Antler Point Restrictions and Traditional Bowhunting

[bear mike]

Meat hunters, I’m trying to wrap my head around traditional bow hunter meat hunters. If you want to actually kill animals for meat I can think of a lot of other more effective ways than by using traditional equipment. I would think by definition a traditional bowhunter would not be opposed to limitations because by equipment alone you are self limiting. I’m getting the feeling like this is about more than APR for archery seasons, and in this case traditional archery.

I am done with my opinions about APRs but I highly disagree with your statement about being at a disadvantage because of my equipment. My bows are very much capable to kill a lot of deer year in and year out. In fact I typically kill 3-5 deer a year with my trad bow. equipment has nothing to do with being a meat hunter I was a meat hunter when hunting with a wheel bow I'm still a meat hunter with my shotgun during our gun season equipment has zero effect on my killing abilties 

[J. Holden]

**Full disclosure**. I didn't read all 10 pages of arguments.

When hunting private lands I have started to limit myself to does and any buck bigger than the first one I shot, back in 2004.  I really enjoy everything.  From preparing for the hunt, the hunt itself, the killing, the processing, the cooking.  All of it.

Public land is a different story.  If it's a legal deer I'm gonna shoot it.  The challenge of the hunt is that more difficult especially since I live in a low deer density area of Illinois, I limit myself to the use of my longbow and my time is limited.

Would I be disappointed if a law stated my buck had to be a certain size?  Yeah, I would.  But I've also only shot 2 deer in the 15 years I've been bowhunting.  So one more card from the deck stacked against me wouldn't be a big deal.  I'd just trust that the state biologists are acting in the best interest of the hunters.  I'm more discouraged with how our past time is attacked and becoming more of an anomaly then anything else.  I don't like the feeling of having to justify why I hunt.  I don't like the feeling that someday it may not be an option for me.

-Jeremy

[Ray Lyon]

I think what some are missing here is Michigan is allowing for hunters to shoot TWO bucks in a year, one of which is unrestricted on size. In the southern part of the state with first year bucks that can be a basket 8 point, that equals a two buck limit.  As long as the does are bred timely (and there is some concern that that may be stressed with the current buck rules and increases in buck harvest before the rut with crossbow legalization) then how many bucks harvested becomes a social matter. Those in favor for APR’s want to see bucks rutting and chasing and a more balanced age structure in the buck population of the herd. They probably wouldn’t even be proposing antler restrictions IF there was a one buck rule.  Our state has had everything from a one buck rule to a four buck rule.  Most guys don’t want to restrict what you want to shoot, they want to restrict what you want to shoot if you want to shoot more than one buck.  I’d recommend a first compromise for Michigan to be the hunters choice, either one buck tag good for any size buck or two tags that both are restricted, both at 4 on one side or better (or 4 and 5 on one side respectively). Hunters get their choice and no more antler restriction areas.  No one telling you what is a trophy, you decide which license you want before season starts. 

[WCHOFF]

In Michigan BY LAW all decisions regarding wildlife and the hunting of wildlife are supposed to be made with science in mind and be biologically sound. I follow APR for myself but have yet to see a single shred of evidence that says it is better for the herd. Is it better for hunters? I believe yes. Though that may not be what is best over all.

[JBuchin3]

I do not get to tell or force people to use what I think is the correct tool for the season, so why should I be told what I can take with my choice of tool?

Your hunt, your choice.  No one else's.

[Ray Lyon]

In Michigan BY LAW all decisions regarding wildlife and the hunting of wildlife are supposed to be made with science in mind and be biologically sound. I follow APR for myself but have yet to see a single shred of evidence that says it is better for the herd. Is it better for hunters? I believe yes. Though that may not be what is best over all.

Bill, first I’d like to say welcome to Tradgang.   Second, the DNR biologists weigh in neutral on APRs. This may change as CWD becomes more of an issue and opinion may be that keeping older deer around increases the chance of spreading the disease.

