Ok, story is it scores 176 and has a "31 neck.
Also it was taken in Clarion County Pa.

So is it something in the water?

See what happens when deer start eating at McDonald's and don't eat healthy? they gain tons of weight and are so slow, they get shot and killed by some bow hunter...

This should be a lesson to the rest of the deer in his neighborhood and they need to get on a diet, ASAP!

That is a huge buck but I do not believe it scores in the 170's. Maybe 140's but I could be wrong.

I just got it in an e-mail. I wonder if there's an Atkins plan for ungelates?

Betcha this is a high-fence hunt for a hand-raised buck. Let's give it a day to find out.

Remembering the big buck during several breeding seasons past brought a collective anguish from the local does, but was cancelled out by the collective sighs of relief...

"Sad, but too much of a good thing, maybe", said a doe with rubbery front legs.

More seriously, what a fatty!

I wonder if that's a Northern Whitetail or Virginia Whitetail.The northerns on a good diet can reach that weight.In any case that will keep him in venison for a long time !!

I got this one in an email as well, seeing that I actually own a farm in Clarion County. My out-of-state buddy REALLY wanted to come hunting when he sent it to me!

Turns out though, that shortly afterwards, there was a discussion on www.huntingpa.com about this buck. Seems that the pictures have been going around for a few years, right around hunting season, and usually attributed some different location.

We do have some huge deer around the area, but 412 pounds is a bit much.

I would think that the locals would be talking about if it actually happened. Haven't heard anybody in the area mention it.

So, in the end, apparently not true. But I'm not exactly sure what the "true" story is on it.

I'll see if I can find the HuntingPA thread.....

Go read all about it...

http://www.huntingpa.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&...74&page=10&fpart=all

Seen that pic years ago.....something real fishy about it

It's all about perspective, wide angle lenses, and positioning.

Look at the pictures where his hand is actually on the antlers. His hand is darn near as big as his head! (Either that or Photoshop. Something about his hands just doesn't look "right".)

Every picture has the buck out at arms length (classic "big fish" technique).

When you compare the body size to the bow (except in the shot from "above", which is actually turned 90 degrees, and then you realize the bow is placed strategically on the ground, well behind the deer, again...), it's not so huge.

And with the two Indian looking guides, I'm betting this was somewhere out west or up north, on a guided reservation hunt, and nowhere near PA.

Course, I could be wrong, just my impressions.

That's why I asked about what type of whitetail. Originally here in the Catskill Mtns and in PA there were Northerns but now they are Virginia with perhaps some Northern blood . In Canada there are Northerns and in places like Alberta farm fed Whitetails can reach that weight .Beware internet photos they can be from anywhere and recycle every few years !!!

I got this picture a year ago. The weight was the same but the caption said Nebraska... Who knows. Looks like a big azz deer to me, could be 400 pounds. Compare the depth of the chest to an arrow, just for chits and giggles say the arrow is 28" long...

I have seen a 350 lb white tail taken in Northern Wisconsin, outside of Tomahawk.... It was a big deer, but remembering that buck.. and seeing those pictures, I really do see some photo doctoring in that one above......

Like the song, played by the YUPPERS every year at the beginning of deer season in Minnesota and Wisconsin... " Did ya see Da Thurty Pointer?"... about every radio station seemed to play it.. as it was requested and funny...

I do not care to "guess" how much said Buck weighed but I do know one thing for sure - it DID NOT score 176 Boone & Crockett points!
Not even close!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

That thing must be part moose.

coldbore nailed it. in pic number 2 look at the width of the hunters fingers holding the antler vs the guide's fingers on the right which would be at similar distances.

look at the size if the hyunters hand vs his face

Using the photo as a reference only, there is NO WAY that deer scores over 140. I'd say 135 at best. I have a few on the wall that score better than 140 and they dwarf that rack.

I dont know if that deer went over 400 lbs, but several years ago when hunting near Hardin, Mo. I was told by life long residents that the county record weight deer was 365 lbs!! I saw some hanging in a barn skinnned that you could have mistook for yearling steers. So I guess 400 plus isnt out of the question, I guess the question is does THIS deer weigh over 400?
My .02

Eterry

I'm with Doc, that buck won't go over 140 gross, probably closer to 130, hell the longest tine is about 7 inches. Lots of experimentation with camera angles and holding the deer at arms length and a wide angle lens will really change things. If it goes 176, then we killed 2 or three 200-inch gross bucks this year, I'm making a quite educated guess at 132 inches. Look at the third photo, just an inch past the ears- 15-16 inch spread inside spread with 7 inch tines, not really a shooter in my neck of the woods, unless just an old timer with poor genetics that needs to die. I have seen a buck that dressed at over 300 on the Cons. Dept scales at Swan Lake years ago, so they can be that big. This one is mostly lenses and camera angles.

I definitely don't think that buck scores 176, but I do believe it could weigh over 400 lbs. I believe the world record whitetail (for body size) is 525 lbs!

