I'd have to say that there is a little truth in all of it. In Kentucky we kill one buck. Most people will wait for a good deer, but some small ones are being taken. This policy has really helped the herd quality. However, we saee a lot of small bucks. They just ned time to mature.

An antler restriction probablyallows the slower maturing deer to survive while those deer that hit 6-8 points at 2.5 years are being killed, but what is probably happening is that the larger olderbucks are being taken and the younger ones are doing more cruising looking for does. It increases the numebr of deer being seen. Remember all of the deer being killed are from the same genetics. Size restrictions allows for a better buck survival rate and should increase competioton during the rut. I have seen an improvement in both the number of deer and quality of deer in the area of Arkansas I hunt. There size resstrictions have helped.

Mississippi Statecompleted a study that would seem to indicate that the size of deer are down around the state. I think it is a matter of data collection. Prior to the restrictions, the mature buck to young buck ratio was not good.Many young bucks were being taken and not allowed to fully develop. With the restriction many of the younger deer were allowed to live and the younger deer volumes increased. It is only logical that there be more young deer to breed.

Width restrictions would also produce the same arguement. If we have a 15 inch restriction, only the narrow spread deer will live and survive.

Antler growth is a product of age, nutrition, genetics. All three are needed to produce quality deer. The onlytrue control would be to mandate reestraint and only take mature bucks. We all know that is impossible.