Antler Restrictions and herd reduction are not one in the same. I'm not saying that they are mutually exclusive, just stating that they are two separate plans being implemented simultaneously.
AR's DO serve to protect bucks, increase their longevity, and given no tinkering with the doe numbers, WILL lead to more bucks.
Problem is, AR's are being implemented simultaneously with herd reduction.
I think you guys have more of a problem with HERD REDUCTION than you have with AR's.
I just fear that Antler Restrictions are getting the blame for creating a set of conditions for which they ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE...
In a stable herd , AR does in fact reduce the number of OW doe and therefore it reduces recruitment leading to lower harvests. Rememeber, in 2001 Alt said we had to shoot more doe to make rooom for the buck saved by AR.
I agree with quicksilver. I hunt an area that hasn't been hit by HR yet. The AR have definitely shown an increased number of bigger bucks. I can only dream how much better that would be if only people didn't shoot so many illegal ones[:@]
__________________
Just a regular guy who likes to hunt
AR does in fact reduce the number of OW doe and therefore it reduces recruitment leading to lower harvests.
Only if hunters whack a bunch of does in place of their failing to take a buck. Where is the shame in going without, once in awhile? Unless you are in a high density area, letting that doe go is like money in the bank for the future of buck hunting in that area. Some areas of course need lots of does taken, which is a separate issue altogether.
whenever I can I kill a button buck, meat is better and the old doe stays on to produce more fawns. I've got boxes full of racks that lie out in the barn, horns ain't no big deal to me anymore. The only people they impress are the shallow egotists anyway.
__________________
kill a button buck let a big doe have twins.
One button buck on the pole is one breeding doe alive
From what I'm seeing, the majority of bucks being killed are still yearlings. True, the spikes and forkies are being saved, but all the 5-pointers and basket-racked 6 and 8-points are being killed. It seems that we're just killing the bucks with the best genetic potential and letting the inferior bucks breed. In a few years, they might become decent bucks. However, the basket-racked 8-pointer would make a much better 3.5 year old than the spike in a couple of seasons. Plus, once they get passed 2.5 years old, they're going nocturnal. Pass on that yearling spike and kill the yearling 8-pointer tomorrow.
From what I understand, the first rack size is less dependent on "genetics" and dependent moreso on the age of the deer (in months).
For example, a 16-month old will generally grow a slightly smaller rack than would an 18-month old.
Genetically speaking, two wild deer from the same geographic area are practically clones of each other. The bloodlines are so diluted that genetics doesn't play quite the role that one may assume.
I just don't believe the "weeding out the bad genes" is a valid argument, as there is no correlation between rack potential vs. actual 1.5 yr. rack size. Further, the genetics of all similarly geographically situated deer are practically identical.
Unless you are in a high density area, letting that doe go is like money in the bank for the future of buck hunting in that area. Some areas of course need lots of does taken, which is a separate issue altogether.
According to the PGC , the only area that is not a high density area is 2 G. Most other WMU's are double or triple their OWDD gaol . So if you support Alt's plan you are supporting harvesting more doe everywhere but 2 G.
In the 1991 Sept/Oct issue Newsletter of the Texas Section of the Society for Range Management, Steve Nelle reported that Dr. Harry Jacobson "summarized findings from 15 years of records from a 150-head captive deer herd" as follows:
-Looking at antler points of yearling bucks provided no correlation to antler development later in life.
-Spike-antlered yearlings were just as likely to produce large antlers later in life as 6- to 8-point yearlings.
-The prevalence of spike-antlered yearlings was correlated to birth date. No June-born bucks produced spike antlers, while 38 percent of September-born bucks produced spike antlers.
-Overall, the captive herd only produced spikes on 20 percent of yearling bucks, while adjacent private-land produced spikes on 60 percent of yearling bucks, the only difference being nutrition.
-The best two sets of antlers produced over the 15 years (168 and 195 B & C points) were both 3-point bucks as yearlings.
-You can do little or nothing to improve antler genetics except to leave obviously superior bucks in the herd.
The Article by John D. Williams opposed my view and those of Dr. Harry Jacobsen. It makes for a good point-counterpoint.
The moral of this story is that results have been inconclusive on both sides of this issue, which leads me to believe that there is, in fact, no direct correlation between 1.5 yr. antlers and their ultimate development through 4-5 years...
Herd Reduction vs. Antler Restrictions
