The Magic Pill to big Bucks

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

Pretty good read on how to grow big bucks.

http://www.scoutlookweather.com/index.p ... stersmagic

 

[redblood]

i thought it was cmere deer

 

[BSK]

Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest, where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

 

[Winchester]

I agree he has the magic pill when located in the perfect habitat and great soil of the Midwest!
Most of the Southeast requires the age, and the habitat improvements, to grow the bucks he speaks of! Unfortunately the habitat improvements are whats out of reach for the majority of hunters here!

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

[color:#FF0000]Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest[/color], where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

Only problem is he doesn't manage in the mid west.

Here is a link to his bio.

http://www.scoutlookweather.com/index.p ... oc=Baytown, TX &lat=29.787&lon=-94.9437&gid=169007

 

[BSK]

New York State has some huge agricultural areas. Most of the Southeast does not.

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest, where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

BSK were you not saying basically the same thing about much of west TN in the below post.

Far west TN has the soil and agriculture to grow big antlers. In fact, the soils are probably quite a bit better than in GA. But it doesn't have the woodland cover necessary to grow old bucks. Central and southern GA has the perfect mix of both--lots of agriculture to grow antlers with adequate amounts of forest cover to allow bucks to reach maturity.

 

[morgancountry]

Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest, where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

I agree that we won't get the midwest size bucks but older bucks here will definitely be bigger than the young ones here...

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest, where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

I agree that we won't get the midwest size bucks but older bucks here will definitely be bigger than the young ones here...

Same here morgancountry.

 

[PickettSFHunter]

Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest, where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

I agree that we won't get the midwest size bucks but older bucks here will definitely be bigger than the young ones here...

Yep!

 

[muddyboots]

Amen 8 points, Morgancounty, and Mr. Stone.

 

[BSK]

8 POINTS OR BETTER,

You can try to twist my words around as many different ways as possible, but I've stated the biological facts many times. I've never said age is unimportant in antler development. However, I have said many times that habitat quality (a combination of soil quality and the plants growing in that soil) can over-power age when comparing deer living in different geographic regions, because of differences in habitat quality.

When comparing bucks from one geographic location, age is usually the most influential factor in antler size. When comparing bucks between different geographic areas habitat quality CAN BE a more powerful influence than age.

How many times do I need to repeat myself to get through to the "age is everything" people?

 

[Winchester]

8 POINTS OR BETTER,

You can try to twist my words around as many different ways as possible, but I've stated the biological facts many times. I've never said age is unimportant in antler development. However, I have said many times that habitat quality (a combination of soil quality and the plants growing in that soil) can over-power age when comparing deer living in different geographic regions, because of differences in habitat quality.

When comparing bucks from one geographic location, age is usually the most influential factor in antler size. When comparing bucks between different geographic areas habitat quality CAN BE a more powerful influence than age.

How many times do I need to repeat myself to get through to the "age is everything" people?

Good post!
The average 2 yr old buck in say Brown co. Ill, will grow on average, more antler, than a 3 yr old (or possibly 4 or 5 yr old) buck here in Anderson co. TN. Right on up the ladder to maturity, where the Ill bucks still average more antler per age class than the TN bucks, regardless of age!
The average bucks antlers definitely will increase in size from yearlings to maturity regardless of where he lives. Its just the size difference in different geographic regions and habitats, that make them vary so much in size!

 

[Deer Assassin]

i thought it was cmere deer

you mean it isnt ?

 

[landman]

Never heard of him....but isn't that old new's? what is the slogan that QDMA used for many years
"Let Him Go"
"Let Him Grow"

 

[W.Seay]

8 POINTS OR BETTER,

You can try to twist my words around as many different ways as possible, but I've stated the biological facts many times. I've never said age is unimportant in antler development. However, I have said many times that habitat quality (a combination of soil quality and the plants growing in that soil) can over-power age when comparing deer living in different geographic regions, because of differences in habitat quality.

When comparing bucks from one geographic location, age is usually the most influential factor in antler size. When comparing bucks between different geographic areas habitat quality CAN BE a more powerful influence than age.

How many times do I need to repeat myself to get through to the "age is


everything" people?

Great post, and that's what you've been saying since I joined this site 6 years ago.

 

[Beekeeper]

Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest, where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

I agree that we won't get the midwest size bucks but older bucks here will definitely be bigger than the young ones here...

Yep!

