Teeth Aging Texas Hill Country Deer

[Top Of Texas]

Nothing wrong with any of those examples. All I'm saying is that without the history, all you are going by is what the teeth show, which could be quite a but different than what the buck actually was. On the other hand, the teeth could be spot on. That's the issue.

Well, but I gave a diversity of first hand observations that demonstrated that your technique (age on hoof plus history) was confirmed by tooth wear.

I included 1 example, the only extreme example I can think of in all my experience, to also acknowledge that, yeah, rarely a body won't match tooth wear.

[Top Of Texas]

Now for cameras. I enjoy the pics as much as the hunt. Sure doesn't take fun out for me. I love running cameras in July as they start popping!

I wasn't criticizing the use of cameras, just providing an explanation as to why I don't have trail cam photos

[Top Of Texas]

Don't know squat about biological mechanisms. Maybe these bucks at 4 years of age would have teeth of a 2 year old. Who knows. I think every deer is different, same as people. Some will wear faster than others. A 10+ year old with 4 year old teeth is an outlier. But it's almost a given in our area that an 8+ year old deer will have a 5 or 6 year old jaw.

But you said earlier, "The only tooth wear that seems fairly accurate is up until about age 3 or 4. I'll give you that much." That's what made me ask you that question.

A biological mechanism...in this context, you could think of it like a trigger that begins a process (biological or physiological) that results in an altered outcome. Or just - cause and effect. For example, GarGuy "added some nutrition" and noticed an improvement in antler size. The mechanism was the deer's body converting those nutrients to body maintenance and antler growth. Cause and effect. Describe what you believe to be happening that results in the decreased rate of tooth wear once a deer exceeds the age of 4.

[Top Of Texas]

The teeth had nothing to do with your decision to kill those deer. How the teeth looked after he was dead had no bearing.

You say that you develop history with the deer. That history has a starting point that is based on estimating age on the hoof. After following and killing said deer, you then claim that tooth wear does not correlate with that age estimation. My personal observations demonstrate, other than that 1 extreme case, that implementing the same field aging and history technique that you use does correlate with tooth wear.

[Top Of Texas]

Hmmm...I'll have to think about that. But it would be really hard for me to want to get involved in a long term research project just to prove what I already know is true.

There will be plenty of properties willing to participate in such a project. I invite you to be involved because I perceive that if you weren't involved first-hand that you would attack the resulting published paper with the same strawman fallacy arguments you've used here.

[Top Of Texas]

Let's say you have a chance to get on 1 of 2 leases. Each lease is 30,000 ac. They are 20 miles apart in the "Golden Triangle" of Texas. Prices are the same. Hunter density is the same. Tooth wear (from 100 bucks) on Ranch #1 averages 4 years old. Tooth wear on Ranch #2 (from 100 bucks) averages 7 years old.

Which lease would you prefer?

So far, all anyone has provided are evasive answers. It's a very simple question, and the answer is so obvious that continued evasion only further reveals entrenched positions.

[Top Of Texas]

Tooth wear should never be used to kick hunters off leases. That's applying the technique beyond its limitations.

[PondPopper]

I didn’t read the entire thread, I was just curious if anyone had an opinion to the accuracy of aging deer by tooth wear.

No it is a farce that someone with an "education" made biblical years ago.. It is very inaccurate and has been proven so time and time again AND has caused more problems/harm than good....

[GarGuy]

So far, all anyone has provided are evasive answers. It's a very simple question, and the answer is so obvious that continued evasion only further reveals entrenched positions.

Entrenched position? Pot meet kettle. Imagine a group of hunters showing up at the skinning rack with the three 10 plus year old deer who's teeth were posted, only to have some know it all 28 year old biologist talk them down for killing those deer with such great potential.

I had a client kill a 150 inch deer with a bow. I had 4 years history on the deer and believe him 7. Certainly 6 at a minimum. My client was thrilled. A biologist looked at the jaw and promptly proclaimed the deer borderline 4 and just dreamed of what that deer might have been in a couple years. Really ruined it for my hunter.

Chance and I are not the only people telling you hard experience shows tooth aging far wrong on old deer always under aging them. Ask a few more lease managers with years of history if you refuse to believe us. I don't know a single one that has not independently reached the same conclusion after years of comparing actual wear to history.

[Chance Love]

Describe what you believe to be happening that results in the decreased rate of tooth wear once a deer exceeds the age of 4.

There will be plenty of properties willing to participate in such a project. I invite you to be involved because I perceive that if you weren't involved first-hand that you would attack the resulting published paper with the same strawman fallacy arguments you've used here.

I'll address both statements with this: There is no "strawman fallacy argument" here. I really wish I could get you to understand that what a LOT of us believe is that the studies and data that you (and other biologist types) so readily quote...is flawed. I feel like I have to keep repeating this, but here goes again. In all of these studies, y'all look at deer up to ages 7 or so. And for the most part your tooth wear data correlates with the actual age of the deer. Although it does seem that the older they get, the less accurate the teeth are in these studies.

Now here is the argument...the studies do not go past this age group. At least not that I'm aware of. So there is no "official" data to prove or disprove what we are saying. My contention is that y'all (I'm lumping you in with most other biologists) continue to do basically the same studies, and get the same results. A deer is tagged as a fawn, shot at 5 and his teeth show 5. Done. End of study. Tooth wear is accurate. But here is where things deviate, and the point I can't seem to make with you. We consistently shoot older age class bucks. These are for the most part known-aged bucks. We are VERY familiar with our herd. Most "trophy" bucks will be killed at 8+ years old, and their teeth will almost always show 5 or 6. However, in the field they LOOK like 5 or 6 year old deer. To someone not familiar with the herd and not having the HISTORY we do with these bucks, they absolutely would incorrectly field judge the age on most of our bucks. And that includes me, if I didn't have the history. So an unfamiliar person would judge one of our bucks to be 6, kill him and the teeth show 6. There. Done. Tooth wear is accurate. When in reality we had been watching that same buck for 6+ years and estimate his age at 9+. The unfamiliar guy has no idea of what he actually killed, but since the tooth wear charts say 6, he was judged a 6 year old in the field, then by golly he was 6. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

To me (and a lot of others), tooth wear is as accurate in aging as telling me that if a deer twitches his right ear 5 times before he twitches his left, he is 5.

[Chance Love]

.

Let's say you have a chance to get on 1 of 2 leases. Each lease is 30,000 ac. They are 20 miles apart in the "Golden Triangle" of Texas. Prices are the same. Hunter density is the same. Tooth wear (from 100 bucks) on Ranch #1 averages 4 years old. Tooth wear on Ranch #2 (from 100 bucks) averages 7 years old.

Which lease would you prefer?

So far, all anyone has provided are evasive answers. It's a very simple question, and the answer is so obvious that continued evasion only further reveals entrenched positions.

I already clearly answered this. Not being evasive at all. I'll simplify: I would not get on a lease if they used tooth wear.

[Fajkus7]

So far, all anyone has provided are evasive answers. It's a very simple question, and the answer is so obvious that continued evasion only further reveals entrenched positions.

It’s not an evasive answer. They have all told you they don’t give a rats *** what the teeth age at and they do not and will not choose a lease based on what some teeth say. It’s a simple question and they gave you a simple answer.

[GarGuy]

20 years ago I was pretty "entrenched". I could look at a jaw and tell anyone the age of their deer. I was sure of it. Heck i even had the flip cards to educate folks. As trail cameras became more readily available and I started saving history, it soon became evident that what I was taught and strongly believed was wrong. Many, many examples have now proven this to me beyond any doubt. Now I talk to others that have exactly the same results duplicated independent of my results. That IS science.

I dont believe there is a magic age where teeth suddenly wear different. It's clear to me that the charts under age. The margin of error obviously widens as the deer ages resulting in ridiculous error on 10 year old deer.

TOT you admit you dont run many cameras. I think if you did use this tool to follow more deer, you would learn what those of us that do are telling you.


I will ad this.. I presumed the issue to be just a regional problem with soft foods in East Tx causing less wear. Now I hear its wide spread.

[Miller]

I listened to a podcast recently. The guest was a wildlife biologist and they had been doing deer studies on a ranch in south Texas for I believe the last 14 years. I also believe done in partnership with Texas A&M Kingsville and TP&W.

It went into a lot of the old myths that don't really work... tooth aging, culling, aging deer on the hoof, how long deer can live, etc.

He mentioned that tooth wear just isn't consistent and they don't use it.

It is not the first Biologist I have heard state the same thing before.

[jason86]

So far, all anyone has provided are evasive answers. It's a very simple question, and the answer is so obvious that continued evasion only further reveals entrenched positions.

NO ONE ADVERTISES A LEASE USING JAW BONES
NO ASKS TO SEE JAWBONES WHEN LOOKING FOR A LEASE

PEOPLE LOOK AT TRAIL CAM PHOTOS OF CURRENT DEER
PEOPLE LOOK AT CALIBER OF DEER KILLED IN THE PAST

your question is no applicable to real life situations, using teeth is in accurate and if someone was advertising a lease that way I wouldn’t look twice at it.