That is a great point, hell I did it in 2008 I wanted to see how many people have killed 170+ buck, compared to 100+. I remember a few years ago when I watch hunting shows, David Blanton Killed a 166'' buck with his bow. It was his biggest buck to date, and he hunted some of the best micro managed land. I would love to see the % of bucks taken by TV guys that score over 170, compared to us regular guys that score over 100''. It would be interesting for sure.
People sometimes take for granted just how rare a 170+ is even on the best of hunting lands. See one on TV or pay for a 5000 hunt on primo managed land in the mecca of farmland and low and behold, they must be everywhere. I've admittedly taken zero of either... first 3 years it was due to waiting for one bigger than my standards should have been set at, 2 years ago I took one in the 90s, and last year i barely got out to hunt at all. I hope to turn that around this year. Interesting thread though
170+ - seen last year, going after him this year 100+ - 3 bucks, passed on quite few 120's, 130's last few years.
NC 170+ - 0 (Biggest I've ever seen was around 145", complete anomaly) 100+ - killed 4 passed one that would sniff 118-120,
170"+---0 100"+---4 Missed a 180 class 12 pointer about 7 years ago and had him at 30 yards the following year. Also saw a big main frame 12 with some trash cross a field one morning. It was killed the next year a few miles away and scored in the 170's.
I have had well over 100 legitimate shot opportunities at bucks over 100" (Ohio and pennsylvania included). I have had one encounter (no shot opportunities) with a Buck 170+ while hunting. So seven 100+ bucks. Zero 170+ bucks.
Alaska; Ha! You must be joking?! Deer over 100" here are as scarce as 200" whitetails. NY; 170" + = 0 100"+ = 1 WI; 0 SC; 0 CA; 0 ID; 0
That would be a great next thread Jeff. Be sure to define what "hunting micromanaged, lightly hunted parcels" is for us.
Oklahoma 170+ = 0 killed, (1 seen and nearly shot at if the bastard would have slowed down) 100+ = 1 killed
Just trying to tie this back into the D&DH article.....which I "assume" you were trying to do, as well (where else would the 170" and 100" numbers come from?). The author stated it was easier in those states....to kill a 170" buck on "Micromanaged, lightly hunted" land. Hence my question. If you're not hunting the Lakosky; Kisky or similar farm, your sightings (or lack, thereof) of 170" bucks is not surprisingly, scarce to non-existent. What do the numbers in this thread mean, then?
Its also easier in those states to kill a 170" buck because its possible for them to grow to 170". These type of articles and threads are a joke when polling people nationwide. There is only one thing that all deer can have in common everywhere, age. But, talking about age isnt as glorious as talking about antler size. DISCLAIMER: I did not read the article, just making a statement.
