Andy S.":28soqm0l said:
A 186" CLEAN NET typical buck is a pretty rare specimen, regardless of what State you're talking about.
And I'm not suggesting otherwise.
Just surprised this 186" typical, killed in 1959, remains TN's #1 Typical.
Other bordering states, all directions, have killed larger NET TYPICALS,
and most of them fairly recently.
For example, look at these adjoining state record typicals . . . . .
West Virginia's #1 Buck = 188 7/8" --- Killed in 2014
Virginia's #1 Buck = 189 2/8" --- Killed in 1999
Kentucky's #1 Buck = 204 2/8" --- Killed in 2000
Georgia's #1 Buck = 191 4/8" --- Killed in 1962
Mississippi's #1 Buck = 184 6/8" --- Killed in 2011
Alabama's #1 Buck = 186 3/8" --- Killed in 1986
Arkansas's #1 Buck = 195 2/8" --- Killed in 2015
Of course, Tennessee isn't the only state with it's #1 Typical being killed over four decades ago.
Just interesting that with all the supposed "management", hunters supposedly "managing" for larger trophy racks,
Sonny Foster's 1959 #1 Typical still stands in Tennessee.
And it was killed in a mountainous area with no agricultural crops.
Today, we have vast areas of counties along our Mississippi River floodplain,
as well as those counties either side the Hatchie and Obion Rivers,
with some of the best soils and best food sources, including lots of areas "managed" for big bucks.
We have the genetics, we have the soil, we have the food sources,
we even have more bucks than ever living to maturity (5 1/2 & older).
But it's mainly just the bucks
WITHOUT the genetics that we hunters allow to live to maturity.
Not saying this is either good or bad ---- but, imo, just the #1 reason that 1959 record typical still stands.