowner with a list of "management bucks" to add to their "hit list," it's because I'm trying to add harvest opportunities to a trophy management program that has few bucks on the target list. Basically, you've got a bunch of hunters chasing only a couple of mature/top-end bucks. Might as well give them a few more bucks to target, especially ones that would never make the target list otherwise. For me, "management bucks" are simply a way to provide more harvest opportunities in a very limited harvest opportunity setting without harming the results of the over-all management program.
As a 3.5 year old 10 point, with all up tines? If so, he had it ALL to really be something at 5.5 ASSUMING he would have lived and flourished, not got sick, not been hit by car, no pedicle injury, not shot by a hunter, etc, etc. Not throwing shade at you, just making the case that MOST of our statistical outliers "on the high side" that we all dream about seeing in the wild, are killed by a hunter as a top end 3.5 year old as they roam the woods in daylight during the rut. I shot a non-typical several years back while hunting on the ground. I could tell he had multiple up tines and some non-typical trash. I could not see his little neck and body. I shot as soon as he presented himself from a sapling thicket. 136" 2.5 year old. :eek: Another buck that had it ALL to really be something, but I ended that before he ever had the opportunity to express his potential.
BSK
Well-Known Member
No shade taken! I couldn't agree more. That buck would probably have been a monster at 5 1/2. Maybe in the mid 150s.
But considering how rarely we get the opportunity to actually kill one of the top-end bucks we photograph on the property, not a chance I was passing him up. We draw some really great bucks out of the adjoining big agricultural bottomlands every year. But getting the chance to see/kill them is rare (at least for us). In fact, after 35 years, all it takes to get a buck into the "all-time Top 10" for the property is a score of 125. Not a chance I'm passing up the opportunity to take a Top 10 buck, no matter his age.
With only 7 tines to score, that is a very, very impressive score! That buck would look at home next to any booner I've ever seen. He's actually more impressive than a lot of high scoring bucks in terms of frame. That dude was a tank!
On a side note, aside from judging age via trail cam, what makes you believe he was only 3.5? Could he have been older than you think? That was kind of my point about noting the discrepancy between MSU's study and situations like the bucks you just showed. In a controlled environment with virtually no stress, nothing to wear the buck down, and all the nutrition it could possibly need, their bucks never got that big at that age. Your buck was wild surviving the harsh conditions of winters, ruts, seasonal shifts, stretches of time with lack of quality food, etc. Does it not seem odd that a 3yr old roughing it can get that big but one in captivity cannot?
Don't take me wrong. I'm not saying your deer isn't 3.5yrs old. I really don't know. I judge deer age same way everybody else does, same way the science tells us to. But then I see these MSU studies & notice what seems to be a disconnect, but I'm not sure at what end. It's as if 2 + 2 doesn't = 4.
Last edited:
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
They do like crazy. I can't tell you how many people talk to me in August and think they have a 140 to 150 inch deer and most are 125 inch deer. Also many people struggle aging like crazy they look at the rack and go strictly after that. We killed one this year that was not a huge body but he was 6.5. Had him aged also had picture of him since 2.5. He got shot at 4.5 and survived. But the few people I showed pictures of him to said he was 3.5 and 145 inch deer. He scored 134 and some change.
We have been fortunate to kill some big deer. A pile of high 130s Several lower 140 inch deer. Our best deer is 145 and some change. We have been managing for years and our philosophies for us have changed the past 2 years. We have been really focusing on management bucks. We are trying to get our deer which we think have the best chance to top out inches wise a chance to reach that potential. We have the acres and lack of pressure around us to try it. May work my not in the 2 years that we have been doing it haven't noticed anything concrete I would suspect that this year or the next if there is something to it we should be able to see it. I am tempted to throw this year off to the side with just how dry we got and the stress of that. Ms state is putting out great stuff.
The biggest misnomer of a management buck or cull buck is that they are easy to kill and hunt. When the majority of these deer they are talking about in the video are mature "trophy" deer. A 5.5 and up deer in tennessee is a tough animal to kill and should be considered a trophy I know we consider them a trophy.
Mossy oak did a podcast with these guys that explain it very well and made some excellent points while doing it.
One could argue a 5.5yr old deer anywhere is tough to kill. There aren't many deer getting that old and the ones who do are able to do so because they are good at evading humans.
Good luck with your experiment. Other than one bully buck I have never had what I'd consider a "management" buck. Pretty much all the bucks that I know for sure are 5yrs+ also tend to have the largest racks in the area I'm hunting, so I'm hunting the biggest bucks available. Doesn't mean they're huge but they're the biggest I can reasonably hunt, and that's good enough for me. Not very often I actually see a small racked old buck, let alone have one hanging around enough to be a concern. Here in this part of TN it seems 110"-120" on 150lb body is pretty normal for a mature buck. I'm sure somewhere in parts of the county there are a few bigger but they're rare as hens teeth. I've not seen one in person or on camera.
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
Around 10- 15% of my 3.5yos will be 120in or better. Enough where we don't even bat an eye at them being 'special'.
Now a 2.5yo that breaks 110"... we're pumped. But a 3.5yo has to break 130 for us to think he is really something special.
And sure, it's possible I'm overestimating scores from trail cam pictures, but when we do kill one of the top end 3.5yos either on accident (I killed 1 6 or 7yrs ago i misjudged and scored 133 as a 3.5yo) or on purpose (my cousins daughter killed a 3.5yo this year that was 120 on the dot), actual measured gross scores are usually pretty close to what we estimated from trail cam pictures.
It's also possible we are undergoing our deer, but I don't think so. This pic is the 120in 3.5yo killed this year. Jawbone said 3.5, live wt was 165lbs at start of 1st rut, just a tad below average wt for our 3.5yos.
Attachments
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
And here's another example... my daughter killed this buck during 2nd rut just before Christmas a couple years ago. 195lbs live wt AFTER losing probably 30 or 40lbs from 1st rut...
Jawbone said 2.5 (some chipping of cups on right side throws accurate age off a bit).
Scored 148 thanks to some crazy long tines. Def wouldn't count him in my 2.5yo cohort, and really I don't think he is 3.5 either... or if he was, he would have blown away our record body weight for the 3.5yo age class by a mile)
I guess what I'm saying is that 3.5yos bucks breaking 120in in TN are not that uncommon if you have a large enough sample size and the right genetics and nutrition.
Jawbone said 2.5 (some chipping of cups on right side throws accurate age off a bit).
Scored 148 thanks to some crazy long tines. Def wouldn't count him in my 2.5yo cohort, and really I don't think he is 3.5 either... or if he was, he would have blown away our record body weight for the 3.5yo age class by a mile)
I guess what I'm saying is that 3.5yos bucks breaking 120in in TN are not that uncommon if you have a large enough sample size and the right genetics and nutrition.
Attachments
megalomaniac
Well-Known Member
And as far as those fully mature bucks on the bottom end of the gene pool antler wise, imma still going to call them 'culls' because that's exactly what I'm doing to them... culling them out of the herd and turning them into sausage.
The terms 'cull' vs 'management' in my mind is the same as 'kill' vs 'harvest'
The terms 'cull' vs 'management' in my mind is the same as 'kill' vs 'harvest'
BSK
Well-Known Member
Unless a property has a very high antler score requirement for harvest, I would never have a mature buck as a "management buck." Most properties I work with have all mature bucks on the "OK to kill" list. For me, a management buck is a very low end 3 1/2 that shows no sign of increasing in size with age (didn't make much of a jump from 2 1/2 to 3 1/2). Only in a serious Trophy Program would I have a mature buck as a management buck, and I have few clients in that severe of a program.
deerhunter10
Well-Known Member
We have passed mature deer because of their racks in the past. It's just me and my father in law now. My wife sometimes. Only 4 tags 6 at the most. While any mature deer are ok to kill in the past we have wanted bigger deer. Only thing we are trying now is we have notice those deer seem to be bully plus with all the food and everything else. We are just trying to see if we can gain more inches probably not but worth a try.
