Antler Point Restrictions and Traditional Bowhunting

[Roger Norris]

There is a debate raging in Michigan over Antler Point Restrictions (APR's). My unscientific observation is that most advocates of LEGISLATED APR's (not self imposed) are high tech compound and crossbow hunters.

I am NOT looking for a debate here, just wondering if any of you, as dedicated traditional bowhunters, are advocates of APR's....as in 3 points to a side, 4 to a side, etc.

My personal opinion:  I probably won't shoot a spike or a forkhorn, but don't tell me I can't.

[Bow man]

I will be interested to see what comments you get on this here.

[TIM B]

I am not a advocate of point restrictions. 
I'm a meat hunter at heart.
Tim B

[Possum Head]

For my earlier years of bow hunting rule was any antler above natural hairline. Now it’s 10” spread or at least 1 beam at 13”. Do I agree with the legislation, certainly not. I live in coastal Ms. and P&Y measurable bucks don’t grow in this part of the state as a rule. In the Delta portion of our state where large racks are common , antler restrictions change proportionally. The buck/doe sighting ratio here for me is less than 1 buck in 10. I don’t deer hunt for antlers. And those that do can do just that. This said my biggest gripe is the last two years our doe killing has been limited to two per year with shortened seasons and does are all we see with just as many as in years past.

[okcaveman]

I come at this from a biology background, and I wholly disagree with apr's.

I do agree with managing a herd for more mature animals, but there will always be those animals that don't have the genetics to meet those requirements. Given enough time, I feel they will become the best fit to survive. On the same token, I have seen young bucks with great genetics that were killed because they met those requirements.

I think it is far better to have a state educational program trying to educate people on the benefits of a mature deer herd, and in most instances, killing a doe for meat instead of a immature buck.

Educating people so that they willingly make management decisions that are better for the overall population is the best way to go imho.

With all that said, with gun/compound/traditional muzzleloader I aim for mature bucks and does for the freezer. With my trad equipment, I am still at the stage of taking the opportunity that is given. It's my choice, as I think it should be

[Ray Lyon]

Roger, you know my stance on this because of our conversations however beyond the APR restrictions we have the following issues that compound the current buck regulations.  MI has a two buck limit, many states have one. Michigan has a 15 day rifle season and it occurs at the tail end of the rut.  Michigan has a muzzle loader season that allows.in-line muzzle loaders that lasts for 10 days right after firearms season, essentially putting bucks under the scope (pun intended) for25 days. Throw in a youth hunt that allows rifles in late September when deer are still in summer patterns and crossbow point and shoot technology that runs from October 1 to November 14 and you have extreme pressure on the buck population in MI.  On top of that, our hunter numbers are amongst the highest in the country.  Our deer habitat/climate is very different from top to bottom of the state with extreme winter/low deer density in North to high density/agricultural in southern portions of state.  I think we’d do well to have a uniform regulation instead of a piecemeal area by area voted in restrictions.  Traditional bow hunting has essentially lost it’s aura in MI with the advancement of all the specialty seasons and hunts. There was a proposal by the leading conservation lobbying organization -MUCC- on their annual convention voting floor to extend the traditional bow hunting season.  This got voted down.  It’s not gloom and doom for the traditional bow hunters in MI, but this unfolding of restrictions is something to be watched for it’s affect on the general archery season.

[Trenton G.]

I live in the APR area in Michigan and when they first enforced it, I was a bit skeptical. However, after a few years I have to say that it is the BEST thing thing that has happened to deer hunting around here. I'm not a trophy hunter, but I've always passed up the smaller bucks to let them get a bit older. Not only are people around here getting nicer deer, but there, but many are seeing more bucks because the smaller ones don't get blasted the first time they are seen. Its fun to go in the woods and actually have a somewhat decent chance of  seeing a good buck.  Last year I shot a buck (with a rifle) that was 4 1/2 years old. That would have been almost unheard of before APR's up here.
Yes it can be frustrating to have to pass some of the smaller bucks, but I really think that it is a good thing and would love to see it state wide. I think Michigan has the potential to be a really good deer state, and the APR's are a step in the right direction.
The only downside that I've seen to them so far is that lots of guys are shooting does now since they don't want to wait for a legal buck, so our doe numbers are going down a bit. I think that the DNR is giving out way to many doe tags in the area, but I don't think that's going to change any time soon.

[mec lineman]

i live in VA, but here is my take. If they want to impose antler restrictions do it in certain zones or or designated hunting areas. I think 1 buck tag is way more beneficial than 2 buck tags with antler restrictions. In southern Virginia our gun season last from the 3rd Saturday in November to 1st Saturday in January and thats with dogs being used. Muzzleloader is 1st and 2nd week of November landing them in our prime time. I have seen huge hunt clubs with thousands of continuous acres leased have antler restrictions and it work only because of the land lock. antler on public land is fruitless more than likely.  The biggest problem will be more and more does will be shot and over time your herd will start to dwindle

[Sam McMichael]

I think it is easier, from a compliance perspective, to simply limit the number of bucks allowed. Even at fairly close ranges, I have had trouble knowing for sure the antler size, whether estimating antler spread or actual number of points (is it a six or a small eight?).

[kennym]

When MO put a 4 point on one side rule in place, I was not all for it. I already didn't shoot smaller bucks(if you want meat, does are better anyway) .


What I've seen it do is increase the number of older bucks, but my first thought was we would have huge 6 points doing the breeding. It didn't turn out that way , we had better bucks and more bucks.


Now with the CWD zone we are in they have reversed and want you to shoot small bucks because they get run off and disperse to new territory . So possibly spreading the disease.


But, folks have seen what letting them grow will do for the size of bucks and most don't shoot smaller bucks regardless of the rule.


