#1- Is it ecologically sound?
#2- Is it biologically sound?
#3-Is it financially feasible?
#4- How will it impact the MAJORITY of hunters.
No matter what decision you make, it must…or should, go through those criteria. We want to reduce the buck bag limit from three to two. Okay-Ecological impact: (a) positive; (b) negative; (c) no impact.
Anything you want to do, must go through those criteria. And nowhere should antlers be discussed. No state should be involved in antler management. That is not their job. THAT IS YOUR JOB…if you want it to be.
So, let’s take antler restrictions: First, how will it impact the ecology? Probably, none at all. So it passes that. Second, what is the biological impact? First of all, we don’t know. Secondly, it can be a negative impact-long term. We are not sure. It may be a short-term, positive impact. Third, is it feasible-probably. Fourth-do the MAJORITY of hunters want it? Probably not. How do we examine antler restrictions honestly? First, understand, there are many variations. Some are horrible. Some appear to be beneficial. Some, ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WILL WORK. But first and foremost…what is the purpose? If you say to let bucks get older, for a true biologist-that is the end of the discussion. Why? Simply because there are several way to advance the age class of bucks and balance sex ratios that are way more effective. Those have nothing to do with antlers. BUT-if a state biologist suggests or explains that, he may get fired. If he wants to retain his position, he better toe “party lines”. That is why often, state biologists and private biologist do not agree. One can tell the truth, the other has to toe the line. This should be plenty for discussion.
Fish are also much more reliably aged based on length--growth rates for certain bodies of water can be determined based on forage and nutrients available. Deer antlers are the worst way to determine age of deer, so it's not a reliable measure if you are looking to kill only older deer.
Ditto!
Great comparison using trophy bass management IMO.
Lee
In some ways I like the concept as a population growth tool - given my neck of the woods is in the 6-10dpsm area over a lot of it. That's one of the biggest factors impacting young deer being shot - a hunter may literally only see 1 deer in range all year... So they are not to picky. To grow the population, a little (I know doe's are key to population) I can see it working. But I've always wondered how it's enforced and how well the average joe hunter can estimate spread.
First, it should protect all the bucks between 1.5 and 2.5-years of age. And it does. It protects MOST of them. In areas where there is plenty of nutrition, it is not uncommon to see a 1.5-year old buck with his first full set of antlers, carrying eight-points. PROVIDING-he is a superior buck in one genetic trait-antlers. He is, in that trait the best. So we kill him. How does that impact future generations? We don’t know.
But let us brutally honest. Are we managing for more bucks, a better age class spread or antlers? Since we are using only one genetic marker or trait for selection-we must be managing for larger antlers and by law, we are killing the best of that selection. Argue as you might about it being to advance an age class or improve sex ratio…that is not the way to do it and that is not the goal. The goal is more bucks with big racks. To say otherwise is a flat lie.
If you want more bucks-decrease the number of buck tags. If you want older bucks-same remedy. If you want a better ratio balance-increase the doe kill and decrease the buck kill. Those are effective measures that work. But they also create a lynch mob. But when you impose an AR, you create something that may be many years before it becomes obvious and then, it may be so subtle, only a biologist notices. But…it is counter-productive.
This push to grow bucks with larger antlers, has spawned a management program that long-term, does just the opposite. For many years, hunters are happy. They are seeing more, older bucks. It has not yet become apparent, these bucks have smaller antlers-slightly smaller. For many hunters, they have nothing to compare them with. Maybe this is the first eight-point they ever killed. They do not care that he is just 1.5-years old. Last year, in my yard, I had two bucks that were under 18-months old that were seven and eight points. They would have been perfectly legal.
Now, how about improving age classes. We protect them at age 1.5 and instead kill them at 2.5. Defend that type of management on a biological basis. AR’s should never be enacted on a statewide basis. It is a mistake and all honest biologists will agree. Emphasis on honest. It is almost impossible to enforce, it promotes poaching and waste and it does not work over a period of many years. That said. On private ground, where it can be tightly monitored, it can be useful. IF YOU ARE MANAGING FOR ANTLERS. And if you are honest…that is exactly what you want to manage for. The rest of the dialog is just feel good fodder.
And I always get tickled when PA is used as an example.