J Stevens: I have been looking and studying this photo and the Deer some more.
Quite a bit in fact!
I am now of the opinion that not only does that Deer NOT even score 140 Boone & Crockett points its only weighs about 280 pounds!
Maximum!
That Deer - I believe was gut shot (note the arrow wound location!), and found BLOATED the next day!
The Deers ears are stiff!
The camera lens and depth perception make this Deer appear chubbier than its bloating and 3 1/2 years of age (nearly mature!) frame in reality, IS!
Its a smoke and mirrors Deer that has suffered cyber-space exageration!
I congratulate the Hunter and I am guessing once the picture got started around the internet the causal observer's just started exagerating it size and point status.
I am typing this posting as I sit in the shadow of a mounted Whitetail that scores 148 5/8ths Boone & Crockett points - I have put my hands in the position the Hunter has his and I am guessing the pictured Buck MIGHT go 135 B & C points at most.
And the weight as originally posted I am sure is greatly exagerated as well.
Camera and lense depth of field distortion and bloating's deception make this Deer look bigger than it is - is my analysis.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

Sorry brother, but that deer wasnt gut shot, it was hit on a straight down angle and arrow exited rear chest. In the one pic you can see the entrance on the back near spine. Arrow may have caught the gut but bloating doesnt make its ass that big. No doubt its a big deer, but 400 plus pounds? And 170 class now thats funny. The guy who originally posted this must be laughing his ass off at us for even wastin our time.

Fgulla: The reason its ass looks so big is because of the lens the cammera is using - some people call them wide angle lenses. They are capable of keeping things in focus even when close to the camera. Hence from the positioning of the camera in one of the pictures the rear of the Deer looks large and the people look small even though they are realtively close together but just beyond the distorted part of the image.
Well... two of the pictures (the first and the last pictures) certainly show a wound on the Deer - IN THE GUTS!
Where I come from we call that a gut shot Deer!
Fgulla - that wound is not REAR CHEST it is MID GUT!
Maybe you just misspoke in your posting, and meant to say "TO THE REAR OF THE CHEST" - not "rear chest"???
If you are privy to the circumstances of the "straight down angle" of the shot (it sounds like you are?) then you should be able to come up with the exact Boone & Crockett points total of the rack to share with us as well.
Its probably to late to get an accurate weight of said Deer?
Was the shot "straight down" or at an "angle"?
Pretty unusual for an arrow to enter the top of the back going "straight down" and THEN "angle" back and come out the gut - isn't it?
Simply comparing the last picture of the Deer (which is also made with the deceptive lens technique) where the head looks huge and the further away portions of the body look "normal" in comparison to the Hunter!
Then after looking at the "huge head" picture go back and look at the first picture for your answer to how the "ass" can look so big on the Deer.
Or compare the Deer to the bow that is lying on the Deer - the Deer looks like a normal 3 1/2 year old Buck when using that comparison and allowing for the lens distortion.
I have a similar lens for my Nikon SLR 35mm camera. Its simply a 28mm (rather wide angle!) and it distorts objects nearby - the purpose of the wide angle lenses is to allow the user to take pictures that show distant panorams all in focus with maybe a tree close in. or to take pictures of very close things and still be able to focus on them. The trouble with wide angle lenses that it can distort things that are close in - compared to items in the background.
The guides in Alaska use these techniques to place the "Bear Hunter" several feet behind a dead Bear and then take the picture with the Bear in the foreground and covering the distance from the Bear to the Hunter - this makes the Bear look bigger as compared to the Hunter who is made to look smaller in the same picture.
These pictures "look good" in the guides portfolio but are easily detected by knowledgeable types.
Like I say the Hunter in the picture is probably NOT the "exagerater" in this cyber-space farce. The exageration ball got rolling, I would surmise, after the picture got past the first few "forwardings".
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

quote:

Originally posted by fgulla:
The guy who originally posted this must be laughing his ass off at us for even wastin our time.

Not in the least! I'd never post troll like, it isn't in me!!!!!
I sincerely want to know if it's the real deal.

I also saw this photo a year or 2 ago and it stated it was taken from Nebraska

how far from the nucular power plant did they get it

I wonder who starts these e-mails full of lies? Someone obviously killed the deer and took pics to show their friends. But somewhere along the line, someone feels the need to change the date, place, weight and score.

Something is obviously amiss, because this deer was not taken this year, I've seen it several times over the years, and no way that thing comes close to 170. More like 130's IMO. First I heard was that this buck is from Nebraska although I've heard Pennsylvania and Michigan as well. I don't see why anyone would lie about the weight, that deer looks like it could actually be over 400 pounds. I just want to know who starts purposely reporting the false information so they can forward it to hundreds of people.

In my wildlife mgt classes in the early 60's my professor told us about a whitetail taken in nebraska that weighed over 400 lbs, at the time it was the largest taken.They do occur but are rare.