Field-judge mature bucks

[BigDave12]

I think that is because of their muscle structure and older skeletal structure. Their hips are wider. The distance between their front legs has gotten wider. This makes their walk more of an "amble" instead of nimble like a young deer. They walk more like a mule than a deer.

Great points BSK and dead on. The description of wider front legs is what we sometimes refer to as "barrel chested". From a frontal (and somewhat side) view, their chest appears to "bulge" more (like the middle of a good whiskey barrel). Couple that with their side profile of an equal chest length versus leg length and you have a truly mature buck.

 

[Mr.Bro]

I think this one qualifies.

 

[BSK]

I have personally seen too much variability in antler mass across ages in multiple states to use that as a factor. I believe that antler mass is as variable as tine length , which makes it a factor you should ignore.

By themselves, I completely agree. But as one of many, many factors, it's just another piece of data to add to the mix.

 

[BSK]

Great points BSK and dead on. The description of wider front legs is what we sometimes refer to as "barrel chested". From a frontal (and somewhat side) view, their chest appears to "bulge" more (like the middle of a good whiskey barrel). Couple that with their side profile of an equal chest length versus leg length and you have a truly mature buck.

Mature bucks are definitely wider animals. A front or rear trail-cam picture will show this clearly.

 

[Shed Hunter]

Good post. I agree-if there's a sign of age like a swayed back it's almost a certainty he is old. At the same time over the past couple of years I've really started to notice that the opposite isn't always true. It seems like some older bucks can absolutely be puny and young looking in TN

 

[BSK]

It seems like some older bucks can absolutely be puny and young looking in TN

I definitely see that from time to time.

 

[AT Hiker]

I am amazed that I can go just a few miles north into KY and see the difference, overall it is night and day to me....so it seems.

 

[BSK]

I am amazed that I can go just a few miles north into KY and see the difference, overall it is night and day to me....so it seems.

I've never quite understood the difference between KY deer and TN deer. There is an outside shot there is actually a genetic difference, but I really think it is a soils/habitat difference. The plant communities I see in KY, even southern KY, is VERY different than what I see in most of TN.

 

[squackattack]

I've never quite understood the difference between KY deer and TN deer. There is an outside shot there is actually a genetic difference, but I really think it is a soils/habitat difference. The plant communities I see in KY, even southern KY, is VERY different than what I see in most of TN.

Can you give some examples. I lived for many years in Ky. I have always wanted to know how east ky(poor soils) can produce some very nice deer and what I have seen in TN is no where the same quality. Also reclaimed mine ground produces quality deer and that allegedly is the worst soils.

 

[TheLBLman]

Great info on this thread!

As to the KY bucks, soil is an important factor, but
I believe less antler high-grading by hunters in KY (compared to TN)
is also a significant factor.

And, no, I do not want a 1-buck limit in TN, although would like
to see deer season totally end sometime in December.

I suspect at least some
of KY's better herd performance may be attributed to less herd stress
from late-season hunting . In TN, we do tremendously more
deer hunting than KY after mid-December, adding stress when
food sources are becoming more scarce.

Even though there is an extended archery season in KY,
the gun hunting is mainly just part of November.
This equates to less herd stress, which is a very important factor.

 

[Ski]

I've never quite understood the difference between KY deer and TN deer. There is an outside shot there is actually a genetic difference, but I really think it is a soils/habitat difference. The plant communities I see in KY, even southern KY, is VERY different than what I see in most of TN.

I'm leaning hard in the direction of genetic differences. Im no biologist but I've hunted deer for a long time in a lot of places, and there seem to be two distinctly different varieties here in Coffee Co. Some of the deer are much like what I know in the midwest, in terms of size and aging tells. But most of the deer here are tiny with mature deer scaling less than 150lbs on the hoof. And they're very difficult to age. Beyond 3yrs it is hard for me to guesstimate unless I have history with the buck. Genetics is the only reasonable explanation I've heard so far. Soil conditions would make sense except that it seems logical it would apply to every deer, not just some of them.

New Mexico is the only other place I've seen this stark of a difference. Out there you had coues deer in the desert foothills, and pockets of normal whitetails up high in the green of the mountains. They look identical except that the coues deer were scaled down miniature versions of their cousins a few thousand feet up. It is not entirely unlike that here. The biggest difference is that out there the difference was accepted & known to be two distinct genetic varieties of whitetail.

 

[BSK]

Great info on this thread!

As to the KY bucks, soil is an important factor, but
I believe less antler high-grading by hunters in KY (compared to TN)
is also a significant factor.

And, no, I do not want a 1-buck limit in TN, although would like
to see deer season totally end sometime in December.

I suspect at least some
of KY's better herd performance may be attributed to less herd stress
from late-season hunting . In TN, we do tremendously more
deer hunting than KY after mid-December, adding stress when
food sources are becoming more scarce.

