Aging deer by the lower jaw.

[Mexico]

The Noble Foundation did a study on the accuracy of the tooth method years ago. They sent jawbones of known aged deer (tagged as yearlings) to 34 experienced deer biologists. Their results:

[ATTACH]944915[/ATTACH]

Full study here.

Back to y'alls bickering.....

Very interesting, thank you for sharing.

[GarGuy]

Rusty, I would guess your far deer are virtually identical to my East Tx deer genetically. Natural browse is likely identical as well. It only makes sense that tooth wear would duplicate my results here.

[tdwinklr]

We have been noticing it has become more inaccurate on our ranch in mexico since we have been feeding protein for about 11 years. Some deer we know for sure were 8.5 but did not show the age. They were bucks that seemed to be at protein feeders daily. Glad to read this thought we were going crazy on deer we have seen for years. Went back on pictures on a couple to check and seen the teeth could not have shown there age.

not that an 8.5 yr old would have much teeth left anyway to examine.

[GarGuy]

not that an 8.5 yr old would have much teeth left anyway to examine.

Not true in most cases here in east tx. We killed a known 8 year old this year. If I had no history on him , i would have called him 6 by his teeth based on wear of known age deer on my place. Three folks who claim to be experts called him 4.5. No substitute for history.

[Ground Checkin' Heavies]

The Noble Foundation did a study on the accuracy of the tooth method years ago. They sent jawbones of known aged deer (tagged as yearlings) to 34 experienced deer biologists. Their results:

[ATTACH]944915[/ATTACH]

Full study here.

Back to y'alls bickering.....

A similar study, with similar results as well. This was posted on another tooth aging thread; however, this thread has more traction. Posting again.

https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/sites/default/files/pdf-attachment/2016-05/insidedeerresearchnewsletter-fall2010.pdf

[Mexico]

A similar study, with similar results as well. This was posted on another tooth aging thread; however, this thread has more traction. Posting again.

https://www.ckwri.tamuk.edu/sites/de...r-fall2010.pdf

I'll save y'all the read.... basically says trained Wildlife Biologist got the age of deer correct by teeth wear 89 percent of the time if the deer was
3.5 or less, and only right 49 percent of the time if the deer was 4.5 or older.

[Ground Checkin' Heavies]

There is no more accurate way to age a deer than having history/pictures of a known deer, year after year after year. The studies above prove that hunters/biologists/experts are 60% likely to be wrong on aging a deer by their teeth after 3yrs of age.

I guess my stance is that tooth aging doesn't really have a place in deer management any longer, as proved by the above studies; since so called experts/biologists can't even age a deer with 50% or more accuracy by their teeth as they mature. There are just too many variables to consider (location, soil, diet, stress, etc.) to think that tooth aging is a science experiment with known variables that can be proven with any legitimate accuracy.

I continue to try and model my deer management/aging philosophies on ranches/hunters that grow, kill, and know (have history) with big deer, year after year. To be clear, not talking about ranches or leases that use breeder pens or some other form of artificial insemination. Just my .02

[Top Of Texas]

I'll save y'all the read.... basically says trained Wildlife Biologist got the age of deer correct by teeth wear 89 percent of the time if the deer was
3.5 or less, and only right 49 percent of the time if the deer was 4.5 or older.

Actually, I encourage each of you to read the article FOR YOURSELF! In it, you will find important items, such as this quote -

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

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?

[Encinal]

Actually, I encourage each of you to read the article FOR YOURSELF! In it, you will find important items, such as this quote -

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

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?

Since the people that were aging via tooth wear were also the same people looking at the dead deer and measuring antler, they are hopelessly polluted as exclusively tooth based judges.

What you are seeing as increased antler size with age could in fact be heavily influenced by other observations.

[Top Of Texas]

Since the people that were aging via tooth wear were also the same people looking at the dead deer and measuring antler, they are hopelessly polluted as exclusively tooth based judges.

What you are seeing as increased antler size with age could in fact be heavily influenced by other observations.

Not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting TPWD biologists alter their tooth age determination based on something other than tooth wear when collecting this data?

[Encinal]

Not sure I'm following you. Are you suggesting TPWD biologists alter their tooth age determination based on something other than tooth wear when collecting this data?

It’s not a blind test to determine efficacy of tooth wear like the other studies presented and is therefore less relevant to this conversation.

And yes I am absolutely saying bias rears it’s head in a bloody deer cooler.

[Top Of Texas]

It’s not a blind test to determine efficacy of tooth wear like the other studies presented and is therefore less relevant to this conversation.

And yes I am absolutely saying bias rears it’s head in a bloody deer cooler.

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.

[lovemylegacy]

I'll save y'all the read.... basically says trained Wildlife Biologist got the age of deer correct by teeth wear 89 percent of the time if the deer was
3.5 or less, and only right 49 percent of the time if the deer was 4.5 or older.

You would think 3.5 or younger, they would be a 100% correct.

[lovemylegacy]

Actually, I encourage each of you to read the article FOR YOURSELF! In it, you will find important items, such as this quote -

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

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?

TOT, what about corelating body weights. That is really the deciding factor especially in doe harvest. Dang, there's that word again.

[elgato]

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.

Help me understand? Are you saying that the biologist accurately aged bucks at 4,5,6,7+giving the chart above age credibility when numerous studies have shown aging by tooth wear can be off 2,3 even 4yrs+ as deer mature into older age classes? I don't think anyone would argue that bucks getting bigger as they age.