Trad Gang

Do you think states should make up antler restrictions ? IE: 4 on one side or similar for deer as missouri has done for the northern 2/3 of the state.

another question I was going to ask is should trad archers have the same pt restrictions as gun hunters..

We got sacked in all the eastern part of the state with 13" or better or a unbranched antler on 1 side. seems to be the popular vote for now here.

in the test counties they started out in the people have loved it and they have expanded it every year since.

My county was just added this yr..

we are 1st buck any size 2nd buck 4 on one side or better and 10 does. But I have seen the benefits of not shooting anything but mature deer also.

But to add to that, not everyone is a mature deer hunter. That is why I like the 1st buck any size rule. I am a meat hunter these days and go out to enjoy myself.

Generally not in favour of these types of rules. In some situations they may make sense for the herd but usually these type of rule are made to increase the economy. Big antlers generate dollars for the government agency and usually have little to do with the healthy management of the deer resource.

And they are a resource and they should be managed according to the best interest of the herd not for publicity, big horns or tourist dollars

I'm all for (voluntary) selective harvest.  That said, in any kind of a decent deer herd point restrictions are meaningless, or even counterproductive, in my opinion.  In the midwest, at least, a 4 pt on one side restriction just means the up and coming 18 month old bucks are fair game and the lesser ones (from an antler perspective) are protected.  I fear this only leads to high-grading of quality (once again speaking from an antler perspective) animals.  The only real meaningful restrictions would be an age restriction but absolutely not enforcable and would be a nightmare for a game department.  Education of the hunters is the only path forward here.  If you want to see meaningful quality enhancement (remember, we're talking antlers) just look at what private landowners are doing - VOLUNTARILY.

Herd control/carrying capacity is a numbers thing - game departments can have an impact on that.  Antler quality is a more difficult beast to track down.

The most meaningful impact a state can have on mature deer (that is protecting them to gain maturity) - which, by the way also leads to a healthy herd - is imposing a reasonable gun season that does not coincide with the rut.  Just compare IN/MO (long gun seasons, rut) to IL/IA (shorter gun seasons, not in rut).

R

My hunting buddies in MO are excited about the restrictions. We expect to see an improvement in the quality of the bucks we're hunting. We passed several good 6-pts last season that might be really nice this year.

Some states really need it, like MS. We have a 4-pt. rule, both sides total. Exception: youths that have never taken a deer can take a smaller buck. I wish it was 4 pts. one side. Our season is so long (you can deer hunt from Oct. 1 until Jan. 31) that there's too much pressure on the buck population, and too few make it to maturity. The restriction gives the spikes a chance to grow another year, and some of them will have decent racks at year 2. Our rut is so late (mid Dec.- Jan) that spikes are common the first year, even on bucks with decent genetics, just because they're born late. Fawns are just now showing up here. Researchers at MS State raised a spike to a B&C class buck in their deer pens.

Meat hunters can always shoot does- most people think they're  better on the table anyhow.

I have no issue with any type of point restrictions but feel kids under 16 years of age should be free to shoot whatever they choose.If I would have have had to sit and pass buck after buck at 12 years of age I may have lost interest in hunting at that time and be playing video games right now instead of hanging out in the woods.

We have had the antler restrictions in place here in Washington for several years 3 point minumum on one side.Yes archery is the same antler restrictions as black powder and center fire hand guns and rifles.And yes it sucks big time.bd

In the past I have hunted in PA where it was 3 points on one side for a legal buck.

Caleb7mm, I do like the 1st buck any size rule in that allows for all sorts of hunters to be able to take an animal. Youngsters, older hunters, etc. In PA it was 1 buck period. No 1 buck for each "season" or type of weapon. If you shot 1 buck your season was over unless you had a doe permit which you have to apply in August for. IMO I didn't like the way it was done in PA (which after 6 years is why we sold our land there)

Ryan makes a super point and one that I was seeing on our land in PA. If you shoot all the "higher potential" bucks at a young age you are left with a bunch of bucks with "lower potential" racks running around (breeding and there to be hunted) On our cameras we were seeing a bunch of really BIG 6 pointers. Not to say that I would have been against shooting one of them but it seemed odd that there were several bucks on our small piece of land that were big deer but only with 6 points. Seemed all the potential top end bucks were gone.

I don't have the answer but love shooting does and like it here in MD where you can shoot quite a few with no special permits etc.

We have had it for elk for years and it has helped to get a few older bulls which is good for the herd.

NO to mandatory AR - voluntary is a great idea if one is so inclined.
If it is implimented, it should be for all.

From a recent NYS DEC report on trial wmu's result:

 

QuoteThe proposed antler restriction was designed to protect most yearling (1.5 year old) bucks from harvest, allowing for greater numbers of bucks in the 2.5 year old age class and

likely a small increase in 3.5 year old and older age classes prior to the subsequent hunting seasons. For hunters seeking to see more 2.5 year old bucks, antler restrictions may be effective.

However, antler restrictions may be only minimally effective for hunters desiring to take more, older bucks. Data from New York's current pilot antler restriction program reveals only a slight

increase (about 6%) in the average number of 2.5 year old and older bucks harvested after several years of antler restrictions despite a dramatic reduction (about 65%) in average yearling

harvest.

Common reference to "mature" or "trophy" bucks reflects a misconception about the potential outcome of an antler restriction program despite Department efforts to educate hunters

about this issue. Bucks typically do not reach maturity (maximum body mass and antler growth)until the ages of 4.5-7.5 years, and hunters and non-hunters should not expect a noticeable

increase in bucks in these age classes due to an antler restriction program as proposed, particularly in areas with high hunting pressure

Mandatory AR is not about getting true mature bucks - it's about getting a little more horn on them before killing them at 2 to 3 1/2 yrs.
Steve

No to any type restrictions on deer other than bag limits.A deer is just a deer and it should be up to each hunter what he wants to kill.If you don't want to shoot one for any reason no one is there to make you shoot.

In the same light no one should be able to tell you what you can't shoot.Everyone that hunts is not all about antlers.When you make such a thing a law you are putting restrictions on those people just because others think different about things.

Don't tell me what I should or should not shoot unless I am hunting your property or club.I can make my own decision on my land or public land. jmho

Most people around me pass on the small bucks. I definately have seen a difference in the amount of mature deer in the area. However, if a hunter of any age is taking their first deer and a spike happens to offer a shot than by all means it is a trophy. If you are meat hunting a doe will do just fine! Anticipating a MONSTER is what really gets your blood boiling. If everyone shoots the small ones and the chances are slim that a trophy is in the area that part of the hunting experience is gone IMO.

Here in Alabama, last year was the first year that a limit on number or and size of bucks was started. Pretty much impossible to realisticly enforce however. You can still shoot 2 bucks of any size but the third has to have at least 4pts on one side.  

I like the idea of restricting the number of bucks taken and allowing 2 bucks of any size is more than adequate in my opinion. However, I don't like mandated size requirements in general for the same reasons as others have stated. Besides, the vast majority of hunting in Alabama is done on private property and voluntary size limits are already in place in most places.

My farm in Gasconade County Missouri, the 4 pt on one side rule was put in many years ago here.  I know for a fact we see more bigger deer then before it was put in.

My farm in Pike County Missouri has just put it in.  This area already has some monsters but I belive it will only help. Although I believe the youth season they can still take whatever size deer they want.  A good thing in my book.

The reason there shouldn't be point restrictions is that the number of points don't have anything to do with age of the deer.  I have personally witnessed a buck on the property that I hunt that never grew more than forks his whole life.  Now what happens in this situation?  What happens is you have to let this deer with poor genetics go and continue to breed with the herd because you can never shoot him because he only has two points on each side.  On the flip side I have seen atwo yesr old buck with ten points.  You can not tell anything about a deers age by his antlers period.  Different genetics and different nutrition in different areas make the racks in each area or on each deer within the area differ.Just because a deer is a 140" 10 point doesn't make him mature, just a buck with good genetics.

