antler point restrictions

Again, antler point restrictions are a better hunter management tool than a deer management tool.

500 hunters with a 50% success rate kill 250 buck deer, 200 of which have 4 points, in an area that does not use APR

Place a 4 points or better APR on the same area, only 350 hunters show up, the other 150 went someplace they can shoot the first deer they see (and the agency still sold 500 tags:D).

These 350 hunters have the same 50% success rate, so only 175 deer are killed, all with 4 points. There is less total harvest (175 vs. 250), less 4 point harvest (175 vs. 200) meaning 25 more 4 points got to live this year, fewer hunters in the field (350 vs. 500) equaling a better experience for the hunters.

Next year there may be to large a buck doe ratio, and the managers remove the APR.

A simplified version of how the APR rules may help a herd.

Very simplified.

ETA: I use 4 points counted the western way - per side. 8 pointer east of the river!
 
I don't understand the logic in the argument that APRs promote the removal of better quality bucks.
Click to expand...

Only if APR's are long term and hunting pressure does not respond. I should have qualified that statement. In general, used as a hunter management tool, you are correct. Sorry.
 
Brian, my take is that now all must hunt for the same prime breeders. Under old rules we had a mix of meat hunters who took a modest deer at first chance, and some who held out for a trophy.

PA seasons span 4 months from early archery to rifle to late archery and ML. All use the same restrictions. Logic for removing only the biggest racks before the rut escapes me.

We have lots of old woods deer that never grow the racks of their corn fed farm cousins. We have made it harder to harvest a mature woods buck, and are relying on excessive the use of anterless permits to control overpopulation problems in our woods.

Our six point(eight in some western counties) has made open sights and the unaided eyeball obsolete.... scopes are needed to count brow tines.

Simple Y restrictions would help last two problems.


edit.... 6 and 8 means 3 or 4 on one side...
 
Brian,

Some APR's in Wyoming for mule deer stipulate that a deer must have 3pts on one side, some stipulate they must have 4 points on one side.

The 3 point antler restriction allows for some forked horn bucks (1 1/2 year old) with an eye guard to be killed. Some of the 3 point (2 1/2+ year old) bucks also have an eye guard, and are legal under the 4 point restriction.

So, you see, even the " x points on one side" type restrictions are more geared to hunter number management.

I can attest that just having the restriction listed in the regulations does discourage some hunters from participating.

Another tool that has been used in conjunction with APR's to limit hunter numbers is season length. Our game managers have shortened seasons to allow only one open weekend in conjunction with APR's. This strategy has been show to greatly shift hunting pressure from one unit to another.
 
I remember decades ago trying to get the hunters that shared the area to quit shooting all the little 4 and 6 point first year bucks. They were in the brown hair it's down camp. About ten years later I saw one of the guys and he was complaining that they never saw any good bucks and that everybody was shooting the year and a half old bucks. I guess it had dawned on him at some point.

Sure if you let one walk somebody else might shoot him. But, one thing is for sure, if you shoot him he is never going to be a decent buck.

Now, I don't have a problem with a kids first buck being small. But, after you have killed a small buck I just can't see a good reason to kill another one when there are a zillion doe around that taste just as good.

Most seasoned hunters quit shooting small bucks on their own.

But, if a larger antlered buck population on public land is your goal it is probably unrealistic to think it can be done without law enforcement.
 
•ARs had no effect on hunter participation for the majority of hunters. Overall participation by non-local hunters appeared to decline because of ARs.
Click to expand...

Interesting! I need to read the whole study to understand how it distinguishes between "local" and "non-local" hunters.

In Wyoming, because our population is so small, a local hunter may be described as some one "living in a particular unit" and a "non-local" as someone living in a different game unit.

In Wyoming, I often drive 100 miles to hunt a specific area, yet consider it a local unit.

Many hunters will drive from one side of the state to the other to hunt, but antler restrictions keep them home.

Interesting.
 
