Below are some pics of a buck I killed in 2017 along with several shots of his teeth. Anyone care to venture a guess on his age via the teeth? I have already gotten the results of the cementum annuli testing, however the other thread spurred me to throw these out there to see what you guys determine. I'll give it a couple days before posting the actual age.
Buck Age single choice
3.5 (10%, 4 Votes)
4.5 (38%, 15 Votes)
5.5 (21%, 8 Votes)
6.5 (26%, 10 Votes)
7.5 (5%, 2 Votes)
Total Votes: 39 Voting on this poll ends: 01/11/2010:00 AM
Agreed however the tooth wear method is a just a notch above junk science, there's too many variables. For deer 4.5+ the CA testing accuracy is hard to beat. We've got biologists on our place making age decisions on teeth without once seeing the deer, certainly not on the hoof and able to witness behavioral cues which also lend to age determination.
Jawbone is not complete. I would call one side 5.5 and the other 6.5. From the kill photo I would call him 5.5. Not seeing him alive on the hoof and seeing his hocks I can only call him 5.5 for a nonprotein feed buck. If he was on protein then add 1 yr at a minimum.
Thanks for all the participation gents. Not one of the guys on our lease got the age correct by the tooth wear method of aging. The tooth wear method is how we are instructed to age and log them for our MLD program. I believe that to be a flawed theory since it neglects to include all factors. Hopefully we can incorporate some common sense, and CA testing, towards determining the actual age of the deer we kill as opposed to the subjective alternative.
Jawbone is not complete. I would call one side 5.5 and the other 6.5. From the kill photo I would call him 5.5. Not seeing him alive on the hoof and seeing his hocks I can only call him 5.5 for a nonprotein feed buck. If he was on protein then add 1 yr at a minimum.
We do have a handful of free choice protein available for several months out of the year. 4 protein feeders for the 2000 acres we hunt.
Interesting results. It does indicate that over all CA is about 60%. Wonder how far off it is when it was off? Also wonder if there was any error in determining the age when the deer were captured and tagged.
Jawbone is not complete. I would call one side 5.5 and the other 6.5. From the kill photo I would call him 5.5. Not seeing him alive on the hoof and seeing his hocks I can only call him 5.5 for a nonprotein feed buck. If he was on protein then add 1 yr at a minimum.
We do have a handful of free choice protein available for several months out of the year. 4 protein feeders for the 2000 acres we hunt.
Interesting results. It does indicate that over all CA is about 60%. Wonder how far off it is when it was off? Also wonder if there was any error in determining the age when the deer were captured and tagged.
Says known age of all bucks in study so I would assume they took the deer from birth. Also at the ages that count for a lot of leases (5 and 6) it is under 50% accurate. Not very good percentages in my opinion
Interesting results. It does indicate that over all CA is about 60%. Wonder how far off it is when it was off? Also wonder if there was any error in determining the age when the deer were captured and tagged.
I imagine the numbers in the table would show a greater disparity between the TRW and CA if it took real-world application in account. Certainly the folks conducting the study were well-versed in the TRW methodology. Most of the utilization of the TRW however is performed by everyday folks with no formal training or expertise. There can also be a bias involved when the analysis is solely objective. The largest gap in disparity shown in the table shows to be when those bucks are 4.5 - 6.5, what I imagine most properties outside of south Texas consider mature and killable. The minimum age for a trophy on our place is 5.5. In fact, looks like the likelihood of the CA being more accurate than TRW at age 5.5 is about 48% vs 25%, factor in everyday Joe's doing the TRW and that 25% falls even more. Of course, some people have more expertise than others, but overall I believe the it's less likely that the general hunter has a great grasp on TRW. I was told by the manager of large (LF) property that the jaws above were from a 3.5-4.5 yo. Jaws were in his hand too. That was my fist huge red flag that the TRW method is junk science.
Even the numbers in the table show the CA trumps the TRW every time, and especially if someone's TRW opinion contradicts what I see, and what I saw while judging the deer on the hoof. If the CA is truly science, I would also expect the margin of error to decrease based on the growing sampling size, at least until the limits of the technology are attained.
Jawbone is not complete. I would call one side 5.5 and the other 6.5. From the kill photo I would call him 5.5. Not seeing him alive on the hoof and seeing his hocks I can only call him 5.5 for a nonprotein feed buck. If he was on protein then add 1 yr at a minimum.
We do have a handful of free choice protein available for several months out of the year. 4 protein feeders for the 2000 acres we hunt.
How many years have y'all seen this buck?
No one mentioned seeing or knowing the buck, but there is no real information sharing going on. It's unfortunate, but for some reason that's the way it is. The deer in Concho County travel long distances too. We see mature bucks every year that have never been seen before. I saw him on the hoof the afternoon 24 hours prior to the day I killed him. Watched him from 330pm to dark during which he was anywhere from 50 - 250 yards from my position. He really should have been a management buck, but since we didn't have that option (only cull & trophy), I took him for the betterment of the herd as my trophy. He was an aggressive, [censored]-blocking, dude.
Re: Age this buck via jawbone
[Re: tlk]
#771680501/13/2011:01 PM
Interesting results. It does indicate that over all CA is about 60%. Wonder how far off it is when it was off? Also wonder if there was any error in determining the age when the deer were captured and tagged.
Says known age of all bucks in study so I would assume they took the deer from birth. Also at the ages that count for a lot of leases (5 and 6) it is under 50% accurate. Not very good percentages in my opinion
It says known age because they were captured as fawns or yearlings, so as I read it someone was still determining if they were fawns or yearlings, which may include some error.
Interesting results. It does indicate that over all CA is about 60%. Wonder how far off it is when it was off? Also wonder if there was any error in determining the age when the deer were captured and tagged.
I imagine the numbers in the table would show a greater disparity between the TRW and CA if it took real-world application in account. Certainly the folks conducting the study were well-versed in the TRW methodology. Most of the utilization of the TRW however is performed by everyday folks with no formal training or expertise. There can also be a bias involved when the analysis is solely objective. The largest gap in disparity shown in the table shows to be when those bucks are 4.5 - 6.5, what I imagine most properties outside of south Texas consider mature and killable. The minimum age for a trophy on our place is 5.5. In fact, looks like the likelihood of the CA being more accurate than TRW at age 5.5 is about 48% vs 25%, factor in everyday Joe's doing the TRW and that 25% falls even more. Of course, some people have more expertise than others, but overall I believe the it's less likely that the general hunter has a great grasp on TRW. I was told by the manager of large (LF) property that the jaws above were from a 3.5-4.5 yo. Jaws were in his hand too. That was my fist huge red flag that the TRW method is junk science.
Even the numbers in the table show the CA trumps the TRW every time, and especially if someone's TRW opinion contradicts what I see, and what I saw while judging the deer on the hoof. If the CA is truly science, I would also expect the margin of error to decrease based on the growing sampling size, at least until the limits of the technology are attained.
What is concerning about this is if you are doing serious management like we are then neither of these methods seems solid on older deer (assuming one accepts the study). So the only way I know of to try to make sure of the trophies you take is to follow them via trail cameras and personal observation over the years.