This surprised me as I've read a lot of studies that are "Contra" to this study on one estrus cycle.
I didn’t want to portray it as an absolute or their body doesn’t do it. It may be possible, the guest just described it as not happening at scale. There is a peak and fat right tail, but no second peak. They were measuring this based on calf birthing dates and counting back. Maybe it is health (certainly not controlled for in confined cows) or something else we just don’t fully understand.
I agree, but I would also argue that there is a big difference than a 163 inch mule deer and one that is 180, especially when a dispassionate amount of those 17 inches is in mass. That being said, I don't think game department should manage for 6 year old or better bucks. Just not a wise use of resources. Nor should they justify managing for younger bucks by claiming that deer have peaked at age four so we might as well shoot them.I think the word “peak” needs some clarification. The graph shows it isn’t a true peak or maximum until later years. But it also shows that by an age most would call maturity, an animal is 90-something percent of what it would ever be. If a bull is shot at 6.5yrs old and scored 320 (eliminating the nutrition variable- so saying it was good year) thinking that bull would have been 380-400 in two years is not supported by the data. Impossible for a bull to grow that much? No, but very rare. Same for deer. Really big animals are simply rare.
I’m not saying that there is no benefit to managing for age class and antler size, because older animals will be bigger and thereby increase the average. But it doesn’t mean there will be 180-200 inch bucks or 400in bulls in every section. In fact, the benefit may be temporary because more deer eventually degrades the habitat conditions and the females end up in less than ideal conditions which also impacts antler size. It is a tough balancing point.
I looked through the Freeman study and think it is pretty solid. A hunter could argue any single animal “would have been a monster” in two or three years, and we could never know because the animal is dead. If I had to bet money on it, I bet with what the data says.
Side note, I was listening to a podcast where the guide said the state’s (AZ I think) aging was wrong because he had a bull on trail camera for a certain number of years and the state said it was younger. Maybe there was a mistake in the lab, maybe it was a different bull, who knows. But it shows hunters have strong opinions on things that are hard to shift. Often wrong but never in doubt.
That is close to what I see also. I would add that there date gets a little thin past 6 1/2. Many of the bucks I have watched that lived past 8 1/2 also grew there best set of antlers late in life. Still those antlers were not much bigger than those years earlier, Maybe a few percent in terms of inches, but the wall appeal was much better.
Well I guess I will be saving on some groceries in the future
That's the problem, the studies are done and then the various Departments take it as the gospel and start managing based on one particular study.
Not sure we are arguing anything, but I don't know how else to manage a quality unit other than to average age. It doesn't change the fact that a 180+ mule deer is rare animal, just lets a few more stretch to see if they can reach it. This reveals Montana's problem with harvest data. Even if the surveys are accurate, just measuring based on points doesn't generate robust enough data. My general conclusion is even with good data, this stuff is hard. One example is highlighted by decline in quality buck size in MT 270 and the addition of permits to take smaller mule deer (3pts or fewer on one side) a few years ago. I think most biologist are honest in saying they don't know and we should be wary those that try to appear they do. But equally, hunters seem to think they "know" everything, and mostly they are full of manure.
The problem with declining numbers and quality of bigger bucks in 270 is not a function of habitat. It's a function of poaching, legal native Americans harvesting mature bucks, and over issuing tags.
Using the B&C gross score has problems for these studies.
Not sure what you mean. I was simply saying that FWP addressed the decline in average quality, real or perceived, in the unit by creating a tag for smaller bucks. It would not have been my first guess on what should be done, but I’m not the professional. I don’t have much info and have never talked to the bio. Just found it interesting and would love to hear more from them. I also wonder how it has worked out. I think it has been 4 yrs? Again though, memory may fail me.
yea, not so fast. The reason I got through my discussions with the bio's and those that pushed this, was opportunity.
Ok. But 15 deer?
Not personally. It is 3 pts or fewer one side and Gohunt shows success is around 60%. The only support for the #s is that there is mandatory check for that tag.
