This "article" has little to no value. The guy has no clue as to whether those pics are the same deer.
Seemed pretty confidant being its a game farm with very light densities... So you are calling they guy publishing a liar?
Liar...not sure about that. No way to prove its same deer YES.
The article has made a lot of traction by him saying it is the same deer and received lots of publicity for him. Saying its "possibly" the same deer wouldn't have received as much traction for sure.
You make your own conclusions I guess.
Willing to bet it's the same deer. they are pretty light denisitied up there...very light actually. Question should be is that the largest buck ever seen in the area.
Just like your place you pushed the 200 mark so what's really big to you 140,150,160,170 etc
Even then you can go through this forum and find a tagged spike buck in stx that broke 150 on free range. Just happened to be one of the bucks in the study that actually made it to maturity.
95 percent of the guys on this forum don't have the resources, tag and acerage wise for any kind of culling to be effective via buck or buck numbers... They have better chance at pushing ratio and cc via the shear numbers of doe tags they have. You are like I was in Oklahoma, blessed with light densities... Only two ways to go with light densities make them lighter via culling what you feel is the bottom immediately or let age classes get more established then cull out or do as I did and let them all get to 5.5 or better.
Huge chunk of the guys on this forum have never broke 140, so is it better to advise them to cull into trophies or ease up on the bucks, use their tags on does and only hunt 5.5 or older bucks?
We as hunters are to set on success being measured in antler harvest(any age)....thus most are working backwards on deer management. Want an example look at most leases and hunters per acre... You tell me if those hunter denisities match mature buck denesities... How many are t not going to use one or both buck tags