Even though there is an extended archery season in KY,
the gun hunting is mainly just part of November.
This equates to less herd stress, which is a very important factor.

Antler high-grading would explain a lot, except the differences I see in KY also translate to body size. Same-age bucks in KY are considerably larger than same-age bucks in much of TN. I also see larger body sizes in the northern counties of TN, nearest the KY border.

 

[BSK]

I'm leaning hard in the direction of genetic differences. Im no biologist but I've hunted deer for a long time in a lot of places, and there seem to be two distinctly different varieties here in Coffee Co. Some of the deer are much like what I know in the midwest, in terms of size and aging tells. But most of the deer here are tiny with mature deer scaling less than 150lbs on the hoof. And they're very difficult to age. Beyond 3yrs it is hard for me to guesstimate unless I have history with the buck. Genetics is the only reasonable explanation I've heard so far. Soil conditions would make sense except that it seems logical it would apply to every deer, not just some of them.

New Mexico is the only other place I've seen this stark of a difference. Out there you had coues deer in the desert foothills, and pockets of normal whitetails up high in the green of the mountains. They look identical except that the coues deer were scaled down miniature versions of their cousins a few thousand feet up. It is not entirely unlike that here. The biggest difference is that out there the difference was accepted & known to be two distinct genetic varieties of whitetail.

I would love to see a genetic study of KY versus TN deer. A real possibility exists that KY deer have more Midwestern genetics than TN deer, which are primarily Virginia Whitetails, a smaller sub-species than the Midwestern Whitetail.

 

[Ski]

I would love to see a genetic study of KY versus TN deer. A real possibility exists that KY deer have more Midwestern genetics than TN deer, which are primarily Virginia Whitetails, a smaller sub-species than the Midwestern Whitetail.

Agreed. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if there were two distinct varieties coexisting/overlapping.

 

[TheLBLman]

Antler high-grading would explain a lot, except the differences I see in KY also translate to body size. Same-age bucks in KY are considerably larger than same-age bucks in much of TN. I also see larger body sizes in the northern counties of TN, nearest the KY border.

I continue to believe the antler high-grading may be the "elephant in the room" on a whole range of herd performance issues.

Think about this:

Those individual bucks, say at 2 1/2 & 3 1/2, which have the largest antlers for their ages, have a tendency to be early born, as well as as also having access to high-quality food sources. Am suggesting that it's not just antler genetics here, but also birth timing and food sources greatly effected by that timing.

But we hunters tend to kill off this early-born (larger bodied & larger antlered) at a much higher rate than later born, smaller bodied bucks. IMO, this is happening to a much greater extent in TN than in KY. It effects the collective herd health, and may explain part of this difference between the average KY deer being larger than the average TN deer.

Not that the soil issue isn't major, but so are all the other issues, some of which may not have been so obvious. Unstressed deer burn fewer calories and consume more and better quality food. KY's deer herd is much less stressed than TN's between mid-December & mid-January when food sources are becoming near their annual lowest point.

 

[JCDEERMAN]

Agreed. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if there were two distinct varieties coexisting/overlapping.

Yep - 2 different body types, IMO. We have killed numerous bucks of the same age at maturity. Some are long bodies and their necks don't appear as big….and some are shorter, "blockier" bodies with what appear to be bigger necks. The ones with longer bodies tend to weigh 10-20 lbs more on average than the shorter, blockier ones. I have seen this in several TN counties.

 

[AT Hiker]

If you really want to see a stark difference, I suppose it is genetics, then look to Ft Campbell.
Granted it seems like those differences are specific to certain portions but none the less, within a few miles those deer are might and day different in body composition.

 

[BigDave12]

Many many few years ago, Outdoor Life (may have been Field & Stream) had an article on this very subject. It actually dealt with why certain areas of the country produced higher quality bucks (P&Y and B&C) than other areas. I believe they utilized some very detailed research in their conclusions and some prestigious researchers/facilities/universities. They compared soil quality and genetic differences, along with stocking-based info from each region. They broke down which regions were stocked with which genetic strain of whitetail. They then analyzed years worth of geologic info that actually found a very specific mineral deposit that led to high quality soils. Those deposits were a result of the ice age and where specific glaciers melted, leaving behind such deposits. Ironically, the correlation between high quality whitetail populations (bucks, does, and solid mortality/birth rates) coincided with these exact locations of mineral deposits across the country. These locations were not only in the Midwest either. They went as far down as the Mississippi delta and they included KY as well. To further justify the mineral theory and soil quality, these researchers also tested the agricultural crops from those same areas versus other areas. The crops were found to be healthier as well. Their conclusion was the genetic strains of whitetails plays a large role in the quality of a localized deer herd. But, when coupled within an area of the specific mineral deposits, that increased their quality even more so. I wish I had kept that article, but I did read the entire thing (and may have stayed in a Holiday Inn recently too - ha ha). I found it very fact based and interesting. So much so, that I have remembered it ever since and found it ironic that articles and discussions ever since seem to further justify those findings, many without ever knowing those findings existed.

