Teeth Aging Texas Hill Country Deer

[GarGuy]

2018

[GarGuy]

2019

[GarGuy]

2020

[Chance Love]

Sorry fellers, been out of pocket for a few days. I want to post these jaw pics so y'all have time to respond a little. And I'll go back over some of the recent posts to the thread and give my thoughts. Anyway, here is a jaw off a buck we killed this past weekend. By the teeth, how old?

[GarGuy]

Well by his teeth he is 8 because that's all you get.

[Chance Love]

I suppose it would be the epitome of foolishness to suggest that perhaps the deer are being mis-aged based on trail cams?

We use trail cams as a tool. Nothing beats in-person observation.

I do find it curious that, in the past (for some), a guy would see a buck in the pasture, estimate his age based on body conformation, shoot the buck, then look in his mouth to see how close he had estimated the age. But now, some hunters give more credence to their ability to age a buck on the hoof than they do to tooth wear. So much so, that now a guy estimates a buck's age, shoots him, looks in his mouth and it's not what he expected, and so the tooth wear is declared to be wrong. Now, in order to develop history, each buck must have a starting point. I assume y'all don't ear tag all your fawns. So, somewhere along the way, say 3-4 years old (although y'all mention 5 yr), you begin the history of a buck based on body conformation.

Most of our history will begin when a buck is 3 or 4. That's when they start to get "noticeable". We will err on the 3 side if questionable.

Now, here's the really curious part about all that ---->

The origins of field aging come from tooth wear.

Think about it. Field aging didn't begin with wild, ear tagged deer. It began with a guy watching a deer in the field, evaluating his body conformation, shooting the buck, looking in its mouth, and then putting it in a category. Those physical characteristics of age had to be developed, and then shared with other hunters. Field aging videos first came out sometime around the early 90's, I think. But they were originally based on tooth wear. All those posters you see these days - That's how it all started. What does this reveal about the starting point on building history with a deer? Is it based on flawed data? By the way, the previous charts reveal that the data is not flawed, I don't understand why folks aren't seeing that.

Yes, I believe the data is flawed. And I've already stated why, but will do so again. I have no doubt that these guys are shooting deer that are field judged to be 5, 6, or whatever. They shoot them and look at their teeth...and the teeth show the same as what they judged. I'm not arguing that. What I'm arguing is that while those deer may well exhibit the common body characteristics of a 5 or 6 year old, without history there is no sure way to know. We watch LOTS of bucks that look 4, 5, 6, ect and anyone with any experience in aging would say the same thing. However, with our history we know these same bucks are 4-6 years older than what they show. And without fail the teeth will show younger than the deer actually are. Without fail. Yes, we are certain they are the same deer year ofter year.

Because of the more objective nature of tooth wear, most educated individuals should get the same, or really close to the same, answer. But, in field aging, you can get a wide variety of estimates. There's plenty of trail cam posts on TBH Forum to reveal that. And if you want to start a really heated debate, share consecutive year photos, over numerous years, and see how many agree that it's the same deer. That eventually has to boil-down to just - because I said so.

Before anyone boils over at that last paragraph, following bucks over consecutive years can be done and is a great tool. But it does not negate the value of tooth wear in making management decisions.

Tooth wear is only objective because that's what we were taught years ago, when all the charts and such started popping up. A book said here is what a 3 year old jaw looks like, ect...and we ran with it. Taking it as Gospel. It's not.

Aging deer from a few pics can be almost as much of a trap shoot as jaw aging old deer. The difference us the j.g ae aged deer has no chance of getting any older. Earlier I talked about gathering pics. This was not so much to age by but to develop HISTORY on individual deer. While history may not be 100 percent many people can follow a specific deer for many years from trail pics and visual sittings.

Now for the mature deer pic posted a while back... not many mature east tx deer ever look like that. As a matter of fact some just a look 4 years old most of their lives.

Long and short is that there is no substitute for history. It's not perfect but it is the most effective management tool on a properly if properly maintained.

I very much agree with this last sentence. History is more accurate then teeth.

That's why I mentioned a "starting point." Building history must have a beginning, and it's not ear tagged fawns, or 1 and 2 year olds. Note the variability in 3 yr olds in that table I shared. A buck has to be old enough to have developed some unique characteristics that he will continue to express in consecutive years for the rest of his life. If accuracy is only 35%, then the starting point is called into question which subsequently calls future age estimates into question.

The people being tested were shown multiple photos from multiple angles. The entire test included 583 photographs of 70 bucks, from known ages (caught as fawns) that ranged from 1 to 12 years old.

I believe the Nobel Foundation failed in this paper, just like they did with tooth aging study, by not grouping age classes. It's a great eye opening study, but it fails to mention that agining on the hoof is a valuable and useful tool in deer management. Even if you don't nail the year.

We all need to stop worrying about nailing down the years, and just strive to shoot old looking deer. And after you've shot him, record his tooth wear age!

Our starting point is when deer are likely 3 or 4 years old. If questionable, we err on the 3 side. Trust me, we are not mistaking these bucks for yearlings or 2 year olds.

What about all the old deer that aren’t “old looking?” Case and point the deer GG posted below. This is exactly why we need to worry about the years.

It is VERY typical for really old deer to look young again. And some never will express the traits of an older buck. We have had plenty that look like a typical 4 year old, and stay that way for 5+ years. How old is he? Who knows, but at least 9 in this example. It also seems like the teeth will show 5ish in these cases. Which further suggests teeth aging is for the birds.

I don't know. Maybe I keep passing them up and they die of old age, and I only shoot the ones who look 6 years or older?

Which brings up a question for GarGuy and Chance - If I killed a deer whose teeth showed 6 years, would y'all expect him to be younger or older than 6 years?

Older. Every time.

[GarGuy]

The deer I posted here looked a really slick 3 years old in sept and oct. With no history everyone including myself and TOT would have called him a non shooter. Hes is definitely 13 and likely 14 years old. He had his best rack at 10. Granted nutrition was drastically improved when he was 8.

History... no substitute. If he had been killed at 10 I would bet money his teeth would have aged 4. We killed his 8 term old running buddy that year. Taxidermist confidently called him 4 and said he would have been a monster some day.

[Chance Love]

History... no substitute. If he had been killed at 10 I would bet money his teeth would have aged 4. We killed his 8 term old running buddy that year. Taxidermist confidently called him 4 and said he would have been a monster some day.

Funny you say that. When I have my "taxidermy hat" on, guys are always asking if I can look at the teeth and tell them how old their buck was. I always reply that I can tell them what a book says the teeth are, but how old he actually was is anyone's guess.

[Top Of Texas]

By the teeth, how old?

Old enough to comfortably say that the buck had achieved, and possibly surpassed, his peak antler development.

The point I'm continually failing to drive home with you, Chance, is that age matters, but the specificity doesn't. Think of it in this scenario - If I'm looking to get on a lease and I'm interested in top quality deer, and I see that the teeth of the bucks killed on that lease frequently look like the photos you posted and that the teeth of the "youngest" bucks harvested show at least 1 dished out molar, then GIDDY-UP and sign me up! That's a group of like-minded hunters that I want to be a part of.

That's because tooth wear has meaning and management implications.

I have offered scientific, mathematical and statistically sound evidence that tooth wear correlates with age, body conformation, and antler size. How you're not seeing that, I don't really understand, nor can I conceptualize an alternative way to describe it.

Conversely, all you have offered as evidence is - Trust me.

That's why that guy, a gazillion comments ago, wanted to see, or that is said, "BETTER" get to see photos of the bucks, because people want to see the evidence. They're not willing to take your word for it. Nor am I. Because I have not witnessed, with regularity, what you're claiming to be a regularity.

My comments in no way reduce the value of aging on the hoof or developing history with a deer. Those are fabulous management tools. Yet, the value of aging on the hoof and developing history with a deer in no way reduce the value of tooth wear.

If you regularly witness 10-ish year old bucks with 4-ish year old teeth, then my years of experience would suggest you've likely mixed up your bucks or possibly mis-aged the bucks starting points. The data I've presented support that as well. Because that just doesn't happen very often. I don't say that from a "trust me" stand point, rather as supported by the real-life data I've presented.

Mis-aging bucks from photos is obviously very common given the Noble Foundations table I shared, which would add credence to the concept that you incorrectly assigned a buck to an age. In fact, you yourself stated that, "...some never will express the traits of an older buck." If that's true, then how did you ever first, accurately, put them into an age category? That is, what was their starting points? See what I'm saying? If some bucks appear to be, perpetually, 3-4 years old, then how do you know at what point they were actually 3-4 years old? And to complicate that, you suggest that other bucks will show body conformation of maturity. How do you decide which bucks do and which bucks don't?

Sounds highly subjective, dare I say, even opinionated.

Tooth wear is mostly objective. It breaks it down to the relationship between the widths of dentine and enamel. We could make it completely objective by using a micrometer to measuring them. I often make fun of that concept, because, from a management standpoint, it's ridiculous. Yet, during my literature review, I found a paper in a peer reviewed journal where they did exactly that. They found that, "...the correct year class was achieved for 48% of male deer, and 90% were classified within 1 year of their actual age." Those were wild bucks, captured and marked as fawns over a 10 year period, and included the harvested jaws of 140 of them from ages 2 to 7 years. If you'd like to read it, the citation is: Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-) , Vol. 37, No. 2 (June 2013), pp. 451-457.

[panhandlehunter]

Old enough to comfortably say that the buck had achieved, and possibly surpassed, his peak antler development.

The point I'm continually failing to drive home with you, Chance, is that age matters, but the specificity doesn't. Think of it in this scenario - If I'm looking to get on a lease and I'm interested in top quality deer, and I see that the teeth of the bucks killed on that lease frequently look like the photos you posted and that the teeth of the "youngest" bucks harvested show at least 1 dished out molar, then GIDDY-UP and sign me up! That's a group of like-minded hunters that I want to be a part of.

That's because tooth wear has meaning and management implications.

I have offered scientific, mathematical and statistically sound evidence that tooth wear correlates with age, body conformation, and antler size. How you're not seeing that, I don't really understand, nor can I conceptualize an alternative way to describe it.

Conversely, all you have offered as evidence is - Trust me.

That's why that guy, a gazillion comments ago, wanted to see, or that is said, "BETTER" get to see photos of the bucks, because people want to see the evidence. They're not willing to take your word for it. Nor am I. Because I have not witnessed, with regularity, what you're claiming to be a regularity.

My comments in no way reduce the value of aging on the hoof or developing history with a deer. Those are fabulous management tools. Yet, the value of aging on the hoof and developing history with a deer in no way reduce the value of tooth wear.

If you regularly witness 10-ish year old bucks with 4-ish year old teeth, then my years of experience would suggest you've likely mixed up your bucks or possibly mis-aged the bucks starting points. The data I've presented support that as well. Because that just doesn't happen very often. I don't say that from a "trust me" stand point, rather as supported by the real-life data I've presented.

Mis-aging bucks from photos is obviously very common given the Noble Foundations table I shared, which would add credence to the concept that you incorrectly assigned a buck to an age. In fact, you yourself stated that, "...some never will express the traits of an older buck." If that's true, then how did you ever first, accurately, put them into an age category? That is, what was their starting points? See what I'm saying? If some bucks appear to be, perpetually, 3-4 years old, then how do you know at what point they were actually 3-4 years old? And to complicate that, you suggest that other bucks will show body conformation of maturity. How do you decide which bucks do and which bucks don't?

Sounds highly subjective, dare I say, even opinionated.

