Determining the age of deer full technique review

[Top Of Texas]

ToT, these graphs are just confusing to me. In that last one, when did they start catching and tagging those bucks? I’m assuming it wasn’t in 1998.

I had issues figuring out how to post the table. The chart that shows the deer peaking in antler growth shouldn't even be there! Sorry for my inept I.T. skills.

[Chance Love]

They caught deer in 6 counties of S TX from 1982 through 2008 (on-going, multiple projects), and each was marked with a unique identifier (PIT tags, ear tags, or freeze brand). Only those captured as fawns to 1.5 years were included in analysis to assure known age. The jaws (254) were kept for analysis as the deer were killed through normal hunting activities, 1998-2004. Tooth wear on those jaws are described in the table I shared above.

So, it's like having 254 jaws laying in front of us, and we know exactly how old each one is.

Did they not analyze the jaws for years 1982-1997, and 2005-2008? Just curious.

Also in regards to the part in bold: I find it interesting that they had to use fawns and yearlings because there is no arguing their jaw/age (basically their words), in a study to show the aging charts are right, even if the jaw/ages are arguable later in life. It's ALMOST as if they are admitting teeth are inaccurate. Hmmm...

Yes, I know we are splitting hairs here.

[Top Of Texas]

Your persistent if nothing else!

HA! Thanks...I think.

My expectations were that the video would cover 100% of questions and concerns. But after reading responses here, I see there were other ways I could have presented some of it.

And, it's very important to me that everyone is offered the opportunity to fully understand the material.

[GarGuy]

One of your guests mentioned looking at the teeth of an old deer with known history and seeing 3 or 4 yr old teeth. You just don't mention that one to the boss. In my opinion, that's what's missing. If a deer doesn't fit the template, discard him. How many of those were there? Noone knows.

[Top Of Texas]

Did they not analyze the jaws for years 1982-1997, and 2005-2008? Just curious.

These jaws came from multiple studies that involved deer captures that began in 1982 and that ended in 2008. Over 5,000 deer were captured.

For the tooth wear analysis, they collected jaws from those captured deer when they were killed by hunters during the 1998 thru 2004 hunting seasons. 254 of those harvested deer were captured when they were fawn to 1.5 yrs. The deer captured from 2005-2008 weren't included in tooth wear and were used in the soil texture and supplemental feed projects. So, boil all that down to say, the deer in the tooth wear analysis could have been between the ages of 2yrs old to 22yrs old.

[Top Of Texas]

Also in regards to the part in bold: I find it interesting that they had to use fawns and yearlings because there is no arguing their jaw/age (basically their words), in a study to show the aging charts are right, even if the jaw/ages are arguable later in life. It's ALMOST as if they are admitting teeth are inaccurate. Hmmm...

Yes, fawns and 1.5yr old tooth wear is reliable for those ages.

The objective of this study was not to "show the aging charts are right." As I've said before, if this project was designed to show that aging charts are wrong, it could not have been done better. Also, there's a distinction to be made between field biologists and deer managers versus researchers. There's nothing that most researchers enjoy more than debunking a well ingrained practice. There's nothing most biologist and deer managers hate more than having a well ingrained practice debunked.

[Top Of Texas]

And I meant to add, the reason these studies even began was due to the realization of the inaccuracies of aging deer. Just like you, Gar, Encinal, and others. There are studies from the 1970s showing tooth wear wasn't good at nailing down years. These studies strive to identify and improve methodology to make us better managers.

[Top Of Texas]

One of your guests mentioned looking at the teeth of an old deer with known history and seeing 3 or 4 yr old teeth. You just don't mention that one to the boss. In my opinion, that's what's missing. If a deer doesn't fit the template, discard him. How many of those were there? Noone knows.

If you're referring to the data in the table I shared, then I'm doing a poor job of explaining how that data was collected and analyzed. Sorry for my previous attachment posting errors.

Here's the basics of the study again.

They caught deer in 6 counties of S TX from 1982 through 2008 (on-going, multiple projects), and each was marked with a unique identifier (PIT tags, ear tags, or freeze brand). Only those captured as fawns to 1.5 years were included in analysis to assure known age. The jaws (254) were kept for analysis as the deer were killed through normal hunting activities, 1998-2004. Tooth wear on those jaws are described in the table I shared above.

