YesThis?
![]()
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's 4 a 3 YO MO deer is skinnier in the flank area. Also seems to be one of our shorter statured deer.This is a buck I filmed a few hours ago. In person I thought he was 3.5 at the oldest, but the more I read about aging bucks the less confident I have other than two categories: Immature or Mature.
View attachment 71313
View attachment 71314
Is that stain removed in the tanning process? I am looking at nine bucks on the wall - all at least 4.5 - and none of them have itDr. Kroll says dark stained bars on the forehead of a buck means he's at least 4.5 and no youngerthan that. I know I've seen this with some bucks. I can't say I haven't seen it in younger bucks. What have y'all seen?
Dr. Kroll says dark stained bars on the forehead of a buck means he's at least 4.5 and no youngerthan that. I know I've seen this with some bucks. I can't say I haven't seen it in younger bucks. What have y'all seen?
It has something to do with maturity level from what I've gathered. I believe it is based on both physical and sexual maturity.Ok, after checking out a lot of trail camera pictures and looking over all of my own mounts, I'm coming around to the thinking that there might be something to this dark forehead theory. What I don't understand from the explanation above is why only a 4+ yr old buck would stain his forehead with his tarsal glands and not a younger buck. What am I missing?
I'm not sold on it either quite yet, but here's what he said about bucks that may appear younger late in the rut.This is from a new property so I have no history with the deer. I would not have guessed this buck to be 4+.
I guess I'd like to hear him explain why a 3 yr old can't stain his forehead dark but a 4 yr old can.
I'm intrigued but I'd like some clarification.
View attachment 71496
I’ve always been skeptical of “air quotes” Doctors giving advice on deer hunting ? I would trust guys like Mark Drury, Skip Sligh & Bill Winke more.
Dr. James C. Kroll is one of the top deer biologists in the world. When I was in high school in the late 80s, I considered hard going to Stephen F. Austin State University because he had started a whitetail centric study program there which he started in the 70s. He isn't just a biologist either. He is a die hard whitetail hunting fanatic. He hunts and helps manage whitetail properties across multiple states and countries. He wrote one of the first deer management books. It's still very applicable and very good. That all said, he is controversial, but he backs it up with data and results.Let me expand on this a minute… Doctor ? What’s the qualification? We have a lot of high level educated professional in the Minnesota DNR ? Look how bad that’s turned out !
Not criticizing Kroll individually—he has an impressive resume —but I trust information from the die hards that put time in the field actually hunting/observing .
The conversations I’ve had with the Minnesota DNR and their experts (not sure if they are Doctors) but let’s just say the term might NOT mean they are an expert at anything !
I believe the main criteria is that they are just stained along with burned black streaks down the back legs from the tarsals to the hooves.So these stained bands need to show up from the side to qualify? Is that what he's saying? Or just that if a forehead is so stained that it'll appear to be bars on the side? Glad I've taken some side profile pics over the years. Fun to go back and look at them.
View attachment 71504