While I'm at it what about the people who aren't antler hunting.  They have the same rights as everyone else.  Now they can't shoot a six point that may be the best deer in their hunting area because someone decided that we have to shoot bucks with at least four on one side?  To each their own but I don't see where this is going to help the sport in the long term.

YOU GET TO TAKE 12 DEER A YEAR IN GEORGIA??!!!!  :eek:  

Pack the bags honey!

West Virginia needs a restriction, were i hunt the people around our property kill everything they see. It makes me made when i see a deer ive been watchin all summer go over there and get shot.  :mad:

Here in VT we have a two on one side rule.One antler with one point one inch or longer.It's been in affect for a few years and even those that were against the rule at first are loving the bigger deer they're seeing now.

I'm seriously hoping they make it into a 3 pt on one side rule so we can have PA size bucks up here.I saw some MONSTERS when I hunted there last year.

IMO our state needs a restriction.The past rifle seasons I hunted I saw does and yearlings.At least with the restrictions in place I got to see bucks during it,albiet spikehorns.I'd rather shoot a 140# forkhorn than a 110# spikehorn anyday.I'd love to be more selective when deer hunting,but guys here mow down anything legal during seasons,so what is the point of letting the four point walk by to the neighbor's and they down it.Most say it's a poor way to go about it,but it's truth.Antler restrictions will atleast help the survival of the spikes anyways.

Yes the restrictions sould also be inplace for ALL seasons.

Here in KY we have a 13" inside spread on some public lands.  I like this as it helps increase age class in bucks on public hunting areas that previously had very young deer age class structure.  Not everyone has a lot of private ground to voluntarily implement antler restrictions.  I don't believe # of points coincide with deer maturity.  Statistics show that inside spread restrictions will protect 100% of 1 1/2 yr deer and half or more of 2 1/2  year olds in KY.  Private land should be managed by the landowner not the state.  JMO

I quit worrying about antlers last year and it was the best season of my life. I really enjoyed it. Where I hunt, dreaming only of big antlers only makes you depressed. That being said Oklahoma has had a terrible management system prior to about 4-5 years ago but things are really shaping up in the last few years since they have done some very simple things like doe days and limiting the quota on bucks. Just north,east and west of our land there are some dandy bucks. And I see more simi mature bucks every year(haven't seen a mature buck ever). Just to give you an idea of the situation, I have found one scrape in the last 7 years of intense scouting our 200 acre farm and it was about the size of a basketball, the biggest rub I have found was on a 1-1/2 inch tree, and the oldest buck I have seen ever was probably 3.5 yrs, maybe 4.5 and I missed him to boot at 30 yards. I When scouting last year I found 1 pair of sheds and 6 carcasses, all young bucks 2.5 yrs and younger. A couple of these bucks I had passed up during bow season. Spotlighting and road hunting may have a lot to do with that.

Just playing the worlds smallest violin.HEHE

I think an inside spread restriction would be best.

Ditto what James Wrenn said!! Seems as if every one wants to get in your head these days. There are many times when i'll let a lesser buck walk , but it should be the hunters choice----Too much legislation in our lives already!!

My honeyhole is in Gasconade County, MO not far from Hermann. My ground has been in the point restrictions since the beginning. I have let 9 bucks walk including two really nice 6pts. I have no issues with the restrictions. They will all be bigger next year.

John III

Some observations from Michigan. 750,000 firearms hunters,gun season during rut. Liberal anterless seasons where many button bucks are killed. 2 buck limit,2nd buck 4 pt. or better one side. Now lets run some numbers. Out of  100 bucks born, 90% are killed by age 1.5. that leaves 10 that live to age 2.5. Half the 2.5 yr. old bucks are killed. That leaves 5 out of 100 live to be 3.5  If 30% or 40% of the 3.5 yr. olds get killed you are left with 2 or 3 bucks out of 100 that live to be 4.5 yrs. old. Is this a balanced herd? In 35 yrs of hunting in MI I have only seen 3 or 4, 4.5 yr. or older bucks. To just sight one of these brutes here is a special thrill as they are as rare as a comet. I have hunted Illinois and Ohio and have seen more mature bucks there in a few weeks as I have in a lifetime hunting in Michigan!

Voluntary management is awesome but the government mandating point restrictions is just plain wrong. That and many other things have turned hunting into something that is un natural.
The management part that the game commission plays should be on harvest numbers, sex ratios, habitat and the rest should be governed by each individual hunter and what makes him or her happy with their hunting.

I totally agree with Buckeye trad hunter, here in Ohio we have no restrictions, but only allow 1 antlered deer per year, plus a liberal doe harvest and we have some of the best quality deer in the U.S. I used to hunt out of state a lot but have quit hunting any state that has antler restrictions.

QuoteOriginally posted by Steel:
I have no issue with any type of point restrictions but feel kids under 16 years of age should be free to shoot whatever they choose.If I would have have had to sit and pass buck after buck at 12 years of age I may have lost interest in hunting at that time and be playing video games right now instead of hanging out in the woods.

Wow, never seen a 50/50 split!

Voted no as one there is a overpopulation prob anyway - second I want to shoot what comes by. I do let some walk, will shoot a doe over a spike any day of the week but want the option of shooting the spike should I not see a doe.

J

QuoteOriginally posted by J-dog:

I do let some walk, will shoot a doe over a spike any day of the week but want the option of shooting the spike should I not see a doe.

J

That whats nice about the state in question, there is a ton of deer.  Unlimited doe tags in most of the state, and the population keeps growing.  A few years back work was slow so I ate alot of deer, 7 does, one big buck and a turkey in one year all with a bow for near $80.

QuoteI do let some walk, will shoot a doe over a spike any day of the week but want the option of shooting the spike should I not see a doe.

I let many more deer walk each year than I shoot because I just don't need as many in the freezer now days.Still I don't need someone else telling me which ones walk and which one is "OK" for me to shoot.I am a grown man and able to make up my own mind.  ;)

Self imposed "limits" and letting smaller bucks walk is fine and this is the way I lean. Love shooting does as there are lots of them. Some very good points being made here. Truly, what is the "motivation" of the State to mandate antler restrictions? Does this somehow "improve" the herd in a real sense or just "change" the herd? I would not mind the Ohio system of 1 buck period but lots of does. That would aid in the recruitment of more bucks alot more than antler restrictions.

Antler restrictions are not a substitute for other methods of herd management, but simply an added feature to help increase the number of older bucks in the herd. That's a good thing. When the pressure on the bucks is so great that practically none of them make it to maturity, what are the options? Voluntary passing of smaller bucks is a personal option, but not a management tool.

Hunting conditions vary immensely from state to state. What is good for (insert the name of your state here) might not be good for another state. When the majority of the land is in large acreages, and the average landowner manages for big deer, no restrictions are needed. When the average property size is a few acres and there is much competition for the animals, they make more sense.

We are already being told what to do, when and where, so what's the difference in being told not to shoot certain bucks? I'm as libertarian as anyone, but I know that without management we would be back to zero. When MS started allowing the shooting of does a few decades ago, you wouldn't believe the outcry from the "experts" (including local game wardens) who said that we were ruining the herd by shooting the mama deer. And that was with one doe day a year, limit of one. Now, after the doe harvest has been liberalized, overpopulation is less of a problem, and we can shoot three bucks and at least 5 does a year, more if the land is in a state-managed management program. That's progress, based on good management decisions. Antler restrictions might be the next step in getting a better age balance for a healthier herd.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer to the question. If your state won't allow you to shoot smaller bucks, shoot does. Simple as that. Relax and let the professional wildlife managers do their jobs. If the antler restrictions don't help after a few years, they will change things again. There's really no other choice, short of anarchy.

