Well today I received a form from the NJ fish and wildlife.Being that I buy multiple bow permits they are asking me to fill out a form and support a 3 point antler restriction in my southern zones that I hunt bow in.I havnt seen a six point in about 3yrs.Does anyone think that supporting this will help? We have an uncontrolled and out of hand coyote problem that has cut our deer herd by at least 2/3.IMO The coyote seems to be the problem why we have no big racks.Any suggestions would be appreciated.Thanks :coffee:
Start hunting yotes in your area.....it has helped a lot on the farm I lease in Pa.
Best
Bob
Tim, I believe the point restriction is a good thing because it eliminates some of the younger deer being killed. I'm all for the point restriction. I know what you mean about the coyotes. They have really hurt the game animal population in my area of WV. I would also address the coyote problem with the DNR and tell them that unless the coyotes are thinned the point restriction isn't going to make a big difference in the deer herd.
In PA. we have a 4 point antler restriction !!
Shoot the yotes. I think the 3pt system is good too. When you have to pass up the spikes, you can be confident the next guy will too. Next yr it may be an eight.
Do they mean 3pt total, or 3pt on one side? I'd support the 3pt on one side. I'm not against people shooting small deer, but that kind of rule would help get bigger racks.
It's three to a side,And the coyote hunting is a little hard due to the area having a lot of residential properties.I'm not really against it but I do feel that are NJDFG does not have enough wardens in the southern area to enforce it.Been down the road of disappointment with the wardens and lack of interest in poaching and lack of prosecution due to no manpower.
We have a two point on one side restriction here in Vt,and in everyone's opinion it was one of the best things the state ever did to better the deer herd.The difference with letting just the spikehorns go is amazing.You definately want them to do that.
I hope they will up it to 3 on one side. :thumbsup:
I'd love to do my own antler limit and not have the state tell me what to shoot,but I'd rather not let a 4pt or a 6pt go just to have my neighbor shoot it. ;)
That's a very personal decision. If you want to shoot a 3 point by all means do it, but if you want to have bigger bucks shooting the yearlings won't get you there. If I were you I would definitely support it. 3 point isn't much of a restriction if you ask me though. Visit the neighbors and set up a 6 or 8 point restriction. You'll be amazed at what you will have in a few years.
Sounds like you guys need to start whacking some yotes anyway. Lets not forget we don't need the state DNR's telling us what to do either, be proactive. Take a year off deer hunting and stack up all the yotes you can. Set traps if you can. You are the manager of your land, you know what needs to be done don't wait for some bureaucrat to tell you. Wildlife management is so much more than just letting immature deer pass.
QuoteOriginally posted by KentuckyTJ:
That's a very personal decision. If you want to shoot a 3 point by all means do it, but if you want to have bigger bucks shooting the yearlings won't get you there. If I were you I would definitely support it. 3 point isn't much of a restriction if you ask me though. Visit the neighbors and set up a 6 or 8 point restriction. You'll be amazed at what you will have in a few years.
Sounds like you guys need to start whacking some yotes anyway. Lets not forget we don't need the state DNR's telling us what to do either, be proactive. Take a year off deer hunting and stack up all the yotes you can. Set traps if you can. You are the manager of your land, you know what needs to be done don't wait for some bureaucrat to tell you. Wildlife management is so much more than just letting immature deer pass.
Very well said! :clapper:
Being a Canuck I have little idea what the situation is like down South, but I would actually be against a 3 point or more restriction in Alberta. I usually kill small immature Deer by choice since I always figured the bigger Bucks n Does are the best breeders and stand the best chance making it through our Alberta winters. Coyotes and especially Wolves are becoming a problem on the land I usually hunt and the kills I find most often are also younger Deer, so I might as well get to the small ones before they do. I would find the idea of 3 point and under only season interesting. I say this because I have noticed a far higher number of mature animals in the areas I hunt since the wife and I began killing forkies and yearlings. I actually had to work a bit to find a fork horn last year.
I really don't want anybody telling me what I can and can not shoot,as a hunter its my choice not the state or some joker behind a desk!
In my opinion, I say thin out the coyote population as best as you can.Here in Pa. we have the point restriction. It is ok if you want a big rack. Personally, I do not like the taste of antlers.
I would support that if it ever came up in Oklahoma. I truly believe that passing smaller bucks leads to bigger bucks overall in the future. It has definately worked on my place.
Brian
We have a self imposed 4 pt restriction and things are awesome now.The increase in mature bucks has been astounding.
I haven't seen a situation where an antler restriction is not a good thing to do. It always results in more live male deer entering Spring. And I have never seen a situation where it is a good thing to intentionally kill yearling bucks.
If the coyotes kill them AND the hunters kill them then the chances of having a huntable population in the future significantly decreases...compared to the alternative.
"I really don't want anybody telling me what I can and can not shoot,as a hunter its my choice not the state or some joker behind a desk!"
I think "as a hunter" it is a priviledge to be in a state with a huntable population. It is also your priviledge to be able to pursue the said huntable population by use of sound management practices.
Just like in every other business, those management practices should be determined by the professionals that know what they are doing, not by someone behind a desk that was appointed by the state governor or the "hunter".
We have a self-imposed antler restriction for about 10 years or so on the land that I hunt with a couple other hunters. The results with the quality of bucks is huge. Very good management practice.
