|
Post by dbd870 on Jun 20, 2014 6:51:56 GMT -5
I briefly considered him being a buck in decline but I do think that is a young body. It would have been interesting to see him alive and standing. I'll be surprised if he isn't either 2.5 or 3.5, and I'm actually on the fence between those 2.
|
|
|
Post by GS1 on Jun 20, 2014 9:22:35 GMT -5
I'm never very good at these games, but I'll throw 2.5 out there.
|
|
|
Post by 36fan on Jun 20, 2014 11:41:11 GMT -5
Poor genetics? I guess that depends on your definition of poor genes. Poor antler genes...one could make an argument Poor body size/health genes...not if he dressed out at 232 lbs. I enjoy seeing the monster size deer as much as I do a nice rack...and I do like nice racks
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Jun 20, 2014 12:05:54 GMT -5
Usually an older deer will have more of a roman nose. This deer still looks young in the face to me. So based on that, I will go along with several previous posters and say he's 3.5 years old with a small rack.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 20, 2014 12:18:51 GMT -5
Poor genetics? I guess that depends on your definition of poor genes. Poor antler genes...one could make an argument Poor body size/health genes...not if he dressed out at 232 lbs. I enjoy seeing the monster size deer as much as I do a nice rack...and I do like nice racks 10-4! Antler size (inches) is a man made up genetic.
|
|
|
Post by HuntMeister on Jun 20, 2014 12:33:22 GMT -5
The one telling thing for me is the lack of mass on the antlers. I have always understood that while a old buck's antlers will decline in number of points and length, they are not likely to lose their mass. IMO, That buck has the mass at his bases of a typical 2-3 yr old.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jun 20, 2014 19:02:01 GMT -5
The one telling thing for me is the lack of mass on the antlers. I have always understood that while a old buck's antlers will decline in number of points and length, they are not likely to lose their mass. IMO, That buck has the mass at his bases of a typical 2-3 yr old. That's my reasoning as well. A buck past its antler-growing prime will still have huge bases, even if it has very short tines. Hard to measure bases from a photo, but I'd guess no older than 3 1/2 -- and that's only due to the body weight. I killed a 3 1/2 year old buck once that dressed 200 pounds, and it came from a crop-free area. Give them a good food source, and a 232-pound 3 1/2 year old isn't too hard to come up with. I sent the incisor teeth off on my 2010 buck with bases between five and six inches, and it was aged at 5 1/2 years old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2014 19:09:18 GMT -5
Age is the least important thing about a buck to me. That's why I never card one.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jun 20, 2014 19:34:44 GMT -5
Me too i can't even begin to guess cause I never even correlate age to what i kill as long as it isn't a yearling. I do find it funny we use the half when giving the age. If i kill one in January can i age it to the .75?
Regardless it was a dandy!
|
|
|
Post by steve46511 on Jun 21, 2014 5:30:22 GMT -5
The one telling thing for me is the lack of mass on the antlers. I have always understood that while a old buck's antlers will decline in number of points and length, they are not likely to lose their mass. IMO, That buck has the mass at his bases of a typical 2-3 yr old. That's my reasoning as well. A buck past its antler-growing prime will still have huge bases, even if it has very short tines. Hard to measure bases from a photo, but I'd guess no older than 3 1/2 -- and that's only due to the body weight. I killed a 3 1/2 year old buck once that dressed 200 pounds, and it came from a crop-free area. Give them a good food source, and a 232-pound 3 1/2 year old isn't too hard to come up with. I sent the incisor teeth off on my 2010 buck with bases between five and six inches, and it was aged at 5 1/2 years old. Wow. I want to hunt where you do~~!! In my area (and as said, what I based by guess on) I've butchered over 3000, checked in countless more and the number of deer I've weighed over 225lbs wouldn't take all the fingers on one hand to count...regardless of rack and age. While anything is "possible" a 232lb dressed out buck HERE would be a VERY healthy 4-5 year old. It takes body mass and length to put the scales past 210 or so (from what I have seen). Hanging side by side years back my 193lb buck was a full six inches shorter than the 146lb doe I also shot, both hanging by the exact same point, the rear leg joint tendon. Now if that buck had been the same length? oh BABY! I too look at face colors, nose shape, antlers but all have so many variables I'd be hard pressed to "age" any animal on such since all of them are effected by heredity like all the other traits. There has been more than one "expert way" to come to light through science to give ages of animals but interestingly it seems there is another always in the wings that comes up saying that it is more accurate too. All good fun guessing and looking at photos but my 2 cents here is that I don't feel ANY "scientific" aging has proven itself "exact" and am willing to wager before hand that their exists a post note stating there could be , as an example, "one year error margin". "Blind tests" with pen raised deer are of no use for comparison in my opinion. Way too many factors differ and there isn't a POSITIVE way to know a wild animal's age unless tagged at birth somehow and it would take hundreds of those to allow a company to advertise a high percentage of accuracy. While NOT saying this or any other test is "wrong", just saying BEFORE tests come in that IMO ONLY , none have proven to be "carved in stone, perfectly accurate". There is a margin of error in any testing. As old as the SAAMI testing and the C. I. P. from across the pond is, the margin allowed for "error" or "variances" is quite large and considerably more contained comparing possible changes since entirely man made. As old as the B and C and the P&Y antler scoring system is...still, annually, you will see disagreements, each measurer claiming they are correct, measuring the same buck or elk or whatever. This place, I'm sure, feels they have it down pat and are the experts but I am also wagering yet another system will pop up down the line claiming "theirs is more accurate". It will be INTERESTING to see their results but even if they agreed with MY guess.....I'm still not going to take it without a large dose of "hmmmmmmmm" . MORE interesting to ME (sorry, but if one REALLY had some kind of "need to know") would be to send the same jaw bone to all the possible resources AND do it about 10 years straight to get a good cross section of how the results line up....or don't. Just saying. NOT meaning to set anyone off. Just pointing out things that have seemed obvious to me over the years that no matter how "good" some test is either another comes along with a "better" method or .....should one read the fine print, the variances that same company allows for is something often ignored by the general public. Yes. Woody.......should this be in Poor Taste or whatever....I've no problem with it being deleted. Just offering my 2 cents on all the testing, measuring and IMO over all failure of such that attempt to turn our sport into a bunch of equations on paper. and yes........."I am a grumpy old man" lol. Doctors, things that go with reasons to GO to doctors, cost of such, CHANGE in the cost of such and life in general have me in a "poor mood" (to put it lightly). MY APOLOGIES in advance if this post offends. PLEASE! God Bless
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 21, 2014 7:25:21 GMT -5
Very, very few tests are 100%. Fun to guess at this one though. I'll still stick with 3 1/2 or if it was killed in October - 2 years and 4 months.. And 8 days...
|
|
|
Post by HighCotton on Jun 21, 2014 7:46:03 GMT -5
I have a ton of information but I will only add a few more pics and bits of information at this point. Buck was killed on Nov 9th. Most of you are on track with age process...especially the fact that the antler bases are small. Even though many initial thoughts had this deer at 5-1/2 plus (yes even the experts including a few of my old professors at Purdue) the bases just don't speak to an older deer. Being a Purdue degreed biologist I love this stuff! I really don't care whether this deer ages 2-1/2 or 10-1/2 yrs old! I am finding this process most enjoyable. After seeing these next pics, taken from meetings with Biologist Dean Zimmerman, some of you will probably be even more convinced of you thoughts...and some of you will change your mind as you have more visual data. Nuff said: Here is a shot of Dean helping me "molar age" the lower jaw: Here is a shot of the lower right side with the buccal view (facing out toward the cheek) facing you: Here is a shot of the lower left side with the buccal view (facing the cheek) facing you: I hope to have the Euro mount in the next week or so (I'll post more pics and info at that time) and the lab results are due shortly after that so I will post a bit more information as I receive it. Also, a note of thanks to Dean Zimmerman for the time he has spent with me on this project. It's been a pleasure!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 21, 2014 7:50:07 GMT -5
This is the largest field dressed body weight deer that I have killed. 207 pounds and he had body length to go with it. Guessed at 4 1/2
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 21, 2014 7:55:25 GMT -5
HCG,
Molars still look pretty sharp. Not a whole lot of grinding there that I can see from the photos.
|
|
|
Post by HighCotton on Jun 21, 2014 8:09:18 GMT -5
One other quick note. I probably should not have used the term "exact" in the original post. Wrong choice of words as I agree with many of you...no process will give exact results. I simply chose this lab process because I've been reading a lot of material on the subject. As more testing is performed, the "validity" of the process is increasing.
|
|
|
Post by HighCotton on Jun 21, 2014 8:13:20 GMT -5
HCG, Molars still look pretty sharp. Not a whole lot of grinding there that I can see from the photos. Agreed 100%. When compared to molar charts and images (lots of info on the internet), the lingual crests are not very blunt... However...more fascinating data from Dean on that topic later!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jun 21, 2014 13:44:45 GMT -5
I really don't care whether this deer ages 2-1/2 or 10-1/2 yrs old! My only concern with age is how it equates with rack size, as it seems that most deer in my area are 4.5+ before they get a rack that I'm looking for. I'd take a 150" 1.5 year old if I saw one. LOL! I don't put any faith in molar wear aging, as different soil types can affect the test results. I do, however, fully trust cementum annuli aging. Just like rings on a tree, a deer's teeth get a new layer of cementum each year, so it's fairly easy for the tester to slice the teeth and count the rings under a microscope.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Jun 21, 2014 13:58:16 GMT -5
In my area (and as said, what I based by guess on) I've butchered over 3000, checked in countless more and the number of deer I've weighed over 225lbs wouldn't take all the fingers on one hand to count...regardless of rack and age. There aren't really any crop fields in my area (cattle is the big business here), so there aren't a lot of 200-pounders that I hear of being killed. I've only taken two bucks that dressed 200 pounds or greater in 19 years of hunting. On the other hand, one county over in Jackson County, 200+ pound bucks seem to be the norm, due to all of the crops (and probably local genetics). I know guys who take 230+ pounds bucks (dressed) there on a yearly basis. Granted, most may be older age class bucks, but some have been 3 1/2 year olds.
|
|
|
Post by Genesis 27:3 on Jun 22, 2014 6:39:03 GMT -5
This is the largest field dressed body weight deer that I have killed. 207 pounds and he had body length to go with it. Guessed at 4 1/2 Woody, There is no way you killed that deer with those old fat aluminum arrows! It's impossible to do so! Just ask any of the arrow manufactures these days! LOL! Nice buck! HCG, My guess is 3 1/2. Simply based on the pics of the molars. As someone has already pointed out, he still has (had) some nice sharp edges. I am no expert in aging deer so that is just a guess. I myself have never seen any 2 year old deer walking around at that body weight either, not saying they don't exist, just saying I have never seen it so it is hard for me to place the deer any younger than 3 1/2. Thanks for giving us the entertainment in trying to guess though! And BTW, nice deer!
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jun 22, 2014 7:07:02 GMT -5
Fat arrows indeed.
They were 29 1/4" Zwickey Eskimo tipped swaged 2413s...5" feathers ...shooting 72 pounds...real "old school".
When I could no longer pull a bow I gave the arrows and broadheads to Varmint 1. I don't know if he still has them or not.
Yes, they can still kill deer...
|
|