captain backstrap

Evidently there are several states that have point restrictions for bucks - 3-point rule, etc.

I live in Oklahoma , we do not have anything like that here. I've asked a couple guys with our wildlife department why we don't do something similar and their theory is that if a spike walks up, under the three point rule he has to be passed, but if the next buck to walk up is a 6 point, he'll get the axe.

Our guys fear that that rule would leave bucks with inferior genetics in the herd and remove the ones with good genetics, thereby defeating the purpose.
I've read that spikes are often bucks that have good genetics but were late born and haven't had ample time to "catch up". So I don't know if the department's theory holds water or not.

2 questions -1) What do you think about antler restrictions? - good or bad??
and 2) Has anybody seen any change,good or bad, where they hunt as a result of such restrictions??

CuttnRun

Cap, as most are aware, here in Pa we have had the antler restriction implemented for 2 years, now. I,personally feel that it has helped in my area of Pa.We have seen some of the largest racked bucks this year in archery season that have ever been seen. Recently, I visited the local archery dealer and as he put it, in years past the average spread in his contest, has been 12". This year the average spread is 15" and an unbelievable difference in mass.Oh, and the buck that won this year was scored at 170.

Of course AR hasn't been exactly welcomed with open arms here in Pa. It's so hard for people of this state to change their way of traditional hunting that has been going on for ever.

AR, YES!!! Cutt

bearklr

I have to agree. I have also noticed alot more larger bucks here in my part of Pa with the antler restrictions in place. As far as taking the larger bucks and letting the "inferior" spikes reproduce, I think that is false. Spikes do not mean that the buck is inferior, hell his father could have been a 12 point, who knows. It just means that he is a yearling. His genes would be the same as his fathers the only difference is that he has not had the chance to grow to full potential, and without the antler restrictions he may never get to reach his full potential. Besides, by the time you harvest the six point and let the little fork horn go, the deer have more than likely already mated and the 6 point did his job. The fork horn won't mate again till next year when he will be the 6 or 8 point. Believe me everything goes full circle. I could bet that there were numerous deer out there that would have been bigger than any deer ever taken. The only problem is that they were shot when they were 6 months old. I personally am all for antler restrictions.

wimp

My understanding is that a bucks potential cannot be determined from its 1st year rack. A spike or forky, could have just as big a rack as a small 8 when they both reach thier 2nd or 3rd year.

BuckAlley

Fawns, and yearlings add body mass first over antler mass. Small racked yearlings like spikes are generally an indiction of either a late born fawn, or lack of nutrient food sources in your area or a combination of both. Late born fawns are a result of too many doe, and not enough older bucks. When doe are not probably bred in the first rut, a late 2nd rut, and sometimes even a 3rd rut occurs by those unbred doe. So you have fawns being born in mid summer. That results in a late start in life, and a rough road during their first winter.
The whole concept behind antler restrictions is to allow more yearlings to survive, so there will be more 2 1/2 plus bucks around to breed more doe. This in essence if a proper amount of doe are harvested would result in a more well balanced healthy herd.

portable ladder

i think point restrictions are a great idea....thanks to PA for setting an example, hopefully indiana will do the same in a few years

nitro23

we have had 3 point restrictions for about 5 years some places here have 4 point rule. i think it help the first year or two but now i think we are now losing big bucks and i think they know that now because i heard that we will be able to kill them all next year.Another thing i have been seeing the same 4 point for three year and cant kill it.i hope next year

greg-dude

Several research projects has shown that antler point restriction can decrease the average size of future mature deer. These are preliminary research projects and more research needs to be done in this area. Mature deer are deer in the 4 to 7 year age bracket. Deer adn Deer hunting had an article about it recently, and I seen it in some other magazines as well.

One of the research projects was in Miss. If I remember correctly, the average mature deer lost 19 B&C inches in a 5 to 10 year span in an area where antler restriction has been enforced for a number of years. Some other research projects involved pen raised deer in which antler deer were removed from the population to resemble an antler point restriction harvest. Again, the result was a net loss of B&C antler points on mature deer compared to the controlled pens.

The point restriction is not the best way to select for superior antler growth. Privately owned trophy hunting land uses B&C scores as criteria for buck harvest. They also use it as criteria to rid the population of individual mature bucks that will never make it to the potential that they wish to see.

Antler point restrictions are just an easy way to create some sort of buck harvest criteria for the general public. It is ment to protect a certain percentage of the 1.5 year old bucks. It succeeds in that. However, some biologist believe that it opens the door to eliminating young bucks with the most antler potential as well as protecting a small percentage of inferior bucks.

Antler point restrictions will increase the number of 2.5 year old bucks. This age category represents a class of bucks that many see as nice deer. Most 2.5 year old deer are a long way off from their potential. In certain areas adn certain individual bucks, these 2.5 year old bucks may still be under the set antler point restricton. This won't stop them from breeding does and passing on their genes.

I think it would be better to move firearm seasons away from the rut and to restrict the use of firearms to shotguns and/or muzzle loaders over point restrictions.

Chrisvst

Yes, antler restrictions will create bigger bucks..which is great, but is a small part of the story. in PA, Gary Alt wants us to shoot fewer bucks (ie by eliminating the category of buck that made up 80% of all kills) and replace this with more doe harvests (now legal during the buck season). This will:

1.create a better male/female ratio
resulting in less post rut buck mortality
resulting in ealier birthing of fawns and a healthier herd

2. Put a more meaningful dent in the deer population as taking does has a multiple effect vs taking bucks.
This will improve habitat dramatically, ensuring a healthier herd

Where I am in Wayne County PA, our deer herd has become unmanageably large and is eating their way through the forests. We hardly have any young trees of consequence, and this is killing (or has already killed) the woods for a whole range of animals. If Alt didn't do something, I don't see how things could have continued without the deer getting even smaller and weaker (they are already midgets) and ruining things for themselves and other animals.

Just my feeling, but big bucks and quality deer must have something to do with the quality of the habitat they live in....and after years of big deer numbers, my small bunch of woods are looking pretty decimated...

PABowhntr

I have mixed feelings about our current plan here in PA. I do approve of the antler restrictions as, in theory, we should start seeing larger bucks as the years pass by. However, I am not a big fan of the increased doe harvest that is being used in conjunction with the antler restrictions....but that is a discussion for another thread...

Have I seen results? Yes, somewhat. I will try to dig up those gamecam pics I had from back in August. Those two bucks were the biggest I have seen around my stand in several years.