antler point restrictions

The antler restriction debate is always a hot topic. Where I'm from in PA, everyone hated it for the first 5 years. Now, after quite a few years, everyone is happy with it. This year on the opening day, I know 5 different people that shot quality 8 point or larger bucks before noon. A lot of the people that used to hate it, now embrace it. I'll admit, I wasn't totally for it at first, but I'm all about it now because of the size deer we are now seeing. If you're in it for meat, shoot a doe, as they're always a dime a dozen.

With that said, our area wasn't affected by some of the diseases and other things that you're mentioning in other areas.
 
Not so. The increase in CWD is because of having higher numbers of older deer.
Click to expand...

I only have what the professionals with the Missouri Department of Conservation say to go on!


We removed the antler-point restriction
The Conservation Commission approved a regulation change in May 2012 for a special harvest provision that rescinds the antler-point restriction (four-point rule) in the CWD Containment Zone comprised of Adair, Chariton, Linn, Macon, Randolph and Sullivan counties. The repeal of the antler-point restriction will be effective September 15, 2012, the opening of archery season.

The reason for the regulation change is that management strategies, such as antler-point restrictions, protect yearling males and promote older bucks. Yearling and adult male deer have been found to exhibit CWD at much higher rates than yearling and adult females, so a reduction in the number of male deer can help limit the spread of CWD. The dispersal of yearling males from their natal or birth range in search of territory and mates is also one of the primary ways CWD spreads.
Click to expand...
Source: http://mdc.mo.gov/hunting-trapping/deer-hunting/deer-diseases/chronic-wasting-disease
 
There are a few units in Idaho that have had point restrictions for quite some time (25+ years).

Presently, those areas are no longer producing legal bucks. The ENTIRE gene pool has been reduced to inferior genetic specimens that grow nothing more than fork horns or spikes.

The state's desire to improve the gene pool by "letting the younger bucks mature" has resulted in inferior genetics, sickly deer, and a unit that is no longer bringing in any revenue because no one will hunt it. :rolleyes:
 
Here is where the first year or 2 theory fails...

EVERY FREAK GOOD BUCK is fair game from the moment he has a legal basket on his head...

EVERY SINGLE CULL COWHORN SPIKE gets the free pass for years to come and die an old man having bred garbage or average genes in the pool...

But had that prospect trophy been allowed to walk every season he had a legal rack, he would be a big part of a QDM herd...

So every year you have younger and younger deer being harvested as legal while ZERO or few does ever get to meet the handsome feller...

Personally since I have no use for a rack, I prefer to intentionally shoot the ones that are obviously legal but culls in the good looks department....

Brent
 
I like antler restrictions....The county I live/hunt in..went to a 1 buck only county for a number of years..now it is a 2 buck county with antler restrictions....
I live right down the road from the processing plant....For years there were lots and lots of small young bucks being killed....Now I see lots of big mature trophy bucks....We stop in from time to time during season and check out the harvest..even if we don't drop anything off....It has worked here....Are the rules perfect? Nope....But I do know the bucks harvested are more mature and more folks are harvesting does for meat(an essential for good deer management)

The rules for this county in TX are..... 1 buck with a mimum of 13 inches width and 1 buck spike....
 
Last edited:
In my home town in SC, there is no antler restrictions. Now, we use to shoot everything that walked by and now we (family property) are enforcing a 6 point minimum for bucks and doe's when its legal and you need the meat. It has greatly helped out for the size of our bucks. Last year alone, we killed a very nice 7, wide/tall 6, 2 basket 8's, and a freaky 13 point. So we pretty much went from killing on average 6-10 deer per person to now we only kill 1-3 a year and it has helped leaps and bounds.
 
I think I could agree with an antler restriction based solely on points. I see a lot of smaller basket bucks with 8 points that are probably never going to be any bigger, can't be shot, and will be passing on that gene.
Our 13" spread minimum does nothing to address the problems of small bucks like this. Granted the larger bucks will do most of the breeding just being the toughest guys on the block, the smaller ones will find their share of girlfriends also.
I have been getting six doe permits annually for the past few years, and pass them out to friends. I'm not too sure about the taking of many does as we have sufficient natural feed and I feed corn all year around also. I guess under other circumstances food restrictions could be a problem with too many does.
 
In Ms. it used to be four points or better(2X2)which gave a free ride to the older spikes. Now its a 13 inch main beam or a ten inch inside spread. I've yet to figure out how to get a deer to stand still while I measure his horns. :D
 
Mandatory APR is like regulating the distance from tee to cup so that people who play golf once a year have a better chance at a hole in one.
 
