# AR and nutrition question



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Letmgro said:


> Poz, For some reason I don't believe that you have much faith in deer biology. I think that just about everyone in this forum meanders occassionally through the deer hunting forum, and as one of those that does, I'm inclined to report that the vast majority of 4 and 6 points that I have reviewed, would only be of the ripe old age of 1.5 years.
> 
> Also, I firmly believe that most on this forum understand that not every buck will achieve P&Y status, and particularly those from Lake county, but, an adult buck (3.5+ years) stands a much higher chance of having a "wider and taller" rack than one of less years.
> 
> More mature bucks in an area usually equate to a healthier deer herd. But most would agree that our deer herd isn't linear, and that many variable determine the overall health of the deer herd, which equate to the size of a buck's rack, and age is one of those variables.


I agree with what you are saying, But as you see from this thread, People take what is said and run with it. 

SIB was the only guy who got my point. Of course the older a deer gets, the better chance he has to grow a larger and wider rack. But unfortunately many guys only take it to the extreme. Just like when they said we have to start killing does, some guys took it as shoot all the does you see and shoot more.Many of these guys proved that in their posts that they will take something and run with it and misinterpet it and so on. That is the point I'm making. Adam had a legitament question that was bound to come up, Why is this 2.5 like my 1.5? And all I'm trying to do is tell him, Hey, don't expect you deer to be trophys just because you let them go a year. There is alot involved. There are alot of people that will tell and promise you anything to push there agenda. All I'm am saying is that Deer biology doesn't work like that and you can't guarantee anything. But some guys on here promise you that if you do this than your hunting will be great and this will happen and so on. And alot of guys follow them blindly.

I am trying to get data from the DNR on the antler sizes/age of the bucks that are checked in. I think people will be surprized at what the average rack size is for an age group. I will post it as soon as I get it.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Adam, when you get that Euro mount, give me a shout and we'll have that beer and we'll look it over.
In all honesty, without going to MDNR to age it, I'd say it was 1.5 years old. Only because it's an 85% chance of that being the case. We've had 30lb swings in some of our 2.5 year old bucks and we've had 20lb swings in our yearlings. One thing that's been almost universal is that our 2.5's always have an outside spread of at least 15" and our 1.5's never have an outside spread reaching 15". And we're only 3 miles apart as the crow flies. So, can you measure the outside spread? If it's 12-14", I'd be 99% sure it's a 1.5.
Don't forget, as our deer numbers drop, each deer now has more food. We probably won't be seeing any of our typical 90lb, 1.5 year old 3" spike bucks again. They've vanished at our place. Expect our 1.5's to get a little bigger bodied and racked from here out. It's also why our spikes have disappeared. They're still yearlings, just no longer as many of those are 3" spikes. Adam, if anything, your "no spike" rule won't protect much. We went to 7pt or better in archery and an "eyeball/nice buck" in gun season. We passed up 7 bucks this gun season. I talked to my neighbor 1 mile to my east and they passed up 5 bucks. To our knowledge, none of these bucks were killed, that we're aware of. 
Also, your immediate area could use some more nutrition and cover. The big rye field across the road is a great start, but you should create a couple 1-2 acre plots on your place. Lime them heavily and get some good year round clover going. I know I said I'd make it over to look at spots, but we just never seemed to hook up. Once steelhead season starts at the store and the snow melts, we need to find you a couple good year round nutrition plot locations at your place. It's close enough to where it helps me too.  
I'm going to be ordering more trees for planting this Spring. I'll PM you for our planting date when we figure it out (plant 10, drink one! :lol: ). But you should order a couple hundred trees and get all your guys to at your place to help planting. Here's the 2005 link to the co-op in Big Rapids and just call them for the 2006 catalog...
http://www.mecostacd.org/catalog.htm


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

poz said:


> I am trying to get data from the DNR on the antler sizes/age of the bucks that are checked in. I think people will be surprized at what the average rack size is for an age group. I will post it as soon as I get it.



Here it is:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117215


ferg....


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Well Bob I guess by the antler width this guy was a 1.5 yr old. I must be used to those 90 lb spikes you referred to which we only saw one of. I passed on 6 bucks during bow season one unitentionally :lol: bugger was just in the thick of stuff. I saw 3 8 pointers this year and no spikes at all personally. We said no spike because that is all we were seeing over the past 8 years or so. The deer camp fellas are gettin togather in Jan or Feb and bringing chainsaws with em so we can try to create something a little more appealing for them. The foodplot thing is in the future we know it but for now we have a lot of cutting to do and I mean a lot. we are looking at cutting a few acres in one area alone and then going to many other pople areas and clearing those older trees outta there this winter as well. we will be very busy with it. What kind of trees do I plant Bob? I am cuttin trees not plantin em :lol: no really what variety shoud I look for to plant and where do I plant em?

Adam


----------



## OutdoorsAllYear (Nov 22, 2005)

"There are many documented cases where hunters have collected sheds of bucks that have showed they reached their peak at 3.5 yrs old and when the buck was shot at 5.5 years old the antlers were smaller." They found a shed and they knew it belonged to a deer they shot 2 years later? I don't buy it. Unless they did a DNA test how would you know what deer it belonged to? Most healthy bucks under natural conditions peak out at alot older than 3.5. At some point they will go down hill, but I never heard anybody in MI complaining about having too many old deer in their area, that would be a nice problem.  True, most bucks won't become a booner if allowed to mature, but also most booner's, P&Y and CBM entries are not 1.5-2.5 yo deer. A 2.5 yr old deer is still a young deer and 3.5 is still relatively young IMO. It may have remained a six point mainframe it's entire life or It may have become a slightly bigger buck with more points or a huge trophy. If you "Ground Age Check" a deer it's a little late to do anything about it. Lake County may have some poor land, but shooting young bucks isn't going to help if Adam's goal is to get larger bucks in his area. Maybe you shouldn't be shooting any deer in your area or only a doe with your bow since noe antlerless tags are available, Kind of a hard pill to swallow.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Sports Afield has a good link on aging...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3775/is_200310/ai_n9323455#continue

Yearlings

A yearling buck (one and a half years old) is typically the easiest stage to identify. No trophy hunter would consider shooting such a deer. Yearling deer are the future. They have developed only 10 percent of the potential antlers they are capable of growing. Their bodies are thin and small; so are their antlers. In most areas a yearling will have between two and six points-short ones-and a spread that is less than ten inches wide. Occasionally some yearlings with top genetics will have eight- or even ten-point racks. But the antlers will always be thin and small.

A yearling buck looks like a doe with small antlers stuck on it. The body is delicate and the legs are thin. The nose is tapered and the face has big eyes and a feminine look.

A one-year-old will have a field-dressed weight of between sixty-five and one hundred and thirty pounds, depending on where it lives and what it has been eating. Because of this variation, it's impossible to judge a deer's age by weight or body size alone. But if other bucks are around and they look much heavier and bulkier, it's a clear sign the deer is young-probably one or two years old.

Behavior is another key. A yearling buck is very naive; it will often be the first to come out in a field in the afternoon, or it will be the lead animal in a herd walking down a trail. Older bucks will hold back and let the youngster expose itself to potential danger first. Sometimes a yearling will rush out into a food plot or meadow an hour before the older deer show themselves. Yearlings haven't been hunted seriously, and their lack of caution shows.

A yearling is capable of mating, but it won't get to breed much if any older bucks are around. Its neck may swell slightly during the rut.

Two-Year-Olds

A two-year-old can grow a rack twice as big as a yearling, so six-, eight-, and even ten-pointers are more common. But their antlers still look thin compared to the headgear of a mature or even a middle-aged buck. A t wo-year-old's antlers are often a lighter color than those on older bucks, and a typical outside spread is ten to fifteen inches. An above-average two-year-old can grow a rack in the 120 to 130 class or higher, so don't place too much emphasis on the antler score.

Instead of focusing on the rack, look at the body. A two-year-old is still a relatively thin animal with a small chest and little muscle mass. The top line of the upper body along the back is straight. The line along the lower edge of the body tends to taper upward as you look from the chest toward the hindquarters. (This will become a straight line on three- and four-year-olds, and will sag on older bucks.)

The two-year-old's nose is long and tapered. The neck is still slender, but will swell somewhat during the rut. Legs appear long and lanky. Hindquarters are heavier than a yearling's, but still not particularly muscular.

