>If hunting the area has left
>the area with very few
>bucks in the herd, most
>of the buck you will
>see during the next year
>will naturally be yearlings.
>If the area is then
>closed to hunting those yearlings
>that survive for another year
>will be "more mature" or
>one year older. The
>next year those bucks, that
>survive, will be still another
>year older, and so forth
>for as long as the
>area is closed to hunting.
> They'll get older until
>they either die of old
>age or something besides a
>hunter kills them. Depending
>on the other natural and
>man made environments in the
>area, most bucks will die
>of non-hunting causes before they
>reach what we would call
>"old age". On the
>mule deer studies in south
>central Utah, the average age
>of the does are 4.5
>years. Most of the
>herd are younger deer so
>the quantity of younger deer
>shifts the average age lower,
>so there are a fair
>number of older does in
>the herd too, but not
>as many as yearling and
>two year old does.
>I don't know if the
>same would hold true for
>bucks, probably not due to
>the fight and stress of
>the rut put on bucks
>that doe aren't subjected to.
> It seems as though
>more bucks would die from
>non-hunting causes than does.
>More natural stress on the
>bucks.
>
>On a study done on mule
>deer antler size, the average
>mature buck spread was 24".
> That's when the buck
>was maxed out. He'll
>begin to regress if he
>survives longer. Of course,
>that's average, some bucks mature
>with a 20" spread, others
>at 40", the average was
>24".
>
>Bottom-line: If your aren't killing them
>by hunting them, they'll get
>older and if the quality
>your inquiring about means antler
>size, then yes they'll get
>larger antlered as they get
>older, up to a point.
>Not every buck can grow
>a 190" set of antlers,
>(antler size is determined by
>the kind and time of
>his nutrition, his age
>and his genetic make up,
>and not always in that
>order. Not every buck
>gets the ideal feed at
>the right time of his
>life, lives to be 7
>of 8 years of age,
>nor does he have perfect
>genetics, whether the area is
>closed to hunting or not.
>
>
>Does that mean we should never
>close an area to hunting,
>to grow mule deer populations,
>or to allow some bucks
>to gain age or size,
>not in my opinion.
>
>DC
It depends on the area and the reason for closing it. Some areas are closed for reasons of safety (National Parks, some State Parks, etc.), or by law (Refuges, Military bases, etc.) or for reasons other than for growing huntable wildlife (private property, fire hazards, endangered species, etc.). But if the only reason for closing it is to grow the big game populations, then those closings should be far and few between because leaving the surplus bucks/bulls will not do that, especially in the long run.
However, if the closing is to increase the number (and size) of trophy bucks/bulls, then have at it, but ONLY on those units that are now designated as trophy units. Play with those units all you want to with closings, antler point restrictions, tag allotments, tag prices, auctions, higher buck to doe ratios or any other scheme you think will create the next world record, but leave the general hunt units to the 80% of us who have trophy hunting further down our list of priorities and manage those units for sustainable maximum opportunity! IMHO, of course.