 

[BSK]

Many many few years ago, Outdoor Life (may have been Field & Stream) had an article on this very subject. It actually dealt with why certain areas of the country produced higher quality bucks (P&Y and B&C) than other areas. I believe they utilized some very detailed research in their conclusions and some prestigious researchers/facilities/universities. They compared soil quality and genetic differences, along with stocking-based info from each region. They broke down which regions were stocked with which genetic strain of whitetail. They then analyzed years worth of geologic info that actually found a very specific mineral deposit that led to high quality soils. Those deposits were a result of the ice age and where specific glaciers melted, leaving behind such deposits. Ironically, the correlation between high quality whitetail populations (bucks, does, and solid mortality/birth rates) coincided with these exact locations of mineral deposits across the country. These locations were not only in the Midwest either. They went as far down as the Mississippi delta and they included KY as well. To further justify the mineral theory and soil quality, these researchers also tested the agricultural crops from those same areas versus other areas. The crops were found to be healthier as well. Their conclusion was the genetic strains of whitetails plays a large role in the quality of a localized deer herd. But, when coupled within an area of the specific mineral deposits, that increased their quality even more so. I wish I had kept that article, but I did read the entire thing (and may have stayed in a Holiday Inn recently too - ha ha). I found it very fact based and interesting. So much so, that I have remembered it ever since and found it ironic that articles and discussions ever since seem to further justify those findings, many without ever knowing those findings existed.

The benefit of glaciated soils to whitetail growth is well documented. Glaciated soils, as well as the Loess deposits (windblown glacial dust that piled up very deep) in the Mississippi River basin of the South, are highly productive soils and contribute to greater quality biomass production in the habitat (but not higher quality in same species plants).

However, the idea that Southeastern deer still display the physical characteristics of the deer restocked in the area is primarily a myth. Yes, they will still carry genetic markers showing heritage back to the deer first restocked, but they are no longer physically the deer they were restocked from. The VAST majority of whitetails in the Southeast are now just Odecoileus virginianus virginianus, the Virginia Whitetail. In essence, it's just like us and Ancestry DNA. I'm 8% Scandinavian, yet I display zero physical features common to Scandanavian peoples. My physical characteristics are all Anglo-Saxon (about 87% of my DNA). DNA studies of Southeastern whitetails will still find those old DNA markers for the original restocked deer, but all of their physical features are pure Virginia Whitetail.

Now that doesn't mean localized populations don't develop and display localized characteristics. They absolutely do. In fact, that is how localized variations in rut timing work (Natural Selection towards a rut timing that produce maximum fawn survival for that location), but the idea that deer from this location are bigger than deer from that location because of where deer were originally restocked from is an old wives' tale.

 

[Ski]

However, the idea that Southeastern deer still display the physical characteristics of the deer restocked in the area is primarily a myth. Yes, they will still carry genetic markers showing heritage back to the deer first restocked, but they are no longer physically the deer they were restocked from. The VAST majority of whitetails in the Southeast are now just Odecoileus virginianus virginianus, the Virginia Whitetail. In essence, it's just like us and Ancestry DNA. I'm 8% Scandinavian, yet I display zero physical features common to Scandanavian peoples. My physical characteristics are all Anglo-Saxon (about 87% of my DNA). DNA studies of Southeastern whitetails will still find those old DNA markers for the original restocked deer, but all of their physical features are pure Virginia Whitetail.

Now that doesn't mean localized populations don't develop and display localized characteristics. They absolutely do. In fact, that is how localized variations in rut timing work (Natural Selection towards a rut timing that produce maximum fawn survival for that location), but the idea that deer from this location are bigger than deer from that location because of where deer were originally restocked from is an old wives' tale.

That brings up something I've been pondering since we last talked about this topic. I put a lot of stock in science. For the most part I accept it, especially in subjects like this that don't really have any reason for corruption or bias. But with this subject in particular I cannot wrap my simpleton mind around it. If the deer herd population was so low that reintroduction was necessary, then why did the deer eventually re-assume the traits of the remnant native population? It would seem reasonable that the reintroduced deer would have made up a higher population number than what remained of the local deer, so shouldn't the local herd have been absorbed into the new strain?

I've heard tale from old timers that deer were all wiped out, that it was a really big deal to even see a deer track. If the herd was that diminished then how did its genetics overcome to dominate the reintroduced herd? I guess what I mean is, if the human population of Africa was near extinction, and it was then re-colonized by a bunch of anglos, then going forward one would expect the human population of Africa to be increasingly and eventually exclusively white. Just some of the ridiculous random stuff that goes through my head