If you killed this type of buck every year...

Yeah ... in NY, you would get props all over ....

 

That says it all.

 

I'd ask..a "great hunter" by who's standards.

I mean outside of posting for a contest (online) and close family and friends, no one knows what I take year in and year out. I don't drive around with the tailgate down.

I wouldn't want to put myself in a situation where, seeing my truck equals a "good" hunting spot.

I would rather be judged by my tenaciousness, love for the outdoors and my shooting ability.

 

It's all relative to what's around you. In Oklahoma a 117" deer every year (humbly) probably wouldn't mean a whole lot to most people. It's hard to say based on inches, my dad killed a deer on Saturday night that scored 131+ and the wildlife biologist aged him at 2.5.

I've passed on a handful of deer this year that might reach 120" but that's not what I'm looking for... I'd rather kill an older deer every 2 or 3 years than a smaller one every year. The way it panned out, I wouldn't have killed a buck last year had that deer's leg not been broken...

 

Not a slammer for my area but it is for other areas I was so proud of him when he posted those pics and his story Like i said, I know it was a great buck for his area and I love that smiling face, Id love to shake his hand and tell him congrats Its a down right beautiful buck!!

 

Random:D I opened this thread, never expecting to see my stupid face on here.

Not necessarily a "slammer" for our area, but he's above average. I still suck at hunting, though

 

No that would not be a slammer in my area. But, like mentioned above, I live in IL. I had shot opportunities at 4 different bucks around that size Thurs.-Sunday. and I passed on all of them. Guess thats why I am buckless for the year.

 

You would absolutely be considered a great hunter. Heck i dont know anyone who even kills little bucks every other year.

 

You would be an awesome hunter if you could kill a deer like that every year in my area.

 

I disagree.....I DO consider you a great hunter. I have killed a few bucks over 100" with the bow, but Im not a great buck hunter...Im darn good at hunting deer, but mature bucks, nah...I have lots of em here and I can't seem to kill em...117" is not a slammer here in my part of VA, a slammer here is the 140" and up..avg good shooter is 115-135"...

 

average here. But, depending on where in Wisconsin, up north near Black River Falls on public land it's a good deer, but comparing to Buffalo county, small by their standards.

 

How you doin' there new friend!!! ... lol.

 

Not the "greatest", but you would have some respect.

 

You would be doing well above average if you shot one like that every year where I live.

That buck wouldn't rank anywhere near slammer status here but very few guys in this part of the state are consistent on bucks like that or better.

 

I have another opinion now :D

You would be considered a good hunter in my area if you consistantly killed bucks like that. In fact, you would be doing better than almost all others. BUT you would certainly not be reaching your full potential.

Even though most would think you were doing good (not that you wouldn't be), there are chances for better opportunities.

That said, I don't know hardly anyone in my area who gets that done.

 

Yes you would be condsidered a great hunter and yes that is a slammer for my area.

 

One of the reasons I asked is to see if people see the relativity of where we each hunt, and the unique obstacles we encounter while hunting. A guy who kills a 90 inch 3.5 year old in Area X year in and year out is on the same level as someone killing a 128 inch 3.5 year old in Area Y if those are the average size bucks for those age classes in that specific area.

I see hunting as a lot more than rack size, but the longer I hunt, the more I want to try and kill the older age class bucks. That is just me. An average 3.5 year old buck around here might go 105". So a 115-120 class buck would be a "slammer" around here. But for others, that 115 might be an average buck in their specific area. We have to keep an open mind when someone says, "I kill a Pope and Young every year" in area X when an average 3.5 year old buck is right around P&Y standards. Consistently taking the 130 inch minimum standard buck does not necessarily show you are a good buck hunter if an average 3.5 year old buck is 130 inches where you live. Notice I said, does not necessarily. It could very well mean you are a heck of a good buck hunter.

 

That buck is far from a slammer for my area......BUT if a guy is able to take a 3.5 year old buck scoring around 115-120 year in and year out many would consider him a very good hunter for these parts.

Most people here consider a slammer to be about 130"+.

 

Where I hunt yes (probably 4 1/2+ years old), but in southern Michigan it would be an average private land buck (2 1/2).

 

Couldn't agree more. On our land we preach to shoot the oldest buck, not necesarrily the largest buck. Last year during shotgun season I had about a 120-125" 10 pointer within 20 yards of me for most of my morning hunt. Shortly after he disappeared a much smaller 8 pointer stepped out and I didn't even hesitate to put a slug in him.

Why would I pass the larger buck and then take the smaller? The 10 pointer was only a 2.5 year old, while the 8 pointer I shot was 3.5. He only scored 113", but I was plenty pleased with my decision. Most 3.5 year olds around this area should be over 130", but every now and then we do get some slow growers that don't quite make it.