Reasonable Expectations for Middle TN, by County

[Pursuit Hunter]

With hunting season just around the corner, I thought it would be a good time to set expectations for what we can reasonaby expect to see in the woods this fall.

For each middle Tennessee county, I used BSK's methodology for calculating the gross B&C score that can be expected to be produced in harvestable numbers. I put the results in a table ranked by "Reasonable Expectation" score - the right-hand column.

I haven't gotten around to updating the numbers since last season, so there may be a couple of new entries into the Tn Deer Registry that would affect the results.

The table is here .

 

[Rubberduck270]

Interesting. My Lawrence Co. buck last year went 116 so I was just under the mark. Still very pleased with him though. 4.5 yr old and a pig.

 

[MUP]

Cool. I've only harvested one deer over the realistic exp of 110" for my county, and it was near 140". I have however killed a few just under that score.

 

[Coach]

I sure don't see too many 145's coming out of my area of Fentress...I see some but not many

 

[Pursuit Hunter]

I sure don't see too many 145's coming out of my area of Fentress...I see some but not many

Yep, I wondered about that. If you notice, all the entries used to calculate the score for Fentress Co were non-typical. I seems like that would inflate the expected score.

 

[PickettSFHunter]

Numbers are off for my county because one of those 190's is in the registry twice. But the top #1 of 214 B&C isnt even in there so. I think it would be better to break it down into non typical and typical for your expectations.

 

[Pursuit Hunter]

Numbers are off for my county because one of those 190's is in the registry twice. But the top #1 of 214 B&C isnt even in there so. I think it would be better to break it down into non typical and typical for your expectations.

Fentress Co?

 

[PickettSFHunter]

Numbers are off for my county because one of those 190's is in the registry twice. But the top #1 of 214 B&C isnt even in there so. I think it would be better to break it down into non typical and typical for your expectations.

Fentress Co?

Yes. There are several duplicates in there that are the same deer. May be this way for other counties as well, not sure.

 

[BSK]

Very interesting stuff Pursuit Hunter. Looks like the majority of the state is in the upper one-teens to low 130s. That sounds right.

 

[BSK]

For anyone that hasn't read the description of it before, what Pursuit Hunter is talking about when he says "BSK's methodology" is a calculation I use for predicting what size gross antlers can be expected in "harvestable numbers" on a well-managed property. And by "harvestable numbers," I mean those size bucks exist on the property in high enough numbers that any hunter has a realistic chance at seeing one each year.

 

[Pursuit Hunter]

Numbers are off for my county because one of those 190's is in the registry twice. But the top #1 of 214 B&C isnt even in there so. I think it would be better to break it down into non typical and typical for your expectations.

Fentress Co?

Yes. There are several duplicates in there that are the same deer. May be this way for other counties as well, not sure.

Just one duplicate - it is in the registry twice and I didn't notice. I fixed it by substituting the next highest score which was 185 1/8 non typ. It lowered the expected score to 144. the 214 hasn't been registered yet. Thanks for pointing that out.

I haven't changed it on the website yet.

 

[Jarred525]

I think this is spot on for Giles.

 

[Rubberduck270]

I think this is spot on for Giles.

I figured Giles would have been in the upper 120's to low 130's. Lot of good deer come out of there every year.

 

[BSK]

I think this is spot on for Giles.

I figured Giles would have been in the upper 120's to low 130's. Lot of good deer come out of there every year.

This calculation isn't about what can be produced at the top-end, but what should exist in harvestable numbers from any well-managed property in that area; i.e. what any hunter on that property should have a reasonable chance of seeing every year.

 

[Quailman]

Nice info Chris. However, I will say that a 141" buck for Grundy would be an anomaly. I've seen a few checked in over the years but not many. Having hunted there for 18 years, as well as having 10 years worth of trail cam data, I can honestly say I've never seen a live 140+" buck in Grundy County.

Those top five bucks that were killed in Grundy are definitely the rare exception.

 

[Football Hunter]

Perry co looks good,course I have no "reasonable expectations" really.Always wondering if the freak of nature is about to come my way LOVE IT! But either way,it will be fun!

 

[Coach]

BSK, what do you consider a "well managed property"?

 

[Shed Hunter]

Cool system BSK. Henderson County is 123 if I did it right. The number seems a little low but that is probably due to there being a few bucks never registered in Henderson county.

 

[baller_9]

You left Fayette off the list. Looks like it should be #4. I use to hunt all over the state and the top three most consistant counties for producing big deer from my observations are Fayette, Williamson, and Montgomery Counties. I can see this being a realitic chart minus Sumner and Fentress county.

 

[Andy S.]

You left Fayette off the list.

The list says "....by Middle Tennessee County".

 

[tnbucs1]

Thanks for posting. Seems to fall in line w/ the 3 counties I hunt the most and my expectations for each.

 

[Winchester]

Looks right to me as well. Dickson, Humphries, and Hickman counties all basically connecting, are right together on scores, as I would have guessed!

 

[Pursuit Hunter]

You left Fayette off the list.

The list says "....by Middle Tennessee County".

Yep. My apologies to the folks in east and west Tennessee. .I limited it to middle Tennessee because that's the area I work in. If I get some time, I will try to expand it to the rest of the state

 

[FARMTOFIELD]

Very accurate imo Lawrence county is a bit off because of the 158 being listed twice. I know of a 170" deer taken a couple years back (typical) but the guy won't have it scored. Several 140s taken annually

 

[Pursuit Hunter]

Very accurate imo Lawrence county is a bit off because of the 158 being listed twice. I know of a 170" deer taken a couple years back (typical) but the guy won't have it scored. Several 140s taken annually

The two 158s are different deer. There is a guy with two deer in the top five, but they have different scores. Are you saying it is the same deer scored differently?

 

[BSK]

BSK, what do you consider a "well managed property"?

I property where the habitat is specifically altered to produce more food and cover than the local deer population can use, and the deer population is manipulated through selective harvest to produce a balanced sex ratio and a more advance age structure.

And I don't mean a "mature buck only" harvest policy. Simply a harvest policy that allows a more natural buck age structure. 20-25% of the buck population being 3 1/2+ would be more than adequate.

 

[Bone Collector]

interesting chart and a good starting point, but i wonder how many deer are not added to the book by hunters that don't care? I personally saw a buck (non typical) from Wilson County that was scored by the TWRA at 172 i think. If i remember your chart correctly that would be the #1 buck for Wilson.

Good chart either way kinda cool to see what comes out of where.

 

[BSK]

interesting chart and a good starting point, but i wonder how many deer are not added to the book by hunters that don't care?

I'm sure that would change things a little. But this calulation was created based on what hunters do enter into the recordbooks, not what they don't enter.

 

[baller_9]

You left Fayette off the list.

The list says "....by Middle Tennessee County".

Yep. My apologies to the folks in east and west Tennessee. .I limited it to middle Tennessee because that's the area I work in. If I get some time, I will try to expand it to the rest of the state

That's what I get for not reading thoroughly. I'm sure it adds excitement to clients looking for properties at the top of the chart.

 

[timberjack86]

Wow check out grundy Kinda supriseing but I know some good bucks come from here evey year. Does anyone think the fact that we are not in unit L have anything to do with Grundys antler expectations?