Talondale, I realize I'm full of conflicting views. It's a conflicting subject and I'm kinda trying to play devils advocate both for and against in some ways. I also said that one of my concerns was the same as Mr Rothaar mentioned, where young bucks with great genetics get killed at an early age. I've personally seen this in PA. However, I will also say that I'm not sure if I EVER passed up a legal buck on purpose in my life while gun hunting. I've passed a very few with my bow in recent years but I'm still "growing" as a hunter. I'll also be the first to admit that I've got a long way to go. I don't get that many opportunities most seasons so I still generally go for the first thing that comes along and is legal. What I don't have a problem with that others seem to hate so much is following the rules even if the rules say there are antler restrictions. Even though I might only get one or two shot opportunities per year, I have no problem with restrictions because I UNDERSTAND the reasoning behind them.
Allowing bucks to mature past 18 months old establishes a whole 'nuther layer to the structure of a deer herd and allows bucks to develop physically and socially into more dominant animals and then natural selection takes over and those deer with the size, brains, dominance (and luck) etc start to do more of the breeding. Anyway, I'm not planning on getting into the whole QDM thing as honestly I think a lot of guys carry that too far. Lets just say that the basic premise makes good sense though from a purely "health of the herd" standpoint.
How about an example that is pretty much an exact duplicate of antler restrictions? Do you fish? Better yet, do you trout fish? I'd just about bet that there is a minimum size limit on trout. Why? Because if there wasn't, the QUALITY of trout fishing throughout the state would be drastically reduced. And by quality, I mean the health of the fish population overall, not just the size of the fish. Ever fish on a lake where there was a slot limit? Can't keep a bass under 17 inches or over 20 inches? Why? Again, to make the fish population healthier AND to make fishing more enjoyable for everyone. Protect one size animal/fish so everyone can catch (but maybe not keep) or see (but maybe not shoot) more fish or deer and allow better balance in the population. How can that not make sense? To me, the idea of the restriction is not so much to change the total number of fish or deer in an area but to keep a good population that is healthy and of good quality.
It was said above that "deer numbers are a direct limit to all hunters." Couldn't agree more and buck to doe ratios are a direct limit to the health of the deer herd. Antler restrictions are a management tool and just a small part of the big picture. If a state wants deer numbers reduced to a healthier level then the best method is to kill does. Problem is, most hunters want to kill a buck. In PA, I know guys who still buy doe tags just to burn them. (I don't mean burn as in use, I mean like in a fire) Of course that is their right as Americans but I figure that if the state sells a bunch of tags and expects a certain number of deer killed having a bunch of guys burn their tags will only cause the state to revise their numbers due lower success ratios. They'll just sell more tags next year. If a state makes it just a little harder for someone to kill a buck by implementing a restriction of some kind then that same guy might go ahead and kill a doe if he really wants some meat. And ya know what? After a couple years of restrictions a LOT of those guys start to get their eyes opened when instead of sitting on stand and seeing 20, 30 or 40 does and ZERO or at best 1 or 2 bucks like was the norm in PA when I was a kid he might only see 5 or 6 deer but 2 or 3 are bucks and actually might have a little size to them. But that is an example of restrictions AND population control. In an area with populations at healthy levels but skewed sex ratios, antler restrictions are a great tool. How would you feel about taking an area like that and going from an 80/20 doe buck ratio to a 50/50 ratio with the same number of deer? Wouldn't it be nice to see the same number of deer but half of them be bucks? So many people have grown up and hunted in places where deer numbers were simply out of control in both numbers and sex ratios but they think that was normal. When the herd gets thinned down and balanced up a bit they get discouraged because they don't see double digit numbers of deer every time they go out and start to cry foul. People have to be educated. People have to at least attempt to see both sides of any issue.
Jason, thanks for pointing that out. It's been quite a while since I read it and I wasn't sure. Now that you mention it, I do recall you shooting the button buck. Always liked reading your stuff both on line and in magazines. Out of curiosity, what IS your opinion on EAB? I myself kinda like the idea but I'm also certain that if any nice buck walked into my shooting lane and I had not yet shot a doe to earn the buck I'd be a bit miffed. I think I prefer the idea for limited access areas but maybe not for statewide.
In fact, that's pretty much my view on antler restrictions. It's a good thing if done wisely in places where it can be an effective tool. Some parts of a state may be better candidates for restrictions than others. Here in MO, not all of the state has the restriction. The urban areas around Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbia and Springfield are exempt along with parts of the state with lower deer numbers. Someone has to decide if, when, how much and for how long a practice is implemented. That said, it all comes down to how much do you trust your state game management department? Poor management using any restriction from antlers to harvest numbers, limited access zones, permit numbers, non resident permit numbers, permit prices or season dates are all factors that effect our experience in the woods. Poor management is poor management regardless of the tactics but wise use of ALL the restrictions above allow a balancing act between numbers and quality that SHOULD keep most people happy come hunting season.
And Geno, it's not like Missouri WANTS 2,000,000 deer, they don't. But it goes back to that balancing act. They control the population by increasing doe permit numbers to keep the deer herd in check and keep the insurance companies off their backs and to keep the farmers happy. They use antler restrictions to improve the health of the herd and the quality of the bucks to keep the majority of hunters happy. They also expect a certain amount of increase in the numbers of trophy deer to keep the serious hunters, the out of state guys and the hunting clubs happy. There are millions of dollars spent in MO every year by hunters both from in state and out of state and that revenue is important to the state economy, the conservation department and indirectly to all of us. Again, if they keep the numbers in the target area for the total population but shift the sex ratios and trophy numbers to better levels, how is that bad? The money spent by the hunters on license fees and equipment goes to the acquisition of public lands. MO in my opinion is truly a haven for hunters who do not own property of their own or have access to private ground. I'm very happy with their deer management overall and dread the thought of ever having to move to another state.
Topic: state antler-pt restrictions (Read 1654 times)