My soapbox for the day.

Personally, I'm not in favor of state mandated trophy hunting.

I vote for FREEDOM!  Let each man(woman) walk his own path and make his own rules as to why and how he hunts.  I thought I lived in America.  Each year we allow the government to make more and more choices for us.  That's not FREEDOM, that's  soft tyranny. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_tyranny)

NO[/b]!  It is NOT wildlife management, it is MONEY management.

Talondale, which century do you live in? That might work in VA (doubt it), but in MS there wouldn't be any game left. Or hunters, when the outlaws were through. It happened after the great depression- would you prefer to go back to those days??

Curtis, it's not necessarily about money, it's about satisfying the majority. The majority who PAY for our hunting privileges by buying licenses. Regardless of the poll numbers here, the average deer hunter wants to see big bucks. Don't you? The wildlife managers are trying to satisfy the demand.

I remember when the sighting of a deer track was the subject of conversation for days. It wasn't until the wildlife managers began stocking programs, and educational programs, that our deer and turkey population grew to huntable levels. This is a tremendous success story! Some of you younger folks may not be aware of how bad hunting was, before game populations were restored, THROUGH SOUND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT!! Without their efforts, we would all be hunting squirrels instead of deer and turkeys. Give them a chance to improve the age structure, for the good of us all.

On the other hand, convince everyone to quit hunting big bucks, and the antler restrictions will go away. Good luck with that!

QuoteOriginally posted by Don Stokes:
Curtis, it's not necessarily about money, it's about satisfying the majority. The majority who PAY for our hunting privileges by buying licenses. Regardless of the poll numbers here, the average deer hunter wants to see big bucks. Don't you? The wildlife managers are trying to satisfy the demand.

Don, I just disagree.  I think it is all about money to the people who are making the decisions.

There are already big bucks in Missouri.  I do look forward to occasionally seeing a thumper, but the fact that they're not hiding behind every tree is one of the things that makes them special when you do get a chance.

Call it what it is: I'm a little selfish.  I don't want Missouri to become a "Big Buck" destination.  We have enough home-grown idiots in this state already.  No need to attract more.

I'm not calling anyone on this site (or topic) an idiot.  We all have our own opinions and views.  I just think horn-porn promotes enough un-ethical "hunting" already.  Missouri has a dedicated sales tax portion going to conservation, and we are fortunate enough to be a largely pro-hunting state.  We do not need additional revenue from things like "QDM" or whatever someone chooses to style it.

There's my 50 cents worth.    :wavey:

Curtis, believe me, I'm with you on the horn-porn. Totally disgusting. I hunt Missouri every year now, because the deer and turkeys are bigger than they are in my home hunting area, and I have good friends up there. It costs me over $300 a year to do it, and I don't mind. The MO Dept. of Conservation has been at the forefront in good game management since I was in college, in the 70's. The wildlife management classes I took at Miss. State used the MDC wildlife videos, and they were excellent, before most other states began serious management.

My personal belief is that the game & fish department people are probably doing the best they can, with the benefit of the wildlife being first before filling the coffers, and I intend to support their efforts, rather than trying to second-guess their motivations.

Disagreement makes the world go round!    :)

I don`t believe in mandatory trophy hunting either. Here in Ga as someone said we can kill 10 does , 1 buck of any size and a buck with at leats 4 on one side.A fella that hunts hard should kill something.

  Some people that do not have the time to put a lot of hours in the woods should not have to let something walk that they want in the freezer.Face it, some people may only get 4 or 5 days in the woods all season.I would expect most "Trophy" hunters get to spend a good bit of time in the woods. Don`t change another mans hunting because of what you want.RC

Here in Pa., We've had it for around 7 yrs. But with it came herd reduction ( lots of antlerless licenses). Our deer herd is a fraction of what it was. It's tough to see deer now on public property. Those with access to private ground still have decent hunting.
 As far as the antler restriction , I'm a taxidermist and we are getting some nice bucks ( we always have) just not near as many. We were told by our Game Commission that our buck kill would go up. DIDN'T!
  Real sore subject with me as I used to live for archery season, now I spend a lot of time sitting in trees without seeing much.

QuoteOriginally posted by Don Stokes:
Talondale, which century do you live in? That might work in VA (doubt it), but in MS there wouldn't be any game left. Or hunters, when the outlaws were through. It happened after the great depression- would you prefer to go back to those days??

Don, I'm not advocating anarchy or no regulations.  Broad guidelines that allow everyone to pursue game without wiping out populations is ok. But, I think my desire to shoot a bigger deer is a poor excuse for depriving others of their freedom.  We seem to be willing to take more and more freedom from others as long as we have good intentions and an utopian goal but I think Freedom should be first priority and freedoms restricted ONLY if there's a clear reason it is necessary.

Don, Don't lose sight of how state management agencies view out of state hunters. Your yourself said that you pay $300 per year to hunt another state because the turkeys and deer are bigger.

With out of state license fees being exponentially higher than in state license fees don't think for a minute states doesn't want MORE out of state hunters and management decisions could be influenced by it. What was once voodoo management (shooting does) is now common practice. Do you think years from now antler restrictions might be viewed in a little different light than they are now?

Even though I owned land in PA (live in Maryland) I was an out of state hunter. With just a fraction of licenses going to out of state hunters there is a disproportionate amount of $ being generated by out of staters.

Who exactly is demanding bigger deer? The average hunter? Who is the average hunter? The guy who hunts for a few hours on opening day of gun season? If so I would go out on a limb and say that guy would be happy to shoot anything. Small buck, doe, or big buck.

Absolutely NO!

Why should the state control what size buck i kill? This arguement does not go far until you have to mention QDM.........I work for a huge Timber Co. ,we own vast acres of land that we lease for hunting, we love it when bunch of good ole boys come to us and practice QDM. We also love it when the state puts point restrictions......

The State loves it too because they can boast "come hunt our state, we have bigger deer through Pt. restrictions"...thank you for your tourism money and please apoligize to our residents for us because they now have to draw for their tags".

Us timber companys love it becasue we can get more hunting lease money for our land that your growing big bucks for us.  We call it High Value Land on the timber side. You cry uncle? Your neighbor asks "who do i write the check too so i can shoot big deer"

Why should the state force us ALL to be Trophy hunters if some of us just like meat and the thrill of bowhunting?

If your for Pt Restrictions then your probably for Governament Health Care reform.....Everyone must have health care and you can not kill a buck under 4 pts on 1 side,

Every state will talk about managing a healthy deer herd but at the capital level..it boils down to " how are we going to kill X amount of deer this year" . You can ask any claims adjuster and he will tell you a : a spike can come through the windshield just as fast as an 8pt. It's really all about herd reduction and putting pt rstrictions is a ploy for us to really kill more does but we won't because we're waiting on the big Boy we have grown through QDM............endless loop............just my oppinion......

Who exactly is demanding bigger deer? The average hunter? Who is the average hunter? The guy who hunts for a few hours on opening day of gun season? If so I would go out on a limb and say that guy would be happy to shoot anything. Small buck, doe, or big buck.

Well said jcar315

If your for Pt Restrictions then your probably for Governament Health Care reform.....Everyone must have health care and you can not kill a buck under 4 pts on 1 side,

Don't get me started Joe   :banghead:

QuoteWho exactly is demanding bigger deer? The average hunter? Who is the average hunter? The guy who hunts for a few hours on opening day of gun season? If so I would go out on a limb and say that guy would be happy to shoot anything. Small buck, doe, or big buck.

