I know some of you get this magazine, I really enjoy it. Interesting read on a topic that we debate often. Here's a quote: "Although Michigan tops the list of states for hunting pressure and is that the bottom for record-book entries per licensed hunter, it doesn't have exclusivity on either category. Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, Alabama, Maryland, and Tennessee also have high hunter densities per square mile and low record book entries per hunter. In most areas within these states, a 100-inch buck is far more difficult to kill than a Booner in micromanaged, lightly hunted areas. That statement is not up for discussion. Having hunted in both types of areas, I'm speaking from direct experience." No wrong answer, but do you agree or disagree with the above bolded statement?
I agree to a certain extent. I know of several people who hunt highly managed property's in illinois every year and have plenty of 120-150" deer to show for it. But they've never killed anything over 70" here in Pa with the bow. A booner might be a stretch though, PY is much more realistic.
So I've killed a couple "booner" equivalent bucks? Awesome! I'll say there's some validity to that statement. Any buck that's been through a couple deer seasons in those areas would be just as wise as a booner that lives in a unhunted and uninhabited area. Makes sense to me.
Having hunted none of the states listed I couldn't give an accurate answer. I can tell you, however, I'm glad I hunt Missouri!
I am having a hard time equating a 100" Buck to a 170" inch Buck... I believe that is a little to the extreme side. But, I have no problem with him comparing the difficulty of hunting from one area to another, I just don't understand why it always has to be about score.
Tru Dat. I think he has some valid points, but rides to the extreme a bit. His example of living proof was a guy from Michigan that hunted there 40 years and never broke 100 inches, but went on 15 hunts on managed land and killed 13 bucks from 116 to 168 inches.
He also made a case or reference that Booners just simply don't exist in some of the above mentioned states.
I'll pretty much agree. Although, I'd still think a true booner is tough to find even in managed areas, but I think the author just needed a reference. I can still remember the days when a 100" buck was considered huge.
No, I am not. I believe we should all hunt for what we have and stop worrying about how it stacks up to some guys deer in Iowa, Florida, Illinois, Virginia or Ohio. I mean really what's the point?
Heck, still is at our cabin. Biggest buck killed the last few years: 2010 - 98" 2009 - 110" 2008 - 115" 2007 - 118" Talk about a "PA Booner" That 110" buck killed in 2009 by my best friend was the biggest, oldest SOB I ever saw. Friggin hooves as big as my palms and his ..... junk, well let's just say he was king of the mountain. Heaviest buck I have every come in contact with, a prize any day.
I have had more success at putting down nice bucks in my area than the vast majority of hunters that I know...that is all I care about...I don't compare my kills to what people in other parts of the country have.
That's a great outlook. The problem with a lot of deer hunters is.....based on where they live and hunt, a lot of guys have woken up from a daze, standing on 3rd base....and they actually think they've hit a triple.
If I kill a 100 inch buck with my bow this fall I will have scored a Booner ten times over given my weapon and hunting location of choice. Relativity is all about the location in which you hunt. If I could hunt the subdivision in which I reside I could kill a very good buck every year, which means a 3.5+ year old buck or 110+ inches. Only five miles to the south is the public land I hunt. Killing a 3.5 year old or a 100 inch buck on that property is considerably more difficult. So even two properties separated only by several miles can make a huge difference in your chances of killing a big buck. For me these days, I only care about what I perceive as being fun in the deer woods. I care about hunting down the top end bucks where I hunt and killing them. I have yet to kill one of those bucks. I will continue to try each year for that is all one can do. If the top end bucks where I hunt are 120 inches or so, and that 120 inches does not get me any respect as a big buck hunter, then who cares. I will know what I have accomplished.
whats the age range of these bucks that you guys are harvesting at or around 100"? just curious?and are the genetics weak all over and do you guys manage properties or are is it public land?
I really do not know how my area stacks up genetic wise. What I do know is that I have killed 8-9, 2.5 year old bucks where I hunt over the years and not one of them has gone over 100, in fact the 95 inch I killed is a pretty big buck for where I hunt. The average 2.5 year old is around 75-80 inches or so. From what I have seen, for a buck to get anywhere near the P and Y minimum where I hunt, he must be at least 4.5 years old. Heck, I had what I thought was a 3.5 year old buck at 40 yards this year and he might just might have went 100-105.
The B&C reference might be a little extreme...but otherwise "duh"...no different than saying you would catch a bigger largemouth bass from a pond in Florida than a pond in Michigan...apples to oranges - just happen to be same species. One other thing to take into consideration on what they call "managed hunts" or pay/guided hunts...this typically involves a week solid of hunting during the rut - whereas otherwise these guys hunt Saturday mornings from a crappy ladder stand on their grandpa's 20 acres outside of the rut...no kidding that odds are better on the guided hunt. I've never looked at a big buck and thought "that guy must be a good hunter"...but if someone is taking top end bucks for their region year after year...then I'm starting to think he's better than average.
I can only speak for MI, in MI he is correct and wrong. In the SLP killing a 100'' buck is not very hard at all. In NLP and UP it's a challenge. He is talking about game ranches IMO. "micromanaged, lightly hunted areas"
I agree with Germ. The author is comparing a hunter who hunted 40 years on his lands.. which maybe just sucked... to hunting managed lands elsewhere. Key word being managed.. well duh! That's a no-brainer... and not even comparable. Comparing a 100" deer to a Booner is ridiculous.. since most deer will never reach Booner status in any state. The author would have earned better credit if he compared a 100" deer to a 150" deer elsewhere... since they would be MUCH closer in comparble size and rarity. 100" does not equate to the EXTREME rarity of 170" anywhere. This article sounds more like a penis sizing contest to me.
