Age this animal - actual results

[RB]

That deer has some good genetics and nutrition. I SC's hunting area there is no shortage of good groceries for the deer. I wonder who is daddy is?

[SAMCRO]

How can you be sure that the 2011 pic is him?

But, I don't doubt that he is not a 3.5 year old based upon body size. But, I would clearly have guessed him as at least 4.5 based upon the rack and the previous year's picture.

Great deer. Nice 130" deer.

Cro: On a side note, the taxidermist that did my big 8, he aged it at 3.5 years old as well. He only used the jawbone method though, so there is room for error. But, I was kind of surprised at that.

Yes, I'm sure it's him. I have many pictures of him, and there are pieces and characteristics of the rack that didn't vary year-to-year. Curves in certain points, "bumps" along others, brow tine stickers, proportions, etc. One of the characteristics is meaningless, all of them remaining the same is fairly convincing.

Other similarities, such as behaviors, direction of travel, bedding area, etc. are other indicators. It is the same deer.

You're off, of course, but you're close to your 130" number, particularly given your propensity for net scores vs. gross scores.

This deer had 22" beams, a 17" inside spread, 4" brows, with one broken down to 2" or so, 10" G2's, 9" G3's, and small G2's of 3" and 2". These are all rough; some of these numbers are slightly low, some slightly high. The mass was very average, even small, although what you'd expect from a 3-year old. 4.5" bases, with the remaining circumference measures typical for that base size.

Plugging those rough measurements into the little computer in your head, you'll come up with a rough gross-score of 139-140".

Once you deduct the 2" missing on the brow, the 1" sticker on the right G2, and the 1" difference in the G4's, you'll find yourself very close on net at 135". I would say probably lower than 135" due to shrinkage, except I know I took the tine measurements from inside the beam, not outside as you correctly would, which will cost a few 1/8th's here and there. I was caping him on my deck at the time, and didn't really take the time to do it right.

So, while I would refer to this animal as a 140-class, you would likely refer to him as a 130-class, give or take.

[SAMCRO]

That deer has some good genetics and nutrition. I SC's hunting area there is no shortage of good groceries for the deer. I wonder who is daddy is?

Honestly, Dad is probably dead, and probably topped out not far from this one. The genetics here really aren't good. I know you struggle with that, and maybe it's better than what you're used to, but these deer are average at best.

Here's some examples. Here's a typical 3.5 year old:

3.5.1.jpg (72.19 KiB) Viewed 2365 times

This one is 4.5 at the time of the photo, and typical, as well:

4.5.1.jpg (58.41 KiB) Viewed 2365 times

I don't know what it is, it's not like I've tested the soil, but I would call the genetics average at best. Smitty's place has superior genetics, and I've hunted many places north of here, and some south, with far better genetics, as well.

[PoisonSnake]

Really, I don't think my area has great genetics in general. I see one or two good deer per year. If you kill a 140-150" animal, you have done well. I would take your deer 8 days out of the week and then some. I've killed bigger, and I've killed smaller. A lot smaller.

[SAMCRO]

What's normal for an area can vary even from farm to farm, given enough distance. Who knows why? I certainly don't. You have better deer overall, from what I know and understand, in that county than I do over here. That I know, although a generality.

Yeah, I'm not sad I shot that one. I had planned on him being in the 150's this year, given the jump from 1.5 to 2.5, but it just didn't happen.

[Limbshot]

I'll say this. IN the 2012 pic you posted of him in this thread he appears to have significanlty more mass than he does in the 2013 pic. It is pretty unusual that they lose mass as they get older. Maybe it's just the camera angle, but he looks VERY heavy in 2012 and moderately heavy in 2013. Your thoughts?
2012:

2013

The mass thing is why I figured him at 4.5 now. If that deer was only 2.5 years old in 2012, that is absolutely incredible mass on his beams all the way out to the tips, and also on his tines, then in all the pics you posted in 2013, his mass just isn't nearly as impressive. Just an observation. His head also looks extremely blocky with noticable jowls in 2012 along with a large body. I'm not overly convinced that pic for 2012 is the same deer you are showing from 2013. To me, the deer in the 2012 pic looks older than the 2013 pics.

[SAMCRO]

I understand where you're coming from, and I will take some time later to post some pictures that may help you see how I know this is the same animal.

Understand that when you're looking at the pic from 2012, where you see what appears to be good mass, that you are not actually seeing good mass. The white stuff in the air in that picture is snow, and the picture was taken during a significant snow event. The "mass" isn't mass - its snow that's settled on the beams. Look at the other 2012 pics for comparison.

This buck actually gained mass, as you'd expect, from 2012 to 2013. What he lost was G2 and G3 tine length.

[SAMCRO]

I'll show more later, Limbshot, but here's what I mean. This is the same animal, same year. Still see lots of mass, and think he looks "VERY heavy all the way to the tips"?

2 - Copy.JPG (43.56 KiB) Viewed 2344 times

To better see the snow accumulation that is mistaken for mass, see the below picture, taken the same night. I know where he bedded, and my best guess is that he was snowed on while bedded and it's still there when he moved up the hill. The bedding area is very close to this, and it snowed considerably and for an extended period of time.

If you look at the right antler, the snow has even formed what looks like webbing, connecting the G1 and the beam, as well as connecting the G4 and beam. I can see how it looks like mass, if you didn't know this deer, or the conditions when the picture was taken.

28 - Copy.JPG (49.17 KiB) Viewed 2344 times

[PoisonSnake]

Yeah, looks pretty spindly for the most part.

[Limbshot]

Ah, ok well than that makes a lot more sense, and I can see the snow looking closelt at the image. That is what REALLY fooled me with the aging, well that, and this deer is (well was) an absolute stud of a 3 year old!!! Thanks for sharing this Sammycro, very interesting.

[SAMCRO]

Ah, ok well than that makes a lot more sense, and I can see the snow looking closelt at the image. That is what REALLY fooled me with the aging, well that, and this deer is (well was) an absolute stud of a 3 year old!!! Thanks for sharing this Sammycro, very interesting.

You weren't the only one fooled. When I pulled the card and saw that buck, I thought we had a new contender on our hands.

[Limbshot]

Yeah, I would imagine. When you add a half inch of snow to a black and white pic, looks like he's got incredible mass!!! Still a great bowkill either way.

[PoisonSnake]

Snow, no snow. Still a great deer. You cannot pass on a 130-140" deer simply because it is a 3.5 year old. Especially if you are not sure at the time.

I generally use the rack size to qualify the age when on the hoof. My last 2 deer that I have shot with a bow I have had pictures of and knew they were big bodied deer. I believe one netted 122.5 and the other 124.5" as 8-pointers. I was disappointed that they didn't score 125". Both FD over 200 pounds, which places them solidly in the 4.5 year old category. That made me happy. Then, I shot that deer with a ML the last day of December. I knew he was probably a 3.5 year old, but man his rack was beautiful. He FD 155#. He probably would have been 170-180 on November 1, which makes me think he was a solid 3.5. His pictures also qualify this. But, I was tickled to get him too as I spent some awfully cold mornings trying to get him with a bow. Probably one of the best Decembers I have ever experienced for rut action.

As I always say... I have killed a few bigger, and I've killed quite a few a lot smaller. We have a crap load of 8-pointers that will never amount to much rackwise. They all need to be shot and made into jerky.

Oh, and one last thing. I'm the guy that would rather kill a 170" 2-year old than a 110" 7-year old deer. That is just my fancy.