• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Mature Buck Behavior Data (poking the Nutter)

I’m saying that young deer, on average, are just as smart as old deer, on average.

I’m open to the idea that deer that survive to old age (for deer) are demonstrably and materially smarter than the rest of the younger population. But I’ve yet to see any evidence to support that claim, that can’t be explained by other means.

They don’t get smarter with age. They may get more conservative, or more adherent to their instincts. But it defies basic biology to believe that old deer gain mental function past their sexual prime.

if the notion is old deer behave different than young ones, and not that they are smarter, I can buy it. But the fact remains, 99% of people shouldn’t concern themselves with that difference. To do so limits their growth and experience as a hunter. If you want to kill deer, turn off the Disneyswitch in your noggin.
 
Last edited:
www.deer.psu.edu

Healthy Obsession

It’s October and you can feel the change. Leaves are starting to drop. Pleasant temperatures greet us in the evening. And a familiar under-the-breath cursing has returned to my house – “Dang deer”. Yes, it is hunting season and 17 years of marriage has taught me to steer clear of my spouse...
www.deer.psu.edu www.deer.psu.edu

Go back and read all of the archived articles for the past several years.They have hundreds of bucks collared and tracked their movements through all of the season.It's interesting and informative.
 
kyler1945 said:
I’m saying that young deer, on average, are just as smart as old deer, on average.

I’m open to the idea that deer that survive to old age (for deer) are demonstrably and materially smarter than younger deer. But I’ve yet to see any evidence to support that claim, that can’t be explained by other means.

They don’t get smarter with age. They may get more conservative, or more adherent to their instincts. But it defies basic biology to believe that old deer gain mental function past their sexual prime.

if the notion is old deer behave different than young ones, and not that they are smarter, I can buy it. But the fact remains, 99% of people shouldn’t concern themselves with that difference. To do so limits their growth and experience as a hunter. If you want to kill deer, turn off the Disneyswitch in your noggin.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this. However I think it is possible, maybe probable, that deer that are older have to be hunted in different locations, at different times, and possibly with different methods than younger deer because the sum of their experiences have made them more conservative, adherent to their instincts or changed their behavior in some other way. Agree?
 
i am no expert, but i do beleive in evolutionary biology and natural selection. if a prey animal is killed, it's genes aren't passed on, or to say it in another way, there's always selection for deer that are better at staying alive, be it predation by us, by animals, or delaing with nature/roads etc. any animal learns from it's experiences, gets conditioned to it's environment. (this is why dogs can be trained to sit and stay in any language, they are being conditioned to the command, they don't "understand" you.)

we can see outliers when it comes to animal behavior on an individual level, so it's likely the case that conditioning plays a much larger role than genetics- take for example people that have raised deer as "pets"- these deer are (by a hunters standards) very dumb as they'll walk right up to you. they've been incorrectly conditioned to not be afraid of a predator species (humans).

ultimately, i think biology proves both sides right. you have to be where deer are to kill them, but for any given deer population, the younger ones likely don't have as much conditioning/experience, so they're usually not as wary. then there's the whole herd thing, a yearling is likely easier to kill on it's own than with a nanny doe- most likely because the doe has been conditioned to be more aware of her surroundings than the yearling. more conditioning = "smarter" deer that's more difficult to kill. foundation is the same, a deer's a deer and they want to eat and live, but the more livingthey've done the better they are at doing more of it.
 
LAKY said:
A deer's brain is not smooth. Lots of folds to be found there.

View attachment 52184
Click to expand...
That is a relatively smooth and small brain. Obviously not quite as smooth and small as something like a koala (which is so incredibly unintelligent that it can't recognize leaves detached from the branch as food and will starve in a room full of them), but not really impressive given the body size. It is at least a herd animal, which means it's a bit brainier than some of the animal kingdom.

I feel like looking for intelligence differences in deer is like looking for differences between human races. Sure, they're there. But we're all way more similar than we're different and the spread isn't really all the productive to focus on. :/ And I imagine to an alien life form the differences we perceive would be so small as to be immeasurable, especially if our hypothetical ET is as far removed from a human on the intelligence scale as we are from a deer.

@thedutchtouch, I think selection is definitely the thing that makes life work. A few thoughts:

All organisms die. MOST prey species die of predation. The trick to passing on your genes is getting laid at least once before that happens. Obviously your genes do better the more that happens. But I imagine there are lots of factors being selected for more aggressively than human predation. Lots of young, dumb bucks are getting to pass on their genes, especially in states with antler restrictions, skewed buck/doe ratios, and/or limited buck tags. That dilutes the effectiveness of the operation. How much? No clue.

Sex makes things trickier. What about all the young does getting to pass on their genes? And it's a really difficult and touchy subject, but is it reasonable to assume that Hims are smarter than Hers or vice versa? That's what the smart-ole-buck™ rhetoric seems to imply. Smart-ole-does in the study mentioned in the OP seem to either not exist or for reasons unfathomable act the same as their dumber compatriots. The difference is weird, unless you assume other more important variables than intelligence. And, of course, you realize does are not nearly as interesting to study to our biased researchers.

"Selection," "conditioning," and "learning (intelligence)" are all very distinct ideas. I'm green light on selection, yellow light on conditioning, and red light on learning. I can go green light on conditioning if we can get over the intelligence bias we have. You can select for traits with and without conditioning. You can condition without (or with VERY little) intelligence. We have great reason to believe dogs are smarter than deer. But, it takes a lot of conscious effort on our part to train a dog, along with a very extensive bit of unnatural selection to come up with a conditioned dog. And they're the best-of-the-best at accepting conditioning. If you look at animals like cows or sheep...well, it's pretty tough to train (condition) them because they really struggle with prediction and correlating cause/effect. They can't think forwards and backwards through time (speculation and remembrance) very well at all. Dogs can do it a little, which means we can offer a treat and not have them eternally lunging for it like a cow would. They'll eventually start to speculating about a reality in which they have the treat, and remembering past events that lead to that reality. We think forwards and backwards so well we spend more time out of the present than in it. So overall, I'm skeptical of how much conditioning a deer can utilize.

I guess that ultimately, if you gave me 100,000 generations to breed deer to become maximally efficient at avoiding hunters and full knowledge of their genetic code and how to shape it, I can think of better/easier ways to keep them alive than selecting for reasoning ability or conditionability. If I was lazy, just making them nocturnal and agoraphobic would do nicely. Traits that i could give them straight out of the womb would take priorty over something that took 5+ years of living to pay off because the odds of it helping go down (what if he gets killed before he gets smart) and they're sexually viable at year 1. If 2 deer breed and make the average 2 babies I'm sitting pretty at replacement rate. If they make it 1 more I'm doubling the population.

Maybe that'd be a cool thread. Your rationale behind breeding super-unkillable deer. That may get the ball rolling better on disregarding cognitive ability.
 
I really think the use of the word "intelligence" here is semantics. My point, which is supported by scientific data from various sources, is that there is a tendency for older bucks to behave differently than the majority of an average deer herd. I am not saying its that they are wise and cunning in a way that other deer aren't. However, I do know that animals act on prior experiences as there are countless examples of this throughout nature (consider lifelong avoidance of an insect that previously that stung them for instance, something well documented in the literature). It makes sense that the oldest survivor bucks (and does although they rely on group vigilance more heavily for defense) have the most experiences to inform their decisions. As someone with 2 degrees in biology, some of the natural selection and behavioral ecology discussions being thrown around are a little painful to me personally, but they aren't the crux of the thread so I won't dive in and distract from my main point: Old bucks IN GENERAL have observable behavioral differences from other deer and may require different strategies to consistently target. There is a reason that most guys who kill big bucks regularly will tell you that when they are shooting big ones their non-target deer sightings go down drastically. Does this apply to only a minority of hunters? Sure. Would most people be better served and see more success to just hunt the average herd deer? Sure. Does that mean its always the best stategy for the person looking to kill a big-bodied OLD deer? Absolutely not.
 
BackSpasm said:
I really think the use of the word "intelligence" here is semantics. My point, which is supported by scientific data from various sources, is that there is a tendency for older bucks to behave differently than the majority of an average deer herd.
Click to expand...

This. I feel like there has been a smart buck straw man set up just to nock down. I think when most people use terms like "smart ole buck" they are simply referring to a deer that has been conditioned to move less in daylight and move more cautiously when he does, which makes him harder to kill. Not only does the study referenced above provide evidence of this but, I remember a study from PSU where they tagged a mature doe. During deer season she not only changed how much she moved but the locations that she bedded.

If the argument is that mature deer aren't better at reasoning and problem solving than young deer, I agree. If the argument is that deer don't change their behavior based on a sum of their experiences as they grow older I don't buy it and I don't think the evidence supports it. But is anyone actually making the first argument?
 
BackSpasm said:
I really think the use of the word "intelligence" here is semantics. My point, which is supported by scientific data from various sources, is that there is a tendency for older bucks to behave differently than the majority of an average deer herd. I am not saying its that they are wise and cunning in a way that other deer aren't. However, I do know that animals act on prior experiences as there are countless examples of this throughout nature (consider lifelong avoidance of an insect that previously that stung them for instance, something well documented in the literature). It makes sense that the oldest survivor bucks (and does although they rely on group vigilance more heavily for defense) have the most experiences to inform their decisions. As someone with 2 degrees in biology, some of the natural selection and behavioral ecology discussions being thrown around are a little painful to me personally, but they aren't the crux of the thread so I won't dive in and distract from my main point: Old bucks IN GENERAL have observable behavioral differences from other deer and may require different strategies to consistently target. There is a reason that most guys who kill big bucks regularly will tell you that when they are shooting big ones their non-target deer sightings go down drastically. Does this apply to only a minority of hunters? Sure. Would most people be better served and see more success to just hunt the average herd deer? Sure. Does that mean its always the best stategy for the person looking to kill a big-bodied OLD deer? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...
It's probably painfully obvious to you that I don't have formal training in biology. I've always had an interest in evolutionary biology but unfortunately I was not encouraged in that pursuit as a teen. Kinda the opposite. My enthusiasm outpaces my understanding for sure. Apologies.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I'm hesitant to say, out loud and in public, "Yes, there are differences between smart-ole-bucks™ and "other" deer" because I'm afraid the internet hive mind will then see it as a retraction of my previous comments and we won't have gotten anywhere and I really do believe there's something to be gained in changing the way most folks think about deer hunting and big buck hunting.

But here goes. Big bucks can and sometimes do behave differently than other deer. I don't believe it's a given. I don't believe for a second that a buck can think through his choice of bedding, feed area, and travel routes and arrange his route and schedule factoring in wind direction and where he remembers hunters being over the course of his 5 year lifespan. You (@BackSpasm) may not believe that thing either but lots of people do. I think the differences we observe are the result of us not doing a thing vs the deer doing a thing. IE, the big deer aren't hiding in the swamps and thickets and backyards because they know to go there when the hunting pressure piles on, it's just that we shot all the deer that were in the easier to access areas. MAYBE I could be persuaded that that thing, over long periods of time, constitutes natural selection. I'm more inclined to believe it's cyclical and occurs during each generation. IE, the grass is 2" tall not because over thousands of cycles of mowing it only grows that high, but it's 2" high because it got mowed again yesterday. Maybe that is a painful thought to somebody more well-versed in evolutionary biology than me. I'd love to have a conversation about it. It'd be fresher than the regurgitation of the same dozen ideas about the topic.

As far as the thoughts of successful hunters on the details of what makes them successful, I'm immensely distrustful of what a man thinks is the cause of his success. I've eye-rolled my way through too many Ted-talks and listened to John Eberhart hype ScentLok way too much to take stock in it. I also know on a personal level that I always give myself way too much credit for success. I can talk all day about the things I have learned or the effort I have put in to hunting and how it's "paid off" but the unsexy truth is I've had what I'd call above-average success killing critters because I've lucked into some advantages other hunters don't have. A dad that gave a crap about me and who took me along for the ride. Surplus money. Location in a state with a long season and high deer population and a county with lots of public land. A wife that earns a lot of income and voluntarily takes birth control. Enough of a social safety net that I can focus my efforts into something as stupid as killing deer instead of struggling to make enough money or take care of a parent or worry about...anything really. Physical health. Obsessive personality traits that I dang sure don't work to maintain. Etc. Lots of things out of my control that don't make me look good or give me credit as an authority or knowledge broker.