Two-year-olds will take an active part in the rut in areas where yearlings predominate. Sadly, this is the situation on much public land throughout the country. In a well-managed herd with good numbers of older bucks, two-year-olds will be submissive, dominated by the mature animals in the herd. Such bucks have already become more cautious than yearling bucks, and they tend to move later in the day.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ferg said:


> Here it is:
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=117215
> 
> ...


Thanks Ferg,

It's interesting to see what the averages are and they are around 8 points, This kind of goes to show what I was talking about If the average is 8, Than for every 3.5 ten point, there is probably a 3.5 six point. and so on. So when someone shoots a 3.5 year old six point, he shot a deer that is that way in nature, There is nothing wrong with this deer,It was just that size. that is all. And in different parts of Michigan, or other states, These averages can fluctuate. If the habitat is a prime area, than 3.5 yr olds might be bigger than in other areas that have poorer habitat.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

poz said:


> Thanks Ferg,
> 
> It's interesting to see what the averages are and they are around 8 points, This kind of goes to show what I was talking about If the average is 8, Than for every 3.5 ten point, there is probably a 3.5 six point. and so on. So when someone shoots a 3.5 year old six point, he shot a deer that is that way in nature, There is nothing wrong with this deer,It was just that size. that is all. And in different parts of Michigan, or other states, These averages can fluctuate. If the habitat is a prime area, than 3.5 yr olds might be bigger than in other areas that have poorer habitat.


Why do you keep equating "bigger" with number of antler points?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

IMHO it would be better to equate age to antler mass and/or spread.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

And more body weight, thus more venison.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)




----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Sure, the same buck grown in farm country might score 165 at maturity, instead of 120, but the point is many in MI never even come close to harvesting a 120 inch animal, let alone a 165 so optimum antler growth potential is not even a realistic portion of the discussion.

Age, nutrition, genetics...in that order.

There are extreme cases all over the country where excessively overbrowsed habitat and high numbers will have an effect on antler devolopment, but those are the rare exceptions, not the norm. If the antlers are growing poorly in your area it typically would mean 1 thing...an overunbundance of deer for the habitat so the simple answer would be to shoot more deer...is this the case in your area Adam?

In much of the snowbelt regions a bucks body size needs to reach it's frame potential to start achieving maximum antler growth for the given age. For example, a yearling buck in the U.P. made it through the previous winter as a buck fawn (which on a side note if it made it through as a fawn, it has a GREAT chance of making it through as a deer a full year older!) that had minimal body size and stored energy levels. Same with a yearling buck making it through winter, but most will still be 7-8 pts as a 2.5 year old. But, as that same buck goes through it's 3rd winter it's body size and stored energy levels, as well as energy level retention throughout the winter months greatly improves. That near 3 year old buck makes it through winter much easier than that fawn, or yearling buck and is virtually impossible to kill with winter severity due to it's more mature body size. That buck's body can then afford to put a lot more attention into antler development due to the fact that winter took less of a toll on the body. It stands to reason that you could have a very severe winter in that 3rd year, maybe even a severe spring and antler growth would still be limited and not "optimum", but eventually the better health that buck has exiting winter due to retained energy levels equals improved antler development.

Anyways, nutrition and even genetics may turn a Pope and Young potential into a potential Boone and Crocket...but it will have a hard time turning into a Pope and Young when it is shot before it's 3rd birthday in almost any region of the country.

Dead bucks don't grow.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> That near 3 year old buck makes it through winter much easier than that fawn, or yearling buck and is virtually impossible to kill with winter severity due to it's more mature body size. That buck's body can then afford to put a lot more attention into antler development due to the fact that winter took less of a toll on the body. It stands to reason that you could have a very severe winter in that 3rd year, maybe even a severe spring and antler growth would still be limited and not "optimum", but eventually the better health that buck has exiting winter due to retained energy levels equals improved antler development.


Thanks, Jeff

This is part of what i was trying to say. antler growth is determined by the health of the deer in the antler developement stages, If a trophy deer excerts to much energy during the rut and is not in top shape when winter comes it may effect next years antler growth. So when people are saying Hey I let this aniomal go last year and it's not much bigger this year, they have to look at the bigger picture.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Jeff we no longer have an over abundandance in deer we are actually just under DNR goal I beleive but we are in a poor soil area wich doesn't help either. The deer this year seemed bigger as I stated earlier the buck I shot compared to in the past looked older that is why i thought it may be a 2.5 but Bob said it is most likely a 1.5 based on the description on the antler size. We saw some decent bucks up thee in the late summer in bach groups they had some nice spreads etc. With the age and nutrition I beleive we could have some bruisers up there because the 1.5 deer I have shot inthe past maybe only had 4 points but the mass was incredible they were as thick at the bases and along the main beam as a much more deleloped rack would be just in a small basket shape. There were less hunters this year on state land and I think we may have had a few nice bucks make it through so far I beleive we have at least 3 buck on our place that are still there 2 of them being very nice deer already (8 pt 15 inches wide). If they can only make it a few more weeks and avaoid the poachers they will be dandies this year. I know others have seen some nice ones a few miles down the road as well. Another month or so and we will be cutting for the first time on the property so we hope in a few years those cuttings will be providing some of that shelter they need this time of the year.

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

It sounds to me like a yearling as well, and I believe you when you say you don't have too many deer and from what I see the DNR believes you as well. Just trying to illustrate though it is a very rare case that antlers develop very poorly because of nutrition and usually that is associated with very high deer densities...which contribute to the lack of nutrition. Even in the U.P. for example, most of our summer ranges have several times more food than needed so the deer do very well if they can withstand the winter, but I'm sure there are the exceptions.

If you have to plug the lowest hole in the bucket though, it's got to be age first, then nutrition might be towards the middle of the bucket, and then genetics towards the top of the bucket.

I guess the best example I can think of where age is more important than nutrition is the case where a particular buck can be a Boone and Crocket 280# field dressed buck at the age of 4.5 years of age...but if he is shot while sporting his first set of antlers, it's a mute point.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> It sounds to me like a yearling as well, and I believe you when you say you don't have too many deer and from what I see the DNR believes you as well. Just trying to illustrate though it is a very rare case that antlers develop very poorly because of nutrition and usually that is associated with very high deer densities...which contribute to the lack of nutrition. Even in the U.P. for example, most of our summer ranges have several times more food than needed so the deer do very well if they can withstand the winter, but I'm sure there are the exceptions.
> .


Jeff,

I have a question, With your above statement, if deer densities are high and it effects antler growth, which I can see happening, and agree with. Than couldn't the opposite be true? That in certain SLP counties where we have deer with larger antler growth, but we have 50 dpsm. Would the above be reversed where we would have to say that this habitat can support more deer. And we should ease off on the killing of them to get a good balance? 
This is one of my main turn offs to QDM, It is the fact that you always hear about lowering the population, And hardly anything about increasing the deer population.
and when someone talks about increaseing the population, they are balsted as wanting an easy hunt.
But If qdm is about balance, Why isn't anything said about increasing the herd where it can sustain it?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Poz,

You are exactly right...if it's too low...RAISE IT!! There is absolutely no need to shoot does if you don't need to..unless you like lower than necessary deer number for whatever reason. You can do a search under my name and doe harvest or antlerless, whatever and you can see I've been saying this for years, and it is still QDM. On my property I didn't shoot a doe until the 6th year and that was still QDM....in fact the current Co-Chair of the Board for the national QDMA directed me not too unless I wanted to shoot a doe fawn for some meat.

If the population is too high...shoot some does, if about right, shoot enough to maintain, if unecessarily too low...raise the population.

It's not that if the density is too low that when you raise it the health will be increased or antlers will get bigger, just that it's a whole lot more enjoyable to have more deer numbers, if the habitat can support it and that is still QDM.


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

is that many guys in poor nutrition areas will NEVER support AR's because even if a buck lives til he is 5, he may only be a 4pt!!!

Now its all making sense, there is a motive behind everything!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

halfcore said:


> is that many guys in poor nutrition areas will NEVER support AR's because even if a buck lives til he is 5, he may only be a 4pt!!!
> 
> Now its all making sense, there is a motive behind everything!


Halfcore, ARs may hinder your gene pool where QDM will not, If you become good at judgeing age and you see a nice 8 point that is only 1.5 years old. He could be prime breeding stock and with QDM you will let him go, But with AR's you will shoot him and take him out of the gene pool before he gets a chance to breed and pass on his genes, And you will leave a spike or a smaller deer to pass on it's traits instead of the nice 8 point


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

Personally, I would not shoot the nice little 8 pt. In fact, I passed one up with my ML this morning slightly before 9 am.