Okay-Trial 153, as I read it, you want a better age class spread in the bucks. Fine. Now, what about the does? Do you want a better age class spread in them, too? If not, why not? Why so much concern with the male animals? Could it be about antlers? If so, say so, Say you don't care about age, you care about antlers. If you care about a better sex ratio, that is simple to cure. You simply close all buck hunting for one year. Not only will that increase the balance, it will advance all bucks by one year. If the population is too large, you kill more does. If it needs to grow, you kill less does. If you need more bucks and less does, you protect the male animals and kill more does. When you take antlers out of the equation, you have sound management that is easy to understand. It will also usually cause a riot among hunters. Sound biological management is not what hunters want. Most want antler management. And that is just exactly what this entire thread has proven.
Do you have a source of reference for this statement?
In regards to the bass fishing analogy....you can catch a whole bunch of fish a day, not even including the ones you must legally or desire to throw back. Some of us don't have access to prime private ground to hunt, nor the luxury of passing buck after buck while waiting for the trophy to wander by. When we moved to our former home and I had ready access to state land in west Michigan, I went entire seasons without seeing a buck.....let alone one that would meet APR's that are set by folks who have it much better. It is so much easier to view to top of other people's heads while sitting on a high horse.
"Why is it that in areas that have ars hunter satisfaction is higher? Herd structure is better? Ars work it's just that simple.".....it certainly depends upon who you are asking the questions. If the large antlered bucks are what you want, why not let them die of old age and have maximum opportunity to pass along their genetics? Pass them in early season like the "catch and release" noted above in the bass fishing analogy, so they have maximum opportunity to breed. But no.....once they hit this magical age or antler size, it is kill them NOW so someone else doesn't bag them.....especially so rotten public land hunter who didn't have dozens of trail cam photos.....who hasn't invested a bunch of money in food plots and minerals and such. So that is so much more rewarding than a guy going out on public land and competing with many others to hunt a limited resource, but doesn't meet YOUR personal standards......hmmmm
"All bucks begin as button bucks but not all button bucks become spikes. A buck fawn may be a spike his first year depending on when he was fawned-quite common. In a good nutritional year, it is also not at all uncommon for the genetically superior male deer to have six or even eight points with their first set of hard antlers. So we have a 1.5-yr. old buck that is legal to shoot. If we shoot him, we are removing the superior genetics from the population. This is called high-grading. Obviously, it would take a few years to determine the impact."
This is just one of the problems. And, you would assume, from reading some of the posts, that I am opposed to AR's. And that is true ON PUBLIC LAND. I actually support one AR but only on PRIVATE LAND. A restriction of 8-points AND 14-inches inside spread, does accomplish the goal and is biologically sound. I could write an entire paper on why this is so but what it does is insure over 90% of your bucks will reach 3.5-years of age. After that, they need no protection. But except on well controlled, PRIVATE land, it is not-enforceable. It promotes wasting and poaching. Therefore, on public ground,it is useless. The pass them up this year and kill them next year," AR is, in fact, a placebo. My position is, as it has always been, "do whatever you want on your land as long as it is legal. But on public land, do what is best for the wildlife, not the hunter."
(I think I would like Alaska at Heart.)
If you want to accomplish large letter A- It is simple. You stop buck hunting for one year. That advances all male animals by one age class and increases the total number of male animals. It is that easy. But it is not that simple. I am going to try and explain a complicated subject, briefly. Step one is to determine the total deer population. Step two is to determine the number of does and bucks. Then, that number must be split into mature and immature, animals. This is more important with does since that determines your fawn crop. Then, you must determine fawn recruitment. Then, divide number that by approx.. 50-50. That tells you how many animals, male and female are added to the herd each year. Your goal is to simply advance two of the three age classes, by one age class. You want your bucks between 2.5 and 3.5 yrs to become 3.5 and older-mature bucks. You want your 1.5 and under to advance one year. At the same time, you must control your female population. Stop buck hunting-shoot does in proper numbers.
In any state, dead accuracy is impossible because the bulk of the information fed in, comes from kill figures and that is not 100% accurate-it is an approximation. In states where, “tele-check” is used, it is a joke.
But, unless you want a riot, no state can stop buck hunting. So, they offer a placebo to pacify the hunter who wants larger antlers. And here you have the classic problem. Managing wildlife from a hunter’s perspective. It cannot be done. Notice, that in logical management, antlers are never mentioned. The reason being, they are of no biological significance. Biologically, they mean nothing. That is why all but an enforceable, strict AR is not biologically sound. It deals primarily, with only one age class and it is based on antler growth only. And, to complicate things, the hunter wants management based on what he sees. He see 12-does and one buck and immediately his assumption is false.
And that is just part of it.
Rut Nut's Link