My objection to the concept (I do not hunt deer anymore) of antler restrictions, is they do not take in to account, that it is almost impossible to come anywhere near being able to assess required size by most people, under hunting conditions. No one can possibly tell a 12" spread from a 13" spread. How many hunters would actually pass on an "iffy" buck only to measure it on the ground to find that it was under the required size? Historically in Michigan, the rule was it had to have at least 3" spikes and it if you could see the spikes, there were almost always 3" (or no horns at all). That rule hardly ever resulted in abandoned deer for fear of prosecution.
 
Originally posted by treg:

Mandatory APR is like the government shortening the marathon so fat kids can get a t-shirt too

Mandatory APR is like regulating the distance from tee to cup so that people who play golf once a year have a better chance at a hole in
Click to expand...

In some cases yes. Majority of deer hunters in most states in the lower 48 are a "once a year" hunter. They are the ones that buy the majority of licenses and because they make up the majority, are the ones the wildlife managers listen to the most. If they say they want a better chance at a bigger deer, the managers listen. Those folks who hunt deer year round and spend a lot of time in the woods, don't generally need the state to tell them to wait till next year. They generally have a self-imposed APR. State imposed APRs have little or no effect on their harvest. Where APRs work well, are on areas of land open to public hunting where deer are heavily pressured. Land that is good deer habitat but does not have a large herd to to unrestricted hunting. Bucks in this type of scenario have a short expected lifespan because as some folks have mentioned, they shoot the first buck they see, because they don't see many. They suspect the bucks just don't get big because they never see any big bucks. Add to this a low population because most bucks are shot off and you get little or no permits for antlerless deer. Now you have a unhealthy doe to buck ratio. One way to change this is to shorten the season. But that leads to a lessened economic impact because of less licenses sold and hunters in the area for fewer days. The other way is to leave the season length and restrict what folks can harvest. Giving them more deer and larger deer to see, when they used to see fewer keeps them coming back, even tho they don't get to take something home every year. Most hunters are conservationists and know how the system works and appreciate the fact the their local F&G is trying to keep the quality in their hunt. Shooters that just want to kill don't care, they just want to shoot something and are upset when they can't. Some, like tahunua001's friends have to go out at night, outside the legal season to get that thrill. Like all poachers, they try to validate their poaching, but the excuses are always the same. "There are too many deer anyway and the F&G don't know what they're doing!". Yep, as if poachers know wildlife biology and animal husbandry better than the professionals. :rolleyes:

Anyone involved with Whitetails Unlimited, Quality Deer Management and other organizations that promote the "Let 'em grow and let 'em grow" know that lettin' smaller bucks walk does indeed improve the quality of bucks in the area. But this has to be combined with the philosophy of a healthy overall population and buck/doe ratio. Bucks that never grow big racks do very little breeding. Large bucks with dominate genes are never shot off completely when there are good numbers of big bucks around. Deer DO NOT get inbred when populations are high and the gene pool is large. Thinking so just shows one's ignorance of animal husbandry and genetics.

APRs may or not work in every area for every scenario. No state regs are perfect in anyone's eyes. They generally are intended to please and to make the hunt fun for the majority of those involved. Voluntarily passing up small bucks in an area may prevent it from becoming mandatory. Voluntary catch and release fishing is a prime example. Many states have kept limits and length restrictions to previous levels only because the fishermen themselves have not keep smaller fish or kept less. At one time, going fishing and not coming home with your limit was thought to be a sign of a poor fisherman. Now it can be the sign of a true sportsman. Success does not have to be what you put in the back of your truck to show your buddy, but what kind of experience you have in the field. To many of us, this is the difference between a hunter and a shooter.
 
I think the biggest threat to trophy sized bucks...is the early muzzleloader season before the rut; that wipes out big buck DNA; before the big bruiser's can have a chance too breed. I live in Maryland, and I usually hunt whitetails in Western Maryland; during the firearm rifle season. I believe that Maryland DNR is in cahoots with the automobile insurance industry, so as in order to decimate the deer herds; so they'll be less automobile collisions with deer.

I'm for antler restriction's...but Maryland reg's, do not have them installed yet.
Besides the auto insurance industry...Western Maryland --- where antler restriction's are most needed --- are also opposed by farmer's who fear more deer predation on there crops. Big bucks...will sometimes tear-up and urinate over some of the standing corn crop's {during possible buck fights} and sometimes leave shed antler's, for the farmer's to blow there expensive tractor tires, when they run over a shed antler. So I feel for the farmers --- but I'm a sportsman/conservationist at heart --- who loves to see big buck rubs and big-racked whitetails, in the woods and fields of Maryland.
 
