small 4x's

Brad1974

FNG
Joined
Jul 22, 2024
Messages
53
I am barely more than a week from my first mule deer hunt in Wyoming. It's a general unit that was hit pretty hard with winter kill a few years back, but the population is starting to bounce back & there will likely be alot of does, fawns, and young bucks. I have spoken to the area biologist and to a guy who has hunted the same area I will be hunting for many years. Both have implied that it will be very hard to find mature bucks. I have been to CO twice, and my brother had a mule deer tag both times. I know in the unit I will be hunting this year, I can't have the same expectation as the expectations we had in CO. There is a 4 antler point restriction this season, which I was thinking would help force me to avoid going after small bucks than I should be, but I don't really know. If I find a legal buck (one with 4 points), what is the chance that it will be a small immature buck? Is a 2 yr old 4x pretty common, or is that the exception? What would most smaller 4x's score? Do any of you have pics of what smaller 4x's look like? I haven't had eyes on enough mule deer to know what to expect.
 
You’ll absolutely see small 120” 2-3 year old 4X’s. Shoot whatever makes you happy man. If you aren’t going to scout it, you have absolutely no idea of populations or trophy potential in the area. You’ll just have to find what makes you happy and kill it and accept it.

But holding out could absolutely result in killing a much bigger buck. They are not only just around, but prevalent with some hard hunting.
 
You’ll absolutely see small 120” 2-3 year old 4X’s. Shoot whatever makes you happy man. If you aren’t going to scout it, you have absolutely no idea of populations or trophy potential in the area. You’ll just have to find what makes you happy and kill it and accept it.

But holding out could absolutely result in killing a much bigger buck. They are not only just around, but prevalent with some hard hunting.

Yea, that's my plan. I would absolutely hold out for a 150" if I knew that was a very reasonable goal... but I don't know that & reports that I've gotten make me believe that could be quite a lofty goal. I have a couple mid 140's whitetail on my wall, & I was really hoping to exceed that, but I'd much rather tag a 3 yr old 130" muley buck than go home empty handed. Truth is I haven't done anything to merit being that picky yet. After I finally get one under my belt, I expect I will raise the bar a little higher.
 
I’d just use the first couple days as scouting days. Big vantages over looking a lot of country. Get a feel for the populations and size available. Then start hunting
 
I’d just use the first couple days as scouting days. Big vantages over looking a lot of country. Get a feel for the populations and size available. Then start hunting

That's exactly what I'll be doing. We should get to the general are I plan to hunt by evening of Aug 29th, so I'll have 1 evening & 2 full days before the season begins. Then I will be there for 8 full days of hunting before I have to head back home. It could be a little difficult for me to field judge the smaller 4x's, but the truth is, if it's legal and it gets me excited I'm likely going after it.
 
That's exactly what I'll be doing. We should get to the general are I plan to hunt by evening of Aug 29th, so I'll have 1 evening & 2 full days before the season begins. Then I will be there for 8 full days of hunting before I have to head back home. It could be a little difficult for me to field judge the smaller 4x's, but the truth is, if it's legal and it gets me excited I'm likely going after it.
I’d say archery hunting stalk whatever gets you excited and is legal. Have fun and sharpen your hunting skills. Too much emphasis these days on monster bucks can ruin the spirit of the adventure and the hunt
I didn't realize you were hunting archery honestly. I would just stalk every 4 point you find lol. Will is right about that! Especially a new hunter going with archery equipment. A big buck will mean nothing more to you than a smaller buck at this point in your endeavors.
 
Shoot what makes you happy. Yes plenty of younger 4s. Here’s a smaller 4 I got a picture of. I’d be static to shoot this buck but that’s just me personally. If it gets my adrenaline going then he’s the deer for me. Don’t get me wrong I’d love to shoot a 200 inch deer but the tags I’ve drawn it’s unlikely. Yes sure their there but like you I’m limited on time. Enjoy it and make sure you have fun!IMG_4031.png
 
Small four point can be 2 1/2 to getting ready to die of old age.
The first picture is of the shed from the buck in my Avatar. He was lab aged at 4 1/2 so at age 2 1/2 he grow a small five point antler around 55 inches.
In the second picture is three years worth of sheds from a four point buck that probably never grew and antler over 55 inches even though when I found his skull his teeth were warn to the gum.DSCN3690.JPGIMG_0455.JPG
 
This is a pretty good resource for judging a mature buck afield:
 
I am barely more than a week from my first mule deer hunt in Wyoming. It's a general unit that was hit pretty hard with winter kill a few years back, but the population is starting to bounce back & there will likely be alot of does, fawns, and young bucks. I have spoken to the area biologist and to a guy who has hunted the same area I will be hunting for many years. Both have implied that it will be very hard to find mature bucks. I have been to CO twice, and my brother had a mule deer tag both times. I know in the unit I will be hunting this year, I can't have the same expectation as the expectations we had in CO. There is a 4 antler point restriction this season, which I was thinking would help force me to avoid going after small bucks than I should be, but I don't really know. If I find a legal buck (one with 4 points), what is the chance that it will be a small immature buck? Is a 2 yr old 4x pretty common, or is that the exception? What would most smaller 4x's score? Do any of you have pics of what smaller 4x's look like? I haven't had eyes on enough mule deer to know what to expect.


Genetics of an area can have the muleys trend bigger or smaller, but that's a trend. And there are almost always exceptions. And definitely take what "guys who've hunted this place a lot of years", and even wildlife biologists' advice, with a grain of salt. Don't dismiss it, but do put an asterisk on it.

It's been my experience that guys who hunt an area yearly, especially if they're local, who say "their ain't no big bucks around here man"...those guys aren't learning much, because they keep doing the same thing over and over, every year, when they keep finding small bucks. Most of what they learned came from their dads and grandpas, and they're just hunting how their family has always hunted - often with a lot of complaining about how good it "used to be." That creates a doom-loop of not believing there's a massive buck somewhere in that unit, so they don't try, or figure out what it takes. They get into a kind of groove of mediocrity. And that is absolutely fine if the goal is meat or just a satisfying hunt. But they don't push themselves to learn, get to tougher places, or how to discipline themselves to pass up smaller bucks. A good marker of that mediocrity in someone who lives close to their regular unit, is whether or not they put in about as many days scouting as they have available in a given season. If they only have a 2-3 week season in September or October, but didn't put in about 10-14 days scouting across the prior 4 or 5 months, they're probably not serious about finding a big buck in that mediocre unit - or really learning how to hunt it. That's a rough benchmark, but it seems to correlate somewhat.

Biologists need an asterisk too, in some places. They're a great resource, but some may just rarely or never see really big bucks when they're herd counting, and it may be hit or miss if they personally see any tagged. Especially if its an area not known for big bucks. They're generally just not looking for those needles in the haystack that intentionally separate themselves from the herds those biologists are counting for big chunks of the year. But do look at the data that comes from harvest reporting - that'll tell you pretty accurately how often something gets taken beyond a 4-point.

Always go into a unit with the belief that there's an absolute banger of a buck in it - and go from there in figuring out how he'd keep himself alive and unseen in that geography, in that context. But as a good general rule, don't pass up a buck on the first day that you'd never pass up on the last day.

One last point on winter kill - I'm not the only one who has noticed that even after a really bad winter, really big bucks seem to have a better than average chance to survive. I suspect it's because they tend to have more body mass to burn through than smaller and younger bucks/does, etc. And the bigger ones seem to also behave differently during the rut, not running around everywhere competing with the 3-4 yo bucks, running them off and trying to ride herd on a half-dozen does at once. Instead, the really big muley bucks seem to often keep above the fray, cut out one doe at a time, keep her up and away from the rest of the nonsense and chaos of the rut, and stay on her until estrus. One at a time. I suspect that burns less calories over the weeks too, so they may be going into winter with both more body mass from maturity, and more retained energy reserves than the younger bucks running around burning it all off just before winter hits. It's not a guaranteed thing, but you can still find some absolute brutes the season after a winter kill that wipes out big portions of a herd.
 
Genetics of an area can have the muleys trend bigger or smaller, but that's a trend. And there are almost always exceptions. And definitely take what "guys who've hunted this place a lot of years", and even wildlife biologists' advice, with a grain of salt. Don't dismiss it, but do put an asterisk on it.

It's been my experience that guys who hunt an area yearly, especially if they're local, who say "their ain't no big bucks around here man"...those guys aren't learning much, because they keep doing the same thing over and over, every year, when they keep finding small bucks. Most of what they learned came from their dads and grandpas, and they're just hunting how their family has always hunted - often with a lot of complaining about how good it "used to be." That creates a doom-loop of not believing there's a massive buck somewhere in that unit, so they don't try, or figure out what it takes. They get into a kind of groove of mediocrity. And that is absolutely fine if the goal is meat or just a satisfying hunt. But they don't push themselves to learn, get to tougher places, or how to discipline themselves to pass up smaller bucks. A good marker of that mediocrity in someone who lives close to their regular unit, is whether or not they put in about as many days scouting as they have available in a given season. If they only have a 2-3 week season in September or October, but didn't put in about 10-14 days scouting across the prior 4 or 5 months, they're probably not serious about finding a big buck in that mediocre unit - or really learning how to hunt it. That's a rough benchmark, but it seems to correlate somewhat.

Biologists need an asterisk too, in some places. They're a great resource, but some may just rarely or never see really big bucks when they're herd counting, and it may be hit or miss if they personally see any tagged. Especially if its an area not known for big bucks. They're generally just not looking for those needles in the haystack that intentionally separate themselves from the herds those biologists are counting for big chunks of the year. But do look at the data that comes from harvest reporting - that'll tell you pretty accurately how often something gets taken beyond a 4-point.

Always go into a unit with the belief that there's an absolute banger of a buck in it - and go from there in figuring out how he'd keep himself alive and unseen in that geography, in that context. But as a good general rule, don't pass up a buck on the first day that you'd never pass up on the last day.

One last point on winter kill - I'm not the only one who has noticed that even after a really bad winter, really big bucks seem to have a better than average chance to survive. I suspect it's because they tend to have more body mass to burn through than smaller and younger bucks/does, etc. And the bigger ones seem to also behave differently during the rut, not running around everywhere competing with the 3-4 yo bucks, running them off and trying to ride herd on a half-dozen does at once. Instead, the really big muley bucks seem to often keep above the fray, cut out one doe at a time, keep her up and away from the rest of the nonsense and chaos of the rut, and stay on her until estrus. One at a time. I suspect that burns less calories over the weeks too, so they may be going into winter with both more body mass from maturity, and more retained energy reserves than the younger bucks running around burning it all off just before winter hits. It's not a guaranteed thing, but you can still find some absolute brutes the season after a winter kill that wipes out big portions of a herd.
 
Meateater just did a podcast called “Hornography” with a biologist from U of Wyoming. Over a decade of study on mulies has shown the biggest single factor in rack size is the nutritional situation of the mother. Nutrition for the buck after its birth actually had little to do with it.

It was a pretty fascinating listen.
 
Spend the first 37% of your hunt glassing animals, and then after that shoot the first one that is bigger than anything else you've seen.
 
1755620364942.png
Got this off GoHunt..front buck is your typical 2.5-3.5 4x4 in many places. deer behind is probably 4.5 maybe older.

Shoot the 3pt please.
 
Meateater just did a podcast called “Hornography” with a biologist from U of Wyoming. Over a decade of study on mulies has shown the biggest single factor in rack size is the nutritional situation of the mother. Nutrition for the buck after its birth actually had little to do with it.

It was a pretty fascinating listen.

Sounds like it could be a great listen. Were they talking the nutrition during gestation, or broader for the doe's life?

Two points come to mind though, that are big. First, is that rack size on the same exact mature bucks goes down with low-water years and resultant bad nutrition, and can often explode again the very next year if there's been great water. I'll have to see if that podcast addresses that, but it's one of the most commonly observed realities in any given herd. If that reality wasn't captured in the study, it was simply a flawed study. But, that doesn't mean it didn't contain some great data - because it sounds like it would be a very good idea to keep track of the great water/nutrition years, and try to hunt areas 5-6 years after that.

The other thing, is that I just have a hard time believing that you could take any random sampling of buck/doe pairs from different herds across the west, give the does perfect nutrition, and all the buck fawns would end up with more or less equally massive racks. No species works that way, not even humans. The genetics you see on the Jicarilla rez, the AZ Strip, and certain places in SE NV, are just more massive than the spindly stuff you generally see across a lot of herds in WY, CA, and MT. Places that often have much better nutritional opportunity, better water, etc. And as I mentioned above, there seems to be an exceptionally good buck in almost any unit, but they're generally loners. What I suspect is that the perfect nutrition would simply allow the bucks to reach their max genetic potential, and that their growth would be superior to those of the rest of their genetic herd, but not compared to bucks coming from gene pools with bigger racks.

Also, was this study done with a controlled herds, behind high fences? Because if not, it goes back to what I was saying about the sampling bias a lot of wildlife biologists are subject to - they're not out looking for the monsters that cut themselves out of the herds. So unless they've got a controlled herd, those outliers that are BOALs and record breakers just aren't going to be part of their data set.
 
Sounds like it could be a great listen. Were they talking the nutrition during gestation, or broader for the doe's life?

Two points come to mind though, that are big. First, is that rack size on the same exact mature bucks goes down with low-water years and resultant bad nutrition, and can often explode again the very next year if there's been great water. I'll have to see if that podcast addresses that, but it's one of the most commonly observed realities in any given herd. If that reality wasn't captured in the study, it was simply a flawed study. But, that doesn't mean it didn't contain some great data - because it sounds like it would be a very good idea to keep track of the great water/nutrition years, and try to hunt areas 5-6 years after that.

The other thing, is that I just have a hard time believing that you could take any random sampling of buck/doe pairs from different herds across the west, give the does perfect nutrition, and all the buck fawns would end up with more or less equally massive racks. No species works that way, not even humans. The genetics you see on the Jicarilla rez, the AZ Strip, and certain places in SE NV, are just more massive than the spindly stuff you generally see across a lot of herds in WY, CA, and MT. Places that often have much better nutritional opportunity, better water, etc. And as I mentioned above, there seems to be an exceptionally good buck in almost any unit, but they're generally loners. What I suspect is that the perfect nutrition would simply allow the bucks to reach their max genetic potential, and that their growth would be superior to those of the rest of their genetic herd, but not compared to bucks coming from gene pools with bigger racks.

Also, was this study done with a controlled herds, behind high fences? Because if not, it goes back to what I was saying about the sampling bias a lot of wildlife biologists are subject to - they're not out looking for the monsters that cut themselves out of the herds. So unless they've got a controlled herd, those outliers that are BOALs and record breakers just aren't going to be part of their data set.
This was done with whitetails also. Buck fawns captured from the Black Hills and those captured in Eastern SD. Here is a quick read version of the study.

https://www.boone-crockett.org/consequences-maternal-effects-body-and-antler-size-white-tailed-deer
 
Sounds like it could be a great listen. Were they talking the nutrition during gestation, or broader for the doe's life?

Two points come to mind though, that are big. First, is that rack size on the same exact mature bucks goes down with low-water years and resultant bad nutrition, and can often explode again the very next year if there's been great water. I'll have to see if that podcast addresses that, but it's one of the most commonly observed realities in any given herd. If that reality wasn't captured in the study, it was simply a flawed study. But, that doesn't mean it didn't contain some great data - because it sounds like it would be a very good idea to keep track of the great water/nutrition years, and try to hunt areas 5-6 years after that.

The other thing, is that I just have a hard time believing that you could take any random sampling of buck/doe pairs from different herds across the west, give the does perfect nutrition, and all the buck fawns would end up with more or less equally massive racks. No species works that way, not even humans. The genetics you see on the Jicarilla rez, the AZ Strip, and certain places in SE NV, are just more massive than the spindly stuff you generally see across a lot of herds in WY, CA, and MT. Places that often have much better nutritional opportunity, better water, etc. And as I mentioned above, there seems to be an exceptionally good buck in almost any unit, but they're generally loners. What I suspect is that the perfect nutrition would simply allow the bucks to reach their max genetic potential, and that their growth would be superior to those of the rest of their genetic herd, but not compared to bucks coming from gene pools with bigger racks.

Also, was this study done with a controlled herds, behind high fences? Because if not, it goes back to what I was saying about the sampling bias a lot of wildlife biologists are subject to - they're not out looking for the monsters that cut themselves out of the herds. So unless they've got a controlled herd, those outliers that are BOALs and record breakers just aren't going to be part of their data set.

You should just go listen to the podcast. I think you are extrapolating some incorrect conclusions.
 
Back
Top