Management Buck?

[njg0621]

That is why I posted the pic. I'm torn when it comes to the 6pt because he's a awesome buck but part of me says "man if he made it through this year..." So I was looking to get opinions from other hunters who might be able to give me some insight to bring to the table when my hunting buddies and I decide what to do. This is a super nice 6 pt but has he reached his maximum growth potential? The idea is to work to have trophy deer (150 Class) on the property. In order to achieve this goal you have to try and take out the bucks which have poor genetic traits for growing big antlers so the big boys can have all the ladies. Also you have to let the 2-3 year olds walk, If a 2-3 year old deer is already 100-120 inches his potential to be a "trophy buck" is very good. If you or anyone else was looking to manage your property in a similar fashion to how we are would this 6pt be a buck you would put on the hit list this year or give him another year to grow? If a buck is under 120 inches and we decide his potential to be a trophy buck isn't there then we as a club will still put him on the hit list even if he is under 120 inches.

Does anyone in this forum really think it is possible to "Trophy Manage" 300 acres? 300 acres isn't even close to enough property to successfully practice trophy management in hopes to have plentiful 150" deer on the property. I agree, don't shoot the little guys as this is my philosophy too but you can't expect that those bucks will stay on your 300 acres. During the rut (rifle season unfortunately) those bucks are on your 300 acres and ten others probably. My point is that passing small bucks is def a good idea in general but to think that a club is going to manage a 300 acre piece of land and grow big deer on it is probably never going to happen. That is unless everyone on the bordering properties practices all the same rules and trophy management guidelines you do.

As far as the buck.... If I said that I would let him walk I would be a liar!

[BizCT]

300 acres seems like a lot to me. I hunt 8 acres between houses and other small parcels of private property. I doubt the bucks travel very far.

[phade]

300 acres seems like a lot to me. I hunt 8 acres between houses and other small parcels of private property. I doubt the bucks travel very far.

400-600 acres give or take is a bucks typical home range. The'll increase that during rut to a degree. 640 acres is a square mile. Now, look at this, too, chances are, you aren't going to have many, if ANY, living entirely inside your 640 acres year round and especially during hunting season. You're more likely to have bucks using only a portion of a property that size (640 acres)...they overlap/sattelite between multipls parcels. Sure, as a buck ages, his core area shrinks, but geeze, what at most you'll house 40 deer per square mile in better parts of the state (keep in mind this is carry capacity...not home range or core area), and of that, you'll likely only have a small % of that being mature bucks...probably 5%. (Even big time ops in Kansas only hit 10% range).

Now, given all that, he's only working with 300 acres...so cut that in half right off the bat.

If I were a betting man, 3.5 would be the "highest" realistic goal for that parcel...and even then, you may not be taking a buck off of it every season based on hunting pressure and skill, and bordering properties.

There are anomalies, such as having 300 acres that backs up to a non-hunting parcel (park, private company, etc.). That changes all dynamics as bucks can realistically age through the classes better.

Having a 150 min goal seems to me to be a pretty lofty goal and one that will surely result in burnout if people are not fully dead set and let it wear on them. Seems to me that most who do this usually come back saying "it was no longer fun." 150 min is more indicative of Illinois, Kansas, Iowa, etc, where there is better soil and better managed pressure and seasons.

Keep it fun...3.5 is fun...because it's realistic.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade

[mt624]

Man guys sure know how to get off topic and railroad a simple question. That's why I rarely post on here. Lots of good posts too, just a lot of side tracks in between!

My personal feeling is that I would be much happier shooting a 4 year old 6 point or a 5 year old 6 point than a 3 year old 6 point. But if a 3 year old 6 point meets your groups goals and makes someone happy then go for it.

Also, knowing a little about your parcel and how a lot of the neighboring ground is managed, I think that is a very realistic age goal for your group. I'm not saying everyone in your immediate group will shoot a 4 year old every season, but I think one guy every year or two is very realistic. Then you guys need to determine on an individual level if that makes you happy. If not, new rules or new group. But if he needs the label "management buck" to justify shooting, then something is wrong.

Edited August 2, 2012 by mt624

[phade]

Man guys sure know how to get off topic and railroad a simple question. That's why I rarely post on here. But lots of good posts too, just a lot of side tracks! My personal feeling is that I would be much happier shooting a 4 year old 6 point or a 5 year old 6 point than a 3 year old 6 point. But if a 3 year old 6 point meets your groups goals and makes someone happy then go for it. Also, knowing a little about your parcel and how a lot of the neighboring ground is managed, I think that is a very realistic age goal for your group. I'm not saying everyone in your immediate group will shoot a 4 year old every season, but I think one guy every year or two is very realistic. Then you guys need to determine on an individual level if that makes you happy. If not, new rules or new group.