Now, if it had some nice mass, 4" bases....different story. That (mass) gives me good indication of an older deer who has done quite a bit of good breeding up to that point I am sure.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

You might not shoot it, but the guy who doesn't like ARs abd hasn't shot a deer in a couple of years because AR's were forced on him, will drop it in a heart beat.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

Everywhere, the goal of a good deer management is not to produce valuable "trophies" for hunters , it is to manage the herd in order to respect the biologic, ethologic and ecologic needs of the hunted species.
For all reasons, this means a density below ecological carrying capacity, a good sex ratio and a good male pyramid of ages, that is to say, enough REALLY mature males which, I think, may be defined as to be 4,5 years old and above for white-tailed deer.
9 years old up to ... for red deer ...


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Belbriette said:


> E it is to manage the herd in order to respect the biologic, ethologic and ecologic needs of the hunted species.
> For all reasons, this means a density below ecological carrying capacity, a good sex ratio and a good male pyramid of ages, that is to say, enough



But how do you come up with these numbers without proper studies and input from the hunting community.

It happen in Lake county, Some people said the habitat can't support large numbers, while others say it can, who is right. It's easy to manage a controled fence in area, but when you have large tracts of public land , how do you do it. You have to listen to hunters that hunt that area, andthe biologist and the foresters up there. And you have to gather the facts, and make educated guesses.

You know how many times I have seen on this site guys say the does in my area need to be thinned out because the ratio is 20;1, 30;1 or even 40:1. If this was true we would have 5 million deer running around just so we could kill the number of bucks we did that year.
But this guys says this because he sits in a stand and see 1 buck and then he sees 2 does with twin fawns so he counts them as 1 buck and 6 does when it's really 3 bucks because 2 of the fawns are BBs and 4 does.

We have to do studies and conduct them slow, no more of this the herd has to reduced and blast away, If you are going to reduce an area do it slowly over the years and re-evaluate it every year. Don't do it the way it was done in Lake county and blast away and then come back and say we are 40% below goal.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

poz said:


> But this guys says this because he sits in a stand and see 1 buck and then he sees 2 does with twin fawns so he counts them as 1 buck and 6 does when it's really 3 bucks because 2 of the fawns are BBs and 4 does.


Actually the buck:doe ratio would be 1:2 because you don't count fawns.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

After trimming of a few sarcastic scented posts this is a decent thread. Let's keep it that way.


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

poz said:


> We have to do studies and conduct them slow, no more of this the herd has to reduced and blast away, If you are going to reduce an area do it slowly over the years and re-evaluate it every year. Don't do it the way it was done in Lake county and blast away and then come back and say we are 40% below goal.


Now you got it! This is the whole point of our exchange earlier. The DNR has shot from the hip way too many times before. Hopefully this olive branch the DNR has extended this time to hunters in respective DMU's is really meant to do something. 

There is no silver bullet to answer all the issues raised in this thread, which is now a convoluted diatribe of many biologic and socionomic issues. Only time will tell how this shakes out, but my $$ is on the DNR managing for the masses, not for the health of the herd (leaving QDM aside).


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

You guys are missing the point when using Lake County as an example. The herd in Lake County was reduced drastically, in a short time period,as part of the TB eradication program. The DNR did not just drop the herd numbers in an attemt to determine the proper carrying capacity, it was to potentially stop the spread of TB. It worked. Now that the spread has pretty much been contained to the core area, they are allowing deer numbers to come back up to what they feel the carrying capacity is, in areas where there has been no further sign of TB. When it comes to containg disease I'll back the DNR no matter how over zealous their approach may seem. If CWD shows up, get ready for some dramatic steps. This is the right approach, regardless of what some of the posters on this forum feel.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> When it comes to containg disease I'll back the DNR no matter how over zealous their approach may seem. If CWD shows up, get ready for some dramatic steps. This is the right approach, regardless of what some of the posters on this forum feel.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Northern Newaygo and Lake ounties were over run with deer a few years ago and the herd needed to be thinned due to the nutrition available. Could the land support the number of deer? Yes but they were not as healthy as they are now. I hate not seeing the deer we used to but the numbers will rise to an acceptable level for most hunters IMO over the next few years but the deer are looking better. This is why I thought I had a 2.5 because the body weights increased. Also saw more bucks this year and they were larger than previous years. I did not see one single spike in the woods this year which was really refreshing. 

AW


----------