Ok, we can play that game.... If Joe Schmoe is satisfied to shoot any old deer, why not let him shoot a doe and let the fork horn walk?  And don't give me that "He shouldn't have to" B.S.  He HAS to let does walk during buck season and doesn't gripe about that.  If he just wants some meat, let him kill a doe.  Maybe have an earn a buck program?

I'm for the restrictions for one reason.  To make guys slow down a little before they rip off a couple rounds at the first deer they see.  I grew up in PA and hunted there for quite a few years.  PA was famous for it's number of deer hunters.  One million plus on opening day.  Schools and businesses close for the first day of gun season.  EVERYBODY hunted deer.  PA was also famous (or infamous) for the "If it's brown, it's down" syndrome.  I can't tell you how many deer I shot in my younger days with a rifle that were running like H&!! during a drive.  I CAN tell ya how many I missed that I shot at and that's three.  Until I started bowhunting, my hunting for deer was a matter of sitting, standing or stillhunting, driving or posting on a drive until something came by to shoot at and then from the time I laid eyes on it till I'd shot it, it was usually about 2 to 5 seconds if it was in range and the background was safe.  Never really had to deal with a spike and deciding if it was 3" or better as every deer I've ever killed had at least forked antlers.

What I'm getting at is, for a gun hunter, especially where there are a lot of deer drives and jump shooting of bucks, having antler restrictions will allow a lot of deer to escape regardless of size simply because that type of hunting is not conductive to taking the time to count points.  i.e.  He who hesitates to shoot at a running deer looses his chance at that deer most of the time.  For that matter, in ANY type of hunting, the longer you wait, the greater the chances the deer will just walk out of your life.  And I know, I know, lots of you will think that I'm an a$$ for taking shots at running deer with a rifle but honestly, I've never found them hard to hit.  I've only ever shot three deer in my life that were not running (rifle hunting only) and like I said, I can only recall three that I missed.  One was due to fogged up glasses and snow on my scope, one I hit a branch on a pine tree and one was just an honest miss.  

Getting off topic but antler restrictions virtually eliminate that type of behavior.

When I first heard of PA starting restrictions, I hoped that they would go by a spread restriction because like Ryan Rothaar said, Lots of 1 1/2 year old deer are 8 pointers and to me, those deer are the ones with the good genetics and should be protected.  I've seen hundreds of deer killed in PA that were 7 or 8 pointers with 8 to 12 inch spreads.  Someone already mentioned the spread limit numbers but I think it's close to 100% of 1 1/2 year old deer are protected by a 13 or 14 inch spread limit.  However, I can understand states feeling like spread estimation in the field would be more difficult for the hunters.  You can count points from almost any angle but you can't see the spread from the side.

People claim they don't want restrictions from the state telling them what size buck they can or can't shoot.  Why is it ok for the state to tell you how many deer you can shoot?  How about whether or not you can shoot ANY buck?  How about earn a buck?  Why can a guy sit on stand and let does walk all day but when a fork horn comes by he insists on shooting it?  Is it THAT ingrained in the hunting population that you HAVE to shoot a buck to be a he-man hunter?  Regardless of how small it is?

Sure, I'd prefer if people would voluntarily limit themselves but most won't.  They're like a kid in a candy store.

And kids are the other topic.  Kids SHOULD be exempt from antler restrictions.

I don't know.... I'm starting to rant so I'll just quit for now.

QuoteOriginally posted by Dave Bulla:
Ok, we can play that game.... If Joe Schmoe is satisfied to shoot any old deer, why not let him shoot a doe and let the fork horn walk?

Maybe a fork horn is the only deer he has a shot at. It's not like there's a doe behind every tree.   :D

QuoteOriginally posted by Jason R. Wesbrock:

[/qb]

It's not like there's a doe behind every tree.    :D  [/QB][/QUOTE]


Over 1,000,000 deer in Missouri its about every other tree.  But if you hunt St.Charles, Lincoln, or Pike Counties it is every tree.

Jason, isn't that just part of hunting?

I'm not certain, but I seem to recall you writing something a while back about an earn a buck program and being in favor of it?  How is passing a small buck different than passing ALL bucks until you shoot a doe?  Again, I'm not certain it was you but I'm pretty sure.

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything but I get tired of hearing person after person complain about not seeing enough bucks or not seeing any "good" bucks in places where shooting the first buck to come along is standard procedure.   People gripe about crop damage to their corn or soybean fields and want to get depredation permits to shoot deer after deer in the summer time and leave them lay then they gripe in the fall when they can't drive the pickup into the back field and whack a buck before breakfast on opening morning.

There is certainly no pleasing everyone but there is something to be said for pleasing the majority or at least those who spend the most time pursuing whatever activity is being regulated.

Dave you're full of conflicting views.

QuoteIf Joe Schmoe is satisfied to shoot any old deer, why not let him shoot a doe and let the fork horn walk?  

You answered your own question - Because he's satisfied to shoot any old deer (most cases any old buck).

QuotePA was also famous (or infamous) for the "If it's brown, it's down" syndrome.  

You're making a value judgement on what is the right way for a person to hunt, while admitting you used to hunt the very same way.  As long as the person is safe and lawful it's no one elses business how they hunt.  Do you also tell him how he should fish?  Which woman he should marry?  What food he can eat?  How often he should exercise?  If you think you have a better way try and persuade him to see things your way, if he does - great, if not go your own way "and to your ownself be true."

 

QuoteWhy is it ok for the state to tell you how many deer you can shoot?  

Because deer numbers are a direct limiter to all hunters.  By over-killing deer someone can deny all hunters their fair chance at hunting the way they want.  That can't be said of not enforcing antler restrictions.  If I follow "brown down" that doesn't deny you any opportunity to hunt only bigger deer.  You are free to do so.  It may be harder then if only you had permission to hunt or if only deer that meet your personal standard are allowed to be killed but it is possible for you to pursue and kill a big/mature deer.  We should guard our freedoms and the freedoms of others, to make the "right" and the "wrong" choice.

For the record I do let smaller deer walk on my property because that's the way I enjoy hunting, and ask my guests to do the same.  But my neighbor can do as he pleases.

I have to pass fork horn buck ( which i would love to shoot with my bow) so a gun hunter can shoot a 2 1/2year old 8 pt.

MS also has a JAKE rule...........i could go on for days about that one.

Just because "you" want to trophy hunt, why should I?

QuoteOriginally posted by Dave Bulla:
Jason, isn't that just part of hunting?

Telling someone they have to pass up what could be their only shot opportunity of the year because I want a larger set of antlers on my wall is definitely not part of my hunting.

 

QuoteI'm not certain, but I seem to recall you writing something a while back about an earn a buck program and being in favor of it?  

I voiced no opinion on EAB in that article: either in favor or against. Ironically enough, that story ended with me shooting a button buck.

QuoteOriginally posted by Dave Bulla:


There is certainly no pleasing everyone but there is something to be said for pleasing the majority or at least those who spend the most time pursuing whatever activity is being regulated. [/QB]

Thats just the point Dave. Who's the majority ?? Is it In state Joe who just wants a deer or two for the table or the guys who come in with out of state money and want to kill a Big Buck?

You will never stop the knuckle heads who jump shoot whatever moves or shoots first then ground checks. Or the ones who can't kill a big buck in season so they shoot whatever out of season.

If it is so easy to kill a doe and everyone starts doing it what happens to the doe population? I think most hunters want that Buck of a life time but I would rather have Deer meat on the table..Than big horns on the wall   :campfire:

QuoteOriginally posted by L82HUNT


Over 1,000,000 deer in Missouri its about every other tree.  But if you hunt St.Charles, Lincoln, or Pike Counties it is every tree. [/QB]

And less than 25% of them were taken in the 08 firearms season combined. so why can we only take BIG BUCKS ? are we looking for two million ?

This is a good debate. Obviously it is a topic that divides But it shouldn't. I would like to know A side from the BS Why they really felt the need to make this change. There are lots of Deer. Setting a limit on the amount you can kill is a good thing. If The herd is healthy let it be..

 :campfire:

Talondale, I realize I'm full of conflicting views.  It's a conflicting subject and I'm kinda trying to play devils advocate both for and against in some ways.  I also said that one of my concerns was the same as Mr Rothaar mentioned, where young bucks with great genetics get killed at an early age.  I've personally seen this in PA.  However, I will also say that I'm not sure if I EVER passed up a legal buck on purpose in my life while gun hunting.  I've passed a very few with my bow in recent years but I'm still "growing" as a hunter.  I'll also be the first to admit that I've got a long way to go.  I don't get that many opportunities most seasons so I still generally go for the first thing that comes along and is legal.  What I don't have a problem with that others seem to hate so much is following the rules even if the rules say there are antler restrictions.  Even though I might only get one or two shot opportunities per year, I have no problem with restrictions because I UNDERSTAND the reasoning behind them.

Allowing bucks to mature past 18 months old establishes a whole 'nuther layer to the structure of a deer herd and allows bucks to develop physically and socially into more dominant animals and then natural selection takes over and those deer with the size, brains, dominance (and luck) etc start to do more of the breeding.  Anyway, I'm not planning on getting into the whole QDM thing as honestly I think a lot of guys carry that too far.  Lets just say that the basic premise makes good sense though from a purely "health of the herd" standpoint.

How about an example that is pretty much an exact duplicate of antler restrictions?  Do you fish?  Better yet, do you trout fish?  I'd just about bet that there is a minimum size limit on trout.  Why?  Because if there wasn't, the QUALITY of trout fishing throughout the state would be drastically reduced.  And by quality, I mean the health of the fish population overall, not just the size of the fish.  Ever fish on a lake where there was a slot limit?  Can't keep a bass under 17 inches or over 20 inches?  Why?  Again, to make the fish population healthier AND to make fishing more enjoyable for everyone.  Protect one size animal/fish so everyone can catch (but maybe not keep) or see (but maybe not shoot) more fish or deer and allow better balance in the population.  How can that not make sense?  To me, the idea of the restriction is not so much to change the total number of fish or deer in an area but to keep a good population that is healthy and of good quality.

It was said above that "deer numbers are a direct limit to all hunters."  Couldn't agree more and buck to doe ratios are a direct limit to the health of the deer herd.  Antler restrictions are a management tool and just a small part of the big picture.  If a state wants deer numbers reduced to a healthier level then the best method is to kill does.  Problem is, most hunters want to kill a buck.  In PA, I know guys who still buy doe tags just to burn them.  (I don't mean burn as in use, I mean like in a fire) Of course that is their right as Americans but I figure that if the state sells a bunch of tags and expects a certain number of deer killed having a bunch of guys burn their tags will only cause the state to revise their numbers due lower success ratios.  They'll just sell more tags next year.  If a state makes it just a little harder for someone to kill a buck by implementing a restriction of some kind then that same guy might go ahead and kill a doe if he really wants some meat.  And ya know what?   After a couple years of restrictions a LOT of those guys start to get their eyes opened when instead of sitting on stand and seeing 20, 30 or 40 does and ZERO or at best 1 or 2 bucks like was the norm in PA when I was a kid he might only see 5 or 6 deer but 2 or 3 are bucks and actually might have a little size to them.  But that is an example of restrictions AND population control.  In an area with populations at healthy levels but skewed sex ratios, antler restrictions are a great tool.  How would you feel about taking an area like that and going from an 80/20 doe buck ratio to a 50/50 ratio with the same number of deer?  Wouldn't it be nice to see the same number of deer but half of them be bucks?  So many people have grown up and hunted in places where deer numbers were simply out of control in both numbers and sex ratios but they think that was normal.  When the herd gets thinned down and balanced up a bit they get discouraged because they don't see double digit numbers of deer every time they go out and start to cry foul.  People have to be educated.  People have to at least attempt to see both sides of any issue.

Jason, thanks for pointing that out.  It's been quite a while since I read it and I wasn't sure.  Now that you mention it, I do recall you shooting the button buck.  Always liked reading your stuff both on line and in magazines.  Out of curiosity, what IS your opinion on EAB?  I myself kinda like the idea but I'm also certain that if any nice buck walked into my shooting lane and I had not yet shot a doe to earn the buck I'd be a bit miffed.  I think I prefer the idea for limited access areas but maybe not for statewide.

In fact, that's pretty much my view on antler restrictions.  It's a good thing if done wisely in places where it can be an effective tool.  Some parts of a state may be better candidates for restrictions than others.  Here in MO, not all of the state has the restriction.  The urban areas around Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbia and Springfield are exempt along with parts of the state with lower deer numbers.  Someone has to decide if, when, how much and for how long a practice is implemented.  That said, it all comes down to how much do you trust your state game management department?  Poor management using any restriction from antlers to harvest numbers, limited access zones, permit numbers, non resident permit numbers, permit prices or season dates are all factors that effect our experience in the woods.  Poor management is poor management regardless of the tactics but wise use of ALL the restrictions above allow a balancing act between numbers and quality that SHOULD keep most people happy come hunting season.  

And Geno, it's not like Missouri WANTS 2,000,000 deer, they don't.  But it goes back to that balancing act.  They control the population by increasing doe permit numbers to keep the deer herd in check and keep the insurance companies off their backs and to keep the farmers happy.  They use antler restrictions to improve the health of the herd and the quality of the bucks to keep the majority of hunters happy.  They also expect a certain amount of increase in the numbers of trophy deer to keep the serious hunters, the out of state guys and the hunting clubs happy.  There are millions of dollars spent in MO every year by hunters both from in state and out of state and that revenue is important to the state economy, the conservation department and indirectly to all of us.  Again, if they keep the numbers in the target area for the total population but shift the sex ratios and trophy numbers to better levels, how is that bad?  The money spent by the hunters on license fees and equipment goes to the acquisition of public lands.  MO in my opinion is truly a haven for hunters who do not own property of their own or have access to private ground.  I'm very happy with their deer management overall and dread the thought of ever having to move to another state.

QuoteOriginally posted by Dave Bulla:

Jason, thanks for pointing that out.  It's been quite a while since I read it and I wasn't sure.  Now that you mention it, I do recall you shooting the button buck.  Always liked reading your stuff both on line and in magazines.  Out of curiosity, what IS your opinion on EAB?  I myself kinda like the idea but I'm also certain that if any nice buck walked into my shooting lane and I had not yet shot a doe to earn the buck I'd be a bit miffed.  I think I prefer the idea for limited access areas but maybe not for statewide.

I know this may sound like a cop-out, but I really don't have an opinion on EAB. I'm not a wildlife biologist, so I trust such matters to those who have the proper education and data to know what they're talking about.

I know this may sound like a cop-out, but I really don't have an opinion on EAB. I'm not a wildlife biologist, so I trust such matters to those who have the proper education and data to know what they're talking about.

Jason are those the same guys telling us how many point a deer has to have? I wonder how much of this decission is made by politicians vs wildlife bioligist ??

Dave Bulla certainly makes some good points (no pun intended).  I still disagree though, that antler restrictions contribute to the health of a deer herd.  Natural selection; ie...bigger, more dominate bucks doing most of the breeding -- okay, I can buy that.  But bigger (racked) deer does not necessarily equate healthier deer.

Backing up a little bit...

