With all the talk of land values and changes in hunting quality, I’m curious about how much we’re all driven by the hopes of big antlers and how much big antlers drive the allocation of our time and money. I’ve been thinking a lot about how big deer move the land market or not.
Based off of where you currently manage land, let’s say you were guaranteed never to have a chance to shoot a buck with antler inches of at least X. That guarantee causes you to either give up a lot of improvements, spending, time, or pick up and move to another neighborhood. What is that antler score X? Or is antler score of no concern.
Said differently, is there a minimum antler score below which you’d really make big changes, if there were none around?
For me, I tend to think I own land for reasons other than deer antlers. As it is, I feel like 130” is a pipe dream, and I’m still wanting to buy more. But, deep down I know the reason is so that I’d have more room to develop good hunting quality. I’m stuck between “any deer is good by me,” and “any older buck is good by me.” I’ll go with the latter.
Based off of where you currently manage land, let’s say you were guaranteed never to have a chance to shoot a buck with antler inches of at least X. That guarantee causes you to either give up a lot of improvements, spending, time, or pick up and move to another neighborhood. What is that antler score X? Or is antler score of no concern.
Said differently, is there a minimum antler score below which you’d really make big changes, if there were none around?
For me, I tend to think I own land for reasons other than deer antlers. As it is, I feel like 130” is a pipe dream, and I’m still wanting to buy more. But, deep down I know the reason is so that I’d have more room to develop good hunting quality. I’m stuck between “any deer is good by me,” and “any older buck is good by me.” I’ll go with the latter.