antler point restrictions

[BuckRub]

I googled pennsylvania and in 2012 there were 935000 hunting license sold.
It also said that there have been 180,000 less deer harvested each year since 2002 until 2012. It says because less and less hunters. Well that art to help numbers and mature animals. Sad for our sport though.

[Keg]

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

Well howdy neighbor.... I know just about where yer at.... I used to live north of Buffalo creek I also hunted for a number of years at Plum Creek area....
U are really not in central TX.... Like me..the edge of East TX....Yes..I live north of FF..I hunt the Trinty river bottoms.... We should meet up sometime....

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Tom Matiska

We have a few hundred thousand meat hunters here in PA that hunt the typical two Saturdays per year that would put the first modest buck they see in the freezer. They must now press on until they get a trophy, or make use of one of the excessive anterless permits the game commission now rationalizes as necessary to control the herd. The runt buck they're passing on don't all grow into trophies.

These meat hunters don't have doe tags? In almost all areas, the buck:doe ratio is AT BEST 1:3, usually more like 1:5. If they're "meat hunters", there's a 75-83% chance they're going to shoot a doe anyway. I hunt some areas where in 5 or so years of hunting I've seen hundreds of deer while on stand or walking in and a grand total of 2 or 3 antlered bucks of ANY size. A "meat hunter" in areas like that certainly couldn't care less about an antler restriction. I'm sure the actual ratio isn't nearly that bad but what difference does it make? What you see is what you can shoot. The sighting ratio is probably 1:75.

Most APRs don't stop them from putting a "modest" buck in their freezer. They stop them from putting BABY bucks in the freezer. I would tend to disagree with the western PA 4 pt per antler restriction as too many bucks will take too long getting there. That should be a temporary measure to build population in an area with too few bucks. Otherwise, no one could argue that a 6 point of a virtually any incarnation isn't "modest".

Plus, even the 4-pt/per restriction doesn't require a deer to be a "trophy". I've seen plenty of 8 points that wouldn't have measured 80 inches if anyone had even bothered to measure.

Even with the 4-pt/per restriction, your argument only has merit for the first 2 or 3 years of the restriction, at most. After those years, there will be just as many (if not more) eligible bucks as there used to be "modest" bucks, except for the very few that will never grow that big. Almost all bucks will eventually grow at least a small 8-pt rack.

I note that NY and PA agree that almost all bucks older than 6 months breed, most bucks of all ages only sire one set of offspring per year and the vast majority of bucks killed are killed AFTER the breeding season. Therefore, whatever deer gets killed has little or no effect on breeding. They've all already ensured that their genes will be around next year.

[buck460XVR]

Originally p[osted by Tom Matiska:

The runt buck they're passing on don't all grow into trophies.

No, but the sight of that runt buck and others like it adds to the quality of the hunt for the majority of deer hunters. This is more of the primary goal of ARs as opposed to just producing true trophy deer. The quality of the hunt. Folks that go hunting year after year, hear shot after shot goin' on around them in heavily hunted public lands, seeing relatively few bucks, having the opportunity to see several bucks in a season. Folks that normally go home with a scrub because that's all they ever see, having the chance to take somethin' with a respectable basket instead. To most, seein' an animal with horn on it makes the hunt more memorable than seein' a multitude of baldies. Even if the buck is not a legal shooter. This is what game laws and restrictions are all about. They target what the majority of law abiding, ethical sportsmen desire within the parameters of what the F&G/DNR have to work with. They never please everyone regardless of what rule they are. There will always be those that break or bend them outta greed and ignorance and there will always be the unsuccessful hunter that uses them as their excuse for failure.

[Keg]

Question.... Who has the best chance of getting more mature bucks.... Those with antler restrictions or those without? ....................... That's what I thought.... And the place with the most mature bucks is where I wanna hunt.....

[Tom Matiska]

These meat hunters don't have doe tags?

Yes, and in record numbers that depending on your view will either destroy hunting or manage the herd better. You didn't always draw a doe tag years ago. Now my mis-management area has tags left over for second and often third draws.

Make no mistake, our recent APR's were driven by marketing, and not traditional management factors. Game commission decided trophy hunting was more important that meat hunting for the future of the sport. The need to control road kill and crop damage is now done with excessive use of doe tags.

Million or so PA hunters reported legally taking 336,200 deer last year. Down from 1.3M harvesting 430K in 1998, but our Game folks see gold in the fact a handful of bucks have bigger racks.

[Wyoredman]

I'm not much of a whitetail hunter, as I've only shot one in my life, but this subject got me doing some quick net searches and I came up with this article from QDMA.

http://www.qdma.com/articles/qdmas-p...r-restrictions

Click on the link in the article for the complete pdf. They have some good info in there for you whitetail guys.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Tom, that's a different problem all together. Still, protecting the young bucks only limits the number available for the first 2 or 3 years, at most.

Ultimately, I revert back to question #2 above.

Regardless of your opinion of APRs, what is the better idea that is workable for the uneducated (on matters of deer biology/aging/etc.) average hunter?

[Sarge]

These meat hunters don't have doe tags?

If they're a meat hunter, they're looking to fill the freezer at the earliest opportunity. Why should they be limited to just does?

