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.

The reason I think that AR may cause an increase in Doe harvest is because if people are not seeing shootable bucks, instead of going home empty handed, they may want to take a doe for some meat. I know I would.

I don't know why you think that EAB isn't working. I just read an article where the DNR is claiming that EAB is working and is one of the reasons that older, bigger bucks were being tagged by hunters this year.

It depends on their (DNR) goal as to wether or not EAB is working. If their goal were to grow bigger bucks then sure it's working.Thatwasn'ttheir goal however , their goalwas to harvest more doe. The "bigger bucks harvested" just takes the sting out of telling hunters their gonna have another EAB season.

I think that their goal was dual purpose... shoot more does and produce bigger( older ) bucks. Its perfect. I suppose that harvesting bigger bucks would take the sting out of another EAB season. It seems that people are enjoying shooting bigger bucks.

no ar's in oklahoma, i would go for a earn abuck ruleand since we get three buck tagslet the hunters take one whatever buck and the other two meet an antler restriction rule.

I don't know about Wisonsin but here in NY we have one management unit that has recently been made an AR unit. 3 points on a side. The DEC said that they have agreed to do this "experimentally" as the result of pressure from local hunting groups to increase the average size of bucks in the unit. Their position regarding ARwas, in a meeting I attended, that they didn't see a need for it from a management perspective but they would also consider it in other units if that's what the sportsman wanted.

In Wisconsin it's all about trying to get hunters to shoot more doe. I do most of my hunting in a unit (63A) that has a population problem and has been EAB every year that EAB was utilized. I would be in favor of at least trying antler restrictions if it would keep the zone-t hunts out of October.

It is my opinion that T-zone hunts at the end of october...suck! You really won't see deer in a relaxed state for the rest of the season. It may also cause rutting activity to take place at night.

That's interesting. That is the first case I have heard of. But it sounds like they are doing it because the sportsmen want it, not because its needed. Like I said in my previous post, if they are going to do it, it needs to be at least a 4pt rule (for managemant purposes not trophy purposes). But, as far as managing for a trophy herd, I don't think a minimum point rule is the way to go. In this case only mature deer should be killed, and like some others said, some bucks that are mature may not actully make the minimum.

Anyways, thanks for the info. I would be interested to see what happens in that unit.