Tooth wear is mostly objective. It breaks it down to the relationship between the widths of dentine and enamel. We could make it completely objective by using a micrometer to measuring them. I often make fun of that concept, because, from a management standpoint, it's ridiculous. Yet, during my literature review, I found a paper in a peer reviewed journal where they did exactly that. They found that, "...the correct year class was achieved for 48% of male deer, and 90% were classified within 1 year of their actual age." Those were wild bucks, captured and marked as fawns over a 10 year period, and included the harvested jaws of 140 of them from ages 2 to 7 years. If you'd like to read it, the citation is: Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-) , Vol. 37, No. 2 (June 2013), pp. 451-457.

But 48% isn’t very good as far as accuracy is concerned. Imagine if birth control only worked 48% of the time.

[Top Of Texas]

But 48% isn’t very good as far as accuracy is concerned. Imagine if birth control only worked 48% of the time.

HA! That's great! A friend used the analogy just the other day referring to a woman being only kinda pregnant.

You did see the part about being 90% within 1 year, right? And then gave thought to the probability of how frequently a deer's teeth would be numerous years off from reality...right?

[panhandlehunter]

HA! That's great! A friend used the analogy just the other day referring to a woman being only kinda pregnant.

You did see the part about being 90% within 1 year, right? And then gave thought to the probability of how frequently a deer's teeth would be numerous years off from reality...right?

I understand your numbers and where you’re coming from. My issue is accuracy. Hypothetical, we have 10 deer shot on my lease, they are to be a minimum age of 7.5. So out of 10, 5 will be aged correctly, 4 will be off by a year, and the last one is anybody’s guess. That’s a problem in my eyes.

[Top Of Texas]

I understand your numbers and where you’re coming from. My issue is accuracy. Hypothetical, we have 10 deer shot on my lease, they are to be a minimum age of 7.5. So out of 10, 5 will be aged correctly, 4 will be off by a year, and the last one is anybody’s guess. That’s a problem in my eyes.

Whomever is setting those rules needs to read this entire thread. That is, unless the 7.5 minimum is also hypothetical, which I hope it is because that's ridiculous.

Yet, if they killed 9 bucks whose teeth showed that they were 6.5 or older and 1 that was less or more than that, then that sounds awesome, and I'd like to be on a great lease like that.

Look at the big picture and don't get hung up on nailing down a year. Hunting is supposed to be fun. Getting consumed with particular bucks and their particular years of life and whether it's right or wrong to kill them creates stress and sucks all the fun out of hunting. Strive for old looking deer. The teeth will almost always, and definitely on average will always, confirm whether or not your are doing a good job identifying older deer that could/should be near their peak in antler growth. If the teeth consistently fail to confirm that, (3-4 years instead of 6-7 years) then the problem is not the teeth; rather, it's the field aging ability that needs education and training, as well as the possibility of building history.

[Mexico]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lmao! I can post of few traps but I'll just enjoy the thread. My deer never cease to amaze, so often they don't look their age. You can't beat intimate history with your herd. That's the only way you'll truly know a deer's age.

[panhandlehunter]

Whomever is setting those rules needs to read this entire thread. That is, unless the 7.5 minimum is also hypothetical, which I hope it is because that's ridiculous.

Yet, if they killed 9 bucks whose teeth showed that they were 6.5 or older and 1 that was less or more than that, then that sounds awesome, and I'd like to be on a great lease like that.

Look at the big picture and don't get hung up on nailing down a year. Hunting is supposed to be fun. Getting consumed with particular bucks and their particular years of life and whether it's right or wrong to kill them creates stress and sucks all the fun out of hunting. Strive for old looking deer. The teeth will almost always, and definitely on average will always, confirm whether or not your are doing a good job identifying older deer that could/should be near their peak in antler growth. If the teeth consistently fail to confirm that, (3-4 years instead of 6-7 years) then the problem is not the teeth; rather, it's the field aging ability that needs education and training, as well as the possibility of building history.

That is the age requirement for my lease. Our biologist is the one who sets the age requirements, which I have no problem with. I actually think it’s a great rule. We have plenty of 5,6+ older deer and do a great job of managing it.