A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Discuss deer hunting tactics, Deer behavior. Post your Hunting Stories, Pictures, and Questions/Answers.
  • Advertisement

HB Store


A few Booners? or a lot of P&Y?

1) Place has a few booners but getting an average buck is hard
33
31%
2) 130/150 class yearly but booners are very rare
74
69%
 
Total votes: 107
Stump
Posts: 404
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:11 am
Location: Central, MN
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby Stump » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:39 am

This one is a no brainer. 130-150"ers


dan
Site Owner
Posts: 41588
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:11 am
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HuntingBeast/?ref=bookmarks
Location: S.E. Wisconsin
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby dan » Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:46 am

Im actually very surprised at the results of the poll... I have always been in the mind set that I need to hunt monsters in order to kill monsters. Not that killing a smaller buck is bad, but you hunt for the biggest, and settle if something you want to shoot comes in.
I always like to chase the best, biggest, and oldest bucks.
User avatar
Schultzy
500 Club
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:46 pm
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby Schultzy » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:26 am

In Iowa where I drove around In 6 and where I hunted In 5 I'd do either choice.
User avatar
PredatorTC
500 Club
Posts: 2742
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 2:50 pm
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby PredatorTC » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:59 am

I voted for booners becasue I can find a lot of the 130 to 150 class bucks in the area I live and although killing them is still tough I would love to know that there are more boone bucks in the area.
User avatar
Edcyclopedia
Posts: 12605
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 12:54 pm
Location: S. NH
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby Edcyclopedia » Wed Mar 13, 2013 8:00 am

spiker2930 wrote:Thats like asking if you could date 6 really hot women or one super hot one!
I will take door door number 2 every time !
Horn size doesn't necessarily dictate the smarts and challenge of the animal hunted just that it hit the genetic lottery


Are you still talking about woman or...? ;)
Expect the Unexpected when you least Expect it...
User avatar
kurt
Posts: 2219
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 9:10 pm
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby kurt » Wed Mar 13, 2013 1:04 pm

Door 1 for me i can do other things to get rid of the shooters itch. Turkeys, bear, elk, etc...
spiker2930
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:48 pm
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby spiker2930 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:45 pm

Edcyclopedia wrote:
spiker2930 wrote:Thats like asking if you could date 6 really hot women or one super hot one!
I will take door door number 2 every time !
Horn size doesn't necessarily dictate the smarts and challenge of the animal hunted just that it hit the genetic lottery


Are you still talking about woman or...? ;)

SB LOL :naughty: :naughty:
spiker2930
Posts: 247
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:48 pm
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby spiker2930 » Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:30 pm

dan wrote:Im actually very surprised at the results of the poll... I have always been in the mind set that I need to hunt monsters in order to kill monsters. Not that killing a smaller buck is bad, but you hunt for the biggest, and settle if something you want to shoot comes in.
I always like to chase the best, biggest, and oldest bucks.

I just went to the B&C website Wisconsin is ranked #1 Ohio is ranked #4.
I hunt Ohio so I did the math, very depressing, from 2005 to 2010 there were 215 BC entries which included both Typical and Non typical entries. That works out to 43 per year in the entire State. There are 88 counties in Ohio thats not even one per county. There are approximately 500,000 deer hunters on the Average year which works out to a 0.0086 percent chance if I did the math right.
There is a magic triangle of counties in Ohio that produce a proportionately a much higher amount of Ohio Big Buck club entries (140 min on Typical and I believe 160 Non Typical). Hunting access in those areas is limited at best.
Makes you realize just how little a chance one has at a B&C Whitetail. I for one will Take any thing 140 or up unless I know there is something substantially larger roaming around that I have a reasonably chance at shooting before the end of season based on available time and settle for a B&C if it comes along :lol:
Congratulations on your 2 B&C bucks in Wisconsin that is quite an accomplishment given the statistical odds :!:
User avatar
Stanley
Honorary Moderator
Posts: 18734
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:18 am
Facebook: None
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby Stanley » Wed Mar 13, 2013 5:11 pm

dan wrote:Im actually very surprised at the results of the poll... I have always been in the mind set that I need to hunt monsters in order to kill monsters. Not that killing a smaller buck is bad, but you hunt for the biggest, and settle if something you want to shoot comes in.
I always like to chase the best, biggest, and oldest bucks.


I am surprised also, but opposite of your surprise. I look at it from a realist world. There is very little land available to hunt for most hunters. We all can't hunt in the same spot and expect us all to kill a 170 inch buck. So if there are 200 hunters and one 170 inch buck (hypothetical, it may be much greater than this) there will 199 guys that have no chance.

We all see the huge bucks at the deer classics and are wowed. These are the best of the best bucks taken, for an entire year, over an entire state. It is much easier to say I'm going to kill a 170 inch buck than actually do it.

A good friend of mine always tells me his goal is a 160 minimum. I'll go over his trail camera pictures with him. How are you going to kill that 160 you don't even have a 150 on film. Guess what, he doesn't kill a 160.

In order to kill a 170 inch buck you need a really good place to hunt (can't kill them where they aren't), You need to be a super good hunter capitalizing on the one opportunity you may get. You need to be a bit lucky (don't sell this detail short). Most 170 inch bucks are killed on accident.

Another thing to consider there is only one booner buck per 2,595 antlered bucks. I don't play the lottery because the odds are not that good. I would love to sit here and tell you I'm going to kill a booner next year. I hope I do. ;) But I would bet big money I wont. This is a great topic for discussion.
You can fool some of the bucks, all of the time, and fool all of the bucks, some of the time, however you certainly can't fool all of the bucks, all of the time.
dan
Site Owner
Posts: 41588
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:11 am
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HuntingBeast/?ref=bookmarks
Location: S.E. Wisconsin
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby dan » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:31 pm

Congratulations on your 2 B&C bucks in Wisconsin that is quite an accomplishment given the statistical odds


Gross... I don't have any that actually net B&C...


A good friend of mine always tells me his goal is a 160 minimum. I'll go over his trail camera pictures with him. How are you going to kill that 160 you don't even have a 150 on film. Guess what, he doesn't kill a 160.

How about if this guy your talking about hunted two different properties. On one property he had 20 bucks on film between 130 and 150, but nothing bigger than 150... The other property he had 4 bucks on. 2 that would score over 160, and 2 between 130 and 150...
Thats pretty much the scenario I laid out.
Given that both properties are the same size, his odds at a 130 or better buck would be much greater on property number 1... But, if his goal is to get 160 or better, he ain't doing it hunting the property where there are none.

Wouldn't knock the guy one bit for shooting one of the 2 smaller, but still nice size bucks, but by hunting the area with less but bigger, at least he is in the game for the monster he dreams of.
keb
500 Club
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 4:32 pm
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby keb » Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:28 pm

In 2011, I hunted a speacial draw hunt that housed some giants, I passed up deer in the 140s, but it was the hardest thing I have done, but I was able to witness things later in the hunt that I more than likley will never see agian.

It was go big or go home, I went home with nothinig but dont have any regreats, I learned a tremdous amount on how a truly mature giant moves about the land scape, they really had no travel plan, but they always had the wind in their favor and actually prefred the wide open, never used a trail, and showed up in places at off hours.

I sat and watched them from a tree, for several days and the light bulb went on, they would not get close to a tree a guy could hang a stand in. Tried the ground game, but it never happended.
User avatar
jonsimoneau
500 Club
Posts: 524
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 7:30 am
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby jonsimoneau » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:19 am

Stanley, you bring up a great point, and it also goes along with what Dan has said before about taking inventory. I made a major mistake a few years ago. I had the opportunity to hunt in Pike county Illinois. Even though I live in Illinois, and tried for over 12 years to gain access to Pike via asking for permission, and attempting to lease ground, I was never able to do it. So I finally get a place to hunt. I had made up my mind that I was not going to shoot anything under 150 inches. Hunted hard. Passed on a lot of bucks. One day I had a mature 140 buck come by. I let him go as it was early in the rut. That was the best buck I saw all season. After the end of the season, one of the other guys who was hunting there let me see the entire seasons worth of trail camera pictures from three different cameras he had on the property. The biggest buck he had on there was about 140 inches, and might have even been the one I passed up! I was hunting for a ghost that did not exist on that property that year! I'll never make that mistake again.
User avatar
Schultzy
500 Club
Posts: 3138
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:46 pm
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby Schultzy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:30 am

Stanley wrote:
dan wrote:Im actually very surprised at the results of the poll... I have always been in the mind set that I need to hunt monsters in order to kill monsters. Not that killing a smaller buck is bad, but you hunt for the biggest, and settle if something you want to shoot comes in.
I always like to chase the best, biggest, and oldest bucks.


I am surprised also, but opposite of your surprise. I look at it from a realist world. There is very little land available to hunt for most hunters. We all can't hunt in the same spot and expect us all to kill a 170 inch buck. So if there are 200 hunters and one 170 inch buck (hypothetical, it may be much greater than this) there will 199 guys that have no chance.

We all see the huge bucks at the deer classics and are wowed. These are the best of the best bucks taken, for an entire year, over an entire state. It is much easier to say I'm going to kill a 170 inch buck than actually do it.

A good friend of mine always tells me his goal is a 160 minimum. I'll go over his trail camera pictures with him. How are you going to kill that 160 you don't even have a 150 on film. Guess what, he doesn't kill a 160.

In order to kill a 170 inch buck you need a really good place to hunt (can't kill them where they aren't), You need to be a super good hunter capitalizing on the one opportunity you may get. You need to be a bit lucky (don't sell this detail short). Most 170 inch bucks are killed on accident.

Another thing to consider there is only one booner buck per 2,595 antlered bucks. I don't play the lottery because the odds are not that good. I would love to sit hear and tell you I'm going to kill a booner next year. I hope I do. ;) But I would bet big money I wont. This is a great topic for discussion.
When I hunted Iowa last year I passed up on 2 for sure 140's. Oh my was that hard to do!!!!! Never have I done anything like that In Minnesota. My goal In Iowa was 150 or better. I stuck to my goal and had my chance the very last hunt but he ended up smelling me at 12 yards. Never would I have this same goal In Minnesota where I hunt. It would be way unrealistic.

Good discussion all.
User avatar
Brandon
500 Club
Posts: 1426
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 5:24 am
Location: MD & VA
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby Brandon » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:06 am

dan wrote:Im actually very surprised at the results of the poll... I have always been in the mind set that I need to hunt monsters in order to kill monsters. Not that killing a smaller buck is bad, but you hunt for the biggest, and settle if something you want to shoot comes in.
I always like to chase the best, biggest, and oldest bucks.


I guess this goes back to location... around here in MD... 140... let alone 150 IS a monster. Not to many booners in the Free State....

I try to hunt the largest buck I can get pictures of on my private... and the most secluded areas on public where I dont know the exact deer, but know a mature buck is in the immediate area.

key word for me is mature... Im looking for bucks with THICK racks... could care less about points or score.
You can't kill em on the couch
User avatar
Stanley
Honorary Moderator
Posts: 18734
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 4:18 am
Facebook: None
Location: Iowa
Status: Offline

Re: A few monsters? or a lot of nice bucks?

Unread postby Stanley » Thu Mar 14, 2013 3:37 am

dan wrote:
Congratulations on your 2 B&C bucks in Wisconsin that is quite an accomplishment given the statistical odds


Gross... I don't have any that actually net B&C...


A good friend of mine always tells me his goal is a 160 minimum. I'll go over his trail camera pictures with him. How are you going to kill that 160 you don't even have a 150 on film. Guess what, he doesn't kill a 160.

How about if this guy your talking about hunted two different properties. On one property he had 20 bucks on film between 130 and 150, but nothing bigger than 150... The other property he had 4 bucks on. 2 that would score over 160, and 2 between 130 and 150...
Thats pretty much the scenario I laid out.
Given that both properties are the same size, his odds at a 130 or better buck would be much greater on property number 1... But, if his goal is to get 160 or better, he ain't doing it hunting the property where there are none.

Wouldn't knock the guy one bit for shooting one of the 2 smaller, but still nice size bucks, but by hunting the area with less but bigger, at least he is in the game for the monster he dreams of.


I'm pretty sure he would hunt the 160 inch bucks. I've seen him hunt 160 inch bucks that didn't exist and eat his tag. I'm more of a realist, I sure am not going to hunt a buck that doesn't exist.

I usually have a pretty good idea of what bucks are available on the land I can hunt. It is always a big blow when I hear one of the top end end bucks got killed by another hunter :cry: (happens regularly). I think it happens to other hunters, they may not even know it.

Gross score is all that counts in my book. In Iowa it take a 135 net to get a trophy award certificate (archery). I think most people don't understand how rare a 135 net buck is. I have a 150+ gross and a 160+gross that wont make it and then I have much smaller 10s that will. What's wrong with this picture?
You can fool some of the bucks, all of the time, and fool all of the bucks, some of the time, however you certainly can't fool all of the bucks, all of the time.


  • Advertisement

Return to “Deer Hunting”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests