Just out of curiosity, why does everyone show the burrs on antlers when mounting them? Just because it looks nicer or because it shows the age of the deer or is there another reason?
Return to Deer Taxidermy Category Menu
We expose the burrs because they grew that way? And since when did a burr or antler ever show the age of the deer. To claim to be an "outdoorslover", you sure have a long way to go until you're out of the woods.
Since when have you seen a deer that was young with tons of knobby, crazy growths on the antler base? I did not mean that you can look at a deer's burrs and tell exactly how old it was, but that a deer with very knobby antlers was probably very old and mature. By showing a deer's burrs I believe it would show how mature the deer was. Maybe maturity was a better word. It's obviously something you don't have. No matter how stupid a question it was, I would answer a beginners question with graciousness. Thanks, though.
...than calling someone like you a dumbass. I, too, would answer a "beginner" question graciously, but YOU posted this question in the DEER category. And the reason its a dumbass question is simply because had you known anything about deer, you'd know that taxidermists only "expose" what IS EXPOSED. From your first posting, I doubt anyone on here has a clue of what you mean and even you seem to be waffling as to what you said and what you meant. When we mount deer, the SKULLCAP goes under the hide. Since deer's antlers form from a "bud" in their skull, the burr is formed OUTSIDE the hair as the antler matures. In MOST cases, a larger, knurled does signify an older deer, but not to the point of it being useful in aging. Only the teeth tell that story. And as I said, if you don't know what I'm talking about, YOUR maturity is going to suffer. It's tought to claim to be an "outdoorslover" without ever having learned anything.
Glad to see you back George.
I agree with George accept that I would not have called him a dumbass as that is derogitory. The correct word would have been ignorant.
I apologize if I came off as stupid and ignorant. The answer was obvious. It is however, good to know that you know swear words. It definetely shows YOUR maturity level. You can't even control anger towards a kid. Furthermore, antler burrs definetely show a deer's maturity by the amount of knobby material, mass, etc. You show yours less so. Knowledge and maturity are different things.
I'm bilingual. I speak in lots of different colloquialisms and profanity is one of my better ones. I spent 30 years in the military insuring smart asses like you could play political correctness games with yourselves. Weasels like you try to impugn that as being immature. Grow the hell up yourself and smell the swamp mud. If Darwin is right, that's where you came from anyway. Life isn't a bed of roses. Knowledge comes with maturity because maturity damned sure doesn't come form knowledge. Either way, I'll play on whichever field you find comfortable with. But is you ask questions like a child, you'll get the same in return. I don't have Cecil to kick around any more as a mental midget, but if you'd like to take his place, that's fine with me.
Have you ever seen a cactus head buck? How about a 6 year old spike buck? If you ever do, I want you to remember one more "ignorant" statement you made: "antler burrs definetely show a deer's maturity by the amount of knobby material, mass, etc." "Always" is a word MATURE people avoid as KNOWLEDGE tells them that nothing in life is a sure thing. In whitetails, genetics, age, and food have lots to do with antlers, but without a great food source, the first two never show up. The 6 year old spike I shot had burrs like most 1.5 year old deer have. If you ever hunting Alberta or Saskatchewan you'd find that a 2.5 year old deer there dwarfs a 2.5 year old Florida or Alabama deer. So there goes your age BS.
Let's say that a deer had the proper genetics and nutrition. Would his antlers get bigger with age? Yes, they would. And his burrs-which the antlers grow from-would get bigger and knobbier. I have yet to see a young deer with huge antlers or an old deer that has spikes for antlers. I am SURE that there ARE such deer, but I have yet to see one. All the deer in my experience have grown their antlers correctly with age. The only CERTAIN way to tell a deer's age is by the teeth, but in MY opinion, in 9 out of 10 deer I see, you can get a rough estimate of age by looking at antler growth. That's only my opinion and does not have to be acknowledged. I'm not proving anything. How do you think you estimate deer's age in the woods before the shot? Yes, you can look at the body size, but mostly you look at the antlers.
Willow was a pet whitetail I had from about 2 weeks until his death. He was 17 years old when he died. His very BEST rack came at 10 and then dwindled. For some reason, at 13, he grew a respectable rack, but on his last year of life, he tended to look like a Pere David deer with small antlers the went every place. His burrs were only about the size of his sheds at 3 years old. I'm blessed with being able to hunt some of the best whitetails in America. When I'm trophy hunting, I look for spread and mass, but since I have a 2.5 year old deer that scores 166 7/8, that doesn't tell me much about aging. Your point, however, is valid in that area. But NONE of this defines what your original question was. Why WOULDN'T we show the burrs on antlers of a deer. Is your suggestion that we put the skin over them instead? You've managed to dodge the bullet for several threads, so I'm sure we'd ALL like to hear what your question was intended to ask.
My original question was simply if showing a deer's burrs somehow showed his age and maturity, or what their reasoning was for this. In my opinion it does. I had no intent to start an argument or any ill intent whatsoever for that matter. Thanks for your courteous response. We all deserve to share our opinions in a civil manner. I most certainly response your's and don't claim to be an expert. My original question was a bit obvious and I shouldn't have wasted your time asking it.
On your age bs, Why are the deer in florida so much smaller than the deer up north at the same age. Since you know everything!
...here it is (but you could have found this in the archives. LOL)
In biology, many things are determined by geographical locations. Sort of like there farther north you go, the hair gets lighter on the animals. You know from black bear to grizzly to polarbear. Sheep are the same way from desert bighorn, Rocky Mountain Bighorn, Stone, fannin and finally Dall sheep.
In deer, if you move the whitetail, as is being done, to New Zealand, the rut will eventually change to match their seasons. Whitetail rut in NZ will be April/May versus our November. To be specific about YOUR question, biologists call it "Bergmann's Rule. It defines that the farther a geographic race is found north or south of the equator, the larger the mass of its body will be. Hence Florida Key deer/Arizona Coues deer versus Canadian whitetails.
The second law is called Allen's Rule. That states that among warm blooded creatures, the physical extremities (ears, tail and legs) are shorter in the cooler part of their range versus the warmer part (same examples above).
The third and final law thus far is "Gloger's Rule". It states that among warm blooded animals, dark pigments are more prevalent in warm humid habitat. In the south we always referred to them a "swamp deer" with very little white in the muzzle and eye orbit areas. Carried further, Gloger's Rule has come to be found true in heavy forested areas as well, so the "swamp deer" was a great example of coloration differences.
BTW John, I would never claim to know "everything". The only things I know are those things that I've experienced or read about. So even if I don't KNOW everything, I'm smart enough to know that there's some source of any information as long as I put a little effort into looking for and finding it. It's a shame more people don't look for knowledge instead of expecting it to be handed to them.
You sound like a very knowlegible person. I guess you have been reaserching whitetails for a while. I didn't mean anything by the you know everything comment. I just meant it seems like you have an answer for everthing that is asked. From what I've seen in your answers you know your crap!. Thanks for the answer.
Why don't two go play in the sand box where you belong! I have said this many times and I'll say it again, If you don't like the FREE info here then go pay someone for it! Open up your minds that you might learn something from Extremely Experienced guys like George. Most taxidermist's that have been doing the same thing for 30+ years do basically become experts on all kinds of animal anatomy.
The world would be a better place without ignorent [expletive deleted]s like you. If you read, which I'm suprised you can, I was giving a compliment to George. His information was very helpful. It's people like you that give the industry a bad name.
Such nasty thoughts ?
My bad on the confusion and I apologize to you for that but I have to ask. How old are you? Your'e hot headed! I feel sorry for anyone who has to associate with you. I don't give the industry a bad name because I don't speak nor even think language like that. Cursing that way really shows your intelligence.
I'm beginning to like George more and more. I am completely open to learning from George, Different John. However, I have opinions and beliefs. It's a free country. It appears that George has extravagant knowledge and experience. I agree with him completely except that I think that for the most part you can determine a deer's age by antler mass. Just to clarify, I am in my teenage years.
Have you ever seen a 2 year old deer that scores over 200 Boone and Crockett? I have and the size of the antlers will tell you nothing about a deers age. Antler size is diet and nutrition. In the Texas Hill Country deer used to be around the 15" neck range and might score 130 on the B/C, now there are deer that are free ranging that are getting more protein and are measuring 23" (neck) and scoring 180+ at 2 to 3 years old. Besides a deer sheds the antlers every year, so how could it determine age?
Maybe I am not correct. I almost always see whitetails progress from one antler size to the next. I only see whitetails progress in antler size after shedding-therefore antlers get bigger with age. Antler size may not be a sure way to determine age, but if I shoot a 2 year old deer that scores 200 B/C, what's to lose? For instance, I shot an 8 point this year that me and all hunters I know could tell was approximately 2 1/2 simply by antler size and mass. As far as I know, we're correct, because there's not a chance it was much older or younger. I believe that deer in our area are fairly predictable in antler growth from year to year. If I feel that by a deer's rack size it's not suitable to shoot because I believe it's not old or mature enough, then so what? I don't shoot deer by reading their age, but because of rack size. I believe it's more ethical to shoot old deer, but if the rack lies, it's not my fault. Do you agree?
Because that same 200 class deer may not have the same quality feed for the next antler growth and actually be smaller. The way most hunters see the situation is the size of the rack and not necessarily the age. Since more and more feeders are getting filled with protein around here it is going to get more difficult to guess age by antlers. Anyway, George is a very good source of information but a little rough around the edges.
I'm only rough for those wearing silk drawers. LOL. Outdoorslover, you're mostly correct in your assumptions if you're dealing solely with local deer. Once you move away from that realm, you won't be able to judge other deer in other habitat that well. Older bucks tend to have a sway back and a bigger butt on them. Taking older deer out of a herd can be good or bad. If you have an overabundance of does (as most places do) the best conservation method is to take the old does out. One, they're a helluva lot smarter and two, they're at the age where they consistently produce twin fawns. If you're in a area of severe climate, you should also take out the younger deer. Taking them out leaves a viable doe who will breed again as well a eliminating the younger ones from eating the available forage. Personally, I just don't shoot bucks with less than 8 points and the rack extending beyond their ears. I try to let them go and let them grow if they're smaller. Many people think taking an older buck out of the mix depletes the genes. Nothing is farther from the truth. Remember, the DOE carries genes as well and she'll be the host for producing another buck fawn. Studies show that older deer (over 4 1/2 years) actually breed less than the younger bucks. They're like old men and don't seem to be able to get around as well. On shocking fact from one set of studies I saw was that in does bearing twin fawns, nearly 80% of the fawns did not share the genes of the same buck. So the does obviously ovulate at different times and are often serviced by different bucks. I'd just assumed the fawns were fraternal twins, but not so it would seem.
In my area the farm fields of the northwest, genes have the greatest effect on antler and burr size. Out here in farm country there is no wood lots or draws with trees or brush. So the bucks that survied hunting seasons in the past we're spikes or small 2 points that could hide thier antlers with thier ears. They passed those genes on.
Now the introduction of CRP to this area, gave the bucks a place to hide thier antlers, then we had bigger bucks around.
And in thier great wisdom at the D.F.W. they open a rifle season during the rut, so now we can hunt tiny 3 point and watch so of the best 4-7yrs.old 2points around.
Sorry I'm just venting a little. Thanks for all the help and info. God Bless.
Thanks for your thought provoking insight. The deer in our area are very overhunted and people will shoot anything with antlers. That is why I think it's best to shoot old bucks and does. I wish more people would shoot does instead of young bucks. There is no point in shooting small bucks, because, if you want meat, shoot does. With mature bucks so rare, it's very hard to shoot them. This was my first year of deer hunting and I thought I would shoot any buck just for the sake of getting a buck. However, because I shot a deer bigger than I expected, I have nothing to gain by shooting small bucks. I'll shoot does instead. I'm not advanced enough to do complicated deer management and I don't manage my own land. Thanks George and John.