What do the folks that hunt at Ames have to say about this?

Bucks do not necessarily have a bigger rack at 5.5 than they do at 2.5. I would think that the bigger the body on a buck, the more nutrition that is used to sustain the body instead of growing antlers. Just my opinion.

 

[BSK]

Classic comments from someone who manages deer in the Midwest, where "old buck" usually equals "big antlers." In the Southeast, that isn't always the case.

Unfortunately, the author has apparently not worked in areas where habitat is a major limiting factor to antler growth.

In fact, this author is the perfect example of the "bad" information hunters get from watching Midwestern TV shows, where they will say over and over again while standing over a dead monster buck, "this management thing isn't that difficult. Just don't shoot bucks when they are young." I actually agree with tha for producing older bucks. But in the Southeast, having old bucks doesn't guarantee you BIG bucks, just old bucks.

I agree that we won't get the midwest size bucks but older bucks here will definitely be bigger than the young ones here...

Yep!

What do the folks that hunt at Ames have to say about this?

Bucks do not necessarily have a bigger rack at 5.5 than they do at 2.5. I would think that the bigger the body on a buck, the more nutrition that is used to sustain the body instead of growing antlers. Just my opinion.

Good God Almighty...

BeeKeeper,

In any given location, 5 1/2 year-old bucks are going have antlers that AVERAGE quite a bit larger than than 2 1/2 year-old bucks AVERAGE. However, in any location, you can find a top-end yearling buck that has higher scoring antlers than the smallest antlered mature buck.

In any given location, the range of scores that same-age bucks will grow exceeds 100 gross inches, especially for bucks 3 1/2 and older. In essence, you will find mature bucks with antlers only grossing in the 50s, and mature bucks with antlers over 150, no matter what the average is. In that same location, you'll find yearling bucks grossing from just a few inches all the way up to at least the 60s and 70s, which makes a few of the largest yearlings bigger than the smallest mature buck. But the vast majority of mature bucks have much larger antlers than the vast majority of yearling bucks.

 

[Beekeeper]

Good God Almighty...

BeeKeeper,

In any given location, 5 1/2 year-old bucks are going have antlers that AVERAGE quite a bit larger than than 2 1/2 year-old bucks AVERAGE. However, in any location, you can find a top-end yearling buck that has higher scoring antlers than the smallest antlered mature buck.

In any given location, the range of scores that same-age bucks will grow exceeds 100 gross inches, especially for bucks 3 1/2 and older. In essence, you will find mature bucks with antlers only grossing in the 50s, and mature bucks with antlers over 150, no matter what the average is. In that same location, you'll find yearling bucks grossing for just a few inches all the way up to at least the 60s and 70s, which makes a few yearlings bigger than the smallest mature buck. But the vast majority of mature bucks have much larger antlers than the vast majority of yearling bucks.

Let me get this straight. In an area with limited nutrition a buck that weighs 200 lbs will use as much or more of its nutritional intake for antler development as a buck that weighs 120 lbs and it will not have to use more of its nutritional intake to sustain a 200 lb body than it would to sustain a 120 lb body.

 

[morgancountry]

Good God Almighty...

BeeKeeper,

In any given location, 5 1/2 year-old bucks are going have antlers that AVERAGE quite a bit larger than than 2 1/2 year-old bucks AVERAGE. However, in any location, you can find a top-end yearling buck that has higher scoring antlers than the smallest antlered mature buck.

In any given location, the range of scores that same-age bucks will grow exceeds 100 gross inches, especially for bucks 3 1/2 and older. In essence, you will find mature bucks with antlers only grossing in the 50s, and mature bucks with antlers over 150, no matter what the average is. In that same location, you'll find yearling bucks grossing for just a few inches all the way up to at least the 60s and 70s, which makes a few yearlings bigger than the smallest mature buck. But the vast majority of mature bucks have much larger antlers than the vast majority of yearling bucks.

Let me get this straight. In an area with limited nutrition a buck that weighs 200 lbs will use as much or more of its nutritional intake for antler development as a buck that weighs 120 lbs and it will not have to use more of its nutritional intake to sustain a 200 lb body than it would to sustain a 120 lb body.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong... But once a deer reaches that 200lb weight or whatever it is, it takes less energy to sustain that weight and more nutrition goes into antler development. Compared to the 120lb deer that uses its nutrition more to try to get to 200lbs. Therefore, leaving less energy for antler growth. In your words, the 120lb deer is not trying to sustain 120lbs, he's trying to put even more on.

 

[scn]

Byan, due to the winds last night I have a good supply of John's sharp sticks if you need to re-supply.

 

[Winchester]

Byan, due to the winds last night I have a good supply of John's sharp sticks if you need to re-supply.

I think we are past even that Steve!!! :o

 

[TheLBLman]

Good God Almighty...

BeeKeeper,

In any given location, 5 1/2 year-old bucks are going have antlers that AVERAGE quite a bit larger than than 2 1/2 year-old bucks AVERAGE. However, in any location, you can find a top-end yearling buck that has higher scoring antlers than the smallest antlered mature buck.

In any given location, the range of scores that same-age bucks will grow exceeds 100 gross inches, especially for bucks 3 1/2 and older. In essence, you will find mature bucks with antlers only grossing in the 50s, and mature bucks with antlers over 150, no matter what the average is. In that same location, you'll find yearling bucks grossing for just a few inches all the way up to at least the 60s and 70s, which makes a few yearlings bigger than the smallest mature buck. But the vast majority of mature bucks have much larger antlers than the vast majority of yearling bucks.

Let me get this straight. In an area with limited nutrition a buck that weighs 200 lbs will use as much or more of its nutritional intake for antler development as a buck that weighs 120 lbs and it will not have to use more of its nutritional intake to sustain a 200 lb body than it would to sustain a 120 lb body.

Beekeeper,

Let me help out here with an analogy comparing a group of 6-foot women with a group of 5-foot women. No. never mind.

Someone please hand me one of those sharp sticks. :D

 

[TheLBLman]

On a more serious note, the best "magic pill" for me has been simply trying to not kill bucks younger than 4 1/2. I can't change the soil, I may not be able to do much to alter the habitat, but I can let a young buck walk.

No, this won't make the average TN buck grow antlers like the average Iowa buck, but it may be the single biggest thing one can do to increase his personal odds at a larger antlered buck, wherever he finds himself hunting.

 

[Beekeeper]

Good God Almighty...

BeeKeeper,

In any given location, 5 1/2 year-old bucks are going have antlers that AVERAGE quite a bit larger than than 2 1/2 year-old bucks AVERAGE. However, in any location, you can find a top-end yearling buck that has higher scoring antlers than the smallest antlered mature buck.

In any given location, the range of scores that same-age bucks will grow exceeds 100 gross inches, especially for bucks 3 1/2 and older. In essence, you will find mature bucks with antlers only grossing in the 50s, and mature bucks with antlers over 150, no matter what the average is. In that same location, you'll find yearling bucks grossing for just a few inches all the way up to at least the 60s and 70s, which makes a few yearlings bigger than the smallest mature buck. But the vast majority of mature bucks have much larger antlers than the vast majority of yearling bucks.

Let me get this straight. In an area with limited nutrition a buck that weighs 200 lbs will use as much or more of its nutritional intake for antler development as a buck that weighs 120 lbs and it will not have to use more of its nutritional intake to sustain a 200 lb body than it would to sustain a 120 lb body.

Beekeeper,

Let me help out here with an analogy comparing a group of 6-foot women with a group of 5-foot women. No. never mind.

Someone please hand me one of those sharp sticks. :D

Use 2 and a big hammer!! :grin:

 

[Winchester]

On a more serious note, the best "magic pill" for me has been simply trying to not kill bucks younger than 4 1/2. I can't change the soil, I may not be able to do much to alter the habitat, but I can let a young buck walk.

No, this won't make the average TN buck grow antlers like the average Iowa buck, but it may be the single biggest thing one can do to increase his personal odds at a larger antlered buck, wherever he finds himself hunting.

Without question, letting them walk if they dont meet your personal agenda is far and away the most the average hunter can do to help his future success!

 

[hunterncoach]

On a more serious note, the best "magic pill" for me has been simply trying to not kill bucks younger than 4 1/2. I can't change the soil, I may not be able to do much to alter the habitat, but I can let a young buck walk.

No, this won't make the average TN buck grow antlers like the average Iowa buck, but it may be the single biggest thing one can do to increase his personal odds at a larger antlered buck, wherever he finds himself hunting.

Without question, letting them walk if they dont meet your personal agenda is far and away the most the average hunter can do to help his future success!

AMEN!!!

 

[SelphLogging]

The point being missed here, is that each area is only going to produce an "XXX" score measurement on average in the given area. For example, Midwest has potential to grow on avg 150" deer, remember avg is the term I'm using, so I know the possibilities are more. Where as TN, for the most part, it's potential on avg is only going to produce 125". But in order to reach these potential averages, the key is "AGE".

We all understand what a deer has to have to produce those exceptional giants of 170", 180", 190", 200", with the occassionally 220"+ in the midwest. Where the southeast's equivalent to the midwest exceptional giants are 140", 150", 160", 170", with the occassionally 180"+.

Either way, the only true human involvement to produce the average-to above average abilities, is herd management, which is doe control, and age allowance. POINT BLANK...

Noone has any control over genetics, because a person doesn't even know the deer's potential until 3.5 at earliest, but really 4.5. With that being said, that buck has done put out his genes multiple times in those years. Also, studies are showing the doe has alot to do with genes. So no way to know which does are carrying good genes for racks, although I have my other thoughts on the doe/gene thing that I wont get into.

Noone has control over enough habitat and soil to relatively change the nutrients dramatically enough to help tremendously. Some, I agree, but not tremendously.

So that leaves us with age, only human control we have. But we cant fully control that.

Therefore, in conclusion, the man in the article is fully correct in that you have to give the deer the age ability to see "BIG" antlers. We as hunters, have to remember what our areas "BIG" antlers are!!! And our area doesnt quite reflect what the Midwest areas do. So when we see Giants on TV, we have to replace those in our minds with the 140"-150" class deer that our giants are.

So I stand behind the "BIG" antler theory of "Let em GO, Watch em Grow"!

 

[landman]

8 POINTS OR BETTER,

You can try to twist my words around as many different ways as possible, but I've stated the biological facts many times. I've never said age is unimportant in antler development. However, I have said many times that habitat quality (a combination of soil quality and the plants growing in that soil) can over-power age when comparing deer living in different geographic regions, because of differences in habitat quality.

When comparing bucks from one geographic location, age is usually the most influential factor in antler size. When comparing bucks between different geographic areas habitat quality CAN BE a more powerful influence than age.

How many times do I need to repeat myself to get through to the "age is everything" people?

What He Said

 

[102]

The point being missed here, is that each area is only going to produce an "XXX" score measurement on average in the given area. For example, Midwest has potential to grow on avg 150" deer, remember avg is the term I'm using, so I know the possibilities are more. Where as TN, for the most part, it's potential on avg is only going to produce 125". But in order to reach these potential averages, the key is "AGE".

We all understand what a deer has to have to produce those exceptional giants of 170", 180", 190", 200", with the occassionally 220"+ in the midwest. Where the southeast's equivalent to the midwest exceptional giants are 140", 150", 160", 170", with the occassionally 180"+.

Either way, the only true human involvement to produce the average-to above average abilities, is herd management, which is doe control, and age allowance. POINT BLANK...

Noone has any control over genetics, because a person doesn't even know the deer's potential until 3.5 at earliest, but really 4.5. With that being said, that buck has done put out his genes multiple times in those years. Also, studies are showing the doe has alot to do with genes. So no way to know which does are carrying good genes for racks, although I have my other thoughts on the doe/gene thing that I wont get into.

Noone has control over enough habitat and soil to relatively change the nutrients dramatically enough to help tremendously. Some, I agree, but not tremendously.

So that leaves us with age, only human control we have. But we cant fully control that.

Therefore, in conclusion, the man in the article is fully correct in that you have to give the deer the age ability to see "BIG" antlers. We as hunters, have to remember what our areas "BIG" antlers are!!! And our area doesnt quite reflect what the Midwest areas do. So when we see Giants on TV, we have to replace those in our minds with the 140"-150" class deer that our giants are.

So I stand behind the "BIG" antler theory of "Let em GO, Watch em Grow"!

Selfflogging,
I am going to go out on a limb here and say...I AM THROWING A FLAG on the 150 inch average stuff.

Outside of a high fence and maybe (MAYBE) a few Texas Ranches, I am pretty confident in saying there is not a single place where a 150 inch buck is "average".

And I don't think that a 125 inch buck will ever be an "average" score in Tennessee.

I really think you have been watching too much TV.

(also, I mean no malice to you at all. And I apologize up front if I have in any way offended you, I promise, I am not picking on you)