QuoteOriginally posted by Don Stokes:
My personal belief is that the game & fish department people are probably doing the best they can, with the benefit of the wildlife being first before filling the coffers, and I intend to support their efforts, rather than trying to second-guess their motivations.

QuoteOriginally posted by geno:
Jason are those the same guys telling us how many point a deer has to have? I wonder how much of this decission is made by politicians vs wildlife bioligist ??

I too think MDC does a great job of wildlife management.  I believe that's because of the excellent people working in that organization, who truly care about Missouri's wildlife and habitat.  I do support the efforts of those folks.

Having worked for the state for about 20 years however, I have also come to believe it is our responsibility to question the motivations of the fine fellows in upper management and politically appointed positions of any government organization.  The people who write the codes and statutes need to hear what we think and why.  I can promise you they are hearing from the special interest folks.

I am with you Dave. Its not about horn porn. It's about removal of an entire age class of animals from the herd. For some reason whitetails get different treatment. I want to see Mother Nature in all her glory. A 10 in. bass or a 10 pounder. A jake turkey is fine but I still want a 10 in. beard and 2 in. spurs. Nobody wants to shoot a bear with a rubbed and shabby coat. How about a rocky mt. elk hunt, 3 years in the planning, and never see a herd bull? Do you want to look at Bo Derek or Rosanne Barr? My wife does not want a cloudy, brown, 1/4 carat diamond. I saw a documentary on elephants where poachers had eleminated virtually all of the mature bulls. The juvenile bulls acted like total A-holes, became beligerant. They disrupted the feeding, breeding and the migratory behavior of elephants for a thousand years in just a short few. With no big guys around to show them the way they didn't know how to act like, like, like, well, like elephants should. When I go thru life I want to see the best of what Mother Nature has to offer. A ruby red 1 lb. tomato. A majestic 100 ft. blue spruce. AND ESPECIALLY A BRUISER 5 YEAR OLD WHITETAIL BUCK! I don't like restricting what a man can shoot. I just hope the DNR is basing their rules on something more than how many tags they can sell.

If you want to see how politicians manage deer herds, look at Mississippi. The professional wildlife managers are 100% against baiting deer, but it will probably be legalized within a few years, because the politicians control things. A few of them want to hunt over corn piles, so "feeding" deer has already been legalized, as long as you're not in direct line of sight of the covered feeder. As if that makes a big difference. It won't be long before they go all the way. The best way to spread disease in deer and turkey populations is to concentrate their feeding in one spot, so that if one gets sick, they all do. Sorry, another subject.

When point restrictions were put in place at the request of the professional wildlife managers, the politicians gutted the potential effectiveness by defining a point as any point that any size ring will hang on. A bump on an antler base fits this description, so a deer doesn't really have to have 4 points after all. And that's not 4 points on a side, it's 4 points total. Big deal.

Wildlife management should be left to the professionals. Why do so many hunters (and politicians) think that they could do a better job, without formal training or experience?

It's been my impression that expensive out-of-state tags are meant to limit outsiders more than to bring in more money. If they wanted to bring in more money, I think they would lower the out-of-state costs so more hunters could afford it, and make it up in volume. Nonresident hunters stay in hotels, eat in restaurants, and buy lots of stuff in general while they're in the host state, so more nonres hunters would be a stimulus to the economy, if you'll forgive my use of the phrase.   :rolleyes:

Don. I just checked our NEW regs....get ready..............now we're just on a Spread Restriction!!..... Delta is 12" spread and Hills a 10" spread....Oh yeah..and regs say adjust a little bit in judging Delta deer because deer are bigger..

Good post Don.

Sorry to hear that Mississippi has allowed the politicians to corrupt the plans of the game biologists.  Like I said, it all comes down to how much do you trust those in charge.  What you say about the definition of a point is a joke.  I can't believe they did that!  I suspect you could kill a spike and find 3 little bumps on the pedicel burr that would hang a ring....  You're right to say they should leave it to the professionals.  Like someone else said, it's kinda like government health care where the government decides what care you get instead of a doctor.

AS for out of state tags being expensive to deter or limit the number of hunters.... that's true up to a point I expect.  It's just another tool.  They try to find the point where they make good $$$$ and still get people to buy tags without being over run by out of staters.  

Kansas and Colorado come to mind.  Kansas has some great deer hunting but non res tags cost more than the average elk hunt.  Still, a niche of hunters will pay it and gladly.  Not me, I can't afford it and I've got friends that would let me hunt there for free.  Then on elk tags, most states have a lottery system but Colorado stil sells some over the counter (Or at least did a few years back when I went) and it's the 1st choice of most hunters on a budget.  The locals though complain about all the out of staters just like back in PA where people complained about all the guys from Jersey and New York.  

It all comes back to the balancing act.  If you're an optimist, you can maybe feel that they are trying to keep everyone happy.  If a pessimist, people think they're trying to screw everyone.  Maybe if you're a realist, one or the other might actually be true.  A well managed state organization where the biologists get final say but have access to input from lobbyists AND hunters is a good thing and antler restrictions are just a tool to be used by them.  In places where the state is corrupting the idea of proper management to their own needs, the state bowhunting organizations need to raise their voices and be heard.  It may not help at first but I think it does in the long run.

In PA the Game Commission can only make suggestions but some other department in the state government has the "final say." The people who serve in that department (or committee) are either elected or appointed!

States use the gun season opening day to "manage the herd" and not any other season. They know that the 1st day gun season harvest will either "make or break" their harvest expectations. Bad weather = low harvest. All decisions revolve around that one day and gun hunters.

States like PA want out of state hunters and they want them to come and pump $$$ into the local economies of all those out of the way little towns. I saw the numbers once (I think in the PA Game News magazine) and the money that out of state hunters bring in relative to the number of licenses sold was amazing! there is no quota on the # of out of state licenses sold but there is a quota on the number of antlerless permits issued.

I guess I would fall on the disagree with antler restrictions side of this argument. The states are managing for "big bucks" in hopes to generate more $$$$$

The point of antler restrictions, no pun intended, is not for "big antlers". The point is, many area's have too many antlerless deer and point restrictions are meant to guide hunters away from shooting any yearling buck and attempts to get more hunters to shoot antlerless deer by making it so killing the easy to kill yearling buck is mostly taken off the table.

As times change and we have less hunters and more and more deer and growing herds, we need to accept that different management policies will be needed.

Hunters often confuse the purpose for deer seasons and wrongly believe that deer seasons are somehow about them. The truth is, we have deer seasons as a way to manage deer herds. Deer hunters ARE the managers. We shouldn't always cast blame at our state DNR's. It's WE who make the management decisions everytime we release an arrow or pull a trigger on a firearm.

Deer hunting regulations do not manage deer, they manage deer hunters. And maximizing hunter utility, in the face of growing herds and declining hunter numbers is a must.

If deer hunters cannot or will not kill enough antlerless deer, then buck rules must be tailored to essentially forcefully guide hunters from killing only bucks if they want meat in the freezer. And left to their own devices, most hunters prefer to kill animals with headgear.

A side bonus of antler restrictions is that more bucks will be allowed to mature and then the herd age structure improves and hunters have the increased chance of really having their heart crank up because the odds are far better with antler restrictions of having a 10 yard staredown with a mature monarch of the forest.

A concern to bowhunters should be, if in 10-15 years the hunter numbers really nose dive as the baby boomers age and herds only continue to grow, state agencies will have little option but to elimate "archery" seasons and they'll have to open long "all weapons" seasons and firearms hunters will be hunting next to bow hunters.

Don't get me wrong, I rifle hunt too and enjoy it. But archer's do not want to have to compete with a firearms hunter with a 7MM Mag sitting across the property line from you, or if public land, possibly a few hundred yards from you.

