Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tooth age please?

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

    #16
    Guessing middle aged. Still pretty sharp crests.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Greenheadless View Post
      Ain’t that the truth.

      I don’t see eye to eye with out biologists assessment +40% of the time. We sent some incisors off last year for the annular test. Got the results back which were vastly different than his assessment.

      His answer was to discredit the testing of the annular. Said if you are only paying $20-$30 a tooth for results, you ‘get what you pay for’. Thing is, in no st cases, he wasn’t off 1 year from this testing, but multiple years on what classify as mature deer.

      Well, the MLDP is ‘free’, and he comes along with it, so I don’t know what to say.
      I let a kid shot a deer this year that i know for absolute sure was8.5. His teeth looked 6.5 to me . Three "experts"" were confident he was 4.5. Couldnt convince them any different either. Wouldnt that have sucked if it was a lease requiring 5.5 or older?

      Comment


        #18
        We had a member on are lease that killed a deer that was known to be at least 5.5 and his teeth showed 3.5.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Greenheadless View Post
          Need more info. Where taken? On protein? Terrain and soil types? Typical food sources? Have a picture of the other side as well?

          Too many variables above that needs answers to even guess.
          None of those variables are scientifically documented and should have no bearing on aging that deer based on tooth wear method. Well..except for having photo of otherside

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by Greenheadless View Post
            I can see 6 in that deer. On my east Texas place he would be +\-7. On my west Texas place he would be 4-5.

            Tooth wear is in no way an exact science. Always good to pair with what the deer looked like on the hoof.
            That is not accurate information on a regionally wide basis. Novice readers - please do not buy into this.

            Yes, tooth wear is not an exact science. The Noble Foundation proved that in the early 90's, and Caesar Kleberg Institute has done the same more recently. What both of those studies have also proven is that the method is highly accurate for determining old bucks from middle aged bucks and from young bucks. Experts may only get 50-60% of exact age correct, but they get 80-90% correct in those 3 groups. From a management standpoint that works.

            If, in a scientific approach, you developed criteria for all of those variables you listed, then isolated each, measured the influence of those variables on tooth wear, and found statistical significance of those variables, then that could hold water. However, to suggest using on the hoof criteria to adjust what you see in the teeth is backwards. If you're pre-determined, why bother looking.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Greenheadless View Post
              Ain’t that the truth.

              I don’t see eye to eye with out biologists assessment +40% of the time. We sent some incisors off last year for the annular test. Got the results back which were vastly different than his assessment.

              His answer was to discredit the testing of the annular. Said if you are only paying $20-$30 a tooth for results, you ‘get what you pay for’. Thing is, in no st cases, he wasn’t off 1 year from this testing, but multiple years on what classify as mature deer.

              Well, the MLDP is ‘free’, and he comes along with it, so I don’t know what to say.
              Same thing on our club.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Greenheadless View Post
                Yes, excellent article. All viewers who want understanding, please read the entire document.

                Comment


                  #23
                  4.5

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                    That is not accurate information on a regionally wide basis. Novice readers - please do not buy into this.

                    Yes, tooth wear is not an exact science. The Noble Foundation proved that in the early 90's, and Caesar Kleberg Institute has done the same more recently. What both of those studies have also proven is that the method is highly accurate for determining old bucks from middle aged bucks and from young bucks. Experts may only get 50-60% of exact age correct, but they get 80-90% correct in those 3 groups. From a management standpoint that works.

                    If, in a scientific approach, you developed criteria for all of those variables you listed, then isolated each, measured the influence of those variables on tooth wear, and found statistical significance of those variables, then that could hold water. However, to suggest using on the hoof criteria to adjust what you see in the teeth is backwards. If you're pre-determined, why bother looking.
                    Uh.......ok.

                    Because there hasn’t been a ‘study’ it can’t be true?

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Tooth wear charts could only be done if regionally adjusted. Im not guessing. Im speaking from experience of looking at the teeth of know age deer in East tx. Wild deer that eat soft vegetation and pick up acorns of straw and leaves wear teeth much slower than corn fed deer in bare dirt.