Last edited:
Managing buck-to-doe ratios isn't the answer, either.
If you want a good lesson on why, take a good look at Utah's "management" of deer herds over the last 30 years. :rolleyes:
 
I hear so much on deer management and buck to doe ratio and this is the best way, no this is and so forth and so on. All I try to do is get about 7-8 does to manage to fill my freezer. To me that's deer management.
 
Originally posted by dahermit:

What is the ideal buck to doe ratio?
Click to expand...


Depends on what you are trying to accomplish and the carrying capacity of the land. If you want to harvest a high number of deer per year without concern of age or sex than a 1-4 ratio(most areas in the country have a 3-6 ratio) or above provides plenty of young deer. This only works tho if the land can provide food and shelter for high numbers of deer. If you would like to just improve the overall size of your bucks while still providing good numbers of antlerless deer, than a 1-2 ratio is ideal. If one is mainly concerned with the harvest of large bucks and only a few antlerless deer than a 1-1 ratio is best. Size of antlers will still depend on not only genetics, but quality and availability of food, along with proper minerals.




Originally posted by FrankenMauser: Managing buck-to-doe ratios isn't the answer, either.
If you want a good lesson on why, take a good look at Utah's "management" of deer herds over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...


Again, what works for some will not work for others. If you are in favor of seeing lots of animals regardless of quality of those animals the ratio is a lot different than for the hunter that wishes to see fewer but more quality animals. Thing is, law of nature tells us under most conditions, unfortunately, you can't have both. This is what frustrates most deer hunters that do not understand herd management and health. They incorrectly believe that it can be done and on any piece of deer habitat. Unless available food is artificially increased and supplied, the land will ultimately determine herd size. Other natural predators if there, will also have an impact, but that impact is minimal compared to man. Here in Wisconsin, the biggest predator threat to deer besides man is Black Bears that prey on newborn fawns. In areas where bear are present, it is estimated that bears take 40% of the fawns yearly. More than gun and bow hunters combined. But folks blame the wolf for decimating the herd and scream for them to be eliminated, while at the same time wanting more restrictions on bear in hopes their numbers will increase even more, increasing the odds they get a permit.:rolleyes:

For some reason, Utah comes up the most often when talk about poor deer herd management is discussed. The underlying reason for this would be interesting to know.
 
What kind of deer management is there for public hunting lands in Western Maryland --- where you hardly ever see a deer --- and if you decide to shoot a buck during deer season... you kinda wonder if it's the last buck on the mountain?

We do have CWD in Allegany County, {Western} Maryland, for the last couple of years, but the lack of deer and quality bucks, on public hunting lands, has been a problem before the CWD problem arrived. The resident's of Western Maryland...just voted down the introduction of an Elk herd in Western Maryland; for some of the very same reasons they voted down whitetail antler restrictions.

Some deer hunter's have a saying here in Western Maryland, if you shoot a buck --- hope it's a small one --- cuz it's hard as heck too drag out a big buck up the mountain by yourself.:D
 
Last edited:
I have hunted Pa. for a long time. I used to hunt Maryland. I still hunt West Virginia. There is one guy on this thread that absolutely does not know what he is talking about. The Pa. deer herd is a wreck. I still occasionally hunt Bucks county (Special Regs/Kill all the doe) and the buck to doe ratio is so out of wack that I would swear in court that there is now more buck than doe down there. People that embrace this so called management are almost always hunting on posted, controlled property. That is the only way that type of management can work. Up here in the mountains, there are now way less large bucks than there used to be. In the 80's when the deer stupidity started, there were mountains around here that would have made deer qualify as an endangered species. That is not a joke. The Game Commission in Pa. could not manage a hotdog stand.
The only reason that the deer are starting to recover is there are so few hunters out now. Where are all these slob hunters on public land that I keep hearing about?
To the poor guys from Maryland, I feel sorry for you. I quit hunting there years ago when the "Management" started.
 
To make matters worse, it is virtually impossible to get a doe tag in the area I hunt.
What the hell are they trying to prove?
Click to expand...

They are trying to limit/shut down hunting.

Sorry, but a 12"rack, where I used to live would be let go in favor of one with a 30+" one, but then mule deer always had bigger racks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top