|
|
Post by kl9 on Aug 2, 2017 12:59:10 GMT -6
This is an old story, but I read through it because I'm bored at work and couldn't help but notice that in the article it talks about how the IL DNR "aged" the deer at 3.5 years old and then goes on to say how thousands of other folks/hunters aged the deer at 5.5+... I found that to be pretty damn funny/sad... especially seeing the pics of the deer as well |
|
|
|
Post by nhmountains on Aug 2, 2017 18:06:14 GMT -6
Kaleb,
I don't see a link?
|
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Aug 2, 2017 21:43:09 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by biglakebass on Aug 2, 2017 21:47:31 GMT -6
 201 inches??? 300+lbs(I hope thats not the MN way to estimate a gutted deer). The whole story seems like a big fat sham. |
|
|
|
Post by kl9 on Aug 2, 2017 21:55:18 GMT -6
I agree, they were very liberal (pun for MN & IL intended) with the tape. It would be interesting to see the scoresheet
|
|
|
|
Post by nhmountains on Aug 2, 2017 22:17:04 GMT -6
I agree, they were very liberal (pun for MN & IL intended) with the tape. It would be interesting to see the scoresheet X2 The photo of the kid in the field made the deer look like it had more mass. If that buck was 300 dressed I doubt that the kid and his dad would've dragged it very far. Does eating grain and corn do less wear on the teeth than a deer browsing trees in the winter time? |
|