One more quibble. When you say "hunt the average deer herd..." I would say that the type of deer herd you have to be hunting in order for you to pull mature bucks out of it consistently is far from average in most areas. My experience is that on many tracts of land you are hunting something that doesn't exist. Whenever I have been able to hunt a herd that contains mature bucks, all I've had to do is scout until I lay eyes on him a time or two and hang a stand after considering nearby food and bedding. Same as for any other deer. I have less experience with that than some, but more than others. I wouldn't say what I advocate is average.

And, I've had the pleasure to talk with a few "famous" hunters who, off the book, were willing to admit that their success was largely due to their geographic location. A lot of times it's also easy to see if you're willing to look. John Eberhart is pretty honest about how "easy" it is to kill "book bucks" in Iowa vs Michigan. THP does way better in the midwest than in the southeast. Warren Womack will tell you he has killed lots of deer because his state is a deer-a-day and for a while he hunted a club that straddled a state line so he could (and did) kill TWO deer a day regularly throughout season. The D'Acquistos are not shy about saying they hunt very nice land. Robert Sheppard acknowledges he lives in prime habitat and has a lot of money. "Small lone of a million dollars" comes to mind. If you see that thing, adjust for it, and then fine-tune your hunting by focusing on the differences between mature bucks and other deer, great. But after over a decade interacting with hunters for a living and as a hobby, I've noticed that most just don't seem to get it, much less adjust their course of action to account for it.
 
I see three non-mutually exclusive ideas:

1. Deer learn as they age and so you see mature bucks doing "smart stuff"

2. If you were to randomly distribute deer across habitat, and if they tend to stick relatively close to what they are familiar with, then the deer that in part by chance happen to be in good spots to survive will become mature, and it isn't necessarily anything about them

3. Deer vary genetically at birth, just like humans. Some are smarter. Some have better noses. Some are more risk averse (scaredy cats). Deer with a combo of good genetic traits to survive (smarter than other deer, etc) are more likely to survive to be mature. So, we might think they become different, when maybe they were born that way.

I think all 3 have to hold to some degree, but it is hard to figure out which is the strongest factor on average. But for a particular deer or area, it could be one or more of these are dominant.
 
@Nutterbuster Great reply! So much to respond to there. 100% we agree more than disagree. I completely agree with your priority rankings of what matters most to be successful. Location IS the most important factor to killing big deer. I agree with the majority of your approach and premise. It was just the assertion that hunting strategies don't need to differ for big deer, once you have good access, because they act the same but are just more scarce that got me looking for better data. This has not been my anecdotal experience and I have been thinking it over and looking for evidence. Remember too that of all the Michigan and Wisconsin hunters there aren't really that many Infalts or Eberharts. Certainly, the average guy up there is killing bigger deer more consistently than the average guy down here in the south. But, like it or not, those two and others (the 1%) do something different from the norm and it alters their success, which makes them stand out and fills up barn walls with bucks. I think that difference is simply centered around hunting security/bedding cover. Its the next evolution of the Womack "hunt the travel corridor not the food" philosophy. They are hunting the starting point of travel, seeing less deer overall, but are more likely to see a big one on his feet than the average hunter, even (especially) in areas with big deer. This is a common feature of both Eberhart and Infalts approaches when you listen to their interviews. I whole heartedly agree with your philosophy just take exception to one tenant of your thought process
 
Fact: The only reason big bucks are difficult to kill is because people set the rules of the “game”, whether we self impose the challenge such as choosing to bowhunt only or targeting a certain age class, or the state imposing regs such as only hunting in the day time etc.
 
Older animals of all kinds, remember things, such as where they’ve encountered danger and found food,... throughout their lives, and will make adjustments to how they move about..

for instance, an older buck will more likely travel 20 yds along an edge, inside cover, whereas a young buck will travel the edge 20 yds outside cover. Simply because the young buck, hasn’t been given enough life experiences, to know what kind of danger lurks.

There have been radio collared mature bucks, followed through multiple years, and it’s been found that many return to the same very localized hiding places annually to evade hunters, within hours after the start of opening day.

with all that said, the MAIN Roadblock to hunters success on mature animals, is not that they’re so cunning, but that they’re hunting in areas that have very low amounts, or none at all.

In that kind of scenario, it’s easy to start believing that you’re dealing with a creature of supreme intelligence, because they’ve managed to be so elusive,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top