There was a very good study done by Dr. Ben Peyton and Peter Bull back in the early 2000’s (google will find it for anyone interested) about the perceptions of Michigan hunters on buck harvest rules. The study was done to help game managers make decisions about buck harvest rules because of the SOCIAL aspect of this issue (management of the herd is essentially done through managing does).  The crux of the study was that the MAJORITY of Michigan hunters wanted to see a better age structure in the buck population of the herd, however the disagreement was in how to accomplish that.  Some hunters wanted a one buck rule. Others wanted an ‘earn-a-buck’ rule (although this does introduce science because it affects doe harvest). Antler restrictions was another option given.  The Natural Resource Commission has basically washed its hands of this and there is a process, by which hunters and landowners of a given county unit can be surveyed  to see if a two thirds majority (not just a simple 51%majority) to put in place antler restrictions.  There was discussion of this earlier in the thread where there was one county close to my home that was one of the first to get this passed. The approval rating of these rules in that area went from 64% (NRC allowed the rule to pass because it was within margin of error on survey of +\- 2%) to 78% in most recent years and the rule now encompasses a 12 county block in Northwestern Lower Michigan.  Also what was interesting in the survey was younger hunters retention in the sport was 4% higher in the APR area than out of the area. So my prediction is that you’re going to continue to have this debate in MI until you either have a one buck rule or state wide APRs added one county at a time.

[Ray Lyon]

P.S. - one other comment about the above is that, while not said publicly, changing to a one buck rule in MI without significant increase in cost of the one buck license would have a significant impact on funding for the DNR.  Another reason why I think NRC has left the issue lay and leave it up to grass roots organizations pushing for the antler restrictions.  It doesn’t change funding and they can point to the survey saying majority wants the change, so don’t point any fingers at them.

[Dave Lay]

I have not read every post but will add that here in Ark we’ve had APR’s in place for a lot of years a statewide 3 point rule which was put in place with the objection of a lot of biologists , and a few state owned WMA’s having a much larger one. The introduction of CWD in the northern counties has eliminated these APR’s as it appears the state is trying to decimate the herd in those CWD counties  We do have a 2 buck limit here, I’ve always been against APR’s for the same reasons that have been brought up here. Should we be forced to be trophy hunters or should we be allowed to kill the buck of our choice ? Also the biologists I’ve spoken with agree that APR’s force you to target the deer you want to be doing the breeding and leaving the younger ones to breed. Our archery season includes scoped crossbows and opens in late Sept. then we have 2 weeks of muzzleloader in mid October followed by a 2 day youth gun season early November then the general gun opens for approx a month around the second weekend in Nov. then bow closes Feb 28. So there is a lot of killing done before much breeding takes place.

[Ray Lyon]

Dave, for those biologists against antler restrictions because it targeted the better genetic bucks, why would this matter if they’re not trying to produce bigger bucks??? As long as the does are bred, and a spike can do that, the herd is sustained. Don’t get me wrong, I’m against APRs unless it’s limiting a two tag choice with restrictions versus a one buck unrestricted choice, but in that scenario, the HUNTERS get to choose what form of buck hunting satisfies their desire, but the two choices move the bar overall to a better buck age structure.

[Sam McMichael]

This has really turned into an interesting discussion.

[Chain2]

I said I was tapped out but I want to add my version of what Ray said. He said it better I’m sure. I think we have made killing a deer in this state very easy buck or doe. I think APR’s make it a little harder just to indiscriminately pull the trigger. I don’t know biology. I’m a simple carpenter and I’m only capable of carpenter math. I just feel if we shoot all the spikes and forks sooner or later there will be no 6’s , 8’s or 10’s and where I live and hunt there aren’t many of those anyway. We’ve made it easier all across the board , I think we need to something to balance the scale in the other direction, or soon we will have no deer. My opinion has nothing to do with shooting a Bullwinkle, CWD, PTSD or Whirling disease. Ijust want to have some more regulations, so we don’t slaughter them all off. Thanks Guys

[Bowwild]

If restrictions are aimed to improve antler size, age structure has to be addressed. If a state allows more than one buck per year...TOTAL, all other efforts are pointless.   

[thumper-tx]

The restriction in my part of Texas is 13" inside spread on any branch antlered  buck. This rule has been in effect for better than a decade and hunter approval is in the 80%+ range. Having a much older age structure in the herd resulted in a much shorter rut as the older bucks "got the job done" better. The shorter rut puts most fawns on the ground in a much shorter window. Hence, less loss of fawns thru predation so the restrictions actually do impact herd health.
Hunters can shoot a second buck only if it is a spike.

