Hoosierbuck Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Sure they are, some are this year's trophies, some are next year's trophies, etc... It's a very personal decision, and I am fine with you having your standards wherever they make you happy. I actually get pissed when a guy shoots a little buck and then runs it down, though. If you aren't going to be happy with it, then don't kill it!! I like mature bucks. I like venison. I can shoot lots of does, so I don't HAVE to kill a buck, but if I do it will be an oldie that makes me smile. Older bucks generally have larger antlers, or at least more mass, and that is what I look for. Mass is the thing for me, and that means older bucks. HB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Sure they are, some are this year's trophies, some are next year's trophies, etc... It's a very personal decision, and I am fine with you having your standards wherever they make you happy. I actually get pissed when a guy shoots a little buck and then runs it down, though. If you aren't going to be happy with it, then don't kill it!! I like mature bucks. I like venison. I can shoot lots of does, so I don't HAVE to kill a buck, but if I do it will be an oldie that makes me smile. Older bucks generally have larger antlers, or at least more mass, and that is what I look for. Mass is the thing for me, and that means older bucks. HB OK, now I am going to ask a question that I asked on another hunting forum, and I don't want people to start with the flames. I am not trying to poop on anybody's harvest philosophies and I am simply asking the question because I am genuinely curious. When People say, "pass the yearling bucks and shoot plenty of does", I have to wonder what the difference is between shooting a spike or small forkie vs. shooting a doe that is likely carrying one male fawn or possibly two. One would think that shooting "plenty of does" would basicly be destroying plenty of future bucks (not really all that different from shooting that little spike or fork). I do understand doe harvesting from a over-population control standpoint, but in terms of trying to build up the buck quantities it would seem to be a bit contradictory to be eliminating the source. Let's face it, the difference between shooting a doe and shooting a yearling really winds up to be no difference at all other than 1 year. You have just taken the buck(s) out before they even got a chance to become even a yearling. It's just a thought that kind of pops into my head everytime I hear that philosophy of "spare the yearling buck and shoot lots of does instead". Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bowtech_archer07 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 OK, now I am going to ask a question that I asked on another hunting forum, and I don't want people to start with the flames. I am not trying to poop on anybody's harvest philosophies and I am simply asking the question because I am genuinely curious. When People say, "pass the yearling bucks and shoot plenty of does", I have to wonder what the difference is between shooting a spike or small forkie vs. shooting a doe that is likely carrying one male fawn or possibly two. One would think that shooting "plenty of does" would basicly be destroying plenty of future bucks (not really all that different from shooting that little spike or fork). I do understand doe harvesting from a over-population control standpoint, but in terms of trying to build up the buck quantities it would seem to be a bit contradictory to be eliminating the source. Let's face it, the difference between shooting a doe and shooting a yearling really winds up to be no difference at all other than 1 year. You have just taken the buck(s) out before they even got a chance to become even a yearling. It's just a thought that kind of pops into my head everytime I hear that philosophy of "spare the yearling buck and shoot lots of does instead". Doc I can see your point during a December or January hunt, but during October and early November, that doe is not carrying a fawn. I try to kill my doe as early as possible during bow season. Another point that I will bring up is that you know that that yearling buck is there, and has potential to grow into a monster. That doe could be carrying twin or triplet doe fawns, so if you shoot her, you are simply helping manage the deer herd by eliminating 2 or 3 more does. Also, that yearling buck that you see and pass has a lot better potential to survive than a buck fawn that a doe MIGHT be carrying because the yearling has survived one winter already, and has begun to learn the ways of the wild and how to survive. JMO;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) When People say, "pass the yearling bucks and shoot plenty of does", I have to wonder what the difference is between shooting a spike or small forkie vs. shooting a doe that is likely carrying one male fawn or possibly two. That's really a non issue unless you're talking about the potential of the fetus after the breeding phase is over. Even then you don't know which does have been bred. One would think that shooting "plenty of does" would basicly be destroying plenty of future bucks (not really all that different from shooting that little spike or fork). I do understand doe harvesting from a over-population control standpoint, but in terms of trying to build up the buck quantities it would seem to be a bit contradictory to be eliminating the source. Let's face it, the difference between shooting a doe and shooting a yearling really winds up to be no difference at all other than 1 year. You have just taken the buck(s) out before they even got a chance to become even a yearling. It's just a thought that kind of pops into my head everytime I hear that philosophy of "spare the yearling buck and shoot lots of does instead". Doc Doc...whole chapters in books have been written on this subject in order to explain the need for doe harvest. I encourage you to check some of them out that have been written by whitetail biologist...not some outdoor writer. In a nutshell the carring capacity of an land area is not a constant. It fluctuates with the seasons and the natural changes that occur within a maturing forest. As an area's deer population approaches it's minimum carrying capacity the deer can overbrowse an area resulting in reducing it's carrying capacity in the future. This results in reducing the overall health of the deer herd. Nature has a way of trying to correct this problem. Does in poor health within a herd will have a much greater reduced annual fawn crop than healthy does. Fetuses are aborted and does carrying fawns to full term will tend to have 1 fawn instead of 2. By the book if an areas does harvested has a lactation rate less then 60%, that's an indicator of an overpopulation problem. Lactation rates at or exceeding 80% is good for a healthy deer herd. Overbrowsing by the existing deer herd in an overpopulated area however continues to reduce the overall carrying capacity. Worst case is the area can experience an population crash. It happens. That's natures way. As a result of a population crash there are far more deer remaining and it may take many years before the areas deer population would even be close to what it would be if a healthy deer herd had been maintained in the first place. The bottom line is a healthy deer herd is best for the both the bucks and does within an area. Bucks have the opportunity to reach their full potential and healthy mature does generally drop twin fawns. Those fawns also benefit from the start too. Part of maintaining a healthy deer herd is population control, especially does. It is a fact that natural buck mortality is higher than the natural doe mortality on an annual basis. BTW Doc...the information in my post was derived from the book written by James Kroll (aka Dr. Deer) titled "A Practical Guide to Producing and Harvesting Whitetail Deer". The 1st 1/2 of the book pertains to producing them and the 2nd half to harvesting. Edited September 10, 2009 by Rhino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhino Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) To answer the original question regarding caring about score...it's a yes and no situation. Here at home the age of a buck is more important than the score when it comes to deciding to try to kill one or not. That is unless I have already killed a lesser antler quality mature buck and I'm down to 1 in my bag limit. The places I hunt out of state have minimum harvest criterias that I must respect. Knowing a deers estimated score and age on the hoof is a must then. Killing a lesser buck than the antler criteria carries either a hefty fine, loss of opportunity to hunt the property in the future, or both. I have to wonder about anyone that would shoot a 135" mature buck with a B&C class 170" buck out there. Maybe some of you don't know this but Milo Hanson's buck was a estimated to only be 3.5 years old. If you don't believe me...check it out from this link yourself. http://www.inmetrodetroit.com/outdoors/hunting/Hanson.htm Edited September 10, 2009 by Rhino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierbuck Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) Doc- Part of the deal is speculation. I let a yearling or spike buck walk, and shoot a doe. Most fawns, I believe, are does. The highest mortality group of deer is fawns. Choose between killing a doe that MIGHT bear a buck fawn that MIGHT live to be 2, or kill a little buck that has already beat both of those odds. I don't kill all the does in an area, either. When i see a train of 12-15 of them walking through, I guarantee they aren't going to miss 2 or 3 from a population maintenance standpoint. That and what he said up above about carrying capacity, sex ratios, etc., etc. HB Edited September 10, 2009 by Hoosierbuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arrow32 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I want to take mature deer. Also I want to shoot P&Y bucks. Thats about all I can say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I still can't get past the fact that when you kill a yearling buck, you have removed one buck from the herd. When you kill several does, you have removed potentially, several bucks from the herd. So those that are trying to increase the buck numbers (and by default, the numbers of mature bucks) seem to be eliminating the source and potential of many future male deer. Now, I fully understand the need for killing does as a tool for controlling population and maintaining a balance between deer numbers and carrying capacity. But let's also understand that it certainly it is not for the benefit of increasing buck populations. In fact the loss of future buck numbers is a inadvertant cost when does are harvested. Let's face it, there certainly is no other source of bucks other than the does. So depending on herd/habitat needs, it may actually be better for bigger buck populations to have that meat hunter take the yearling buck rather than to convince him to go out and mow down a bunch of does instead as is usually the advice. At any rate, it is probably not correct to think that just because you are shooting a doe you are not impacting the buck population. And again, I am not saying that doe harvests are not a necessary part of deer management under most circumstances. I have just brought up this subject in the interest of discussing ALL of the results of our management decisions. It seems that this is one aspect of harvest results that no one ever really discusses in much detail. This question may not fit nicely into this topic, and I apologize for having run the thread off into a rather unrelated direction. It was just something that occurs to me whenever discussions drift into areas of "trophy" deer and picking and choosing hunting targets. Inevitably someone always says "spare the yearling buck and shoot lots of does instead". To me, that advice is not always correct. It may very well fall into the category of "It depends". Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosierhunter Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) A spade is a spade and there is plenty of spades comments in this one...... admit it or not score matters to everyone hunter to some degree. It might not be a top priority but your flat out lieing if you say it has absolutely no meaning. If that was the case, regardless of the buck you shoot, you would only tell people you killed a DEER and not mention points or sex or anything when talking to EVERYONE. It's laughable that people can't be honest with themselves on this subject.... :jaw: Edited September 11, 2009 by hoosierhunter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosierhunter Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I still can't get past the fact that when you kill a yearling buck, you have removed one buck from the herd. When you kill several does, you have removed potentially, several bucks from the herd. So those that are trying to increase the buck numbers (and by default, the numbers of mature bucks) seem to be eliminating the source and potential of many future male deer. Now, I fully understand the need for killing does as a tool for controlling population and maintaining a balance between deer numbers and carrying capacity. But let's also understand that it certainly it is not for the benefit of increasing buck populations. In fact the loss of future buck numbers is a inadvertant cost when does are harvested. Let's face it, there certainly is no other source of bucks other than the does. So depending on herd/habitat needs, it may actually be better for bigger buck populations to have that meat hunter take the yearling buck rather than to convince him to go out and mow down a bunch of does instead as is usually the advice. At any rate, it is probably not correct to think that just because you are shooting a doe you are not impacting the buck population. And again, I am not saying that doe harvests are not a necessary part of deer management under most circumstances. I have just brought up this subject in the interest of discussing ALL of the results of our management decisions. It seems that this is one aspect of harvest results that no one ever really discusses in much detail. This question may not fit nicely into this topic, and I apologize for having run the thread off into a rather unrelated direction. It was just something that occurs to me whenever discussions drift into areas of "trophy" deer and picking and choosing hunting targets. Inevitably someone always says "spare the yearling buck and shoot lots of does instead". To me, that advice is not always correct. It may very well fall into the category of "It depends". Doc Good points DOC, the only thing I would add to that is when killing a doe the mortality rate is like 50% or higher on yearling deer so if a buck has made it through he's already beaten the odds as compared to a button buck that not only must survive nature, but also the hunters thinking he's a doe..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosierhunter Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I firmly believe "to each his own". Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m gardner Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 This craziness over the score of an animal's antlers is a recent thing. It's probably part of the "it's all about me" and I want to be famous thing going on now. It has brought out alot of our worst behavior. Some poorer folks like me have had to move west to take advantage of public land because all the private you could hunt for free has been bought or rented. The up side to all of this is that people have dumped tons of money into managing deer and elk and hunting as a whole has improved because of it. I grew up hunting for food and no one really cared for antlers. Lots of big ones got thrown away. Some huge antlers were discovered and scored when people died and their families cleaned out the attics. I know one thing. Huge antlers can never replace the feeling I got when I was a boy and brought home a mature fat doe and the old folks would treat me like I was their hero. I really miss that. I wish they were still here. I think gratitude is missing in our society these days. Maybe being hungry like those old people had experienced would do us good. You can't eat antlers you know. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 Sure I like antlers, and there isn't a single logical reason for it at all. Big antlers are an accidental product of genetics and habitat. It has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence or challenge presented to the hunter. Heck, there are a lot of old matriarch does out there that are a bunch smarter that the biggest antlered bucks. In terms of score.....to me that is just a bunch of crap. It's just a bunch of numbers that I can't and don't want to relate to. There's no way that I want to reduce my challenges and satisfactions down to a bunch of numbers. So what's the big antler craze all about? It just is some misconception that we have all been brought up with that erroneously tries to equate harvested antlers with hunter prowess. We seem to need some way to reduce our hunting down to a hunter-on-hunter competition. It's a way of trying to prove how good a hunter we are and how much better we are than the next guy. However, in reality it doesn't prove that at all. And score is just an extension of a way to keep track of that hunter-on-hunter competition to see who's winning. Well, I might still admire a good set of antlers for no real good reason, but I still refuse to play the scoring game. When somebody mentions the score of the buck they just got I simply smile and nod my head and say, "good job". I don't really have a clue what they were talking about, but it makes their day so it must be good. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hungry hunter Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 A lot of good points here. There is so much on how many inchs that the buck scores. Personally I don't care. The horns are nice but I score how many cuts from the backstrap or steaks I can put on the grill. Like I always say Ya Can't eat Horns. But they are purdy to look at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 A spade is a spade and there is plenty of spades comments in this one...... admit it or not score matters to everyone hunter to some degree. It might not be a top priority but your flat out lieing if you say it has absolutely no meaning. If that was the case, regardless of the buck you shoot, you would only tell people you killed a DEER and not mention points or sex or anything when talking to EVERYONE. It's laughable that people can't be honest with themselves on this subject.... :jaw: :death: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 A spade is a spade and there is plenty of spades comments in this one...... admit it or not score matters to everyone hunter to some degree. It might not be a top priority but your flat out lieing if you say it has absolutely no meaning. If that was the case, regardless of the buck you shoot, you would only tell people you killed a DEER and not mention points or sex or anything when talking to EVERYONE. It's laughable that people can't be honest with themselves on this subject.... :jaw: Lol...... That's funny, because unlike today's youngsters, I remember a time (heading for 50 years ago) when talking about just getting a shot was the hot topic around the Monday morning coffee pot, when the bowhunters got together. I was into bowhunting for a few years before any of us ever got any deer with a bow, and that wasn't even a buck. Deer in our neck of the woods and most of the state were pretty darn scarce, and archery equipment was quite primitive so even when you did see a deer (which was another exciting topic), it wasn't any cinch that you would get it. So, we never worried about score. Didn't even know about scoring. Probably would have laughed at the notion, and I still do. So, you see a hunter can enjoy the heck out of his deer hunting without ever concerning himself about scoring. Honestly......there was rewarding and satisfying deer hunting before the big scoring craze, believe it or not. I know, that's like trying to explain dial phones to kids today.....lol. It's amazing how things have changed just over a few decades. I swear the challenge and satisfactions and even the fun of hunting was a lot more back before expectations got built up to the point we're at now. Today whenever you mention you got a deer. the first question asked is "how did it score". And if you want anyone to ask you to describe the hunt, that answer to the first question better be a good one. If you want to see the conversation revert back to work related topics, just mention that you took a doe....lol. Things have gotten downright goofy in terms of hunter expectations, and a lot of the pleasure, relaxation and satisfaction has been diluted with this hunter-on-hunter competition thing that has taken over deer hunting and come along with scoring. Who knows, maybe that is one of the reasons that fewer and fewer licenses are sold each year. Doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m gardner Posted September 13, 2009 Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I know what you mean Doc. I lived in Saranac Lake and in Vermont and Colorado. I've killed lots of deer. The only whitetail I've got mounted is a big 8 point my mom took to the taxidermist before I could cut his antlers out and nail them up. I guess she was proud of it. I've got a big muley mounted just to have one. He's beautiful. Seven and one half inches across his fake eyeballs. Huge deer. Have no idea what he scores. Gave several giant sets of elk antlers away because they don't fit anywhere in the house. I just love to hunt and eat them. I hunt alone now or with my wife. People just aren't the same. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legend Killer Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Ive yet to see a deer while hunting that didnt have my heart about ready to pop out of my chest...So antler size isnt a big deal for me...Although if I had to chose between shooting a nice sized doe or a spike or tiny buck, Id rather shoot the doe to give the little guy a chance... If a big buck happens to show up on a trail cam or something like that its always fun to guess and speculate if the deer is mature or not and what he could possibly score...Thats the whole point of buying those cam's and having them out all the time...In hopes of catching those bucks that keep u in the stand when u really want to head back to camp... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Back in the early 80's seeing any deer in IL. was an exciting thing for most folks. A deer was something you didn't see every day. Now we see deer just about every day and although I still get excited, no one else does. I must say though seeing a big buck with huge antlers still gets everyone excited. Why, because it is rare just like seeing "any" type of deer was years ago. We humans tend to get more excited over things that are rare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilbowman Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 If your goal is to kill a p&y buck for the record books than yes score does matter. Not all mature bucks are going to have great score. Trophy is in the eye of the hunter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeinwalker Posted September 16, 2009 Report Share Posted September 16, 2009 Do you really care about the score of the deer?? I rather hunt for mature bucks and kill mature bucks than worry about score. Is there anyone else out there that feels the same way?? The more I see hunters post up pics and ask members to score or age the buck, the more I don't care about scoring. I try to guess score other deer so if someone asks me one day I can give them a a close score. But I could careless about Pope N Young Status or Boone N Crockett. I don't really care about the score either. I just want them to be grwon and edible and for everyone else to at least let them reach 80% of their potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.