Show me a forum where posts don't go off-target and I'll show you a forum that doesn't have many participants. Also, the basic rule in education/business is that the off-shoots is where the learning occurs...because they connect the dots to their real world applications.

See what I did just there, eh?

Let me throw this out there, too. Say 3 guys on that 300 acres. I'm guessing leased (which is stupid to try and manage leases that are not locked in long-term), but maybe owned outright by one. The group shoots one buck meeting the minimum every two seasons...that means 2 don't shoot a buck there, or maybe at all during the season.

So, your odds as a hunter (assuming 3) is one mature buck every 6 years and no other bucks in-between? Make that 4 hunters and it jumps up to what...8? Considering most hunter careers are not THAT long...maybe 10-20 years in their prime hunting career-wise...not the best odds.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade

[mt624]

Yup, you just upped your post count by 1.

[phade]

Yup, you just upped your post count by 1.

ooooh burn.

and i just bumped yours up 20%.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade

[Skillet]

I would kill him because he's a deer. I wouldn't consider him a management buck, I don't even use the term, unless it was said like this - "I killed a management buck, yeah, he managed to fill the freezer"

[mt624]

Show me a forum where posts don't go off-target and I'll show you a forum that doesn't have many participants. Also, the basic rule in education/business is that the off-shoots is where the learning occurs...because they connect the dots to their real world applications.

See what I did just there, eh?

Phade I'm not looking to pick fights online and guess I should have quoted you so you couldn't keep changing your post. Have fun with that!

I know the area he's talking about hunting and the potential is there to bring the age structure up. Something your scenario simply doesn't account for. If the goal of the group is to shoot mature bucks and bring the age structure up like the neighbors who control over a thousand mostly adjacent acres are trying to do, then they may be less likely to shoot bucks that meet the goals early on yes. But if the management plan works they will have better odds with time. And if they actively monitor the age of the deer being taken and don't see results in a few years and aren't having fun they are not required to manage their ground this way. As some have stated on here, their personal goals are simply to shoot a buck every season. That's great, for that guy. There's nothing wrong or not fun if these guys have a different goal.

Would you agree?

[Doc]

Man guys sure know how to get off topic and railroad a simple question. That's why I rarely post on here. Lots of good posts too, just a lot of side tracks in between! .......

Ever notice that all conversations never stay glued on topic, even when you're talking face to face with someone. That' s just the nature of conversation. Forums are no different.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

But is you want to stay on "topic" the OP was not about raising the age structure. It was bout genetically altering a wild herd. Can't be done.

[mt624]

But is you want to stay on "topic" the OP was not about raising the age structure. It was bout genetically altering a wild herd. Can't be done.

He said (copy and pasted from page 2, Bold and underline added for effect by me):

That is why I posted the pic. I'm torn when it comes to the 6pt because he's a awesome buck but part of me says "man if he made it through this year..." So I was looking to get opinions from other hunters who might be able to give me some insight to bring to the table when my hunting buddies and I decide what to do. This is a super nice 6 pt but has he reached his maximum growth potential? The idea is to work to have trophy deer (150 Class) on the property. In order to achieve this goal you have to try and take out the bucks which have poor genetic traits for growing big antlers so the big boys can have all the ladies. Also you have to let the 2-3 year olds walk, If a 2-3 year old deer is already 100-120 inches his potential to be a "trophy buck" is very good. If you or anyone else was looking to manage your property in a similar fashion to how we are would this 6pt be a buck you would put on the hit list this year or give him another year to grow? If a buck is under 120 inches and we decide his potential to be a trophy buck isn't there then we as a club will still put him on the hit list even if he is under 120 inches.

So age was brought up by the original poster. Thanks. Man you guys are an sensitive bunch!

[phade]

Phade I'm not looking to pick fights online and guess I should have quoted you so you couldn't keep changing your post. Have fun with that!

I know the area he's talking about hunting and the potential is there to bring the age structure up. Something your scenario simply doesn't account for. If the goal of the group is to shoot mature bucks and bring the age structure up like the neighbors who control over a thousand mostly adjacent acres are trying to do, then they may be less likely to shoot bucks that meet the goals early on yes. But if the management plan works they will have better odds with time. And if they actively monitor the age of the deer being taken and don't see results in a few years and aren't having fun they are not required to manage their ground this way. As some have stated on here, their personal goals are simply to shoot a buck every season. That's great, for that guy. There's nothing wrong or not fun if these guys have a different goal.

Would you agree?

I have accounted for that - refer to the statement about backing up to non-hunted parcels, etc.

Still, 150" min. as a requirement is darn near unrealistic anywhere in this state. To say so otherwise is imprudent - even OUTFITTERS in places like Illinois have lower minimums. While we can certainly grow big deer in certain places of the state, 150" min. as a kill rule is foolish. I mean, look at how many times that guy uses the term "trophy" in his posts...seriously...trophy management in NY? TDM? in NY? Can we get a doctor?

I've been around plenty of high-end properties. I've been on arguably two of the best in the entire state - one won the QDM manager award nationally and Grant Woods was running the data collection - and the other was the PRIVATE land of the former Chairman of the Board for QDMA. Neither could come close to having 150 as a goal...but then again they weren't TDM...they were practicing QDM.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade

[phade]

He said (copy and pasted from page 2, Bold and underline added for effect by me):

That is why I posted the pic. I'm torn when it comes to the 6pt because he's a awesome buck but part of me says "man if he made it through this year..." So I was looking to get opinions from other hunters who might be able to give me some insight to bring to the table when my hunting buddies and I decide what to do. This is a super nice 6 pt but has he reached his maximum growth potential? The idea is to work to have trophy deer (150 Class) on the property. In order to achieve this goal you have to try and take out the bucks which have poor genetic traits for growing big antlers so the big boys can have all the ladies. Also you have to let the 2-3 year olds walk, If a 2-3 year old deer is already 100-120 inches his potential to be a "trophy buck" is very good. If you or anyone else was looking to manage your property in a similar fashion to how we are would this 6pt be a buck you would put on the hit list this year or give him another year to grow? If a buck is under 120 inches and we decide his potential to be a trophy buck isn't there then we as a club will still put him on the hit list even if he is under 120 inches.

So age was brought up by the original poster. Thanks. Man you guys are an sensitive bunch!

He also said management buck in his very first statement of this thread. That's culling...unless you care to disagree?

Seriously, he's talking about trying to change genetics ina free range herd...AND he is talking about doing that before he's even reached a healthy age class structure. First off, it doesn't work. Second, he's pulling the cart before the horse even if in theory it did.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade

[QB1]

I can understand that trying to "manage" 300 acres is unrealistic. We don't expect to be like the Lakosky Farm in Iowa. But we would like to try and have better quality Deer on or around the property. Scenario, you own 300 acres, neigboring property has 800+ and has the same goals in mind. Let young deer with good gentics walk, shoot deer that have poor gentic (IE basket 8pt 3yrs). Is it unrealistic to think that in 5 years your chance to see more deer in the 140-150 is greater if you practice this strategy? We are only trying to do our part in order to have a crack at bigger deer in the future. If I (or a club member) can shoot a 140 or better buck every 3 years on the property then I am a happy hunter. I do have other spots to hunt that if I want to shoot a smaller buck I can, so my own personal goal of 1 buck and 1 doe during Bow and the same for gun is still very possible. I guess my question has now turned to how realisitc or unrealistic are the chances of taking our current rules and having them turn into bigger deer in the future for the property, maybe not this year or next but in 3-5 years?

[BizCT]

We don't expect to be like the Lakosky Farm in Iowa.

Don't believe everything you see on TV. Managing thousands of acres, takes many people and lots of $. $ coming from sponsors, and celebrities paying to hunt their land. Majority of the land they "manage" is owned by other people = FACT

[phade]

I can understand that trying to "manage" 300 acres is unrealistic. We don't expect to be like the Lakosky Farm in Iowa. But we would like to try and have better quality Deer on or around the property. Scenario, you own 300 acres, neigboring property has 800+ and has the same goals in mind. Let young deer with good gentics walk, shoot deer that have poor gentic (IE basket 8pt 3yrs). Is it unrealistic to think that in 5 years your chance to see more deer in the 140-150 is greater if you practice this strategy? We are only trying to do our part in order to have a crack at bigger deer in the future. If I (or a club member) can shoot a 140 or better buck every 3 years on the property then I am a happy hunter. I do have other spots to hunt that if I want to shoot a smaller buck I can, so my own personal goal of 1 buck and 1 doe during Bow and the same for gun is still very possible. I guess my question has now turned to how realisitc or unrealistic are the chances of taking our current rules and having them turn into bigger deer in the future for the property, maybe not this year or next but in 3-5 years?

I can tell your intentions are good, but I strongly suggest you completely drop the idea of shooting bucks to improve genetics...culling a free range buck is not something you should be doing, even given 1,100 acres of "managed" land.

A buck needs, age, nutrition/cover/water, and then genetics to become a high scoring buck. Genetics is so far down the list from a management perspective on a small scale property and free range herd that you simply should not consider it. It won't work, anyhow...free range overrides it. Just let that buck go if he doen't meet your criteria (or make you happy to simply kill), and ignore it.

Imagine a bucket with holes in it...the genetics question would be a hole at the very top of the bucket. Age Structure and ratios would be the lowest two (assuming the ground can hold deer at all, which is a given). Nutrition, cover, and water would be above Age Structure and ratios.

Now, pour water into the bucket. What is plugging the top hole now going to do for you with water leaking out the bottom holes? It simply doesn't make much sense from a biology and management perspective. Focus on getting the age structure, ratios, and enviornment right...that's it. Aim for 140, 150, etc...but that's not QDM. I strongly suggest you look at an age class and used that as a kill guideline if you have to have one.

A "management buck" in most layman's hunter's terms is no more than an excuse to shoot somthing that falls under the rules and continues to undermine the overall management plan. I can't tell you how many times this has girdled a plan with proper intentions.

A real management buck is usually housed inside a fence in TX.

One thing that I have seen done, and this is very rare, is that a buck is taken out because of its temperment. A mature buck, or even say an "underperforming antler size buck", that is super aggressive may need to be killed just to improve the hunting quality. I've seen situations where a scrubby 8 with a beast like body and a temperment of a bull on the PBR tour rules the roost over other mature bucks that score higher - and it's not done because of genetics...its done because that buck runs off the others on a parcel all of the time and screws up the hunter's odds of tagging those bucks. Not saying it makes sense from a biology standpoint, but from a hunting experience POV, it does. Personally, I'd shoot the SOB because I'm the baddest MoFo in the woods, not him, ha.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade

[phade]

Don't believe everything you see on TV. Managing thousands of acres, takes many people and lots of $. $ coming from sponsors, and celebrities paying to hunt their land. Majority of the land they "manage" is owned by other people = FACT

Didn't start out that way, but they own some serious working farms now. Lee quit a big-time engineering gig to move to Iowa and farm/hunt.

Same with Kisky, Drury, etc.

Not saying I'm a fan of theirs, but I do admire that they captured their dream, and busted through that dream's ceiling. Not many people can say that regardless of profession/passion.

[BizCT]

$100K job is nothing to brag about in my opinion.

Own and manage are 2 different things. Look at the public records in Iowa, they don't much at all. They are managing lands for country music stars, athletes, doctors, etc.

Their house (barn conversion) isn't worth much at all.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Biz-R-OWorld

[WNYBuckHunter]

Heres the flaw, shooting ANY deer with "poor" genetics in a wild, free ranging herd is pointless. No matter what you hear or see them say on TV, it will not make any difference. Think about how many does that 3 year old "management" buck has already bred with, and how many of those fawns are doe that will never show their "poor" genetics. Its a completely flawed theory unless you are farming them like cattle.

[biggamefish]

Who cares make the decision your self. I know the first post was a general question. But really if you doubt a shot why would you take it. It should be shoot what you want when you want. Let him grow if you think he will live another year and you want the mount on your wall. If not take him down fill the freezer and still have a nice mount on the wall.

[biggamefish]

Exactly WNY

[phade]

$100K job is nothing to brag about in my opinion.

Own and manage are 2 different things. Look at the public records in Iowa, they don't much at all. They are managing lands for country music stars, athletes, doctors, etc.

Their house (barn conversion) isn't worth much at all.

I think the UA contract they have has two commas in it.

I think the own 3 farms and manage 8? Not a bad job to have. Sure beats what I'm doing now.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade

[BizCT]

Maybe you are right. I didn't know that chemical engineers make $1M minimum in Minnesota.

[phade]

Maybe you are right. I didn't know that chemical engineers make $1M minimum in Minnesota.

What are you taling about? He left a quality job for a dream job...walking away from a 100k job is nothing to sneeze at to gamble on a dream with little realistic possibilities.

I have a quality job. I don't have a dream job. I think most "normal" people would fall in the same category. They, don't.

Edited August 2, 2012 by phade