antler point restrictions

Again, YOU SHOULD SEE the pictures of deer in old GAME NEWS magazines, a PGC publication. If that is not recorded evidence, I don't know what is. According to Gary Alt and the PGC there were nothing but little deer until they got a grip on things. There were always big deer in PA, but now a heck of a lot less. You can not have an AR program if people are still legally shooting bucks below the AR standards, as is done in PA. Either you have AR's in place or you don't. There is NO scientific proof that AR's will work without controlled conditions. That is where the "You should see" part comes in. The PA Game Commission lies all the time. There is no accurate deer kill count. The PGC even admits they estimate the yearly kill. There is your science.
 
Killing fewer small bucks can do nothing but produce more larger bucks unless there is a food shortage. There is no logical way to get around that. Some curious reasoning in this thread.

Even knowledgeable hunters disagree on what to cull or not. There is no way to be sure what a buck will be next year, maybe an educated guess. And, I doubt you will find many who don't think they are educated. If you leave it to the individual to decide what to cull you will be right back killing everything because somebody will decide it needs to be culled if he has the itch to shoot something.
 
GunPlummer said:
Again, YOU SHOULD SEE the pictures of deer in old GAME NEWS magazines, a PGC publication.
Click to expand...

It might be but I can't see it.

There's got to be some sort of publicly available evidence. I don't mean to be a jerk but you're making the claim, you need to provide the evidence for it. I'm not going to go looking for evidence to prove your claim.

You claim that ARs are reducing hunter numbers. According to this survey by PGC, out of 3,572 responses, only 4 people said that ARs are responsible for their reduced interest in hunting. Not 4%, 4 people. 45% blame things like time and places to hunt, cost of hunting or lack of partners.

Now, 43% blamed quality or number of antlered and antlerless deer but how does that number compare to BEFORE the APR was in place? I can't find a link to the 1995 survey that they mention. I can tell you that we don't have APRs anywhere near where I hunt and I don't know any hunters who hunt in APR areas but ALL everyone gripes about (and always have as long as I can remember) is that there aren't enough deer and there aren't enough bucks (but they still brag about shooting everything they see). In other words, there's no proof (or even evidence) that the APR is reposnsible for those opinions and the HUNTERS THEMSELVES don't blame the APRs.
 
Originally posted by ZeroJunk:

Killing fewer small bucks can do nothing but produce more larger bucks unless there is a food shortage. There is no logical way to get around that. Some curious reasoning in this thread.

Even knowledgeable hunters disagree on what to cull or not. There is no way to be sure what a buck will be next year, maybe an educated guess. And, I doubt you will find many who don't think they are educated. If you leave it to the individual to decide what to cull you will be right back killing everything because somebody will decide it needs to be culled if he has the itch to shoot something
Click to expand...


Exactly, and that itch to shoot something is why they don't feel they have time to properly identify their target. OMG :eek: it might get away!


Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:

There's got to be some sort of publicly available evidence. I don't mean to be a jerk but you're making the claim, you need to provide the evidence for it. I'm not going to go looking for evidence to prove your claim.

You claim that ARs are reducing hunter numbers. According to this survey by PGC, out of 3,572 responses, only 4 people said that ARs are responsible for their reduced interest in hunting. Not 4%, 4 people. 45% blame things like time and places to hunt, cost of hunting or lack of partners.

Now, 43% blamed quality or number of antlered and antlerless deer but how does that number compare to BEFORE the APR was in place? I can't find a link to the 1995 survey that they mention. I can tell you that we don't have APRs anywhere near where I hunt and I don't know any hunters who hunt in APR areas but ALL everyone gripes about (and always have as long as I can remember) is that there aren't enough deer and there aren't enough bucks (but they still brag about shooting everything they see). In other words, there's no proof (or even evidence) that the APR is reposnsible for those opinions and the HUNTERS THEMSELVES don't blame the APRs.
Click to expand...



Well said.

Old pictures are little evidence of what deer and their populations were in the past. I have 5 little baskets in a barrel for every picture of a big buck I've taken. Kinda how magazine pics are. I have a picture of 20 deer hangin' on grandpa's meat pole back in the 40s when the gun kill was only a tenth of what it is now. The fact you don't see that today doesn't trump the record amount of kill over the past ten years. If one only sees that picture, it appears hunting was better back then, but the facts still prove it wasn't even close. Anecdotal stories and good ol' boy gossip may be fun to tell, but they to are not always factual or objective. Facts and figures prove and validate an argument, and in today's age of electronic information are easy to find. All F&Gs/DNRs estimate deer kill to a certain extent, but they use reliable sources and past history, not just what comes out of their backside.
 
We had an over-abundance of deer and plenty of good bucks long before MO instituted APR. This is the same game management system that brought deer heard back from almost nothing after the Depression.

