>Great pix, i agree!
>
>But as for him "regressing"...i think
>not.
>
>He does look like he's got
>a little age on him,
>but with extremely short front
>and no mass, i'd say
>that's not an old bull
>by any means.
>
>Post rut and midway through a
>rough winter would make even
>a spike look poor.
>
>We have aged bulls on the
>Deseret ranch that were well
>over 10 years old (one
>even 13) and they were
>still big in the antler
>department even though their bodies
>were worn.
>
>I'd say that picture is of
>a bull about 5 years
>old that is just flat
>worn out and looking raggy.
>
I'd have to agree slam. One of the things that solidifys it in my oppinion is that his pedistals are small. Small fronts could be from a variety of things such as, vegitation, genetics and of coarse as you mentioned, age. The pedistals are almost always larger the older a bull gets. My cousin killed a 6x2 that would have gone 360 if he would have been typical on both sides. He was a fourteen year old bull. Had a busted pedistal on his right side cousing the antler to grow non typically. But the pedistals were huge. Compare the pedistals in the picture to his eye balls. There small. He's a young bull.