So, it's like having 254 jaws laying in front of us, and we know exactly how old each one is

These jaws came from multiple studies that involved deer captures that began in 1982 and that ended in 2008. Over 5,000 deer were captured.

For the tooth wear analysis, they collected jaws from those captured deer when they were killed by hunters during the 1998 thru 2004 hunting seasons. 254 of those harvested deer were captured when they were fawn to 1.5 yrs. The deer captured from 2005-2008 weren't included in tooth wear and were used in the soil texture and supplemental feed projects. So, boil all that down to say, the deer in the tooth wear analysis could have been between the ages of 2yrs old to 22yrs old.

[GarGuy]

I'm just suggesting that deer not typical to the study could have been omitted. I really don't know the integrity of that study. I'm sitting here drinking iced tea. If I measure all the ice cubes in this cup it would be easy to determine all ice cubes are 1 inch x 1 inch x 1/4 inch. I could come back here every week and measure the ice cubes for a year and create a great study proving all ice cubes are within a few hundredths of those measurements.

I know the conclusion of the study is wrong where i hunt . We make ice in trays

[Top Of Texas]

I'm just suggesting that deer not typical to the study could have been omitted. I really don't know the integrity of that study. I'm sitting here drinking iced tea. If I measure all the ice cubes in this cup it would be easy to determine all ice cubes are 1 inch x 1 inch x 1/4 inch. I could come back here every week and measure the ice cubes for a year and create a great study proving all ice cubes are within a few hundredths of those measurements.

I know the conclusion of the study is wrong where i hunt . We make ice in trays

The high temp here in the Panhandle today is 13 degrees. I'm sticking with coffee.

[elgato]

Me or ToT??

ToT, Id hire him as a salesman

[Encinal]

What are the real world applications for tooth wear as you see them for managers ToT?

[Top Of Texas]

What are the real world applications for tooth wear as you see them for managers ToT?

Glad you asked that. I really wanted to discuss that in the video in detail, but it was already ridiculously long so I just kept it primarily about old bucks since that's what most hunters care about the most.

1. Assessing the ability to select older aged bucks before looking in their mouth. Not nailing down years. This is for a data set, and it needs to be put in age categories.

2. An age puts other data points into context. For example, 130"-135" bucks that age at 3yrs versus 7yrs. Or field dressed weights averaging 125 lb versus 175 lb. Also for analyzing doe weights to split out yearlings from the data set. A year after a big fawn crop can see yearling doe making up a sizable portion of the doe harvest, which could decrease the average weights for that season.

3. The data discussed in item 2 above can be related back to habitat and herd health in free range, no supplement environments. This ties together with browse use and can guide adjustments to population goal and harvest rates. A lot of these tie together.

4. Evaluate harvest intensity relative to population size. When ranches attempt to reduce their herds through doe harvest, it can get scary, and many folks get concerned that they're killing too many. Looking at doe age in the harvest over several years puts that into context, keeping in mind past fawn crops. For example, if there's a notable shift in doe age, where very few doe harvested are over 4yrs old, that indicates that the herd is getting hit hard. Versus if the same amount of harvest has taken place, and we still see plenty of older aged doe, then they're not being hit very hard. So adjustments can be made relative to the estimated population size, because we're way better at aging them than we are at counting them. This also requires evaluation of browse intensity on key species, like in item 3 above.

5. Having the ability to assess how management and/or herd is progressing, declining, or being maintained over time. This requires numerous years of consistent and quality data collection. But it's sooooo cool to see.

6. Education. I have seen untold numbers of hunters and landowners get excited and increase their interest in deer management when they learn tooth wear methodology, and especially when they witness its applications.

[Chance Love]

6. Education. I have seen untold numbers of hunters and landowners get excitedand increase their interest in deer management when they learn tooth wear methodology, and especially when they witness its applications.

Interesting. My experience has been the opposite, especially when they witness how inaccurate it is.

[Top Of Texas]

Interesting. My experience has been the opposite, especially when they witness how inaccurate it is.

I have trained untold numbers of folks on tooth wear, and it always starts with the same statement - "The deer have not read the manual." Making them aware of the inaccuracies is part of the training.