I am below Tom in Jim Thorpe. Our Game Commission has only one plan. Get rid of deer. That is how it started out. It became such a mess that soon it was "We can engineer the State for big racks." Every time there was a Gary Alt meeting, he would show up with a handful of racks to really make the point. Buck46, you are so naive it is almost beyond belief. Get involved? The Pa Game Commission does what it is told to by the Insurance Companies and farming community. One year my EX hit a deer with her truck and when reporting it was asked what zip code it happened in. They don't ask that when you hit a tree. You are quoting "Numbers". You must have no idea just how we get a deer kill report here. AR sucks as a state wide "Management tool". What kind of management tool allows certain people to kill deer below the AR laws? Believe me, under our AR laws, there are plenty of spikes and forks being killed legally. Add that to the buttons being killed in the long doe season and the woods starts to get short of bucks and deer. If the laws work, a hunter should see small bucks running everywhere in the mountains. Either you have AR or you don't. Buck46, you don't have a clue. I have shot two button bucks on one mountain that were 80+ pounds. In a group of moving doe, how do you get the time to screw around looking for knobs on their head?
Anyway, as I said before, it is slowly getting better because of the hunters dropping out of hunting. That is one thing the PA Game Commission can not control. I don't know what "Other reasons" Buck46 has, but I can name almost a dozen people off the top of my head that quit hunting because of the low deer herd. It does not matter to me, I usually do O.K. and I really don't know any kids that aren't too lazy to learn how to hunt. I shoot as many as I legally want to now.
 
•ARs had no effect on hunter participation for the majority of hunters. Overall participation by non-local hunters appeared to decline because of ARs.
Click to expand...

I just finished reading the study.

"AR's had no effect on hunter participation for the majority of hunters." Yet over 6% of the local hunters polled claimed to have quit hunting because of the antler restriction. They are measuring hunter participation as hunter days afield. Those hunters that did still hunt, seamed to hunt longer, indicating to me that they were enjoying the less crowded fields! Although 12% of locals did say they hunted fewer days.

"Overall participation by non-local hunters appeared to decline because of AR's."

Nearly 8% of "non-local" hunters quit hunting those areas after the AR restriction regulation. Again, the AR's were successful in managing the hunter numbers. 6% of local hunter and 8% of non-local hunters gave up hunting in these areas because of AR's. 18.7% of non-locals that continued to hunt the area, did admit to spending fewer days afield. That seems significant to me.
 
Believe me, under our AR laws, there are plenty of spikes and forks being killed legally. Add that to the buttons being killed in the long doe season and the woods starts to get short of bucks and deer.
Click to expand...

All of those deer are legal withOUT the APRs. How exactly does taking a population of 1,000 deer ALL of which can legally be killed and changing the law so that only 800 of them are legal targets result in FEWER deer than it did when ALL of the deer were legal?

It's impossible. If folks are shooting the larger racked deer, they're NOT shooting the smaller racked deer. They don't have enough tags for all of them. If they're shooting the doe, they'd be shooting the doe ANYWAY, they were already legal.

It's completely illogical that you could start with a given population and make the population WORSE by making some it illegal rather than having all of it legal.

Imagine if I had a room full of 500 mice, 400 white and 100 black. If said, "you've got 2 minutes to kill all the mice you can." instead of "You've got 2 minutes to kill all the mice you can EXCEPT you can't kill the black ones."

Can anyone really try to make the argument that being unable to kill the black mice will mean that MORE mice get killed than if it were a free for all?
 
I would certainly not want to shoot a doe that has been seen in a trophy buck's core area, due to the possibility of the doe carrying the big buck's genes.

Sometimes...especially when a deer is trotting along, you can tell the difference between a doe and a button buck ---the doe moves daintily along, while the button buck likes to prance about.

If the forest plant life is in danger of over browsing by the local deer population --- I don't mind legally harvesting a doe or two --- but in Western Maryland, I don't like to harvest does. The more eyes and noses that a big buck has {meaning does/bachelor bucks}...the more chance of his survivability --- that's the same way with wild turkeys {eyes an ears}.

I believe the Maryland DNR wanted to give turkey populations in Western Maryland a boost --- since most of the trapping of wild turkey's was done in Western Maryland and were released throughout the rest of the state --- by bearing hunting pressure on the deer population; so the turkeys could have better food sources.

At first...the farmers and hunters of Western Maryland, were against trapping of wild turkeys in Western Maryland, because they feared it would dwindle the turkey populations so much that they would have less chance of a true quality hunter experience. The Maryland DNR countered back, by saying: their would be less hunting pressure, by the turkey trap and release program, with having fewer hunter's from the Eastern Maryland, travelling to Western Maryland to hunt the wild turkey. Turn's out...the Maryland DNR was right on that one, and they should also be biologically correct on APR's in Western Maryland --- so as to give a true quality hunter experience, along with a economic boost in hunter fees and lounging in that part of the state. It's the same reason for my support for the Rocky Mountain Foundation's introduction of an elk herd in Western Maryland --- with the current proposal --- being shelved for the time --- because of farmer apathy and the auto insurance corporation's anti-hunter propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Man I feel like I'm At a political campaign. Lol
Some of you guys are some true enough hard core trophy hunters. Just because I am, I'm not trying to talk everyone into following my suit. I shoot all does.
 
Buck46, you are so naive it is almost beyond belief.

Buck46, you don't have a clue.

I don't know what "Other reasons" Buck46 has,
Click to expand...


I don't know about that Buck46 either, but I know after reading this,

I have shot two button bucks on one mountain that were 80+ pounds.
Click to expand...
buck460XVR will be puttin' on his hip waders 'cause it's getting mighty deep in here.....:rolleyes:


I also think it's ironic that in one sentence you chastise folk for something...

Add that to the buttons being killed in the long doe season and the woods starts to get short of bucks and deer.
Click to expand...

...and then in the next sentence you brag about doing the same thing twice yourself.

ARs are part of a plan to stabilize deer populations and to contribute to the quality of the hunt. Those plans do indeed take into consideration how the population of deer in an area impact car/deer collisions and how they contribute to damage of local crops. Most certainly, it should be. Keeping deer collisions to a minimum and reducing the risk of folk getting hurt by hitting a deer is more important than Joe Blow gettin' his button buck this year. Allowing farmers to raise a crop and harvest the majority of it in an area is more important than Joe Blow shootin' two button bucks off the neighboring property every year. Part of intelligent herd management. Of course, greedy hunters that don't care about anything but getting the chance of pullin' the trigger more than once, are gonna scream "F&G sucks!" when they aren't overrun with fawn of the year to fill their tags. They don't care if the farmer is losin' his butt or someone's little girl gets killed in a deer/car collision....they just want lots of deer runnin' around in the woods to shoot at. The reason your ex was asked what the zipcode was when she hit the deer was to count that deer as a kill in that area as part of the management program. But it don't make sense to those that don't care.


Brian Pfleuger understands and expressed this well in his statement,
Here, we have ignorance and greed. The tags don't matter much because there's little enforcement and no self control. "If it's brown, it's down!" Tell me you don't hear that phrase 100 times every season.

APRs and all the other DEC regs have nothing, *zero*, to do with the deer population problems in your area. It's greed and ignorance.
Click to expand...
 
Brian, Antler restrictions do not promote the removal of the best bucks. Trophy hunting takes care of that. What antler restrictions do is protect inferior bucks that should be eliminated from the gene pool.
 
Antler restrictions also protect FUTURE trophies. Those trophies don't start as trophies. They have to survive the young phase too.

As I said before, very, very few bucks will not reach the APR minimum. Almost none. They won't be permanently protected.

In NY, the average life expectancy of a buck is about 2 1/2. That means MOST trophies never get to be trophies.

Also, research indicates that most breeding is being done by yearling bucks.

If those two things are true, I have two questions.

1)How could an APR possibly make it worse?

2)What is the better idea that will work with the Unwashed Masses?
 
Exactly.....



And BuckRub.... Being from central TX..that is well known for havin an abundance of deer.... Very much overpopulated for years.... I hear management has helped Cen TX.... If there was ever a place that needed it..... Most folks don't have the overpopulation problem..... Bucks are getting better and better there now.....
 
Last edited:
1)How could an APR possibly make it worse?
Click to expand...

We have a few hundred thousand meat hunters here in PA that hunt the typical two Saturdays per year that would put the first modest buck they see in the freezer. They must now press on until they get a trophy, or make use of one of the excessive anterless permits the game commission now rationalizes as necessary to control the herd. The runt buck they're passing on don't all grow into trophies.
 
Pennsylvania can sustain a few hundred thousand hunters filling their freezers? Wow!
It sounds like y'all need the restrictions bad....
 
Really hunters , true hunters are a during breed. Here in Texas it seems like it anyhow. Sure a lot of people like to hunt opening weekend and thanksgiving but all in all I think there's less hunters than say 30-40 years ago.

Keg, I see you must live close to Fairfield or somewhere close. I live out in the Buffalo Creek Bottom on hwy 79. From Charles Cadenheads place on 79 clean to Keechi there a few houses by road but that's all woods in behind with Tons of wall hangers. But everyone knows where I stand on antlers. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top