The land that the wife and I hunt is private but not "managed" as many folks do. I am by no means an expert on Deer management but what we are seeing after four years of shooting "little Deer" is higher numbers of fawns and larger amounts of Deer in general. We got the idea from an article in TBM by David Peterson which explained the various virtues of killing more juvenille animals which would likely fall to the various threats that Deer face daily. The short version of the theory was that with more mature Deer doing the breeding and the mothering that there would be a higher number of succesful births and a lower infant mortality due to the generally higher experience of the Does. And so far it appears to be working as we see far more sets of twins, and triplets are not an uncommon sight. The Bucks are larger in general and in greater numbers. Maybe its just a regional thing?
We also shoot little Bucks because both the wife and I find smaller antlers more appealing. The forkies where we are from seem to grow some awful goofy sets.
I am all for any kind of restrictions someone wants to put on themselves or private land.
I am against any restrictions the State wants to put on everyone however.I just don't think they should be in the antler growing bussiness.Controling deer numbers through tags should be the limit of there authority. jmho
I hunt 2 states every season. NY & PA. PA has a 3pt one side rule where I hunt & NY 1 spike 3" long for a legal buck. I see way more big bucks in PA which I enjoy but I don't see the point of the govt telling me what is good or right. I choose not to shoot small bucks in NY but my first deer was a small 3pt many years ago. My younger brother has never shot a deer so why can't he shoot a small one to start out? We hunt public land and that spike may be the only deer he sees the entire season. Just my two cents.
The bottom line with point restrictions is to try and increase the number of bucks in a deer herd. Too many bucks being killed before maturity is why hunters don`t see many/any mature bucks.
A healthy deer herd consists of good numbers of deer from all age groups.
That being said, I have heard a biologist(s) tell a room full of deer hunters that coyotes DO NOT make a big impact on deer numbers. WE ALL KNOW this is NOT TRUE. Declare war on coyotes.
Not just for the sake of your young bucks.
I've grown accustomed to the 3pt rule here in E. PA.
Having said that, I still see way too many fawns with spots in archery...so the herd reduction must be working only in site-specific situations and not working everywhere to balance the herd.
Second, there is the unfortunate intervening variable to 'antler restrictions growing more big bucks'.
That is GREED! it plain works to grow bigger bucks when you let young ones walk...but... and this is what makes me sick, anytime a nice antlered deer is seen out of velvet before the season, "stuff" seems to happen. Locally in Central PA, they call it "Freezer season" but it's poaching regardless and large horns bring out the worst in folks at times.
Each year since the 3pt rule, I have had as many as 3 BIG Bodied spikes under me at one time, see more than 6-8 each season and MAYBE...maybe ONE antlered legal buck.
I've concluded I just suck as a good hunter since "let em walk" grows big bucks & all I see are the runts.
APR's are not only for producing larger bucks. When used by state agencies they are a tool for encouraging doe harvest especially during gun seasons. The weekend warrior type is more likley to take a doe home then the first yearling that walks by his stand.
Two things are accomplished
1. take a doe to controll the heard
2. a young buck survived for another year
QDM principles tend to be most popular in areas where getting a deer for the freezer is not that hard. Hence, a doe in the freezer sure makes it easier to hold out for a big boy.
Here in N.Y. only selected areas are 3pt. on one side restricted.
How smart is it to let a spike or fork go by, only to have someone else take him one mile away in any direction.
For a few years MS had a 4 pt. total restriction. Game biologists determined that it resulted in the best young bucks being shot, and it lowered the antler size on average. Last year they changed it to antler length and width restrictions, which is something I've never heard of on a state-wide basis. I hope it works!
Not shooting smaller bucks is good management, however it is done, mainly because it encourages the shooting of does for the freezer instead of small bucks. That results in a better population balance, a more defined rut, and better opportunities for larger bucks. Who doesn't want that? Sure smaller bucks are generally better eating than big ones, but does are better than any buck at the table to most folks.
Coyotes are probably not the real problem, although it's easy to point the finger at them. If there is an abundance of coyotes, it just means that there is an abundance of food for them. If deer are their main prey and they thin them out too much, the coyote population goes down. The predator/prey relationship is well established. Also, coyotes are very susceptible to mange, and in overpopulation situations mange and other diseases take their toll. Nature's way of population control.
I am praying for antler restrictions. We need something to happened. Our ratio is absoluetly terrible, the stats I have seen are 1 to 5, but I saw 16 does before I saw a buck, Probably saw 53 does give or take and only one buck, dad was close to the same, probably around 60 does and only 3 bucks, one of which he shot. We currently have a buck only rifle season, so anything that is legal around here is shot. A legal buck is 3 inches of antler.
Towards those of you that say the govt doesnt have the right to manage the deer(or tell you what to shoot), they absoluetly have the right when guys dont have self control and shoot deer with milk on there lips.
Put the antlers aside, that is NOT what I am about, just imagine the deer didnt have antlers, say the bucks had red fur. Wouldnt that change how everyone looks at this rule? In my area they need to control the "freezer" hunters, there is no dought in my mind that a fello couldnt go fill the freezer during muzzleloader as it is either or. It aint that hard to kill a doe instead of a young buck.
