ORIGINAL: BOWFANATIC
I don't think that it's that difficult to see that with AR in place less bucks will be killed. Also it is possible that more people will kill does with AR in place. Therefore, less bucks being killed and more does being killed equals improved buck/doe ratio.
It'sstill difficult to see from where I'm standing.If EAB isn't producingenough doe kills to please theDNR , how will antler restrictions?
You also make it sound like antler restrictions
might also increase the doe harvest , as if it's intent is to grow big bucks and a bigger doe harvest
might just be an added bonus.
The way I understand it's the other way around. It's (AR) intent is to get people to shoot more doe instead of shooting any buck.
Now , if people aren't shooting enough doe with EAB in place , how will AR change their minds and get them to shoot more doe?
Like I said before, it is not the right toll for every situation. I was using myunit, 25, as an example of where it would work. There is no EAB in 25. Here I do not see an overpopulation of deer, but I do see a buck to doe ratio that is messed up. If the younger bucks are protected, there would be a higher population of mature bucks.
I guess what I have been sayingmay seem a little confusing.
I misspoke in my last post and made it sound like ARs would bring the population down. I have actually been trying to make the point that it would bring the buck to doe ratio closer to check and therefore create a healthier population.
Sorry for the confusion.