Poll: antler inches below which you’d change your land investment, improvement habits

[Turkish]

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.

 

[Catscratch]

I voted 150+... because it's realistic where I live. If a disease went through, outfitters neighbored up and shot all the bucks, etc and I lost that realistic expectations then I'd switch to quail, rabbit, and duck habitat completely.

 

[356]

First, I only have 138 acres over three locations, the largest being 85 acres. On the plus side, the parcel benefits from a coop with about 20 neighbors. If I didn’t see 3 1/2 year olds after the season, I’d start getting concerned. Knowing that the coming year will most likely provide opportunities at a 4 1/2 or older keeps me going. Earlier this week I had a picture of a nice older deer with a small rack that has a deformity. Since I know he is 4.5, he will be my target buck next year.

 

[Turkish]

I voted 150+... because it's realistic where I live. If a disease went through, outfitters neighbored up and shot all the bucks, etc and I lost that realistic expectations then I'd switch to quail, rabbit, and duck habitat completely.

Thanks for playing along. Glad the first response wasn’t “I can’t understand what you’re asking.” I was struggling with the wording.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

150 plus. If I wanted less I’d buy land closer to home.

 

[PrairieShadow]

I voted 150+. Only cause there wasn’t a 180+ category.

 

[SwampCat]

I started my management when any buck was good. I would still do it if we lost all our quality chance. We have lost our turkeys, rabbits, ducks, and quail. As soon as cwd hits here, we will lose our quality deer. I am not going to move - I live halfway between my two kids - two hours - and I fish a lot on a lake one mile away. I have about quit deer hunting anyway - but still manage them.

But, we used to mount everything over 125 - maybe a deer every two or three years. Now, we kill a 140 every couple of years. 11 yr old grand daughter killed a 135 and we did not mount it. Quality is getting better - for now.

 

[Native Hunter]

I went with 150+ because we have a few like that on the wall. But I will tell you they are scarce here.

 

[swat1018]

Nope. I would still provide habitat and make improvements even if I knew there wasn't a 150. Personally, I won't shoot anything much less than 160 for a buck. But I enjoy filling the freezer with does just about as much as shooting a big buck.

 

[g squared 23]

This was my worst year since I’ve owned the farm: nothing close to 150. Normally there is at least a 150 around or passing through, and every 2nd or 3rd year a 160+. I think if I didn’t have at least a mature 140” buck to chase, I’d lease the place out and look in a different neighborhood. I’m not sure I could bring myself to sell with all the work I’ve put in, but when I have daylight pictures of bigger bucks on public land, it really knocks down my enthusiasm for dumping resources into improvements.

I am currently saving for another property in a different area. It’s gonna be a while.

 

[sandbur]

A nice buck is fun to talk about, but I first want quality venison every year. Younger deer are more often called ‘quality’ in our house.

We have enough head mounts and deer racks in the house.

 

[Turkish]

Nope. I would still provide habitat and make improvements even if I knew there wasn't a 150. Personally, I won't shoot anything much less than 160 for a buck. But I enjoy filling the freezer with does just about as much as shooting a big buck.

Not a lot unlike me. I want big enough bucks to keep my young son interested as he gets older. I enjoy feeding my family and can up the stakes with archery tackle if I need a challenge. With that said, I lust over big antlers. Maybe when I retire I can make them a priority again.

 

[Tree Spud]

150+ is the goal baseline and looking for that elusive 160 plus. I won't shoot a buck younger than 4.5 yo. A 184 and 193 were shot within a mile of me this year and I have pictures of one of them frequently my place. Once they get that big they are very elusive and erratic.

Big racks with lots of mass are what I am after.

My habitat work isn't just for big bucks though, it's for the long term health of the land & habitat.

 

[T-Max]

Is there an actual poll? I’d say 150+. We regularly pass 140’s because 150 is a very attainable goal. Definitely not a given, but they are around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brian662]

In MN my standards are 140+ or a 5.5 year old. In WI my standards are 150+ and 5.5. So I voted 140 because it depends on where I'm hunting.

 

[356]

Is there an actual poll? I’d say 150+. We regularly pass 140’s because 150 is a very attainable goal. Definitely not a given, but they are around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The poll is above the OP.

What type of deer must you have a chance at to continue your land development habits​

• Deer are not even a demand Votes: 2. 9.1%​

• Any deer is good Votes: 2. 9.1%​

• Any older buck is good (let’s say 4.5+ Votes: 6. 27.3%​

• <120 Votes: 00.0%​

• 120 Votes: 00.0%​

• 130 Votes: 1. 4.5%​

• 140 Votes: 3. 13.6%​

• 150 Votes: 2. 9.1%​

• 150+ Votes: 6. 27.3%​

---

 

[T-Max]

Thanks! I found it. Had to go to the web. It didn’t show in Tapatalk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Booner21]

Using Tapatalk so can’t see the poll but for me it would be 160+ for me and maybe even higher. The only reason is that I have killed several over that and to think I would never have the opportunity to harvest another would take a lot of fun out of it for me personally.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BIGDHunting]

We just started our journey, so my response was "any deer is good". Our hope is that we can manage / attract enough deer for the newer hunters to "see" deer while in the stand and for the hunters who have been doing it a couple years to be able to wait for a bigger buck. This being year 2 we enjoy trying our hand at management and improvements with the hope that in another year or two we will be where some of you are at.

 

[T-Max]

In rereading the initial question, I think my answer is different. If I couldn’t shoot a buck over 150 ever again, I wouldn’t really change much. Since I am third generation here, moving isn’t an option. My habitat improvement plan is all for my son and future daughter. I want the land to be healthy and all walks of wildlife to be plentiful. If the chance at a 150+ disappeared, it would be does for me and maybe favor my plan toward prairie chickens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk