Curious Bobo. Is 7.5 where you most often see big mass blossom?
For us that is what when we see. The ones that throw the big mass do it most often then. That is what swayed us to let the high end bucks ride till 7.5. And like you mentioned, it is a calculated gamble. FWIW we hit on that gamble more than we miss. We do miss some but occasionally we hit big. We have also occasionally seen what Hud detailed. Average deer that get that kind of age because nobody will shoot them and then blow up out of nowhere at 7 or 8. Nobody here has mentioned the dirt, but it plays into it. Some geographic areas just grow them big and have for decades. Well before feeding protein was a thing there have been some areas that produced big deer year in and year out… there are more big ones today than there used to be. There are also more people letting the deer get some age on them.

from a score # no, 6.5 was. 7.5 was same mass usually but carried in to times more. Biggest difference was 7.5 was all the little added junk that showed up, but it seemed about 50% chance it didnt off set shorter times.

North of OKC Im not sure the winters make it worth trying to carry past 6.5. In fact north of Red with out heavy ag or supplemental , I wouldn't think about caring over unless he just lost a whole beam. I just dont think its worth the higher risk of natural death vs what you might gain

Friends in KS and Nebraska pretty much see the same thing as 6.5 is about tops. alot of them say they see more declines at 6.5, unless is just an exceptional moisture year. They all annuli deer like we do so while not exact its closer then just observational.

I agree on the dirt, also some areas just seem to get moisture at the right times, consistently , with stout dirt timely rains make for monster deer,

Ok so free set a few parameters and i still will say given the place you hunt, 7.5 is going to be about max score for “most” bucks. You will run the risk of natural mortality from rut past that point, you have way too many 4-5.5 yo bucks with great antlers that will challenge a great 8.5 yo and tear that older guy a new one, but also with the environmental stresses you see there, hot summers and colder winters, i would not be shocked if most bucks are dead by 8.5-9.5 at the latest. Most are probably dying a couple years before that. There will be the occasional non-rutting old buck that may show up older, but by then antlers will be lower than 7.5-8.5.

For your hunting Free, i would believe “most” bucks peak around 6.5-7.5. Not gonna see much after that in gain.
In a drought couple of year you could wait till 7.5, but in a time where mast and natural browse are good and plentiful for several years, 6.5 is probably going to be a good target age.

Bergmann's rule pretty much sets the tone,

STX growth at 7.5+ just isn't common placed future north you go. Some of those ranches are taking bucks with live weights at 240+ at 7.5. Thats heavy real heavy, and not happening with out supplemental

Yes, but bergmann isnt doing much from an antler standpoint, only body weight. A massive northern buck may have mediocre antlers because so much of its effort goes to making that big body able to sustain a winter that is harsh. Whereas a big body south texas/oklahoma deer isnt having to expend all that effort to growing body and can grow bigger antlers.

Having said that, i think most northern hunters would say they would love to let bucks get to 7.5 or so, but so few actually can make it that ling due to a number of factors up there.

bigger body weights for harsher winters, equals bigger horns, Also Northern deer hit maturity quicker. Hanson was 3.5/4.5 year old buck, Google a B&C map and its pretty obvious where the big deer come from.

The STX 245lb+ native deer are product of supplemental feeding. Big healthy unstressed deer just live longer. The whole 7.5 -8.5 plus hits max antlers is a straight product of nutrition. But That nutrition level to get a STX buck to 245 is just normal for a Corn belt/midwest deer. Difference is STX have a much less stressful winter

BOBO i respect ypur opinion, but i disagree that bigger bodies automatically means bigger antlers. The B&C belt is there because of the abundant good soil which creates abundant browse and good ag production coupled with winters that are not overly harsh. Bucks grow bog bodies due to the abundant nutrition, arent severely stressed by nature, and if left to grow older can get big antlers, but if you continue north in the WT deer range, the antler size reduces as the effort to survive outweighs antler expression. Sure you can find some big WT in canada and montana/minnesota/up michigan/maine, but these are not as common as deer dont typically grow old and grow big antlers because so much effort is expended just to stay alive, despite big bodies.

This is getting beyond the OP question. but still good discussion.