I still let smaller ones walk just like I did before the 4 pt rule , and don't get out enough to see who liked it and who didn't.

[Bisch]

I live in Texas where they started antler restrictions in many countys several years ago. Just this year, they started AR for mule deer in part of west Tx. With the whitetail AR’s, you can shoot one buck with an inside spread greater than 13”, and your second buck has to have at least one unbranched antler (spike). While it really doesn’t bother me one way or the other, I can tell you that in areas where AR’s are in force, the average size of bucks has increased.

Bisch

[Cory Mattson]

I do not know a traditional bowhunter personally who does not support the idea of APRs - and the goal for all of them is not trophy hunting but improving herd balance. We invest in our deer all year - every year - and we would prefer something in place to minimize or eliminate the destruction of one and a half year old deer. Just because some guys mood changes we are not on board with him shooting imatuure bucks "for meat". ARPs have improved the deer herd everywhere it has been tried far as we can see.

One buck - Two buck: APRs first - then one or two depends more on hunter number density. You guys in crowded states one buck is better for sure. One buck tag benefits non residents more than anyone.

<><
<-------------------<<<<<

[toddster]

There are some places in Illinois where I hunt to where they make it Quality Deer Management and have to have 4 on one side, others state must shoot a doe first.  My personal opinion, I don't see where we need a "law" to enforce ethics.  As a hunter education instructor I understand the different levels hunters evolve to.  I hunt for several reasons, one of which is conservation, I find it hard that I see an animal that needs to be "culled" from the chain, but cann't because of a "law". 
When I take a new bowhunter hunting, I tell them "take the first ethical shot you can, get that first deer under your belt, to experience the whole process".  I have been blessed and had my share of nice bucks, but to me any animal with my tackle is a "trophy".  I think we need to further instill ethics not have more regulations. 
Let me show you how misguided some area's are.  This year in central illinois, where it is legal to harvest two bucks (no restrictions and unlimited does, state law).  They decided to say for the first 15 days of archery season, do not shoot a Doe, in five counties.  Two of the hunting area's in these five counties, you had to harvest a Doe first, and/or the Buck must have four on one side.  I went really deep with discussions with DNR, CPO and even biologist.  No one could give me a deep explanation of the why, this came about.  I asked "Is this a way to "legally" restrict our hunting rights?  Why not restrict the shotgun hunters?"  Again no deep explanation of the why.  I think that if we are going to restrict game, then there needs to be a sound explanation for the hunters.  I see a great many hunter's shrug their shoulders and say "all well".  I say, no stand up and ask "why", its are money funding everything.

[Kevin Dill]

For.

Not for purposes of hunting larger bucks...definitely for purposes of improving age structure and herd health/genetics.

[JohnV]

I support point restrictions for the purpose of improving the age structure of a game herd.  It matters not the weapon the hunter is using.  The idea is to have, observe, and enjoy a game herd with a better age balance. 

[Whitetails2]

I support APR. I live in PA and it was not supported by most until they saw the difference in the deer herd. For those who say they are a meat hunters, shoot the does for meat, and let the bucks mature.

[gregg dudley]

I would never presume to tell any other hunter what he/she should or should not kill.  I pass on young legal bucks often.  Sometimes I don't.  It depends on where I am hunting.  The choices that I make at 48 are different than the ones that I made at 16.  The people who are the biggest advocates for antler restrictions usually forget about the basket full of small racks that they have in their closet that they killed as a young (new) hunter. 

Deer populations should be managed based on scientific principles.  The largest and healthiest deer herds emerged nation-wide under sound management practices that didn't have anything at all to do with the size of a deer's antlers.  The same time period had the highest number of people buying a hunting license.  Deer populations were managed to grow and everyone was happy.  The Drurys and others were making videos about killing 4 point bucks and life was good. 

Then came QDM and that was OK because people were ELECTING to follow those principles on their own land or land that they managed.  Then they started forming cooperatives with their neighbors and agreeing to work together to grow bigger deer.  That was ok too, but it didn't stop there.  People weren't satisfied with working on their own properties so they started putting pressure on the legislature to mandate their way of hunting on the rest of the population.  That's where things went south.

Today, antler restrictions and small buck shaming are KILLING hunting.  It is all about the score.  You want to know why hunter numbers are on the decline?  Unrealistic expectations based on TV hunting and too many restrictions placed on what new hunters are allowed to enjoy.  We are doing it to ourselves.

[GCook]

It's not the best method but it does better than nothing to improve overall buck age classes in the herd.
That said I own land in two states and see how herds are or aren't managed.  In Missouri the four point rule was really helping the herd until wave after wave of blue tongue wiped it out.
In Texas the 13" rule really made a difference in how many deer survived the season in the two counties I hunted that had it.
It's changed a lot here in Texas and having a state that is vastly private owned has made it easier.
Our place in Missouri is on the edge of a state wildlife area and they are now, and always have been if it's brown it's down hunter over there.  We have found several 5 and 6 point bucks they ground checked and left lay.
I think most landowners, and people who pay a significant amount to have land to hunt, tend to have a different perspective.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Todd Cook]

I agree with Gregg Dudley 100%. Do what you want but don't push it on others.

Beyond that, I agree with having a balanced herd, but in many places here in GA that's not what happened. At one time there were too many young bucks being shot, and not enough does being shot. And it was very lopsided toward the does. That is not the case here anymore, at least in the southern 2/3rds of the state. Years of nearly limitless doe killing and young buck passing has created a severe swing the opposite direction. Several people I know that hunt a LOT and keep records are seeing more bucks than does. And I don't think that's good for the herd at all, especially long term.

So the old " kill a doe if you want some meat" argument may be working some places, but I truly think it's bad advice here. Our does could use some protection in a lot of places.

[Bow man]

I with Gregg Dudley comments.