Thanks for the backup Matt. It takes a special animal to grow that kind of bone. By the way, congrats on your 170 this year.

Not sure about what percent would make it to 160 but I bet a lot would reach 130-140-150 if they were allowed to reach maturity.

Thanks for the backup Matt. It takes a very special animal to grow that kind of bone anywhere in the country and not just AL. Doesnt matter where you hunt, midwest, Canada, etc, there will not be a 160 behind every tree. It's still that same 3% or so that can make it. AL bucks have less of a chance than some other states due to an overall lack of age not lack of good genetics. Any "mature buck" 4+ is a trophy regardless of rack size. By the way, congrats on your 170 this year. Fantastic buck you lucky dog, and with a bow too.....

How bout you Matt? You got the data?? Or is that just your professional opinion???

I can find the data. I've seen it. The data comes from the kings ranch in tx.

I think ms may have some data too.

I remember the data from the King Ranch. Don't recall what the avg. score was for a 5.5 year old but it seems like the avg. 3.5 year old scored b/w 115-120. I would love to see some data on how much the avg. buck will grow b/w 3 and 5 years old. I bet that would be eye opening for a lot of hunters.

I've been reading this thread and thought even 3-5% sounded way to high. This article doesn't reference it but I read where less than 2% of all 5.5 year olds on kings ranch will score 160" or above.

Also, I remember reading that the average free range 4.5 year old in Illinois scores around 115".

Anyway, it seems the evidence supports that even a 150" animal is a freak of nature and are rare no matter the locale or age.

Here is a good article with a lot of good data.

http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/news/news-item/ar...lts-on-culling/

Bill, thanks for posting that. I haven't had time to look into anything for reference today.

I chuckle sometimes when I see this post, "This deer looks like he is 5 or 6 years old....why does he only score 120?"

Heck he scores 120 because that is what an average 5 year old will score...lol. He's right where he should be. 150+ deer are stupid freaks. Even in areas with superb soil and habitat conditions.

I was counting deer born, not deer that reached maturity. You have to figure in the percent lost to predation and such. Just clearing that up.

This was exactly my point. Thanks.

Why would that matter? The average is the average. For every 160 lost to predation there would be inferior deer lost too. Coyotes don't care what a deer scores.

Reckon all those "corn trains" that routinely deposit corn on the roads in south Texas has any influence on their growth.

If 3-5% of deer born are capable of reaching 160". And you lose 2% of those to preadation and disease, that drops your total number of deer capable of reaching 160" to 1-3%, which in turn makes your total number of mature 160" deer decrease. Pretty obvious. We are just discussing the 3-5% that could reach 160", I dont understand why the rest of the population should even come into play in this conversation.

Antler wise? Nope, don't think so.

Are potential 160" deer being killed by predators at a higher rate than other deer? The percentages are the percentages regardless of predation. You are simply pulling numbers out of the air and making wild guesses with no real basis.

If kings ranch has less than 2% of all 5.5 year olds making it to 160 I think its safe to say Alabama wont be above those numbers or anywhere else in the world either.

A lot of people have watched to many hunting shows, and think if you do this or that you can harvest on a regular basis deer that score 160"+ on there property in Alabama and that is never going to happen no matter what you do. A 130"-140" on a yearly bases yes if you do your very best to only harvest mature deer maybe 1 or 2 a year or every other year but 160"+ no. I would be willing to bet most clubs in Alabama have never harvested a 160"+ deer and the ones that have do not do it very often.

I have seen the numbers before, they arent just random figures. I dont even think you know what you are arguing with me about... Its proven that 25-40% of fawns are lost to predators, disease, and other natural causes (depending on predator population, location and other factors). If 25-40% of ALL fawns are killed by this, then wouldnt it stand to reason that 25-40% of the 3-5% capable of reaching 160", are killed also? If you take 25-40% away from 3-5%, it leaves you with approx. 1-3% Living fawns that are capable of reaching 160".

Im sure Alabama doesnt have as many 160" potentials as the King Ranch (if compared square mile to square mile), which is exactly why I stated that people in this state should concentrate on shooting MATURE deer and stop worrying about the score.

OK, let me break this down for you. If you say 3-5% are capable, which we both know is a wild ass guess, then that equates to 3-5 bucks per 100, right? Remember, we are talking percentages you came up with. If 25 to 40% of all fawns are lost to predation then it's fair to say you lose 25 to 40% of some deer capable of becoming 160. But you are also losing 25-40% of all deer capable of less than 160. Sooooo, after all that, we are still left with the very same PERCENTAGES as before. Using your numbers for every 100 deer ,that MAKE IT TO MATURITY, 3-5 of them should be 160, according to your made up numbers. The percentage doesn't change unless you think coyotes are trophy hunters. The TOTAL number of deer BORN, that had that potential, that are then lost to predation, affects only the total sum not the inevitable percentages. Kings Ranch isn't counting that 2% from birth. They said 2% that reached maturity of 5.5 years. So what you are saying is Alabama has twice the potential of kings ranch. Now before you reply remember, we are using your numbers and are talking in percentages.

Ok I will concede the 3%-5% for the sake of continuing my other argument......There are usually about 500,000 deer killed in the state I think. I am asumming that at least 100,000 or these are bucks???? If only 1% of those were 160+ that would still be 1000 per year killed in this state. How many do we have killed now that are that size???? 10.......20........100????? Nowhere near 1000.These numbers are ALL based on nothing just like the ones the state use,haha.