Antler restriction are not the only way to see more bucks.It would be pretty simple to give out doe tags and less buck tags if things need balancing.I had rather just see them say no buck tags this year one season.It would do more for the number of bucks than any kind of antler size restriction every will.Antler restrictions only cater to guys hunting horns.They do nothing for many new hunters,younger hunters ect that would love to shoot a small buck.Most of them will be a lot happier than the horn hunter that kills a monster to find out it don't score as much as he wants. :readit:
A man pays for a license to hunt and should not be told how big of deer he needs to shoot.Telling him how many of what sex is one thing but making him pass on what he might consider a very fine deer is wrong.States should not be allowed to do it in the first place.jmho
A lot depends on how the restrictions are applied by law.
Does NOT SEEM to be working in PA I have not seen any increase in bigger deer in the area's I hunt and I watch it closely ONE reaosn for that is the difference in restrictions Junior hunters and elderly hunters do not have the same restrictions and there are different point restrictions in different parts of the state for the rest. I know of numerous deere killed by people and then having gramps or junior tag it cause it does not come up to the point value it should .
The coyote situation is a different subject entirely. They are over running the state and area alike . They are certainly a menace and destroying lots more game than they were a few years ago and when you see them constantly evenin open daylight there are more than you can imagine. Their population needs to be thinned and heavily . I did not get a chance to get a shot this past sunday at my camp in Bradford co in PA watching one chase turkeys right down the paved road in front of my place !!!
QuoteOriginally posted by James Wrenn:
I had rather just see them say no buck tags this year one season.It would do more for the number of bucks than any kind of antler size restriction every will.Antler restrictions only cater to guys hunting horns.
Okay your idea about taking away buck tags would work, except you assuming areas that need antler restrictions have alot of does?? In my case we have no deer. Dad and I only see deer because we know where to look. Other people do not see deer at all, except for the two does that feel safe right by the trailhead on the road :biglaugh: . The only solution to Western Md's problem is either antler restrictions or a closed whitetail season for a couple years! I think folk will vote for the antler restrictions :)
O an Ipjcon hunting yotes is hard, can you say trapping? Get a trapping lisence, a trapper can take out way more yotes than a predator hunter ever will! I have heard that your trapping laws are tough?? And I would assume you cant be any closer than 150 yards from residential properties like MD?
No antler restrictions here. Ct has no sense or desire of trophy deer management.
I want to shoot good bucks as much if not more than the next guy. I have passed on small bucks the last few seasons and am happy about that. Shoot more does YES I WOULD IF I HAD PERMISSION TO HUNT WHERE THEY ARE!!!!!! In the area I hunt in NY there is a decent amount of deer but try to get on the land where they are during legal hunting hours. Don't get me wrong, we in NY have millions of huntable public acres and I hunt it but that state land is NOT where you need the does to be taken. The habitat is horrible and the farm land is posted. I get doe permits every year and fill every one I can but I am lucky. I know guys that hunt all season and see nothing in the woods only to drive by farmland next to it after dark and see 20-30 deer in the posted field. Access to the deer that need to be thinned needs to be taken care of before any AR program can help. Sorry for ranting.
Yeah Chris they do the same thing around here.They base deer numbers on places no one is allowed to hunt.Those places are wrapped up with deer but since they give out dow tags like handing out bubble gum other places are lacking.I shoot what I think needs killing on the proprty I hunt.If I see lots of does they go in the freezer.If deer numbers seem low I fill the freezer with bucks instead to let the herd build up some.Any buck killed will be replaced next season.Every doe killed will mean 3 less deer the next season.Killing does is great if you got lots of does but can get you in trouble if you don't.Like you say every place is not the same.All the cry of kill does instead of small bucks has killed deer populations in some areas.I am not a head hunter and like to see deer when I hunt whether I decide to kill one or not.I have seen what killing too many does just to save a scrub buck can do.It makes hunting a lot less fun if there are no deer to see.jmo
From the ORIGINAL question:
"I havnt seen a six point in about 3yrs.Does anyone think that supporting this will help?"
The answer to that question is YES.
From the original post I assume you would like to see bigger bucks - if that is what you want then antler restrictions will help.
If you want more deer, then LESS TAGS or LESS HARVEST will help. I get a kick out of guys complaining about too few deer then turning right around and shooting multiple deer a year. You can't have it both ways, guys. The rationale that "If I don't kill it, my neighbor will." doesn't hold water. If you kill it you are 100% sure it is dead, the neighbor might have stayed home to watch the football game that day.
The key to a healthy deer herd is a well balanced herd of proper age structure. Period. When 90%+ of the 1 1/2 yr old bucks are killed year in and year out you either have to accept a crappy deer herd or let biologists manage it. It is all about PEOPLE management, not DEER management. That's the reality.
Ryan
Ryan I think you have it.The problem I feel will kill this from working is that on public land( most of the big hunting area around me)guys don't care and have the "if it's brown it's down" thought process.On some private area I hunt(20 acres or less) we have not hunted it for 1-2 yrs and the undesirables find ways to trespass and take what we work hard to manage.Unfortunately not all hunters have a conscience.
This is how our antler restrictions read:
1.at least one unbranched antler, or
2.an inside spread of 13 inches or greater. The inside spread requirement does not apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler.
Also since I'm in a two buck county: only one of the bucks can have inside spread 13" or greater. So if shoot a 13 1/2" buck and later on in the season a 20" walks out, I can't shoot. Unless I'm in a different county in which I shot the 13 1/2" buck.
We have had the 3 point rule in Arkansas for several years now. The majority of deer hunters here agree that it has proven to be effective if your wanting to see bigger bucks. Some of the WMA's even have 4 and 5 pt. rules.