For the promise of bigger bucks (and more tag/tourist money) in the future, that's why.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yes, but those meat hunters are 75-85% likely to see a doe first anyway and there are only fewer buck available for the first 2 or 3 years.

Besides, my main point is still...

what is the better idea that is workable for the uneducated (on matters of deer biology/aging/etc.) average hunter?

[Sarge]

Your oft-repeated (and I'm sure sincere) question assumes that APR is better than what existed previously.

Percentages mean nothing to a man looking to put the winter's meat away. Shootable deer, as opportunity presents them, mean everything.

[big al hunter]

Percentages mean nothing to a man looking to put the winter's meat away. Shootable deer, as opportunity presents them, mean everything

just curious Sarge, how many does do you see each season? And how many bucks? legal or not.

[BuckRub]

Where I live in Texas on a normal day in the yard I'm liable to see about60 deer before noon and about 1 out of 5-6 are bucks. If I go to field behind my house I will see about 100 deer at a single time scattered out and same buck to doe ratio. If I'm in yard I usually find about a 2-3 year old doe and drop her.
I agree with Sarge, I could care less about numbers of any kind and sometimes I believe if you put too much faith in them, they'll mislead you on purpose.
I usually put about 7-8 does in the freezer every year. Every year deer do what they do. They multiply. They also have less land every year for them to live in due to clear cutting or individuals wanting pasture land for cattle. Here in Texas anyhow.

[reynolds357]

Brian, I do not see how most of the breeding is done by yearling bucks. From what I see where I hunt, the yearling bucks are running scared once the rut gets cranked up.

[ZeroJunk]

I think one aspect of this is that people just don't like being told what to do even if it is a good idea.

[BuckRub]

I could say something about doing something because its a good idea but I'm gonna sit here and bite my toungue.

[reynolds357]

I dont mind being told what to do if it actually made sense.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by reynolds357

Brian, I do not see how most of the breeding is done by yearling bucks. From what I see where I hunt, the yearling bucks are running scared once the rut gets cranked up.

Where you live, the average buck must live to be over 2 1/2 and, probably, the buck:doe ratio is more favorable.

I guess I shouldn't say "most" but it's certainly very substantial. Think about it. If the average buck doesn't survive past 2 years and there are more doe around than any mature bucks could possibly hope to corral, how will the doe get bred? They'll get bred by yearlings and a whole bunch of them do.

Originally Posted by Sarge

Your oft-repeated (and I'm sure sincere) question assumes that APR is better than what existed previously.

I believe that APRs are better than the current system and I've explained clearly why.

I want to know what other folks, who don't like APRs, think would be better. It is, quite honestly, hard for me to believe that anyone thinks the free-for-all that otherwise happens is better.

I know what happens with the free-for-all. Virtually no big bucks, very few average bucks, lots of button bucks and spikes and a bazillion doe.

The objection to the APRs really makes no sense to me. The number of bucks who won't meet the minimum criteria is extremely tiny. The number of deer available for "meat hunters" is only decreased for the first 2 or 3 years and then ONLY by the tiny amount of bucks that are "in between" antlerless and mature and there's absolutely, positively NO WAY the overall population is diminished.

[ZeroJunk]

Well, if the goal is to have larger bucks you can't shoot all the small ones.

If you have no interest in having larger bucks that is a philosophical difference of opinion in the goal.

[BuckRub]

More doe = better quality meat for freezer. Not everyone is a trophy hunter.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by BuckRub

More doe = better quality meat for freezer. Not everyone is a trophy hunter.

And how do APRs reduce the doe population?

[BuckRub]

I could care less about APRs. I'm shooting does.

[BuckRub]

Just googled "pros and cons of APR". Some good points but my opinion the cons are worse than the pros. Glad where I live we don't have to worry bout it.
Well let me explain. If I was a hunter and my only concern was to bag a bigger buck then it would be great. But from what I read about helping hunting as a whole for all hunters who it affects then NO I don't see where it shows no positive. It hurts our sport.

[Keg]

What are u talkin bout? U do have restrictions.....Plus how do u put up that many do for yourself legally?

[Brian Pfleuger]

I've read the pros and cons, thoroughly. I try not to have an uninformed opinion.

Most of the cons are either temporary or imaginary. The only folks who are bothered, long term, by APRs are the "If it's brown, it's down!" crowd.

That has nothing to do with doe hunting either. That has to do with hunters who can't stand to let any deer walk by without killing it.

APRs increase the deer population. If you want a better chance to kill a deer, APRs give it to you except for that first year or two, when your odds might be reduced by 20% or so.

After that second year, every hunter has a better chance to kill a deer and any hunter who wants to shoot a big buck has a MUCH better chance. There will be MORE deer so the potential of being forced to let one walk matters less because there are more chances for everybody.

I just don't get the objection.
If you're exclusively a doe hunter, APRs don't have any negative effect on you and probably have a positive effect, as other guys will be after the bigger bucks and won't bother your doe. The general population increases, including both genders.
If you're a trophy hunter, they're good for you.
If you're a "I don't mind letting a little guy walk and I'll sometimes shoot a doe." kind of hunter, they're either positive or have no effect on you.
If you're a "If it's brown, it's down!" hunter, they're bad for you.

1 group out of 4 negative. 3 out of 4 positive or no effect.