Antler Restrictions
10-07-2004, 12:21 PM
#11
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 494
RE: Antler Restrictions
I don't know anything about managing the herd to for trophies - really don't. But I do know that the antler restrictions I'm familiar with (moose, not deer) are intended to manage the herd to increase numbers, by protecting prime breeders in their middle years of life, not to improve trophy hunting. The only way to estimate what stage of life (and therefore whether it's in it's prime for breeding) is by antler size. Therefore, whatever size (from small to large) of antlers is typical for a mid-aged, prime breeder, is protected. Everything above that antler size (older) or below (younger) is targeted.
Generally the restrictions for moose are such only two year olds (spikes, but not palms), not yet in the prime of their life, or old bulls who are past their breeding prime are targeted. An example is places where spike bulls, and anything over 50 inches are legal, but anything between palm and 50 are protected. They are the breeding stock. Sometimes the 50 inch criterion will also allow something like 4 brow tines on at least one side - for those of us who are real uncomfortable estimating 50 inches at 250 yards. Same effect.
Nubs, or spikes less than a certain lenght are considered antlerless, just like deer.
For what it's worth, just babbling as I wait three weeks to hunt.
My understanding - and I might be wrong - is that a lot of fish restrictions (e.g. only above a certain length are keepers) is to protect the mid-sized prime breeding stock and harvest the older fish that are near the end of their life and past their breeding prime.
Generally the restrictions for moose are such only two year olds (spikes, but not palms), not yet in the prime of their life, or old bulls who are past their breeding prime are targeted. An example is places where spike bulls, and anything over 50 inches are legal, but anything between palm and 50 are protected. They are the breeding stock. Sometimes the 50 inch criterion will also allow something like 4 brow tines on at least one side - for those of us who are real uncomfortable estimating 50 inches at 250 yards. Same effect.
Nubs, or spikes less than a certain lenght are considered antlerless, just like deer.
For what it's worth, just babbling as I wait three weeks to hunt.
My understanding - and I might be wrong - is that a lot of fish restrictions (e.g. only above a certain length are keepers) is to protect the mid-sized prime breeding stock and harvest the older fish that are near the end of their life and past their breeding prime.
10-07-2004, 01:13 PM
#12
Join Date: May 2004
Location:
Posts: 255
RE: Antler Restrictions
I like voluntary QDM. If you want to pass on any deer, feel free. But not all areas are alike and the generalization that "all parts of the US are overloaded with deer" is a bit of hype and fallacy that gets perpetuated on web site and magazines.
Why wouldn't a person who says he does not like AR "just shoot a fat doe"? Anyone who would ask that question out of irgnorance has not hunted low deer numbers. You are likely sitting in a DMU that is 3 times over its deer density goals, and wondering about people's hunting in DMU's that are below DD goals (based on 65% of biological CC btw).
I as an individual may want to shoot a doe instead of a young buck. I did it some years going back over 20, voluntarily by choice and dependant on evaluating each land area and from year to year. I consider myself to have some QDM traits, since I also work to improve habitat going back 15 years and I have always chosen bucks or does.
BUT I DEPLORE PA's statewide mandatory antler restrictions. You ask a hunter why he doesn't just shoot a doe instead of a young buck.....? For the same reason I could ask you "why do you need a mandated law to just pass on a young buck? Because you cannot regulate what all the other folks do, thats why. When you deer density drops to 5dpsm, you better watch how many does are leaving in ziplock bags, sport. Or you'll be hunting squirrel only the next couple years.
Not everyone uses good judgement, and in areas of PA where the PGC has gone from 67 deer managment units, now to 22 huge bloated WMU's with little control over where tags are used. In my area, (areas with easy access) the new plan allows huge numbers of doe tags to be brought to bear. In just the last two years our sighting of deer went from 3-4 deer a day hunting to maybe one deer in a weeks time. Why? Because In our area of a county size we doubled our doe harvest ( and this in a county where we have ALREADY harvested more antlerless than antlered, for the last DECADE). Thats why we were only seeing 3-4 deer a day, not 50.
So Antler restrictions for the lazy people who could not have the patience to pass on small bucks voluntarily, really messed up our hunting overall and our buck hunting. On the farm and the State forest areas (we move around) we used to take for a party of ten hunters 3 bucks, and usually 3 does. The bucks would be anywhere from 4 points to 8 points. Now after two years of AR and its one size fits all HERD REDUCTION in Pa, we took one buck in two seasons and it was just an average 5point and now we have no taken any doe since we have not seen any to take!
Less deer = less deer
...and if you think by waiting another 6 years you will Saskatchewan booners popping out of the shrubbery, your a potato head. Ain't gonna happen with 900,000 pa hunters.
Our hunting here is not better, the bucks are not booners. (if you show me a nice 15point deer taken in Sproul, Rothrock, Moshannon state forests, then I will agree AR/HR has made a difference ) So far it has done nothing but draw down the herd. We always took a few nice deer in pa every season before AR, and if you are from pa you know that a handfull of fat whitetails waddle out of a Lebanon or Lancaster County cornfield to get wailed ever year for 100 years. nothing new. Now if you told me it happened in Centre county it would perk my ears up!.
AR/HR in pa means long term a smaller herd with less opportunity for everyone. The last two years our buck harvests have dropped AND OUR DOE harvest. Tens of thousands of hunters go home without deer of any sort because a few wannabe rack hunters want something for the wall? Puhhhhhlease. is that all that hunting is anymore? A competition?
There is no such thing as a free lunch, in order for one group to benefit another has to lose something. You keep harvesting does for long term in pa and the herd shrinks. This is not Michigan or Arkasas where they were harvesting twice as many bucks as does. PA has taken more antlerless than antlered for TEN YEARS! We are not getting a big pop in recruitment or fecundity as a result of taking more doe. We are gettingone thing, a smaller herd which is what Dr. Alt promised. Remember?
AR/HR in PA has made our area almost unhuntable. We can put 10 hunters in the field for a week and count the number of deer so far in archery on ten fingers. No one has even had an opportunity on a buck as they are few and far between. this is hunting next to 80 acres of clover, 150 acres of corn, eheat, oats, and all the things to run a dairy farm with. Adjacent to a SGL that has skads of acorns, but easy access and plenty of hunters.
Pa puts 900,000 hunters in the woods and has given the large WMU's and 1.04 million doe tags. Not a good recipe for seeing lots of deer. No correct that, not a good recipe in areas of easy access and public lands for even seein DECENT deer numbers.
Statewide AR, is not QDM.
Herd reductions also reduce hunter satisfaction.
Areas that did not have a ton of deer before Penna's mediocre plan now do worse because of the bloated wmu's and LACK of real management. Any QDM plan will involve IMPROVING habitat and mangeing areas individually. Pa does neither.
Some areas of Pa have wonderfull populations, and I suspect the dopey comments about why worry about herd reductions comes from there. YOU experience a few years of hunting in 5 dpm based on pellet counts and sighting surveys and then come back and tell us how wonderfull it is to see a handfull of deer in a weeks time and none of them be a shooter buck and then we can all pass judgment on the statewide deer plan.
You might sluff off any remarks now...... but wait until it comes to your back yard. Then you will sing a different tune.
3 years of dropping harvests under AR.
Have's
...and have nots.
Why wouldn't a person who says he does not like AR "just shoot a fat doe"? Anyone who would ask that question out of irgnorance has not hunted low deer numbers. You are likely sitting in a DMU that is 3 times over its deer density goals, and wondering about people's hunting in DMU's that are below DD goals (based on 65% of biological CC btw).
I as an individual may want to shoot a doe instead of a young buck. I did it some years going back over 20, voluntarily by choice and dependant on evaluating each land area and from year to year. I consider myself to have some QDM traits, since I also work to improve habitat going back 15 years and I have always chosen bucks or does.