Right on, Ryan.
In MS the problem is too many deer, and not enough does being shot. This year bills in the legislature were narrowly defeated which would have opened the season on Oct. 1 for any legal weapon, and our bow season would have been cut by a couple of weeks. Under the defeated bills crossbows would be allowed, too. Insurance companies are lobbing for seasons like this to reduce deer/car collisions.
We can shoot multiple bucks and multiple does, but people still insist on shooting the small bucks for meat instead of the overpopulated does. Antlers have too much appeal for many people, even small ones. By most standards our season is too long for the good of the bucks, since we can hunt from Oct. 1 until Jan. 31 with some type of weapon. Any antlered buck has a hard time surviving that much hunting pressure. Hopefully the new antler restrictions will increase the pressure on the does and allow more bucks to survive another year.
The reason states are looking to antler restrictions, and most will have them in 10 years in my opinion, has nothing to do with state DNR's wanting more "trophy bucks".
The reason state biologists look to antler regs is that it reduces yearling buck harvest. And since yearling bucks are the easiest to target, they are easy to kill. But by being easy to kill, it greatly effects ANTLERLESS harvests.
States want more antlerless deer killed. The way to get more antlerless deer killed is to put greater limits on the typical yearling buck, which so many hunters kill.
For example, you said you haven't seen a 6pt in years. Well, that's because you don't have antler regs and in many area's, yearling bucks get punished severely.
But having skewed sex ratio's of breeding age deer, that often leads to late ruts and thus late dropped fawns. Then you get small, stunted deer and the cycle goes on and on.
On top of it, CWD is looming everywhere and having high deer populations and possible CWD in coming years is a bad recipe. Deer herds need to be lowered now, especially since the demographics clearly show that as the baby boomers begin dropping out, states will lose 20-30% of their deer hunters in the next 15 years or so.
Minnesota is also looking at antler regs. Notice this comment from their DNR in a recent newspaper article on the coming antler regs...
When someone asked why the DNR didn't simply educate hunters about the importance of letting young bucks live, rather than passing rules and making certain deer off-limits, he said "Voluntary regulations rarely work. We like to talk about them, but they rarely work."
Here's the whole story...
In one of those "Matrix" movies starring Keanu Reeves, the hero, Neo is getting the snot beaten out of him by Agent Smith, a computer program in human form. As Smith is about to deliver what should be a death blow, he says to Neo, "You can't win. It's pointless to keep fighting. Why, why do you persist?"
"Because I choose to," Neo says.
I don't know if Lou Cornicelli is a "Matrix" fan, but he knows something about persistence. On Tuesday, the Minnesota DNR's big-game specialist was in Rochester, where he gave yet another presentation on the possible changes that are in store for deer hunters in Zone 3.
Among the most controversial options he talked about are antler-point restrictions that would protect about 75 percent of 18-month old bucks, an extension of the 3A season to nine days, and making crossbows legal for all bowhunters who are 55 or older.
Cornicelli got through his Powerpoint presentation, then he stood there and answered questions for more than an hour. At least 100 hunters had packed the room at the LaQuinta Inn, and I'd guess that not one of them agreed with every proposal and viewpoint Cornicelli had. Some clearly believed that the DNR is going too far, too fast in its effort to produce mature bucks, while others pressed him to take more aggressive action by delaying the slug season for at least one week, to get it out of the rut when young bucks are most vulnerable.
I've known Cornicelli for more than five years, and I've been in the audience at least a dozen times as he's made presentations, but Tuesday he was as blunt as he's ever been. When pressed about delaying the firearms season, he simply said, "There's very little public support for it, I'm unconvinced that it will have any effect, and we're not going to do it." When someone asked why the DNR didn't simply educate hunters about the importance of letting young bucks live, rather than passing rules and making certain deer off-limits, he said "Voluntary regulations rarely work. We like to talk about them, but they rarely work." When asked about merging the 3A and 3B seasons into one season, he said "We're not going to make a change that would kick 30 percent of the hunters out of the woods."
And so it went. There was no government-style waffling. Cornicelli made it clear that some matters have been decided, and he wasn't interested in rehashing them. He admitted that the longer 3A season was meant to placate those who might object to the antler-point restrictions, but hunter feedback thus far isn't showing strong support for the extra weekend of hunting.
It was refreshing. I left that meeting very confident that the DNR will ban cross-tagging of bucks, and that a four-day youth hunt will take place over the MEA weekend in October. I'm fairly optimistic that the 4-point antler restriction will be approved, and I was stunned at how few people spoke out against this plan. It appears to be an idea whose time has come.
But Cornicelli did drop one bombshell, revealing that earlier this week, Sen. Satveer Chaudary, a DFLer from Fridley, introduced the same bill that created confusion in last year's Zone 3 hunt. It mandates an extension of the 3A season to include that second weekend and employs a combination of earn-a-buck and antler-point restrictions.
I didn't like this bill last year, and I don't like it now. I don't like the idea that a few phone calls to a legislator or two can have a direct impact on hunting in our region. Nor do I like the fact that elected officials, the vast majority of whom have never been in a tree stand as dawn broke, will be voting on rules that will dictate when I hunt or what kind of deer I can shoot.
