ORIGINAL: Predator19
Actually i think that means the deer would have 66% more growth. So 66% of 92 is 60and add that to 92 and you get 152".
This makes more sense, even though I'm not sure I go along with it considering all the factors that go into antlers.
Whether I am dumb or not, the statement below suggests that the size at 2.5, is 1/3 of its potential size. What am I overlooking?
I read that a buck at 2.5yo is only at 33% of his antler potential.