BUT I DEPLORE PA's statewide mandatory antler restrictions. You ask a hunter why he doesn't just shoot a doe instead of a young buck.....? For the same reason I could ask you "why do you need a mandated law to just pass on a young buck? Because you cannot regulate what all the other folks do, thats why. When you deer density drops to 5dpsm, you better watch how many does are leaving in ziplock bags, sport. Or you'll be hunting squirrel only the next couple years.
Not everyone uses good judgement, and in areas of PA where the PGC has gone from 67 deer managment units, now to 22 huge bloated WMU's with little control over where tags are used. In my area, (areas with easy access) the new plan allows huge numbers of doe tags to be brought to bear. In just the last two years our sighting of deer went from 3-4 deer a day hunting to maybe one deer in a weeks time. Why? Because In our area of a county size we doubled our doe harvest ( and this in a county where we have ALREADY harvested more antlerless than antlered, for the last DECADE). Thats why we were only seeing 3-4 deer a day, not 50.
So Antler restrictions for the lazy people who could not have the patience to pass on small bucks voluntarily, really messed up our hunting overall and our buck hunting. On the farm and the State forest areas (we move around) we used to take for a party of ten hunters 3 bucks, and usually 3 does. The bucks would be anywhere from 4 points to 8 points. Now after two years of AR and its one size fits all HERD REDUCTION in Pa, we took one buck in two seasons and it was just an average 5point and now we have no taken any doe since we have not seen any to take!
Less deer = less deer
...and if you think by waiting another 6 years you will Saskatchewan booners popping out of the shrubbery, your a potato head. Ain't gonna happen with 900,000 pa hunters.
Our hunting here is not better, the bucks are not booners. (if you show me a nice 15point deer taken in Sproul, Rothrock, Moshannon state forests, then I will agree AR/HR has made a difference ) So far it has done nothing but draw down the herd. We always took a few nice deer in pa every season before AR, and if you are from pa you know that a handfull of fat whitetails waddle out of a Lebanon or Lancaster County cornfield to get wailed ever year for 100 years. nothing new. Now if you told me it happened in Centre county it would perk my ears up!.
AR/HR in pa means long term a smaller herd with less opportunity for everyone. The last two years our buck harvests have dropped AND OUR DOE harvest. Tens of thousands of hunters go home without deer of any sort because a few wannabe rack hunters want something for the wall? Puhhhhhlease. is that all that hunting is anymore? A competition?
There is no such thing as a free lunch, in order for one group to benefit another has to lose something. You keep harvesting does for long term in pa and the herd shrinks. This is not Michigan or Arkasas where they were harvesting twice as many bucks as does. PA has taken more antlerless than antlered for TEN YEARS! We are not getting a big pop in recruitment or fecundity as a result of taking more doe. We are gettingone thing, a smaller herd which is what Dr. Alt promised. Remember?
AR/HR in PA has made our area almost unhuntable. We can put 10 hunters in the field for a week and count the number of deer so far in archery on ten fingers. No one has even had an opportunity on a buck as they are few and far between. this is hunting next to 80 acres of clover, 150 acres of corn, eheat, oats, and all the things to run a dairy farm with. Adjacent to a SGL that has skads of acorns, but easy access and plenty of hunters.
Pa puts 900,000 hunters in the woods and has given the large WMU's and 1.04 million doe tags. Not a good recipe for seeing lots of deer. No correct that, not a good recipe in areas of easy access and public lands for even seein DECENT deer numbers.
Statewide AR, is not QDM.
Herd reductions also reduce hunter satisfaction.
Areas that did not have a ton of deer before Penna's mediocre plan now do worse because of the bloated wmu's and LACK of real management. Any QDM plan will involve IMPROVING habitat and mangeing areas individually. Pa does neither.