Cornicelli and the DNR are basing their plan on the feedback they've received from thousands of deer hunters in Zone 3. They have sent out surveys. They held meetings. Each day they wade through e-mail in boxes that are stuffed with opinions from bow hunters, slug hunters and muzzle loader enthusiasts. They've spent years trying to figure out what hunters want and how to create a management plan that will accomplish those goals.
I spoke with Chaudhary, and he's convinced that the rule change he supported last year helped moved the ball forward. I disagree, but there could be a decent outcome. He assured me that if DNR approves a Zone 3 deer hunt that includes a 4-point antler restriction and a nine-day 3A season, he'll pull his bill off the table.
Cornicelli isn't going to make deals — he says he'll base his recommendations on feedback from hunters — but I still hold out hope that when the smoke clears, we'll have the DNR setting the rules, not the Legislature. We should have a final answer before the end of April.
Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't praise the hunters who turned out on Tuesday. As I said, I've been to more than a few such gatherings, and never have I seen such a cooperative group. After watching people embarrass themselves by their rude behavior during those health care town-hall meetings, Tuesday's gathering restored some of my belief in the idea that people can actually disagree in a civil manner.
And just for the record, Neo wins. (Granted, he dies at the end of the "Matrix" trilogy, but he still wins.)
Eric Atherton is the Post-Bulletin's outdoors editor. Contact him at eatherton@postbulletin.com.
Here's the proposal from MN on antler regs. Notice the point that the "old" traditional deer management system (meaning allowing any buck) was meant to GROW deer populations. States don't want to grow herds anymore, they want to reduce them, and greatly in some area's.
The whole proposal is a good read. I only listed a few parts.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/outdoor_activities/hunting/deer/regchanges/2010_zone3_recs.pdf
Recommendation 3 – Antler Point Restriction (APR) in Zone 3
We recommend a 4-point APR regulation be adopted in Zone 3 for a period of 6 years. After 3 years, we would re-evaluate the regulation to determine if it should be continued for a minimum of 3 additional years.
This APR proposal will not fundamentally change the deer management system in Minnesota as the primary goal of the deer program is population management. This recommendation should be viewed as a secondary objective that is related to buck management. As it does represent a shift from traditional deer management strategies, a more detailed explanation is warranted. The deer management system that was enacted in the mid 1970's has served DNR well and continues to be relevant. However, it was designed as a population growth tool that allowed for unlimited buck hunting opportunity during the rut while retrofitting population management by issuing antlerless permits. Changes instituted since 2003 have placed more of an emphasis on population management through liberalized antlerless deer harvest; however, the buck hunting tradition continues as harvest data indicates 45% of hunters do not shoot antlerless deer, despite the availability of half-priced antlerless permits. Add to that is a growing interest from the hunting public for increased opportunity at taking a mature buck. On the negative side, a shift in management strategy has the potential of alienating the individuals who are opposed to protecting bucks and landowners who may not see deer hunters as allies (e.g., not helping landowners alleviate population problems as they are only interested in mature bucks). There is also a belief among some that leasing will increase and larger blocks of land will act as refugia, thereby exacerbating problems to adjacent landowners. Such problems currently exist in the southeast and if APR regulations are to be implemented, a larger communication strategy must be developed.
Quality vs. Trophy Deer Management
An APR regulation should be viewed as a strategy that incorporates a buck component into the overall deer management program. Loosely, it employs the principles and philosophy of Quality Deer Management (QDM). While we do not endorse a management style of any one individual or interest group, the philosophy has been defined by a national group, the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA):
Quality Deer Management (QDM) is a management philosophy/practice that unites landowners, hunters, and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social, and legal constraints. This approach typically involves the protection of young bucks (yearlings and some 2.5 year-olds) combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing habitat conditions and landowner desires. This level of deer management involves the production of quality deer (bucks, does, and fawns), quality habitat, quality hunting experiences, and, most importantly, quality hunters.
A successful QDM program requires an increased knowledge of deer biology and active participation in management. This level of involvement extends the role of the hunter from mere consumer to manager. The progression from education to understanding, and finally, to respect; bestows an ethical obligation upon the hunter to practice sound deer management. Consequently, to an increasing number of landowners and hunters, QDM is a desirable alternative to traditional management, which allows the harvest of any legal buck and few, if any, does.
QDM guidelines are formulated according to property-specific objectives, goals, and limitations. Participating hunters enjoy both the tangible and intangible benefits of this approach. Pleasure can be derived from each hunting experience, regardless if a shot is fired. What is important is the chance to interact with a well-managed deer herd that is in balance with its habitat. A side benefit is the knowledge that mature bucks are present in the herd - something lacking on many areas under traditional deer management. When a quality buck is taken on a QDM area, the pride can be shared by all property hunters because it was they who produced it by allowing it to reach the older age classes which are necessary for large bodies and antlers.
Often confused with QDM is the concept of Trophy Deer Management (TDM). Under TDM, the focus is on harvesting bucks in much older age classes (5.5+). Large tracts of land (as measured in thousands of acres) are required for this management style, access is severely restricted, and deer populations are often maintained at high levels using supplemental feeding. Ideally, populations would be kept low to maximize buck nutrition; however, this is often not the case as suitable hunter densities are not achieved to manage the antlerless component of the harvest. To our knowledge, the only state that employs TDM is Texas, which has a long history of leasing and managing private land tracts that far exceed sizes that are available in Minnesota. It should be made clear that we do not view QDM principles the same as TDM; in fact, we do not support TDM as a management style. Conversely, the principals of QDM, if implemented correctly, should align with the goals of a successful deer management program. The QDMA statements regarding working with hunters and landowners to develop goals and strategies that involve both biology and social dimensions are indeed compelling.
