Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aging deer by the lower jaw.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
    Those charts are highly relevant, as it represents real life examples that demonstrate the method has merit in management.

    What evidence can you produce that supports your accusation that TPWD biologists alter age determinations based on anything other than tooth wear? Surely you're not so bunkered to believe that state biologists, with nothing to gain, ignored their training and education, and altered their data so consistently, collectively, and over multiple years as to build those charts so that bucks got bigger as they got older.
    I think ElGato said it best.

    I certainly wouldn’t be pointing fingers calling others entrenched.

    No one here has denied that tooth wear is a general indicator of age... it’s a little more general than body condition, but easier to train someone to evaluate in a classroom.

    What we have said is that it’s silly to use an 8 track when we have streaming audio.

    Just because you were trained on an 8-track doesn’t mean it’s a GOOD tool for the job.

    There are far better tools out there...

    Even your two examples of 25 bucks and lower doe age classes...

    People are making decisions on individual deer... and if you have a 3 year spectrum margin of error for every buck over 3, you can’t tell them squat about fixing the problem from teeth.

    It’s not like it’s rocket science. If the deer aren’t getting big enough, they’re either being shot too young, they aren’t getting enough nutrition, or they aren’t genetically capable.

    Body weights would even be better than tooth wear as a stand alone in that scenario...

    As for the doe harvest question,,, I love how the biologist has to be proved wrong. What piece of evidence was he using to make his recommendation in the first place?

    These discussions happen all the time. I think you’ll find that folks with experience on this forum have read the same books and studies you have. They’ve lived through and helped innovate ideas in a rapidly changing deer world over the last 30 years. Our opinions are self formulated due to our experiences, which you may be shocked aren’t just about habitat in a bag as you so disrespectfully implied.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
      Actually, I encourage each of you to read the article FOR YOURSELF! In it, you will find important items, such as this quote -


      I'm beginning to see that most everyone's issue with the method is the false perception that tooth aging should be a precision tool. Unfortunately, the deer haven't read the manual. But fortunately for us, we can still use it for management purposes, such as in "Scenario 1" in Post #23.

      Since this thread has over 2,000 views, I went ahead and burned some time today running down some TPWD data (public data) from the rolling plains and panhandle. The charts below (I apologize for the crude screen shot photos) represent bucks brought into meat processing facilities, which makes it a nice cross-section of hunters (not a trophy mgt ranch). This is from 427 dead bucks, all aged by tooth wear. What we all know is that bucks get bigger as they get older, and what you see in the charts is confirmation of that fact. Now if tooth aging was truly a crap-shoot, or irrelevant, or useless, then we shouldn't see any antler growth in the charts beyond 3.5 years of age, because those ages are supposedly all wrong. But instead, we see the typical growth rate we would expect, peaking at around 6-7 years. How could that be if tooth aging is all wrong?

      "But, tooth wear can be used to assign deer to categories as young, middle-age, or old with reasonable accuracy."

      Didn't realize you needed tooth wear to determine if a deer was young, middle aged or old. This observation is fairly easy to accomplish on the hoof by an experienced eye. Young and old deer especially, and everyone else gets thrown into the middle aged catagory.

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by lovemylegacy View Post
        TOT, what about corelating body weights. That is really the deciding factor especially in doe harvest. Dang, there's that word again.
        Yes, sir! Doe weights are one of the best indicators of overall herd health when examined over a series of years. Buck weights don't work well for that because so much depends on the timing of the kill (harvest ). That is, was the harvest prior to or after the rut, then age of the buck, then if the buck was a "cull" or "trophy". By the time you finish splitting categories, the body weight sample size is so small that it loses meaning. Plus, body weights are indicators of habitat health, so in the case of intensive supplemental feeding operations, body weights don't mean much.

        Below, are some doe data charts from just a few, real life, ranching examples (there is a plethora of more). The 3 charts are from 3 different ranches. All 3 ranches are enjoying the benefits of sound management and data collection. The ranchers were trained in proper tooth wear aging and recorded their own data. Sample sizes were large. Locations will never be disclosed so don't bother asking.

        The bottom chart is a demonstration of the value of long term, quality, harvest data. That includes tooth wear ages. But far more importantly, it demonstrates the value of habitat management, livestock stocking rates and rotations, brush management, proper use of prescribed fire, and intensive doe harvest. These are all (every chart) free range, native deer, feeding only on what God provided. All data provided by the rancher himself. No, it's not rocket science, but outside the high fence and protein feeders, it definitely involves a multitude of range sciences, population dynamics, wildlife sciences, ecological sciences, and human dimensions.

