Your question is flawed. You qualified it with "if you are a meat hunter", and then said the buck meat was diseased and would be harmful to humans. So not much to debate there, since by definition the "meat hunter" would should non-diseased meat.

If you take out the "meat hunter" part OR the diseased meat part, you've got a conversation.

Personally, I'd take the buck for sure. I can always pick up a steak on the way home. Plus I'm putting that poor old diseased buck out of his misery. I'm very thoughtful like that : )

A true meat hunter would wait for them to get lined up. That way he saves ammo and brings home more meat.

You and I must know some of the same people

This is good.. and true

If you are a meat hunter and you want to fill tags then you shoot the buck as you can always shoot the doe later as buck tag generally harder to fill (particular now that lot of counties have AR). In my experience, it's a myth that old deer are tough or not good to eat though not sure I ever tried a 9.5. If the deer is diseased or otherwise injured then shoot it and put it out of it's misery.

Also, in general most "meat hunters" I know like a good trophy as well they just get more value out of the hunt than a bragging sized rack. Big horns are nice, but not necessary for them to have an enjoyable experience.

Lou

Another variable: it was your only chance to hunt that year also.

Well, if she's big and fat and I can't see her ribs then she may be barren. Might have to shoot her.

Bayou guy, those are some beautiful cuts of meat. You obviously know how to git'r done... I'd shoot the Buck.

DOE without a doubt

So it's your only chance to hunt, you want the most meat possible and you have a buck twice as big as the doe, why wouldn't you take it?

We can't have a diseased critter like that running around. I'll do everyone a favor and put him down.

Absolutely!! No real difference. However, I do know that yearling axis are cut-with-a-butter-knife tender.

The doe without a doubt...

rick

Have to take the 3.5 yo doe because she is real. A 9.5 yo buck @ 160 is only in a dream that would never come true.

Very nice presentation BayouGuy .

This thread was intended to make a point that most people do care about the size of a bucks rack, therefore letting the bucks grow to maturity. I know the example was an exaggeration but you get the point. Thanks for the input guys.

I would take the doe, save he buck for our son or nephews.

Good call...Thats what Im talking about... cant wait for my two boys to get old enough to hunt with me.

If one of my boys wants to shoot a buck like that when I'm with them, they better be quick.

If he is 160" deer I'd have to shoot him since I've never killed one that big

He is why they make (meat tenderizers)

best answer and my choice also

Like I said before... what if the meat on the buck was bad (somekind of disease that would not harm the rest of the deer herd) would you still shoot the buck over the doe because of the rack?

I'm a believer that a youngun's first deer should be a doe. The ethical basis for hunting is to provide food for yourself and your family. Kids should understand that. Sure, everyone likes to take a nice buck. But really, trophy hunting has gotten way out of hand.

It's simple.. If a 170" and a 110" buck were standing there... Everybody would choose the bigger one. So why shoot them when they are young? You would be lying if you said that you wouldnt want to kill a monster buck.. so why not let the younger deer mature. Reason is because people ar to impatient and think just because they are hunting that they have to kill a deer. If you go home empty handed.. Who cares! My boys will be raised this way to. To each his own though!

In the areas I hunt a 160 inch buck tends to spend most of his time in nasty thick cedar swamp. He tends to eat a lot of cedar browse and tastes like cedar.