Myths among hunters often die hard. Even in the light of research.
Read this article from Deer and Deer Hunting on the coyote "problem".
http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/article/CoyoteKill/
Are Coyotes Killing Your Deer?
October 16, 2008
by Daniel E. Schmidt
Summary Research shows — with some exceptions — that coyotes are maligned predators when they live among healthy deer herds.
I'll never forget the first time I looked into the eyes of a death dog.
It was a tooth-cracking cold morning in Arkansas when I crawled into a small tower blind overlooking a vast wheat field. The landowner gave me specific orders to shoot as many does as possible to help with his management program.
"By the way," he said as he walked me to my stand. "If you see a coyote, kill it, too. They're wreaking havoc on our deer herd." "Ten-four," I nodded.
The morning was barely an hour old when I caught movement in a distant fence row. Coyote!
The alpha male was a prime specimen, and he seemed oblivious to my presence. He was out of shooting range, so I dug into my fanny pack and retrieved my adjustable deer call. I moved the call's O-ring to "fawn" and let out a soft bleat. The coyote stopped in its tracks, did an about-face, and approached my stand. Within moments, I had the canine in my scope. His eyes said it all: He was mean and on a mission.
The crack of my .30-06 ended that operation and put a prime pelt in the landowner's fur shed.
The Truth of the Matter
Bagging a coyote during a deer hunt is certainly a bonus for opportunistic hunters. After all, coyotes are plentiful and their winter pelts are valuable. However, unless you live in the arid Southwest or the frigid North or Northeast, don't think for a minute that you're saving the deer herd by killing a few coyotes.
Over the years, I've talked with many well-intentioned hunters who have complained about high coyote populations on their deer hunting properties.
Invariably, coyotes get blamed for everything from sparse deer sightings to poor fawn recruitment.
One hunter even told me that he believes coyote predation caused an increase in bucks with inferior antlers on his property. He claimed coyotes were killing mature bucks in winter and leaving younger bucks to do all of the breeding.
Of course, there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to back up such claims. In fact, many of these anecdotes border on sheer nonsense. Researchers have proven that coyotes can capitalize on bumper crops of newborn fawns. Coyotes certainly chase healthy adult deer and manage to kill some on bare ground, but those instances are extremely rare.
What's more, coyote predation on deer is marginal at best in middle-tier states.
D&DH Research Editor John Ozoga spent much of his professional career studying such things as predation on white-tailed deer herds. He can recite scores of research projects that have proven predation on deer is a fraction of what many hunters believe it is.
"Studies have shown that newborn fawn mortality can be 20 percent to 25percent once fawns reach four or five weeks old and become more active," Ozoga said. "But a healthy deer herd can easily handle that."
Ozoga added that such results are on par with what he found with black bear predation on newborn fawns. In those studies, Ozoga noted that bears can kill up to 22 percent of newborn fawns during optimum predation conditions — poor habitat and high deer densities.
When asked to estimate a worst-case scenario for the lower Midwest, Ozoga said coyote predation on adult deer would barely register a couple of percentage points annually. "Yes, it happens, but they (coyotes) are not very successful, especially on bare ground," he said.
One study in Illinois' farm country, for example, showed that total mortality of newborn fawns was just 10 percent, and that included deaths from accidents, abandonment and birth defects.
Other Studies
Coyotes aren't the only furbearers that get a bad rap with whitetail hunters. The evil-predator argument has also been extended to include bobcats, mountain lions, timber wolves and even fishers. However, in all of these cases, predator control has been scientifically proven to be a nonfactor in helping save deer herds.
For example, in 1981, Quebec biologist D. Banville showed that intense predator control efforts failed to substantially reduce wolf and coyote predation on whitetailed deer in the province.
The same has been proven in the Northern forests, where researchers conducted studies in 1962, 1966, 1969, 1971 and 1972.
A general conclusion of all five studies was that coyotes and bobcats killed some weakened adult deer living in deer yards during winters with deep,crusted snow. However, the losses were relatively low and deer herds quickly rebounded. It's important to note that deer densities then were a fraction of what they are now.
Research has also shown that deer predation by domestic dogs can be much worse than that caused by wolves or coyotes.
In Michigan, for example, domestic dogs kill an estimated 5,000 deer annually. Another study was conducted by researchers in Saskatchewan in 1975. That study showed 81 percent of deer killed by dogs and coyotes were already predisposed to various disease conditions, like malnutrition and starvation.
"That's the wild card in a lot of these situations," Ozoga said. "Many times, especially in the Southwest, coyotes kill deer that are already predisposed to malnutrition and disease." In other words, people blame coyotes for killing deer that would probably have died even if there were no predators on the landscape. To be fair, not all deer experts agree with the research.
For example, Leonard Lee Rue III believes coyotes kill more deer than what researchers have shown. He bases his opinions on experiences he's had with raising deer and managing hunting club properties in New Jersey.
Southwest Considerations
Coyotes are North America's most adaptable predator. Translation: They eat what they can, when they can. In the Southwest, where drought plays a major factor in animal populations, the odds are sometimes heavily tipped in the coyote's favor.