        All readers, PLEASE, don't buy into the concept that tooth wear ages are meaningless! They just have to be used within the limitations of the method.
        Attached Files

        Comment


          #79
          What the heck does that bottom grahic even mean? You have a 9 year gap between 97 and 06 on the same slope??? and are comparing harvests that vary by 700% ???

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by Encinal View Post
            What the heck does that bottom grahic even mean? You have a 9 year gap between 97 and 06 on the same slope??? and are comparing harvests that vary by 700% ???
            Holy crap! You really don't know, do you?

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by Encinal View Post
              What the heck does that bottom grahic even mean? You have a 9 year gap between 97 and 06 on the same slope??? and are comparing harvests that vary by 700% ???
              And not only do you not know, but you turn a blind eye at the other data?!

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by Encinal View Post
                What the heck does that bottom grahic even mean? You have a 9 year gap between 97 and 06 on the same slope??? and are comparing harvests that vary by 700% ???
                I have offered multiple data sets. Multiple examples from both public and private sectors. Addressed scientific research. Presented numerous real life examples.

                And what have you offered, Encinal? A simple, "Because I said so"? And photos of big bucks?

                Come on, my deer mgt brother. Yes - tooth aging is not presice. But does it reveal management implications?

                YES! It does! As in Scenario 1 from Post #23, which you still refuse to acknowledge.

                That doesn't mean you can't continue to age bucks in trail-cams, nor follow a buck from 3 yrs to 10 yrs behind a high fence. You can! Giddy-up and go! It can exceed the effectiveness of tooth wear for your circumstances.

                But it does NOT mean that the rest of TX, which is the TX that can't afford your level of control and uninterrupted food supply, doesn't need to know some determination of what they've been doing. Whether it fits your operation or not, tooth age offers insight to the effectiveness of harvest, as well as habitat manipulations, and livestock stocking rates.

                Readers! Please take note of the evidence offered by both arguments. Proceed accordingly.
                Last edited by Top Of Texas; 02-08-2019, 01:28 AM.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                  And not only do you not know, but you turn a blind eye at the other data?!
                  The other data’s pretty standard stuff... though you can see the problem with comparing different data collected by different people.

                  #2 has a total variation of average body weight after 3 of like 4 pounds. Forgive me for not being blown away when most scales at skinning racks have 2 pound tick marks and half the time are being read in the dark. Looks like after 3 they all weigh pretty much the same.

                  The variation in #1 is much greater... but you have the worst drought in a generation in the middle of a 3 year data collection...

                  What exactly have you proven again? Something we’ve already acknowledged? Tooth wear is a mediocre aging method?

                  And no I don’t really know what the last data set means. You can apply a line of best fit to anything, but that doesn’t mean you have a small margin of error.

                  Since you keep attacking my background, and I don’t know your background, I’m at a disadvantage, please enlighten us.
                  Last edited by Encinal; 02-08-2019, 06:09 AM.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                    That doesn't mean you can't continue to age bucks in trail-cams, nor follow a buck from 3 yrs to 10 yrs behind a high fence. You can! Giddy-up and go! It can exceed the effectiveness of tooth wear for your circumstances.

                    But it does NOT mean that the rest of TX, which is the TX that can't afford your level of control and uninterrupted food supply, doesn't need to know some determination of what they've been doing. Whether it fits your operation or not, tooth age offers insight to the effectiveness of harvest, as well as habitat manipulations, and livestock stocking rates.

                    Readers! Please take note of the evidence offered by both arguments. Proceed accordingly.
                    No one said it didn’t offer insight. We said it was a poor tool to use to age deer.

                    The state has handled or is handling macro age structure issues with antler restrictions, which were set in place in large part to tooth wear observations. Bravo.

                    HOWEVER,
                    Most individuals are hunting small acreage and high hunter/deer densities.

                    Ageing indiduals on the hoof in those scenarios is paramount to get an edge to the next level, which everyone who isn’t a strictly meat hunter is trying to do. Trail cams and deer histories are far superior tools for the little guy than tooth wear on their places... The only thing that someone who hunts less than a deer’s home range can control 100% is what he or she pulls the trigger on, So that’s even more important than in a high density high fence place, or a large low density low fence place. We have more deer, more country and more slack if we screw up on a deer or two.