                      10 years ago, i could look at teeth and age a deer with great confidence. now i realize how much variation there can be regionally.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Greenheadless View Post
                        Uh.......ok.

                        Because there hasn’t been a ‘study’ it can’t be true?
                        Scientific study is important. It takes observations, such as observed differences in regional tooth wear, isolates variables, and tests if those observations are consistent and predictable based on those changing variables. Thats deductive reasoning. The opposite is inductive reasoning, where an interpretation is inferred based solely on observation.

                        We don't need science to tell us the sky is blue, or water is wet, or that an egg will crack when rolled off a roof. But, yeah, I'd like to see some data that teeth wear differently based on all the variables you describe. My observations, as well as scientific tests, indicate that is not accurate information to be sharing with the hunting masses across Texas.

                        Aging by tooth wear has issues when it comes to splitting hairs, but it's pretty darn good at lumping. Lumping is fairly functional for management purposes.

                        Sounds to me, if you have access to known age and free range deer jaws from east and west TX, that you're in a perfect position to test your observations. Holler at a wildlife professor at any university in TX. They'll jump at that chance. I would look forward to seeing results as I always enjoy more education.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by GarGuy View Post
                          Tooth wear charts could only be done if regionally adjusted. Im not guessing. Im speaking from experience of looking at the teeth of know age deer in East tx. Wild deer that eat soft vegetation and pick up acorns of straw and leaves wear teeth much slower than corn fed deer in bare dirt.

                          10 years ago, i could look at teeth and age a deer with great confidence. now i realize how much variation there can be regionally.
                          The problem with the regional thing, is that we still see the same variability in tooth wear within the same regions on known age deer. That's Panhandle, Trans Pecos, Hill Country, S TX (sorry, I don't get to E TX much).

                          Stupid deer just dont read the manual. But, again, lumping ages for management purposes works really well. If you're shooting bucks that have at least 1 dished out molar, you've done well.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                            The problem with the regional thing, is that we still see the same variability in tooth wear within the same regions on known age deer. That's Panhandle, Trans Pecos, Hill Country, S TX (sorry, I don't get to E TX much).

                            Stupid deer just dont read the manual. But, again, lumping ages for management purposes works really well. If you're shooting bucks that have at least 1 dished out molar, you've done well.
                            I really dont disagree with much of anything you wrote. I have a friend here in East tx that has a high fence place where deer pile to the feeders every day because he carries a lot of deer per acre. their teeth wear much like west Tx deer.

                            Not many years ago, i would age deer for people by teeth with really great confidence. Now, after hundreds of thousands of pictures and tremendous history with specific deer, I am stunned how bad I would have missed aging them. ALWAYS older than the teeth showed.

                            These deer are wild, low fence deer that rarely eat at any feeder. I have also learned that East tx deer can live to be REALLY old. I would guess that they live to be older naturally in East tx than anywhere in the state because of the slower tooth wear. Right now, I have bucks that are 10,11, and 16(ish) years old. The ten year old has his best rack this year and the 11 year old had his best rack last year.

                            Once again, I dont disagree with what you are saying. I think what you are missing is what Greenhead was talking about. East tx free range deer..
                            Last edited by GarGuy; 12-29-2018, 12:19 PM.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Garguy, along the lines of what you mentioned, I don't recall, off-hand, ever seeing a known age deer who's teeth showed older than reality.

                              I killed a deer in Nebraska a few years ago. Biggest bodied deer I ever killed and obviously mature appearance in body proportions. Even the locals commented as such. Teeth showed 2 yrs. My experienced biologist buddy just shook his head.

                              But, again, for average management purposes, it works.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by Top Of Texas View Post
                                Garguy, along the lines of what you mentioned, I don't recall, off-hand, ever seeing a known age deer who's teeth showed older than reality.

                                I killed a deer in Nebraska a few years ago. Biggest bodied deer I ever killed and obviously mature appearance in body proportions. Even the locals commented as such. Teeth showed 2 yrs. My experienced biologist buddy just shook his head.

                                But, again, for average management purposes, it works.
                                Crap like that would get you kicked off half the leases in texas.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X