• Help Support TNDeer:

Got the age results on the 8 point

Os2Outdoors said:
On a side note, that's why I laugh at all these age my deer posts from tooth wear and or trail cam pics.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm kind of that way about cementum annuli aging. I've seen the studies indicating it is the least accurate when compared to toothwear (which produces a very accurate minimum age) and field-judging age. Not to say cementum annuli isn't valuable - if I could I would have EVERY deer harvested on a given property cementum annuli aged, as well as toothwear aged and field-judged aged. Those three data streams would make for good consensus and as a teaching tool.

Unless you could capture every fawn and ear-tag them, we'll never really know exact ages of adult deer. None of the aging systems are perfect. In fact, not even close. When it comes to known-age deer (ear-tagged as fawns) I've seen toothwear be way off, field-judging way off, and cementum annuli be way off.
 
Spurhunter said:
If that 8.5 is accurate, this aging method is going to make the age on the hoof gurus take notice. I wish you would've posted the November 2021 pic and asked for guesses first (maybe you did). I'd be shocked if you got one guess over 4.5. Going by what I've learned here I would've bet a steak dinner he wasn't over 4.5. I'm a novice at aging but he looks nowhere near 5.5 to me, much less 8.5. Is what we've been told all along just plain wrong?
Click to expand...
No aging system is perfect. All have flaws for many reasons. When it comes to field-judging age, all sorts of problems arise. First and foremost is localized traits. 5 1/2 year-old bucks in one location can look quite different than 5 1/2 year-old bucks in another location. But the biggest problem of all is the variability between individuals. That is why we can have mature male humans that are 5' 4" and weigh 130 lbs and some that are 6' 8" and weigh 250.

But I agree with your premise; Catman's buck does not look old in the pictures, and would have been incorrectly aged (and probably dramatically incorrectly aged) using field-judging.
 
JCDEERMAN said:
Wow. Totally agreed when you originally posted on 3.5 last year and 4.5 this year. No way to know if 8.5 is accurate. Most of the time, everything 4.5 and 5.5 plus I'm confident on. Once they get REALLY old, it confuses the hell out of me and many times they look 2.5 and 3.5 in the really late season. Baffling
Click to expand...
Agree completely. I would have said 3 1/2 last year, 4 1/2 this year. And I would have been dramatically incorrect!

But after having seen/photographed some really old bucks, I'm beginning to realize not all really old bucks have huge, saggy bodies. Some do, but some don't. After having said over and over that in ridge-and-hollow hardwoods few bucks live past 5 1/2, and it appeared almost none live past 6 1/2, I finally got a buck on camera I know to be at least 7 1/2. He has a very unique rack, and I've been following him since 2018 when I judged him to be 4 1/2. His body would NEVER make you think 7 1/2. In fact, some experienced field-judgers would question whether he's even mature.
 
I would have never guessed that old. But I typically don't shoot based on perceived age. Congrats on a nice one. He didn't get that old being stupid!!

BRW, where did you get the aging done?

Thanks for sharing!
 
Ok so the picture with the blue? What are we looking at exactly? is this an xray? may be a stupid question, i dunno

I see that the "growth rings" you spoke of are pointed out. I've never heard anyone mention growth rings in deer so i'm curious
 
cbhunter said:
Ok so the picture with the blue? What are we looking at exactly? is this an xray? may be a stupid question, i dunno

I see that the "growth rings" you spoke of are pointed out. I've never heard anyone mention growth rings in deer so i'm curious
Click to expand...

My understanding of CA analysis is the tooth is cross sectioned, polished, dye is applied then magnified to read the results....I know they prefer one of the front teeth....but can do it on any tooth.
 
BSK said:
Agree completely. I would have said 3 1/2 last year, 4 1/2 this year. And I would have been dramatically incorrect!

But after having seen/photographed some really old bucks, I'm beginning to realize not all really old bucks have huge, saggy bodies. Some do, but some don't. After having said over and over that in ridge-and-hollow hardwoods few bucks live past 5 1/2, and it appeared almost none live past 6 1/2, I finally got a buck on camera I know to be at least 7 1/2. He has a very unique rack, and I've been following him since 2018 when I judged him to be 4 1/2. His body would NEVER make you think 7 1/2. In fact, some experienced field-judgers would question whether he's even mature.
Click to expand...
I've hunted the area for several years and have noticed the deer are a little smaller and leaner on average, so I wasn't surprised when the teeth showed the buck to be older than I guessed. Actually the local genetics over there are noticeably different than the deer around here in Williamson county. I had two other good bucks on trail cam in that spot which were both just as lean, didn't look much older than 2 or 3, but knowing the area they also could have been older. When I shot my buck I thought he might be pushing 130" based on the spread and height of his rack. But the whole deer looked smaller when I finally found him. Ended up going 117" rough scored. He had smaller ears too which exaggerated the spread.
 
redblood said:
True. But this deer may have been outlier. Field assessment is still the best tool at our disposal until after the fact. I would have guessed 4.5 and i would have been wrong and wouldnt have shot. But it just means that there would have been a 9.5 walking around next yr. it doesnt mean that i would have been 4 yrs off on the next deer i assessed. I do think this deer may have been an exception to the norm. Either way, pretty awesome to take an 8.5 yr old buck off public land just illustrates the power of the rut.
Click to expand...
I just passed this buck (15 minutes ago) banking he was no older than 4.5. I could be wrong, no doubt
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0786.MOV
    14.2 MB
Congratulations, Catman, for taking a mature buck!
Better yet, one you specifically targeted!
Ain't nothing else like it to me!

As to this buck's real age, he certainly does appear to be older than he looks.

Based on the preponderance of evidence we can see, and know about, I suspect his actual age is more likely 7 1/2 or 6 1/2 rather than the lab's stated 8 1/2.

BSK and others have done a great job presenting "how" the labs will sometimes over-state age, and why no method is perfect.

Additionally, here's why I suspect this buck's actual age may have been 7 1/2, or 6 1/2, rather than 8 1/2:

1) A buck in TN surviving past 7 1/2 is highly unusual,
even in areas where they're not hunted by man.
Very, very few, will live past 6 1/2 (in TN),
even when they healthily survive to 5 1/2.

2) The antlers didn't regress in size over the past year.
Most bucks will see some type antler regression from 6 1/2 to 7 1/2.
This one exhibited just the opposite.

As to this buck's body not looking older than 4 1/2, there was one "clue" he might have been a year or two older:

Note his antler beam length.
This is one antler trait that correlates well with age.
So does mass.
This buck's beams appeared a bit on the long side,
at least relatively speaking, causing one to suspect
he might be a year or two older than his body profile suggested.
 
Cementum Annuli testing may not be 100% accurate, but its not off by 4 years either.
Based on the jawbone pics and the CA testing, that is definitely an older deer.

And I would have never guess it based on the field aging pics.

Which is why I said this before - I only use 2 age categories. 3.5 or younger, or 3.5 or older.

That deer would have been in that 2nd category either year. Easy call.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top