                    Oh... and we’re way deeper than just age when it comes to managing individuals when we have control of harvest criteria.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                      First, I want to encourage everyone to take the concept of tooth aging being an exact science, meaning every deer's teeth wears exactly the same, and flush that down the toilet of your brain. Replace it with this concept: Tooth aging is really really good for determining young, middle aged, and old in nearly all deer, thus it can be used for management purposes.

                      Let's address an item dear to the heart of most Green Screen users. "Did I kill that buck at a good old age with what could be its best set of antlers?"

                      Scenario 1: A group lease has killed 5 bucks per year for 5 years. They complain they can't grow big bucks, seem to peak around 130-135 B&C. Tooth wear age shows all 25 bucks to be be 3-5 years old. Staying focused on the topic, what's the management decision to be made?

                      Important for doe as well.
                      Scenario 2: A high fence propery has been heavily killing doe for 6 years trying to reduce population size, but doe are becoming hard to find, and hunters can't reach their quota. Their biologist pressures them to try harder. The lease boss, who understands tooth wear, shows the biologist doe ages. The first year of doe harvest showed a wide distribution of doe ages from 1-8 yrs with a peak around 4 yrs. The last year of harvest showed doe age to peak at 2 yrs with only a few 5 yrs. Staying focused on the topic, what's the management decision to be made?
                      I think this is where we are talking past each other. My assumption and your assumption of what the question most green screeners are asking is very different.

                      What I believe is a far more important question to an individual hunter that’s trying to make proper management decisions than:

                      DID I KILL THAT BUCK AT THE RIGHT TIME?

                      Is:

                      IS THIS THE RIGHT TIME TO KILL THIS BUCK?

                      Tooth wear doesn’t help you with the latter.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by Encinal View Post
                        I think this is where we are talking past each other. My assumption and your assumption of what the question most green screeners are asking is very different.

                        What I believe is a far more important question to an individual hunter that’s trying to make proper management decisions than:

                        DID I KILL THAT BUCK AT THE RIGHT TIME?

                        Is:

                        IS THIS THE RIGHT TIME TO KILL THIS BUCK?

                        Tooth wear doesn’t help you with the latter.

                        Well said! I agree 100%! I have stated in other posts, numerous times, how important it is to let bucks get old before killing. That requires the knowledge and ability to age bucks on the hoof based on body proportions. Trail cameras are a fabulous way of achieving that and building history with your buck herd. That is right! That is truth! And it works! We have common ground!!!

                        That has nothing to do with tooth wear nor the value of age data. That is where we are talking past each other. I'm arguing that age data (tooth wear), in both buck and doe harvest, is an important piece of the puzzle in deer management. Just like in Scenario 1 of Post #23, where tooth wear data revealed the need for education and training in field judging.

                        I've offered sufficient evidence.

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Encinal View Post

                          Since you keep attacking my background, and I don’t know your background, I’m at a disadvantage, please enlighten us.
                          No, sir. I have not attacked your background. I don't know your background. All I can tell from your posts is that you currently either own, hunt, or work on a high fenced ranch in S TX that offers ad lib protein feed. You've grown and killed some incredible deer, and do so on a consistent basis. And I do mean some incredible deer! Because of that, people look up to you, and they value your opinion and take it to heart. I'm one of them. But when I see influential people like yourself making statements that are inaccurate and that would lead others to making bad decisions, I feel compelled to challenge and debate that statement. In this situation, my intent was not to discredit you, but to make the distinction between high fenced properties with ad lib protein and properties without. Those are 2 vastly different worlds. It's much easier to grow and kill huge bucks when the property is designated for that goal, thus data collection is not as critical nor does it carry the same value in decision making.

                          You see, I love helping people succeed. I really do. Especially the guys who are doing the best they can with what they got and face so many struggles out of their control. I listed some of those items earlier. So when an influential person from a different level tells them to pay no attention to a matter that could actually be important to them at their level, I have to intercede.

                          As for myself, I choose anonymity. That way, people can't accuse me of making statements out of pride or ego boosting. After all, people can't be prideful and seek admiration if no one knows them. I'm also fully aware that any motivated individual with access to Google could nail me down in about 2 minutes or less if they so desired. There are a few Green Screen users who have spotted me. I believe my posts are compelling, persuasive, and science based. They should stand up by themselves without the need for flashing resumes.