Good discussion. Appreciate all the thoughts. Hunted hard all day and watched cowboys hard all night. I’ll try to chime in tomorrow but I’ll be hunting hard for a 7yr old buck.

its not automatic, still have genetics, sustainable habitat, thermal cover, age etc, but you can argue with record books…. Western front of CO is pretty definitive, Maine VS Florida pretty definitive . Bigger bodies bigger antlers,

good luck, Slap the horns and stir it up a little

Y’all are going down a bunny trail comparing apples to oranges. There are 16 subspecies of whitetail in North America…
Freerange, keep that in mind when you consider what you want to try.

We feed protein and cottonseed. I have said for years that supplemental feeding is just that. Important in drought years and not so much in good rain years. If we had the irrigation water available we would much prefer food plots.

We also cull does hard in years with good fawn survival and bucks that show no potential. We have water pilas all over the ranch which IMO is huge during drought.

We have seen and tracked bucks that have grown to 10 years old and up that still had great racks. We have had others that dipped at age 6 and then come back strong at 7-8 so of course it varies.

If we are unsure of a buck's age then we pass on it to see what happens the following year.

of the 16 how many have re-stocking DNA from STX and KS

I know bigger bunny trail.

Interesting progression. I find it odd that the 3 YO and 7YO picture are the same. In every set of pictures except 11 YO the white band goes all around the muzzle behind his nose but on 11 YO it’s only on the sides. I also think without ear tags or obvious body markings it’s really hard to look at a clean spike and identify the next set of antlers.

I’m clueless about most. In my part of texas two sub sets of deer were re-introduced in the 1960’s. One group was from Minnesota. For the most part they were ill adapted to Texas and perished. The other group was from the king ranch and they flourished. There is actually a local landmark that still carries the moniker “buck hill” where the releases occurred. The deer we have where I hunt are genetically south texas deer.

Really appreciate the good feedback guys. Hunting hard myself so maybe I’ll address some specific comments later.
For now just keep it coming whether it’s down a rabbit hole or not.
On subspecies, I will say our deer in SC Okla are decent size but not like what I know about some other parts of Okla or Tx panhandle or Kansas. They do often have the reddish tint/accent.
We aren’t super far from Hagerman, so there’s that….,
For this discussion I’m not assuming our deer are real different from NTx deer and our climate is not so different than NTx.

I read there is only one pure DNA herd left. King.

think I read lufkin area has had a Kansas release also.. The deer I saw many years ago on a charity hunt at Boggy sure had the red’ish Kansas coat

Look at a map of the US cropland, it closely, not perfectly, mirrors the B&C map BOBO posted up.

I still stand by the statement the B&C band is more due to natural browse and ag due to excellent soils than simply big bodies. Otherwise, we would see the B&C map as a increasingly northern thing, but it isn't, it is mostly a midwestern thing. I wish I could enlarge that map BOBO posted, everytime I try on my computer it just makes the text bigger but the pic stays the same size. And I can not find it online in a enlargeable format. I would love to to see some info abot the outliers in northern minnesota and northern maine....Other than those two areas, the B&C band follows the ag crop land almost perfectly, except in areas where winters are harsh.

Anyway, great discussions and the subspecies issue brings a whole lot more to the table. That is where I know my limits and don't try to discuss much.

As the crow flies I am less than 30 miles from boggy slough.

I figured since you were in Timber country. It was a cool place. Interesting history and management. I learned a lot about tree farming in that one week. Fun times

I thought that the bucks in South Texas typically grew their best antlers at age seven while Hill Country bucks at age 6. I think the reason for this is the difference in browse. South Texas is weed country, especially winter and early spring which is tender and easy on their teeth. Unfortunately, we don't grow the tender natural vegetation as well in the Hill Country which causes Hill Country buck's teeth to wear out sooner.
Just my two cents...
Adios,
Gary

Probably some truth to that. Also STx just has more country being managed more intensively for Trophies including more committed supplemental feeding. Most places around the state never see a 7 yr old so they have no idea what growth may be. They also are not willing(or able, depending on situation) to do what it takes to get them to that age.

Know the deer but wouldn’t have kept one of just him.

I love hunting south texas but I doubt it would produce anywhere near the number or size body or antler deer it does if it was t intensively managed.

71/2 years young