The APR bill of goods was sold to MO hunters primarily on the premise that in years to come, we would have trophy bucks to compare with those in Kansas and Iowa.

In the end I think it comes down to whether you think more regulation is the answer to a contrived 'problem'- or that Joe Regular is an idiot because he shot a forkhorn that he actually has a tag for.
 
Sarge said:
In the end I think it comes down to whether you think more regulation is the answer to a contrived 'problem'- or that Joe Regular is an idiot because he shot a forkhorn that he actually has a tag for.
Click to expand...

It's funny, because the same guys who oppose the APRs tend to point to the fact that hunters are (supposedly) dissatisfied with APRs because the bucks actually get smaller. Yet, the argument is that trying to manage the herd for larger bucks is a "contrived" problem. So, do these hunters want or not want bigger bucks?

Where does the pressure to institute APRs come from? Most hunters I know want bigger bucks. The size of the herd is a false argument without data. I've never known a hunter who thought there were enough deer. Ever. Not even hunters who hunt in places where people can't grow any plant that deer can eat because every living, digestible thing gets chewed to nubs.

Joe Regular isn't an idiot for shooting a forkhorn. Joe Regular is an idiot because he whines all summer about how he saw 3 deer all of last year and hasn't seen a "shooter" buck in 10 years and then when deer season rolls around he gets his two doe tags and his buck tag and kills two doe and the forkhorn and then next summer whines that he doesn't see any deer and never sees any "shooter" bucks.

I don't necessarily think that "more regulation is the answer" but I've 3 times now (at least) asked for a suggestion of what the answer is and I've heard NOTHING. Just complaints about APRs.
 
I'm a long-time hunter and I just said we have an over-abundance of deer. We could have a six-month, three tag 'any deer' season here this year and you still couldn't drive at night for the damn things. They are thick as rats, at least until the 2nd day of deer season ;)

Now as to 'whiners' (an over-used term in this thread of there ever was one)... I really hate to do this but,:

whiner
noun
1
a person who makes frequent complaints usually about little things <don't be a whiner—the hike's not that difficult>

Synonyms baby, bellyacher, complainer, fussbudget, fusser, fusspot, griper, grumbler, kvetch, kvetcher, sniveler, whiner
Related Words bawler, bleater, moaner, screamer, squawker, wailer, weeper; crab, grump, malcontent

Near Antonyms happy camper
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/whiner
Click to expand...

Legitimate complaints about a bureaucratic FUBAR are not whining. And if somebody actually meets the definition above, don't waste your life trying to fix their pity party.

Peetz, you are not going to get a 'replacement suggestion' from me for APR other than to abandon it and go back to the old system. It was never needed here in the first place.
 
I could do the definition of "context" too but I'll skip it.;) I called the "Joe Regular" in the example a whiner, no one in this thread.

You and I both know that the Joe Regular example and the hunters who never think there are enough deer are The Rule and folks like you are The Exception.

I hear about all these "legitimate complaints" but the only indication that they are legitimate is the anecdotes that accompany them.

There are claims of a huge increase in genetically inferior deer, for example, but no actual data to back it up.

The same is true of hunter drop out rates. Lots of claims, little or no data.

It's hard for me to imagine that you can hunt in a place that's infested with deer, a no doubt result of the "old system", and you think the best suggestion is to go back to the old system.

An over-abundance of deer, outside of a carefully managed ranch-style system, ALWAYS results in a massive imbalance in the gender ratio. Wouldn't an "Earn-A-Buck" system be an improvement? Say a hunter has to shoot 2 antlerless deer before he can shoot a buck. Most hunters want to shoot more and bigger bucks. Shooting more doe and fewer bucks until the hunters could "earn" a buck tag would serve to improve the ratio, by increasing the number of bucks and decreasing the number of does, WITHOUT dramatically (rapidly) reducing the population. The birth rate would nearly keep up with the kill rate but more bucks would survive and more doe would die, improving the ratio. Almost no one would be forced to pass on any deer after year one or two. They'd have shot enough doe that they would have several "earned" buck tags.

That's not a better idea than the old system? Why? There's plenty of deer. No one goes hungry. The population would be managed long-term and the ratios would be corrected.

We're 8 pages in here and I keep asking for data and keep getting emotion based responses and anecdotes. I guess I don't have anything more to debate unless some data is presented. I feel like an open-minded reader would see that at least my opinions are data rather than emotion/anecdote based. They can make up their own minds.
 
Last edited:
It's not better because it infuses government interference into something that already works. BTW, traditional meat hunters don't really care about buck to doe ratios.

We don't cry when we kill a decent buck but our primary concern is the deer to freezer ratio. We enjoy the hunt so long as people don't 'stupid reg' out of the methods that make hunting an enjoyable sport for us. We respect our game and occasionally don't shoot a deer 'just because'. I'm usually not short for words but in this case, I don't seem able to explain it clearly enough. If I haven't made my point by now I'm not going to anyway.
 