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                            That would depend on the goals of the property and financial liberty of the owner to grow antlers. Only a small minority of hunters in TX are gifted with the privilege to hunt properties where letting a good, young buck walk carries little risk, or where deer can be provided unlimited supplemental feed regardless of costs. Those 2 aspects of management, age and feed, are typically the primary, if not the only, focus on such properties, and on those rare properties, you're correct, they dont need a biologist. All they need is a high school kid to keep the protein feeders filled and to run trail cameras. Anyone can grow big deer in the Walmart parking lot with feed and age. If doing so consistently and over numerous years brings on admiration from others, so be it. It doesn't require a biologist.

                            However, the vast majority of hunters in TX shoot a buck because the neighbors might, or stress out for a year worrying if a buck they let walk will make it to next season, expend family and business dollars trying to attract and hold more deer on their place, or wish the rancher would decrease his stocking rate, or wish TPWD would allow harvest of more doe, or wish their neighbors would help kill doe instead of bucks, and on and on and on.

                            I shine the lights of truth and contrast on these two different paradigms for one reason. When it comes to these "management" discussions, or "science" debates in deer mgt, it's an easy trap for any hunter/manager to fall into where credence is granted to the guy who can post the most pictures of big deer. After all, if he has big deer, he must know what he's talking about. That makes sense if you don't think about it. Those rare, exclusive properties don't have to worry about management details and intricacies. Just keep the feeders full and let good bucks get old. The rest of TX doesn't have that luxury and management details and intricacies are very important.

                            With 2600+ posts on this thread I thought I'd review every post to see what I can learn.

                            Of all the posts this one contained some of the most ridiculous and perhaps misleading comments of them all. But I digress...

                            The o.p. stated his dad killed a buck believed to be 5 or older based on camera data yet tooth aging indicated 3. Thus he questioned, how accurate is tooth wear for aging?

                            From there the general consensus based on research presented as well as anecdotal observation is that accuracy is very high in 1 and 2 yr olds but diminished rapidly and dramatically . Errors of two years or more were frequently observed.Research stated the AT BEST deer can be divide into young, middle and older age classes with middle being 3-6. Interesting as the middle age group goes from an undeveloped skeletal system to a buck many consider mature. How valuable is that?

                            I didn't see anyone using jaw aging as a mgt. tool or seeing much validity in jaw bone aging except T.O.T . Part of the argument is that" most don't grasp the methodology " presumably necessary to garner accurate results. TOT is then quick to qualify the tool's limitations noting that no-one should be kicked off a lease from jaw aging...on that I completely agree. It was also proposed that any property with a biologist who claims tooth wear has no place in mgt. needs a new biologist.

                            What I have found working with numerous biologists is that tooth wear aging as a mgt. tool never comes up. A novelty to look at from time to time but never a part of an overall strategy. I find that an interesting disconnect from TOT's position.

                            Two scenarios are presented using jaw bone data to make a mgt. decision. Is that appropriate? Are we being asked to make decisions based on known flawed data. Aging showed tooth wear of from 3-5 presuming the bucks were too young when in actuality , based on the truth about jaw aging they could have been 3-8 hiding the fact that the real problem was something else....low nutritional plane ??? Overpopulation? A list to long to consider without more detail that any good manager would be expected to produce.

                            From there charts were presented showing I.S., circumference, points, & weights all correlated to an exact age proposition.....supplied by tooth wear aging that at best is 40-60% accurate with essentially no chance of being accurate after 5 or 6. This again verified by the Noble Foundation, CKWR etc. SO how accurate are those charts and what is the real value regarding using jaws as a management tool? Seems to me that the links from Noble and CKWR as well as other studies mentioned have a scientific basis to them vs. charts that starts with false inputs.

                            SO my takeaway after going thru all this is that if someone wants to pull a jaw to see what it says thats fine. I find it interesting. Maybe something useful can be garnered from it but don't expect it to be very accurate for aging. And as a management tool I would put it at the bottom of the list behind cameras for specific deer to harvest and camera census, learning to field age bucks, field observation , habitat observation....etc, etc.

                            AS a last note I decided a long time ago that to get to be the best at something look at what the current best are doing and mentor them. Been a good shortcut.
                            Last edited by elgato; 02-08-2019, 02:42 PM.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              One of the bad things about jaw aging, other than the obvious, is the deer has to be dead, where as photo historical age calculations the deer gets to live.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	2019-01-12 20-14-30 M 2_3.jpg
Views:	4
Size:	35.8 KB
ID:	24570852

                                Just for the record. No teeth as the deer is still alive, but I know his age. Give it a shot.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X