Several studies in South Texas showed that coyotes are most opportunistic on deer in summer. One study at the Welder Wildlife Refuge near Sinton, Texas, showed that newborn fawns accounted for 75 percent of the local coyote population's June diet. Additional studies by Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists from 1967 through 1969 found deer hair in 57 percent of coyote scats examined during summer.
Such losses, however, are more often the result of improperly managed deer herds. In fact, Texas biologist Bob Zaiglin believes coyotes can actually help control Southwest deer populations.
He used several scientific studies to prove his point while writing on the topic in the March 1997 issue of D&DH. "The fact is, coyotes can and do kill deer," Zaiglin said.
But that's not always bad, depending on the region in question. One of the most difficult problems deer herds face is mushrooming populations — not just in Texas, but across much of the United States.
"Make no mistake: Legal hunting can control most deer populations," Zaiglin added. "But only when hunters shoot a prescribed number of does."
In the final analysis, Southwest coyotes are a much greater threat to livestock, and that's why they're often considered public enemy No. 1. When they prey heavily on newborn fawns, it's usually a sign that Mother Nature is working to balance population inequities.
Northeast Considerations
Unlike the small, 20- to 25-pound coyotes of the Southwest, the Northeast is home to a much larger subspecies. Weighing up to 55 pounds, the Eastern coyote of the Adirondacks is believed to be a distant coyote-timber wolf crossbreed.
Populations of these coyotes have been shown to prey heavily on deer in certain situations. In a landmark study that spanned 12 years, Maine biologists collected teeth and bones from 760 winter coyote-killed deer.
The researchers then documented the sex and age of each deer, as well as individual health (based on bone marrow fat content). On startling conclusion was Eastern coyotes do not target just young and sick deer when favorable conditions exist. In fact, researchers learned these coyotes prey nonselectively upon mature bucks and does that are otherwise healthy.
Weather conditions, however, were the key factor in this study. To prey nonselectively, the coyotes needed extreme snow depths and extended periods of cold weather. Under such conditions, coyotes could theoretically remove enough adult does from a herd to markedly affect local populations.
Bob Noonan is a Northeast coyote trapping expert and a field editor for The Trapper & Predator Caller magazine. Despite being a predator control advocate, Noonan admits that single-species management is not the end-all answer to maintaining deer numbers.
"There's little doubt that coyote control, aimed at removing the coyotes that are killing deer in their winter yards, greatly helps the Northeast deer herd," Noonan reported. "And due to the rough terrain, remote location of some of the yards, and harsh weather conditions, the only really dependable coyote control tool is the snare."
He goes on to explain that even snaring is only effective when done on a large scale and continued on an annual basis.
Noonan said a good example of how coyote control can benefit deer is what happened on the Gaspe Peninsula in Quebec, just north of the Maine border. In 1986, had a healthy herd of about 15,000 whitetails, and a low coyote population.
However, after several consecutive harsh winters — and extensive clear-cutting that eliminated traditional yarding areas — coyotes got the upper hand and wreaked havoc on the deer population.
By 1991, researchers estimated that only 500 deer remained on the peninsula. To save the herd, the province banned deer hunting, implemented strict logging regulations and implemented an aggressive coyote snaring program.
According to Noonan, 80 trappers were trained to snare coyotes, and they were instructed to focus their efforts on 80 percent of the remaining deer yards.
The plan worked. In just three years, the trappers caught 1,500 coyotes. Deer numbers rebounded, and by 1999, the peninsula had a population of more than 2,000 whitetails.
However, the coyote problem didn't end there. When the snaring program was stopped for two years, the coyote population rebounded, and the deer population again decreased.
As a result, the peninsula instituted a subsidized trapping program that is still used today.
"That's an extreme example," Noonan wrote. "In Maine, for example, the Eastern coyote is often labeled as the single greatest threat to local deer herds. In reality, the coyote's presence is just one of many factors that limits deer productivity. For example, biologists have proven that changes in deer yard quality and overall logging practices have as much, if not more, impact on deer survival."
What's the Solution?
The answer to improving deer numbers on any property is to provide them with quality habitat. A fact lost in this whole discussion is coyotes prefer to eat small mammals and birds, and huge surpluses of those menu items can be created by improving your deer habitat.
Plant trees, shrubs and other native plant species, create water sources and, whenever possible, create jungle-like bedding areas through wise logging practices. Learn what types of species you can plant in your area, and determine how, when and where to conduct the project.
Some species of preferred deer browse are invasive, meaning they can quickly take over a landscape and choke out other desirable plants, trees and shrubs. On the other hand, planting too few of a species can be a colossal waste of time, because deer will immediately browse them to the point of killing the plants and their root systems.
Conclusion
If coyote predation on deer is a natural fact, should hunters never kill coyotes? No. As previously mentioned, taking a coyote with a bow or gun can provide for an exciting hunt. However, if your main purpose of shooting a coyote is simply just to "take it off the landscape," and you have no intention of utilizing the animal, let it walk. Wanton waste of game is not only illegal, it's immoral.
— Daniel Schmidt is the editor of D&DH.
Coyotes eat quail, turkey's, rabbits and whatever else also. When they get thick they also harass deer herds, sometimes to the point the deer move from places previously inhabited. As the article states and I agree improved habitat is the key.
One can understand the feelings of some of "if it feels good, do it", because it's a "legal buck".
But what needs to be understood is, it's state game deer biologists who are asking us, the priviledged hunters, to change the legal definition of a "legal buck" to help better manage the herds.