We should be willing to try different regulation options as a way to still preserve the core of our traditional hunting seasons, otherwise we'll lose more than we can believe.

Take the economy for example. I'm from Michigan, the worst place in the nation. Many have been screaming here for 30 years that major changes were needed here otherwise we'd lose it all. Things like diversifying industry, modernizing, cutting workforces before a crash, etc. But many wanted to change nothing, and look where we are now.

Change is constant and change is needed. I realize that's counter-intuitive for us traditional bowhunters who attempt to freeze time in certain ways.

But nothing about antler restrictions will change "how" we hunt, other than certain animals may be off limits for harvest for a year.

Now, if we constantly resist evolving hunter management changes, then we may really lose something.

Hunters not only have the responsibility of their own actions and ethics, but they also must take responsibility for the bigger picture of overall herd management.

All I can say is I hope It works . Whatever IT is.
And if in three yr I have to start Killing Big Bucks because that is what I am seeing.. so be it !  :bigsmyl:

QuoteOriginally posted by Curtis Haden:
[
Having worked for the state for about 20 years however, I have also come to believe it is our responsibility to question the motivations of the fine fellows in upper management and politically appointed positions of any government organization.  The people who write the codes and statutes need to hear what we think and why.  I can promise you they are hearing from the special interest folks. [/QB]

Curtis, One of the MDC  reps met with us in Jeff city about a yr and a half ago at the UBM event but I think their mind was already made up..

Up here,I think it has increased the # of bucks,including big bucks(140"+ to me). We have had the 4pt rule for several years now.

At first I thought it was useless,but I think it affects firearms hunters more,they have time to look him over before they shoot. I'm betting a lot of legal bucks get passed now because they just aren't as big as first thought. A few extra seconds of evaluation  may keep them from being "brown and down"

I would just as soon shoot does and watch little bucks pass by as shoot the first deer to come past. Look what I'd miss by tagging out early and not being able to hunt all season!LOL

That said,there is a hog of a 3x3 where I hunt,I've seen him for five years now! Let me tell ya,he looks funny with 1 - 12" tine on top!  Also saw what I believe to be his offspring the other day,3x3 with an 18" spread..... Hope the old boy has a sticker somewhere this year!!!

Wow, Joey, I had no idea that the regs were changing in MS again.

Here's the explanation for the change in the regs:

"Research indicates the 4-point law allowed the harvest of better quality yearling bucks, while protecting older-aged spikes and 3-point bucks. The result has been a decrease in antler size within age classes of older bucks. The combination of the 4-point law, high hunting pressure, and lower reproduction results in the over-harvest of bucks and a decrease in antler size. To prevent these problems, yearling bucks must be allowed to reach older age classes."

"These antler criteria will protect almost 100% of the 1 1/2 year old bucks. This protection will prevent over-harvest of bucks and will improve antler size as bucks get older. These protected bucks will improve skewed buck:doe ratios, resulting in higher reproduction."

It then goes on to describe how to evaluate a 10" or 12" spread, and 13" or 15" main beam length. Bucks in zones 1 and 2 must have 10" inside spread (and the accompanying picture seems to show outside spread) or a 13" main beam. In zone 3 (the Miss. delta), it's 12" inside or 15" main beam.

This should be interesting. I've hunted private clubs that have inside spread restrictions, and if you don't see the deer head-on it's almost impossible to judge. Maybe the main beam length alternative will allow side judgments, but I predict that a lot of small bucks will be left in the woods, or retrieved after dark.

No more "any size point, any size ring" BS! At least that's an improvement!

I do hope this works. The logic seems valid, except for the part about lower reproduction results. I think yearling bucks will breed if there are no older bucks to suppress them. The yearling does sure will.

Dave, Mississippi would be the most politically corrupt state in the Union, if it wasn't for Louisiana!!   :)

QuoteOriginally posted by Don Stokes:
It then goes on to describe how to evaluate a 10" or 12" spread, and 13" or 15" main beam length. Bucks in zones 1 and 2 must have 10" inside spread (and the accompanying picture seems to show outside spread) or a 13" main beam. In zone 3 (the Miss. delta), it's 12" inside or 15" main beam.

Zoinks, Scoob!!!  It's official!  MS is using CRAZY regs in order to sker them MO boys into accepting a simple little "4-point-on-a-side" rule.    :smileystooges:

Yessir! Much prefer larger mature animals anyway. Therefore, restriction management makes sense. Culling does also.

"Dave, Mississippi would be the most politically corrupt state in the Union, if it wasn't for Louisiana!!" [Smile]

Don, funny you should say that....it's actually what I was thinking about Louisiana.

Sounds like your state is maybe making some slow progress, realizing past mistakes and taking some corrective action.  Lets hope they keep it up!

This whole topic of regulations and restrictions reminds me of what a friend of mine used to say about union labor contracts (he was a steward).  Basically it was "There is nothing better than a good contract.... But nothing worse than a bad one."  Same goes for deer management plans I suspect eh?

We put restrictions on our club to get the "shoot anything" guys to study each deer before shooting. With a little observation you can judge the age and health of the deer. Body shape and size comparison with other deer nearby will allow you to let the young deer walk and help prevent shooting fawn bucks. There are plenty of does out there for meat and by eliminating more of them the herd gets a better buck/doe ratio which leads to a healthier herd.
  We are restricted 15" 8pt or bigger. Since we went to this policy about 10 years ago we have seen more bucks and larger bucks. In GA where our club is you are allowed 10 does each year(state regs) and I think now you can buy(for $5 each) more doe tags in addition to the 10.

QuoteOriginally posted by geno:
Jason are those the same guys telling us how many point a deer has to have? I wonder how much of this decission is made by politicians vs wildlife bioligist ??

Unfortunately, here in Illinois the biologists get pushed aside by the politicians. Whenever a new change is proposed, it's always a politician we have to contact for comment, not a biologist.

QuoteOriginally posted by Don Stokes:

It's been my impression that expensive out-of-state tags are meant to limit outsiders more than to bring in more money. If they wanted to bring in more money, I think they would lower the out-of-state costs so more hunters could afford it, and make it up in volume.  

I can (and will) only speak from my experience in IL. But here, it's all about the money.

Several years ago the president of one of our state bowhunting organizations was invited to meet with our new DNR director. Nonresident tag limits and prices were on the agenda. The state bowhunting organization in question opposed increasing the price of nonresident tags. The director's opening comments were something along the lines of how IL has one of the best deer herds in the country and it was time people started paying for it.

Look where we are now. Not long ago, nonresident tags in IL were a little over $100. At that time, IL had no nonresident cap and sold less than 10,000 tags per year. Now, a nonresident will have to spend around $500 to hunt antlered deer, and the state has a nonresident cap that they increase so it always exceeds demand. In essence, there is no nonresident cap at all. There are tags left over every season, and every season they sell more tags than the previous year.

Increase the price several fold and sell every tag we can? That decision was from a politician, not a biologist.

When Pennsylvania went to antler regs, that was driven by Dr. Gary Alt and other deer biologists.

I had the chance to talk to Dr. Alt for about 20 minutes at the QDMA National Convention in Grand Rapids where he was a keynote speaker. The guy sure makes a compelling case in casual conversation and gives an extremely compelling presentation speech.

If you've ever seen Dr. Alt's presentation, you'll not only want antler rules for your state, you'll likely demand them!

Here's a very interesting article on the topic in PA...

http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/huntingtactics/NAW_0907_10/

I'm pretty much for anything that allows more bucks to reach maturity.  More bucks reaching maturity means there are more bucks out there period.  Lot's of people will get to see more big bucks.  I don't care who you are...everyone likes hunting deer where there is a chance to take a big one.  Im not sure antler restrictions always work, but it's worth a try.  Most states would have better luck by limiting or eliminating gun seasons during the rut. That is why Iowa is so good for ALL deer hunters.  There is no gun hunting during November.  This means more bucks for everyone.  It sure seems to be working well for them.

Just came back from talking to the farmer who's land we hunt. Something interesting came up. The state of Maryland contacted him (a farmer) and asked him to take a survey about "deer management" and how the state was doing. His words were "terrible....still too many deer causing too much damage."  Begs the question: who is the state managing deer for? I don't think hunters are at the top of that list. If that is the case what is truly driving the antler restrictions? Don't know about you but I can't remember the last time I had someone from the state call me to inquire about my opinion of how they were doing managing deer. What other groups are they questioning? do you think just maybe these other groups have an influence on policy?

"What other groups are they questioning? do you think just maybe these other groups have an influence on policy?"

Well, two I can think of off the top of my head are insurance companies and land owners.  I can tell you for certain that insurance company lobbyists are very powerful with state politicians.  Probably compare evenly with the NRA in strength.  They would like to see the deer all but wiped out and have pretty much come right out and said it.  Insurance company lobbyists are there in the interest of big money companies.  The only thing that comes close to counteracting them on point of view are statewide hunting organizations and economic impact studies reporting on $$$$ spent by hunters and it's impact on the state.  

Landowners rights I would place above those of hunters when it comes to managing natural resources.  I don't have any problem with the state contacting farmers for their input.  What I don't like is when farmers complain about deer numbers but won't give permission to anyone to hunt their land but again, it's their right and I'm certain have valid reasons.  Most states also hold open public forums to discuss important issues or proposed changes to the game laws where hunters can go to voice their opinions.  Sadly, few take the time or trouble to do so.  Heck, few bother to join their state or local hunting organizations where at least they could give input that might get forwarded to the state by the more outgoing members.  I know here in MO, the state organizations have had a lot of input on the issue of crossbows in archery season and I believe it has made a difference.

jcar,

The states aren't managing just for hunters. There's lots of other variables. There's crop damage, auto accidents, disease concerns with livestock, overall natve habitat destruction, etc.

Too many hunters believe that the DNR's are there to create the "best" hunting for the hunter. That is not the reason for DNR's. Deer hunting is the tool to manage animal numbers. Deer hunter management is not being managed for hunters to have targets. Hunting rules are there to either grow, reduce to stabilize deer numbers.  

Antler regs are not about creating "big bucks" for "trophy hunters". They are about trying to guide more hunters into shooting more antlerless deer.

Notice the farmer said "too many deer". That's the case in more and more of the country.

It sems counter-intuitive, but states can best control how hunters will act with antlerless harvests by how they control buck harvests.

Buck harvest and antlerless harvest are not mutually exclusive. Quite the contrary, they are completely connected and often dependant on each other. The more liberal the buck tags, the more hunters will focus on bucks and ignore antlerless deer. The more strict the buck tags, the more antlerless deer hunters will take.

All we hunt with is landowner tags anymore. The state of MO. does a good job sending us a questionare about how the season went, Did you kill?  are there more Deer or less ECT..What exactly they do with the info I do not know.

I have dreamed of killing huge whitetails since I was just a youngster. I think most every hunter shares the same dream, but this is my "opinion" of what has happened to the mindset of bowhunters since I began hunting 33 years ago.  :readit:  
I was self taught and bowhunted on my own from the time I was 10 years old. My dad was a trapper and loved hunting squirrels and pheasants but just wasn't into deer hunting. Luckily we lived in the country where I had access to literally a few square miles of farmland dotted with small woodlots and thick brushy fence rows and lots of CRP land.
All the farmers in the area knew me and at one time or another I did some work for most of them like bailing hay and straw, pulling weeds, picking up rocks, milking cows, etc...and I had unlimited access to hunt.
I absolutely lived to bowhunt and the sight of a forkhorn would turn my legs to jello with excitement. I was reading Fur-Fish-Game as soon as I was old enough to read and then began reading Bowhunter magazine and in my teens I read the Wensel and Rothaar books.
Shooting does was a BIG no-no back then but when I finally decided to take a doe with my bow I found out that it was just as much of a thrill as taking a buck yet I still dreamed of closing the deal on a big bruiser.
Fast forward to today, I still cherish each and every hunt just as I did when I was young but I now know that taking the surplus does is a good thing and I do so willingly.
As the past few decades have turned everyone who hoped to get a big buck into stricktly trophy hunters I have seen hunters attitudes change drasticly and mostly for the worse.
I have been told at DNR meetings that since I do not wish to mandate ALL hunters to pass on certain size bucks that I am stupid and don't know how to hunt. I witnessed a QDM representative go ballistic with 4 letter words at a whitetail users group meeting because everyone did not agree with his ideas.
I watch the QDM program on tv and read articles on QDM and in my opinion it is no more than trophy hunting...period. They show a biologist saying that if a deer reaches a certain age and he does not reach a certain "SCORE" then the deer is to be taken out of the herd so it does not pass on its genetics! They show management hunts where undesireable bucks are killed.
QDM representatives show up at DNR meetings and push for crossbows in archery season and advocate inline muzzleloaders in primative weapons seasons. The feeling I get from observing this is that as long as it gives them an advantage and aids them in killing trophy bucks then they are all for it.
I have met teenagers that tell me how I should hunt because they have grown up with this trophy hunting being pushed at them. I have read articles where a father actually said that his 17 year old son has killed several bucks but not a P&Y buck so he wants to help him by buying him an outfitted hunt where success is guarenteed on a huge buck! I killed my 1st buck with a bow at age 17 with LOTS of hours invested...no instant gratification buck for me!
Where will it all end?  :confused:  
Now for those that know me and think I may be only telling 1 side of the story let me clarify something....I have hunted with outfitters, I have hunted on leases and still do, I hunt states where big bucks are much more common than my home state....BUT this is all a personal choice and having your own personal choice on what makes each of us happy is my idea of what the DNR should allow us.
The wildlife agencies should be concerned about land carrying capacity, habitat, sex ratios...etc.
In our state we would see better age structure and more bucks if we went from our current 2 buck limit to a 1 buck limit and if we were mandated to use a buck tag on a button buck. Hunters already understand that harvesting does is necesary.
I don't want to force other hunters to pass on certain size bucks so we can have a huge buck behind every tree. To me it wouldn't be a special hunt to kill a giant knowing that he only got that big because hunters were forced to pass on him. I want to kill a huge buck that got huge because he was smart enough to survive to get to that age.
Some ask who these groups are that the wildlife commissions seem to cater to and I say, just attend a few meetings and you will see the "trophy bucks special interest groups" that are at every meeting hounding them. When I attended several meetings representing traditional bowhunters I was basically scoffed at since we are such a small minority and we are seen as not being smart enough to be trophy hunters. Attend one of these meetings...it is a real eye opener as to who is ruining our bowhunting today.  :readit:    :(

I'll go ahead and say this...........QDM has been a great highway to job place deer biologists graduates out of SC,GA,MS State and Stephan S Austin over last 15 years.........No doubt it works when followed closely ...........But talking a bowhunter down because he will bowshoot a 6 point and feel on top of the world for having a great bowhunting experience.....well, thats sipping different koolaid than me...........

Where did QDM originate? ....uummmmmhhh

Iowa has no antler restrictions. A hunter can shoot any deer regardless of antler size. Need I say more ????

Excellant Hawkeye!

It's an endless loop here in the south..
I believe QDM has worked against us here in the south. We're letting the bucks walk for horns but growing more food plots( for does) and increasing Deer Carrying Capacity.