Some areas of Pa have wonderfull populations, and I suspect the dopey comments about why worry about herd reductions comes from there. YOU experience a few years of hunting in 5 dpm based on pellet counts and sighting surveys and then come back and tell us how wonderfull it is to see a handfull of deer in a weeks time and none of them be a shooter buck and then we can all pass judgment on the statewide deer plan.
You might sluff off any remarks now...... but wait until it comes to your back yard. Then you will sing a different tune.
3 years of dropping harvests under AR.
Have's
...and have nots.
10-07-2004, 01:17 PM
#13
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cedar Park Texas
Posts: 188
RE: Antler Restrictions
AR...There are about 10 zillion pages pros and cons on this very issue on another post. Try "northeast". A Pennsylvania deer hunter with the tag deaddeer is firmly on the side of no AR. Head on over there in throw in your two cents worth.
10-07-2004, 09:03 PM
#14
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 20
RE: Antler Restrictions
Hold on here, before we get into a heated debate, there are a couple issues surrounding antler restrictions that need clarification. There is a biological basis for the racks that bucks will develop as well as population growth and stabilization that needs to be considered before we all go hoopin' 'n hollerin' for what our opinions state.
We know that racks become the way they are as a result of 3 factors.
Age
Nutrition
Genetics
The nature of these relationships is complicated.
I'll address each.
Nutrition: Gotta have it for good antler development. Period. Less nutrition means smaller antlers.
Age: This has been the traditional way of looking at things. We think of it as, animals get bigger as they get older, so antlers must get bigger as the animal gets older. This is a true statement GIVEN some factors, but is not the main correlation. Age is just a number in a formula that governs the antler size. A male deer at 6 months develops tiny nubs of antler. So, at 6 months, they are technically a spike, though are hard to see except for up close. I dont' know of any case where a 6 month old had antlers any longer than the little nubs. At 1.5 years, things get a bit complicated. The age factor will prevent this deer from being humongous in most cases, but there is a wide range of what the rack can be. Deer at this age can be spikes that are anywhere from 3-6 inches long, or they can have small forks, even 8 points. However, one can expect that an 8 point yearling will have a greater 8 pt rack or higher point rack as the years progress, and his nutrition stays constant. Any buck in his younger years will have a smaller rack than he will in later life. The bucks with truly large, impressive antlers is an older fellow. Another possible reason that deer grow larger antlers as they mature is that their bodies quit growing as much. Thus, the nutrients can be used for antler growth by the deer's body rather than bone and tissue growth and development.
Age, however, is not a good factor when comparing deer with each other. As I said, some deer have larger racks than others at the same age. Not every spike is a youngster, and the nice 8s you see aren't always the older deer.
Genetics: This factor has come to light more recently. Deer with genetics favoring good antlers logically pass them along to the offspring when they breed. Genetics will not, however, give you the rack alone. A deer needs to be old enough and well fed enough to maximize its potential. The issue of genetics, however, makes this the most difficult issue to legislate. 3.5-4.5 year old spikes are that way often because they have inferior genes for antler growth. To cut to the chase, there exist 4 groups of bucks: young bucks with superior antlers, young bucks with inferior antlers, older bucks with superior antlers, older bucks with inferior antlers (definite culls). Both groups of older bucks should be shot, as the culls harm the genetic makeup, and the superior bucks are the most desireable. The inferior youngsters should be looked at carefully, as they may have genetic potential to be good, older bucks; though it is given that genetically inferior young bucks are still predisposed to having smaller racks than those of better genetics as both ages increase to the same value. The group that should not be shot, because they are genetically able to become those bucks we'd rather have on our walls, and likely to make more like themselves. This group needs to grow up and eat more, though, so you can't take them when they're young.
Here's the problem: Antler restrictions as they are, do not require one to take into account the girth of the belly and wideness of the face and neck with respect to the width of the antlers to determine if a buck is a legal cull, nor should such laws require advanced field judgement.
As the restrictions are in certain counties Texas, all spikes can be shot as legal bucks, as well as any buck with a spread over 13 inches, a buck with 6 or more points on a side, or a buck with a spike on one side. Pretty much, this is ruling out all bucks that have visible potential, but are just too young. This, in of itself, is not a bad system. The flaw, however, is that an old buck with a tiny rack that is branched on both sides is illegal in such counties.
If you are looking out for your local deer population: Shoot the deer with the longer spikes, shoot the older looking small antlered ones (when legal), shoot the big trophy bucks, and leave those little yearling 6s and 8s alone. Learn to field judge age and leave the young guys with antler potential for another season. Shoot does. All the time. You don't want the ratio to become too tipped. The end result of this should be that if all the deer are getting good nutrition, there'll be PLENTY of good, old bucks walkin' around, and people who can't find one of them can fill freezers with does and spikes.
These things take time and uniform committment. There is also evidence that the genetic information for large antlers is autosomal, meaning NOT on a sex chromosome. This means that does would carry the genes for antlers, just wouldn't use them. However, if one assumes they are autosomal, the does then pass the antler genes on to their offspring. This is also possible if the genes are carried on the X chromosome, which is a sex chromosome, but is carried by both the male and female. This would mean that just because your genetically superior buck breeds a doe, the offspring may not have great antlers depending on the recombination of genes.
This is about where my knowledge of biology ends, so I'll refer anyone interested to a study conducted by Texas Parks and Wildlife on Kerr Wildlife Management Area.
Ok, now that you are armed with the biology, go nuts!
If anyone has a better understanding of the genetic basis of antler inheiritence, please post and clear up whatever I've messed up.
All management restrictions should be made in the context of the nutrition and rack sizes of the deer in the particular area.
We know that racks become the way they are as a result of 3 factors.
Age
Nutrition
Genetics
The nature of these relationships is complicated.
I'll address each.
Nutrition: Gotta have it for good antler development. Period. Less nutrition means smaller antlers.
Age: This has been the traditional way of looking at things. We think of it as, animals get bigger as they get older, so antlers must get bigger as the animal gets older. This is a true statement GIVEN some factors, but is not the main correlation. Age is just a number in a formula that governs the antler size. A male deer at 6 months develops tiny nubs of antler. So, at 6 months, they are technically a spike, though are hard to see except for up close. I dont' know of any case where a 6 month old had antlers any longer than the little nubs. At 1.5 years, things get a bit complicated. The age factor will prevent this deer from being humongous in most cases, but there is a wide range of what the rack can be. Deer at this age can be spikes that are anywhere from 3-6 inches long, or they can have small forks, even 8 points. However, one can expect that an 8 point yearling will have a greater 8 pt rack or higher point rack as the years progress, and his nutrition stays constant. Any buck in his younger years will have a smaller rack than he will in later life. The bucks with truly large, impressive antlers is an older fellow. Another possible reason that deer grow larger antlers as they mature is that their bodies quit growing as much. Thus, the nutrients can be used for antler growth by the deer's body rather than bone and tissue growth and development.
Age, however, is not a good factor when comparing deer with each other. As I said, some deer have larger racks than others at the same age. Not every spike is a youngster, and the nice 8s you see aren't always the older deer.
Genetics: This factor has come to light more recently. Deer with genetics favoring good antlers logically pass them along to the offspring when they breed. Genetics will not, however, give you the rack alone. A deer needs to be old enough and well fed enough to maximize its potential. The issue of genetics, however, makes this the most difficult issue to legislate. 3.5-4.5 year old spikes are that way often because they have inferior genes for antler growth. To cut to the chase, there exist 4 groups of bucks: young bucks with superior antlers, young bucks with inferior antlers, older bucks with superior antlers, older bucks with inferior antlers (definite culls). Both groups of older bucks should be shot, as the culls harm the genetic makeup, and the superior bucks are the most desireable. The inferior youngsters should be looked at carefully, as they may have genetic potential to be good, older bucks; though it is given that genetically inferior young bucks are still predisposed to having smaller racks than those of better genetics as both ages increase to the same value. The group that should not be shot, because they are genetically able to become those bucks we'd rather have on our walls, and likely to make more like themselves. This group needs to grow up and eat more, though, so you can't take them when they're young.
Here's the problem: Antler restrictions as they are, do not require one to take into account the girth of the belly and wideness of the face and neck with respect to the width of the antlers to determine if a buck is a legal cull, nor should such laws require advanced field judgement.
As the restrictions are in certain counties Texas, all spikes can be shot as legal bucks, as well as any buck with a spread over 13 inches, a buck with 6 or more points on a side, or a buck with a spike on one side. Pretty much, this is ruling out all bucks that have visible potential, but are just too young. This, in of itself, is not a bad system. The flaw, however, is that an old buck with a tiny rack that is branched on both sides is illegal in such counties.
If you are looking out for your local deer population: Shoot the deer with the longer spikes, shoot the older looking small antlered ones (when legal), shoot the big trophy bucks, and leave those little yearling 6s and 8s alone. Learn to field judge age and leave the young guys with antler potential for another season. Shoot does. All the time. You don't want the ratio to become too tipped. The end result of this should be that if all the deer are getting good nutrition, there'll be PLENTY of good, old bucks walkin' around, and people who can't find one of them can fill freezers with does and spikes.
These things take time and uniform committment. There is also evidence that the genetic information for large antlers is autosomal, meaning NOT on a sex chromosome. This means that does would carry the genes for antlers, just wouldn't use them. However, if one assumes they are autosomal, the does then pass the antler genes on to their offspring. This is also possible if the genes are carried on the X chromosome, which is a sex chromosome, but is carried by both the male and female. This would mean that just because your genetically superior buck breeds a doe, the offspring may not have great antlers depending on the recombination of genes.
This is about where my knowledge of biology ends, so I'll refer anyone interested to a study conducted by Texas Parks and Wildlife on Kerr Wildlife Management Area.
Ok, now that you are armed with the biology, go nuts!
If anyone has a better understanding of the genetic basis of antler inheiritence, please post and clear up whatever I've messed up.
All management restrictions should be made in the context of the nutrition and rack sizes of the deer in the particular area.
10-08-2004, 11:05 AM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Audubon & Red Rock, Penna.
Posts: 4,472
RE: Antler Restrictions
Sealgair243 - should I have shot this deer? He looks like an older deer with inferior antlers. I've seen younger looking deer with 8 and 9 point racks on the same property. This guy only has 6, although his frame is pretty decent.
10-08-2004, 11:52 AM
#16
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 20
RE: Antler Restrictions
I will not judge what other people "should have" and "should not have" done. My first buck that wasn't a spike was a spindly 6 that I should have let walk; of course, at the time, I didn't know anything about the way management works.
Based on the picture.. well... lets see
You said he was old, this by no means looks like a yearling. The things I don't know (that maybe you do) are the condition of the teeth. Teeth aging is a reasonably reliable, not to mention cool in a CSI kind of way, process. There are plenty of web articles about it, as well as books. I'm guessing you don't happen to have that particular deer's jaw sitting around, so I'll have to look at the picture.
His face looks kind of narrow, though that may just be angle working against me. The neck, however, looks nice and paunchy, a good indicator of good age and good diet. Again, the angle could be making this assessment totally off.
His body looks a bit wider and larger in mass than the typical yearling. I think just based on the photo, I can't judge weight. Was this deer heavier than most deer you've killed in the same area? Comparing the deer on the hoof, was this deer larger in body mass than the young deer with the bigger antlers? I don't know for sure, based on a photograph. Given the context you've provided, I'd say its likely that this is a cull, however, there is a possibility that this was an underdeveloped 2.5 year old. I can't tell any more from the picture. The difficulty with cull bucks is figuring out what are the characteristics of culls for your area.
I would not regret shooting that buck. I would keep in mind in the future, to carefully assess (not always an easy thing when you see horns, its cold, and you have a gun) the target, and think, "Does this look like an older deer with little antlers, or is this a youngster?".
This may sound selfish, but if you're hunting on land where no one else is following good management protocol, your passing on the little bucks won't matter much, and neither will your taking him.
The best antler restrictions are not legal ones, but ones that emerge from a mutual desire to have bigger deer to shoot, and equal willingness to curb one's own desires and delay satisfaction for the better of the population of deer, so that all might have a CHANCE to shoot really good deer. This is, needless to say, easier on private land owned and hunted on by a few people who are in a partnership that is conducive to good management decisions. This is harder on public land.
I hope this has helped. I can't say with certainty that he is a cull, nor can I say that he looks killed before his time. Maybe some additional information about the deer in the particular area will shed some light.
Sealgair243
Based on the picture.. well... lets see
You said he was old, this by no means looks like a yearling. The things I don't know (that maybe you do) are the condition of the teeth. Teeth aging is a reasonably reliable, not to mention cool in a CSI kind of way, process. There are plenty of web articles about it, as well as books. I'm guessing you don't happen to have that particular deer's jaw sitting around, so I'll have to look at the picture.
His face looks kind of narrow, though that may just be angle working against me. The neck, however, looks nice and paunchy, a good indicator of good age and good diet. Again, the angle could be making this assessment totally off.
His body looks a bit wider and larger in mass than the typical yearling. I think just based on the photo, I can't judge weight. Was this deer heavier than most deer you've killed in the same area? Comparing the deer on the hoof, was this deer larger in body mass than the young deer with the bigger antlers? I don't know for sure, based on a photograph. Given the context you've provided, I'd say its likely that this is a cull, however, there is a possibility that this was an underdeveloped 2.5 year old. I can't tell any more from the picture. The difficulty with cull bucks is figuring out what are the characteristics of culls for your area.
I would not regret shooting that buck. I would keep in mind in the future, to carefully assess (not always an easy thing when you see horns, its cold, and you have a gun) the target, and think, "Does this look like an older deer with little antlers, or is this a youngster?".
This may sound selfish, but if you're hunting on land where no one else is following good management protocol, your passing on the little bucks won't matter much, and neither will your taking him.
The best antler restrictions are not legal ones, but ones that emerge from a mutual desire to have bigger deer to shoot, and equal willingness to curb one's own desires and delay satisfaction for the better of the population of deer, so that all might have a CHANCE to shoot really good deer. This is, needless to say, easier on private land owned and hunted on by a few people who are in a partnership that is conducive to good management decisions. This is harder on public land.
I hope this has helped. I can't say with certainty that he is a cull, nor can I say that he looks killed before his time. Maybe some additional information about the deer in the particular area will shed some light.
Sealgair243
10-08-2004, 12:26 PM
#17
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Shakopee MN USA
Posts: 1,001
RE: Antler Restrictions
This is probably one of the most informative AR posts I've ever read. Instead of guys just posting BS because they either feel strongly for or against it.....you guys post with complete accuracy and FACTS. For the record....I'm all for AR and think that it is great for a herd, but do also agree with hickory that it can't be a statewide thing. The biologists need to figure out where the "need" counties are and target them.
tazimna,
There have been a couple QDM meetings about AR and such things, but where do you think the DNR held them? On the iron range of all places. What is the % of QDM guys up there?
And the DNR knows it! Bad turnouts for meetings or 60-70% of the hunters disagreeing with it....the whole plan gets put on the back burner pretty quick. Now have that meeting down here in the metro area or in the southeastern part of the state....you have far more bowhunters(seems to me they are generally QDM guys) and you will see far more guys for it. Even probably 60-70% in favor of it. I agree that our DNR is sort of putting things into place for overall revenue building, but for what they have done so far....I can't disagree with them one bit at all. Seperating the state into managed, intestive harvest and lottery for doe tags is a step in the right direction. Up until this change, our regulations and deer harvest thoughts and/or goals were those from the 50's and 60's when we didn't have hardly any deer. Those days are long gone! And it's the guys that lived in that era or the kids whose dads that lived in that area(where they learned how to hunt) that have the "if it's brown...it's down" attitude that need to have an open ear when it comes to this. I know some fellas that are far more happy with shooting anything with an antler...doesn't matter how big, 10" or 100"...then they would shooting a doe. I just don't understand it and to be honest...it kind of pees me off. An ego trip cause they shot a "buck"? lol **Disclaimer....this is not a blanket comment to all that are meat hunters. Just those who I just mentioned.**
On a side note,
I love when this discussion comes up and it's the guys against the whole thing that think QDM is designed and ONLY helps out the trophy guys. They don't even take one second to learn about the whole aspect before piping up about it.
tazimna,
There have been a couple QDM meetings about AR and such things, but where do you think the DNR held them? On the iron range of all places. What is the % of QDM guys up there?
And the DNR knows it! Bad turnouts for meetings or 60-70% of the hunters disagreeing with it....the whole plan gets put on the back burner pretty quick. Now have that meeting down here in the metro area or in the southeastern part of the state....you have far more bowhunters(seems to me they are generally QDM guys) and you will see far more guys for it. Even probably 60-70% in favor of it. I agree that our DNR is sort of putting things into place for overall revenue building, but for what they have done so far....I can't disagree with them one bit at all. Seperating the state into managed, intestive harvest and lottery for doe tags is a step in the right direction. Up until this change, our regulations and deer harvest thoughts and/or goals were those from the 50's and 60's when we didn't have hardly any deer. Those days are long gone! And it's the guys that lived in that era or the kids whose dads that lived in that area(where they learned how to hunt) that have the "if it's brown...it's down" attitude that need to have an open ear when it comes to this. I know some fellas that are far more happy with shooting anything with an antler...doesn't matter how big, 10" or 100"...then they would shooting a doe. I just don't understand it and to be honest...it kind of pees me off. An ego trip cause they shot a "buck"? lol **Disclaimer....this is not a blanket comment to all that are meat hunters. Just those who I just mentioned.**On a side note,
I love when this discussion comes up and it's the guys against the whole thing that think QDM is designed and ONLY helps out the trophy guys. They don't even take one second to learn about the whole aspect before piping up about it.
10-08-2004, 12:30 PM
#18
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Audubon & Red Rock, Penna.
Posts: 4,472
RE: Antler Restrictions
Sealgair243 - I’m not worried about whether I shot him or not. He was my first buck with a bow so he’s awesome no matter what. I’m just wondering about his age since his body huge in proportion to his rack. He was about 30lbs heavier than the two 8-points I shot in 2000 and 2002. They were around 100” and 120” (gross) B&C deer. Here are a couple more pictures with different angles.
10-08-2004, 12:45 PM
#19
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Shakopee MN USA
Posts: 1,001
RE: Antler Restrictions
Nice lookin pics Barnes with your kids. I have a 6 month old boy that's just itchin to be in a deer photo with me. I just have to try and hold up my end of the deal. 
How's that puttin your deer in the back of that Suv holdin up for you and all that paper? Just kidding. You need a truck my brotha. he, he
How's that puttin your deer in the back of that Suv holdin up for you and all that paper? Just kidding. You need a truck my brotha. he, he
10-08-2004, 01:01 PM
#20
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Audubon & Red Rock, Penna.
Posts: 4,472
RE: Antler Restrictions
I have a truck. That's my dad's SUV. We took my wife's car to camp because we can't fit the two of us and two car seats in the pick 'em up truck. My truck will be up for bear and deer camp later in the year. It also pulls the boat.
. That's my dad's SUV. We took my wife's car to camp because we can't fit the two of us and two car seats in the pick 'em up truck. My truck will be up for bear and deer camp later in the year. It also pulls the boat.