It's not better because it infuses government interference into something that already works.
Click to expand...

You mean it infuses government interference into a system that's already controlled, regulated and enforced by the government?

And "already works" by allowing the populations to be lopsided by 5,6, even 10:1, to be nearly decimated in one place and so high in another than gardens need 8 foot high electric fences?

I don't understand the argument at all, Sarge, on that we agree.

How can a system that is created, maintained, regulated and enforced by the government be "infused" with government interference when that same government chooses to simply change the system?

How can the argument be made that the current system "works" when the conditions are undeniably as I describe?

That's not a system that "works" just because it allows a hunter to shoot any deer he wants at any moment, unless that single criteria is the definition of a working system.
 
The "Earn a Buck System" sounds good on paper...but some hunter's will check in phantom doe deer --- by just phoning in to the check station --- without even scratching a hide nor hair of a doe deer, which would them give them a go-ahead too bag a buck.

I prefer shooting mature bucks, because they carry more tasty venison on the hoof, compared to a scrawny --- sometimes dog sized --- spike or doe; which would also give me a fresh set of rattling antlers.

My major beef...is that a majority of mature bucks that have racks --- but lack brow tines --- will forever for they're entire lives, lack the formation of brow tines. Because of this.... I prefer to cull mature bucks that lack brow tines; and any APR's on these kind of bucks will cause the genetics of these bucks to proliferate in the gene pool.

Piebald deer...are a sign of inbreeding.
 
This is sort of like me standing here in MO and telling you how to run your school district in NY state, Peetz.

Please note that I have made no comment about APR regs in any other state.

The difference between you & I is that I'm not trying to tell you what's best for NY.
 
Last edited:
Well, Sarge, I think the difference between you and me in this discussion is that I'm trying to get data and answers and you're putting words in my mouth and making assumptions about my intents.

I ask a bunch of questions and I get no answers beyond anecdotes. If folks want to base their opinions on the anecdotes of their neighbors or their own limited observations, that's all well and good, I suppose, but they ought not be surprised when they're not convincing to others.

I haven't said a thing about what MO should do with their deer herd, nor NY.

I've just asked, what is the better answer than APRs? The answer, apparently, is that the old free-for-all is better. Average buck ages of 1 1/2 years, much (usually most) breeding done by young bucks (because there are few to no mature ones) and herd ratios of 5-10:1 are, apparently, considered better.

I'm convinced that I'm not going to get a better answer than that and I've quite thoroughly (and with real data) presented my side of the argument, which is that APRs seem to work better and not that this or any other state "should" use them. So I'm dropping out of this one, unless someone should address a direct question to me.
 
I am a guy that is far from irresponsible as a hunter... And if you don't want to believe me when I say I would pass on a massive bodied wall hanger buck as fast as I would pass on a doe out of season I understand...

I just cannot get that size deer to my truck and processed before it spoiled...

I need a small bodied buck or a doe... I know I can get a 130# buck moved a short distance by my self but not real far and not real fast...

I cannot get does off my WMA during state doe season as they do not honor it....

Many private land owners I associate with to the point of asking permission to hunt use doe season for the youngins' or for family food just as I would do...

Thus, a tighter antler restriction than a single spike of 4 or more inches would proportionately limit my opportunities for a deer for the freezer...

Not to mention, I like knowing I am leaving the finer bucks to those look forward to hunting the better and/or bigger deer...

I also like the cleaner tasting venison so I don't hunt the rut much...

Brent
 
I have hunted several areas of Texas. Some covered with deer, some you see three deer a season. It's my belief that the AR's in the east Texas area have worked very well. Some good bucks coming from there now.

Looking at a broad view, deer management is like ranching or farming. The land you control has a carrying capacity for deer, say it is 100 animals. You have 150 animals on your place, they are in poor condition, and the range is in poor condition, just like if you had too many cows. First step, reduce the herd. Since the buck:doe ratio is most likely out of whack, kill does. Get the herd to capacity while working the buck:doe ratio. Get that ratio down to 1:2 or so, and let the bucks grow (think of it, 30 to 40 bucks per 100 deer). Five years later or so, with the buck:doe ratio high, those inferior bucks won't be allowed to breed, and you will have a lot of mature bucks. If you could see the breeding competition on well managed ranches, you would believe. There is a little more to it than what I have written, but most successful farmers and ranchers manage their herd an crops like this. You don't have to have high fences to make this happen, if neighbor ranches all do the same thing, or large tracts of public land, you must have compliance. and if managed properly you will be rewarded with a healthier herd with better bucks.
 
I have hunted several areas of Texas. Some covered with deer, some you see three deer a season. It's my belief that the AR's in the east Texas area have worked very well. Some good bucks coming from there now.
Click to expand...
double bogey..what county U hunt in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top