[Broken Arrows]

It appears that the 13" spread restriction on any branched antlered buck is better than a APR. Around here in some places we see nothing but large 2 points (Mule Deer) that will be nothing more then a 2 point. These 2 points will be doing the breading in that area  with the results of large 2 point that can not be shot.

With the Elk restriction for archer, we can only shoot cows or spick bulls unless drawn for branched antler. I took a drive yesterday and saw 16 Bull Elk and these were all branched, the smallest one I saw was a nice 5 point. There were no cows or spicks. This is an area were I would always see several cows and spicks with a few Large Bulls all togerther. I am not sure this pratictis is good for the herd or the lining of the wildlife department pockets.

[Sam McMichael]

I still don't understand something. It seems that some believe this concept leaves more of the younger bucks to do the breeding and that this is a bad thing. However, if a deer has the proper genetics, does it really matter about the age? My final take is that hunting regs should be geared to the best overall heard balance, meaning different areas of a state might need different rules. Admittedly, I know nothing about the science involved, but it still seems to make sense to me.

[Krex1010]

I still don't understand something. It seems that some believe this concept leaves more of the younger bucks to do the breeding and that this is a bad thing. However, if a deer has the proper genetics, does it really matter about the age? My final take is that hunting regs should be geared to the best overall heard balance, meaning different areas of a state might need different rules. Admittedly, I know nothing about the science involved, but it still seems to make sense to me.

APR’s allow for a greater number of older bucks as well as just a greater number of male deer in general to be present and available for breeding. If spikes and y’s (which in most cases are 1.5 year old deer and heading into their first fall without mom around) are protected, then the following fall they will still be around to breed does. Once a buck hits 2.5 years old almost all are legal bucks in most places with APR’s. A 2.5 year old has a year of experience under his belt and is much better suited to surviving a hunting season compared to a 1.5 year old. My hunting experience with APR’s is exclusively in PA where we have only been allowed one buck per year forever and still had decimated the male deer in the herd before APR’s. It was either APR’s or not guaranteeing a buck tag with every license. APR’s are the better choice in that decision.

[Tooner]

So 2 things:

 “mature bucks are more likely to have CWD” hmmm, doesn’t seem as fatal as they suggest, so I’d say mature is like 3.5 years and up, what’s the Wild life expectancies? Maybe 6-7 tops generally?.

I'm not sure what relevance this has to the risk of CWD and it's transmission.

Adults are more likely to have AIDS than children, but that doesn't make it any less fatal...or transmittable.   

Just because a deer might not actually die of CWD until it is mature (or from something other than CWD), it can be transmitted any time after infection.  So, in the years between infection and death, a deer can infect an untold number of other deer...and still get hit by a car or a bullet or an arrow before dying from CWD.

Pancreatic cancer is always fatal.  That doesn't mean a person who has it can't die of something else before they die of pancreatic cancer.  Fortunately it's not infectious...CWD is.

[Tooner]

I still don't understand something. It seems that some believe this concept leaves more of the younger bucks to do the breeding and that this is a bad thing. However, if a deer has the proper genetics, does it really matter about the age? My final take is that hunting regs should be geared to the best overall heard balance, meaning different areas of a state might need different rules. Admittedly, I know nothing about the science involved, but it still seems to make sense to me.

It really only becomes a problem if a significant number of available does go un-bred.  That is rarely, if ever a problem.  As long as there are enough bucks of any age to breed the majority of the available does, the age of the breeders is irrelevant to anyone but hunters.  The deer don't care, nor do they suffer any ill effects from being bread by younger bucks.

[mooshkat]

Not a fan of APR!  I live in wi. and yes i am a meat hunter, and it wouldnt bother me a bit to shoot a nice doe every year for the rest of my life, and never shoot a buck, but if i am not seeing does and a small buck comes, i will shoot it, thats what i bought a tag for, but dont restrict me to size, that should be up to me. Biggest gripe here is too many seasons!