Don't forget, it's really hunters who are the field deer managers. We're who actually kills the deer and our actions whether we shoot or pass have long term implications once you multiply each action by 100,000's of individual acts during the season.
One must also keep in mind that, in pretty much every state but maybe 1 or 2, a hunting license is a priviledge, not a right.
Modern deer seasons in the early 20th century weren't for recreational opportunity. Deer seasons were created to manage deer.
It's the same with a drivers license, which is also a priviledge.
Laws change with the times. And if you don't comply, you can lose your priviledge.
Years ago, drunk driving enforcement was lax and the term "one for the road" meant taking a drink with you after you've already been drinking and sticking between your legs (since cup holders weren't around yet).
But that's all changed. So has legal alcohol limits. Most states were .1 and now most are .08.
As times change with deer management and people and biologists learn more, rules change.
In the 1970's and 1980's, the feeling was that more deer are better for all. But now that deer have heavily moved into suburbs, northern forests have had long tern habitat damage, diseases like TB and CWD popped up, crop damage went up and deer/auto colliions soared, the unintended consequences of managing for lots of deer everywhere, so there was so many deer even poor deer habitat had deer, proved to be a mistake.
Now it's time to make changes to adapt to the current reality and future realities.
In states that offer 2 buck tags or more, the options are going to one buck a year or antler regs for multiple buck tags. It seems like more hunters in the multiple buck tag states prefer antler regs over one buck per year. And state game agencies budgeted to sell multiple buck tags will still need to do so or double or triple the license fee if they went to one buck per year. And that's even more unpopular than antler regs.
I never was a fan of antler restriction. The lease I'm in over in Georgia is a 4 point on one side which by the way is state law in that county now and it seems like it's helping because we're seeing more bucks and some bigger bucks are being killed. So I'm slowly changing my mind......stabow
I was in an area with a 3 point restriction. Could of had my 1st bow kill one night but I thought the deer was a fork. Turned out to be a 5 point. a 3 point antler restriction isnt all bad. It will take a year or 3 to see the results.
The problem being if you are only a meat hunter, you may be affected when there are only buck tags available.
QuoteOriginally posted by James on laptop:
I am all for any kind of restrictions someone wants to put on themselves or private land.
I am against any restrictions the State wants to put on everyone however.I just don't think they should be in the antler growing bussiness.Controling deer numbers through tags should be the limit of there authority. jmho
:clapper:
QuoteOriginally posted by Doc Nock:
Each year since the 3pt rule, I have had as many as 3 BIG Bodied spikes under me at one time, see more than 6-8 each season and MAYBE...maybe ONE antlered legal buck.
I've concluded I just suck as a good hunter since "let em walk" grows big bucks & all I see are the runts.
It's funny you wrote this Doc Nock.Before the two point rule here in VT I rarely saw a spike horn during rifle season...much less anything bigger.Now I see spikehorns and nothing bigger.
I guess I suck as a hunter too.
QuoteOriginally posted by Mojostick:
Myths among hunters often die hard. Even in the light of research.
Read this article from Deer and Deer Hunting on the coyote "problem".
EVERYTHING in nature is connected, I definatly do not think that yotes are killing a abundance of deer, but I can say from experience that they sure do put a heck of a hurtin on the darn rabbits! So do foxes. I have a pair of foxes I think, that are living on my rabbit hunting grounds. The reason I say I think is because I have not actually seen any foxes but I have seen ALOT of sign, and the one set of tracks look very different. I tried for the better half of the trapping season to catch them, not only because I trap and wanted to catch a fox, but because they totally destroyed my rabbit pop. I didnt see many rabbits at all, last year it wouldnt be nothing to see at least a rabbit a day, but this year I saw mabye a rabbit a month! I know there populations are on 4 year cycles but not like that!
Anyway, biodiversity is key in a good ecosystem, if there are alot of coyotes there will be less little critters. Less little critters means less big critters, or more? I dont really know, I was hunting that day of Environmental resource managment class :biglaugh:
Here in Western PA we have a 4 on one side law.
Can be a half rack with 4 on one side and that is legal, but a symetric 6 point is not legal.
Been like that for 4 years, and this has made a huge difference. Every year the bucks and QTY of bucks are getting larger and larger.
Sometimes it takes a lot to pass on a buck, but the results are real and well worth it. Being proactive in managing the deer herd where you hunt will pay dividends in a quality deer herd, including quality bucks. I had a hard time convincing the friends I hunt with, but they are now true believers and outspoken in their support of antler restrictions.
For Lease: Prime hunting ground in the beautiful state of Nebraska.
Located in the central portion, 50 miles NW of
I-80. 40 miles from the nearest landing strip.
A bit primative but shower and toilet facilities within 25 miles.
30x60 metal building and 1 camper hookup available. Can add more hookups with additional deposits.
Spring fed creek winding thru the property with alfalfa, corn and soybeans on surrounding sections of ground.
Tim, you and 1 other hunter are cordially invited.
Send PM for additional information and pics.
I really hope that NYS will continue on without it as a statewide mandatory program. There is no way an arbitrary point restriction can be the best, or even not harmful in some cases, to such a large varied habitat with huge differences in hunting pressures. Read any true QDM program and they will state that programs need to be tailored to the specific conditions. Points based AR is often simply a feel good measure with little biological reason for the area effected.