HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions? (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/118612-ny-do-u-think-we-should-have-antler-restrictions.html)

jcchartboy 11-16-2005 07:38 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

Steve said:
Phades answer is that thebio data is but one very small part of the consideration of mandatory AR

Phade said:
Steve has it nailed.
So then it is final...
You both agree that biological data is in fact relevant to AR...

This is exactly what I said in the first place, and the reason I posted the original article.

I am glad we have that straightened out.

:)



SteveBNy 11-16-2005 08:06 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
Relevant - possibly, but still a small part of the consideration.

I believe we both suggested some other things to consider as well - many at least if not more important.

Still waiting to hear how protecting spikes and forks while targeting young 6 or better helps the herd.

Also waiting on what the official and legal definition of a "TROPHY" will be. Right now sounds like a 80 class 1 1/2 6 point may be it.

jcchartboy 11-16-2005 08:21 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

Perhaps you have other data thatdemonstrateshow targeting and increasing the pressure on the 60% or higher of 1 1/2 NY deer with 6 pts or better will be benefit anything?
Obviously your implication here is that protectingyearlings with less than 6pts will result in relatively more of these "inferior" bucks in the overall herd.

Or put another way...6pt or higher bucks are genetically superior and you think they should be protected because they are more likely to produce larger racks at maturity.

If this what is you believe, (forgive me if this is not what you are saying), then you should at least be aware that there is an enormous amount of biological data that does not agree with that belief. (I am not saying whether it is right or wrong, only that you should be aware of it)

Here is the general findings of the survey discussed below, however I do recommend that one reads the whole article before coming to any conclusions...


After three years of age yearlings that started with spikes averaged just as many points as yearlings that had many more points on their first set of antlers. There are minor differences in the average number of antler points as three-year-olds, but basically there appear to be no real differences no matter the number of points a yearling started with.


By Ben Koerth and Dr. James Kroll
Quality Deer Management Association[/align]







Advances in capture techniques allowed researchers to study antler development in wild whitetail populations.
"There he goes!" was the cry as the buck ran across the road into a narrow clearing on the other side. Hard behind the buck the helicopter swooped in low and fast over the brush, followed by the clear boom of a gunshot in the morning air. Literally within seconds of that first sighting, the buck was down and being loaded by eager hands into the back of a pickup truck.


No, despite your first thoughts, this is not a tale of illegal hunting. Rather, it's an introduction to an important research study we are conducting on antler growth in wild whitetails. The gunshot was not a normal gunshot. Rather, it was from a specialized gun that shoots a net instead of a bullet. Combined with a helicopter to rapidly find and approach a deer, we can quickly and precisely capture individual deer for marking and measuring before releasing it unharmed at the capture site — all very important aspects of the study described herein.


The basis for the study is an age-old controversy that has, so far, evaded being solved by even the best whitetail biologists in the country.


Future antler growth of whitetail deer that have spike antlers as yearlings versus yearlings with three or more points as their first set of antlers, has been a particular point of contention among deer hunters and managers for many years. Results of various studies on captive whitetails have produced recommendations ranging from removing all spike-antlered yearlings as inferior individuals to complete protection of all yearling deer no matter the amount of antler growth in their first year. Inferior, in this case, refers to an animal that has less potential for future antler growth than other members of the same age group do.


In trying to grow the highest quality animals, only the animals believed to have the greatest potential for good antler production are desired. If an antler type with low growth potential can be identified at an early age, intuitively it would seem a good idea to remove those animals before they make a substantial contribution to the breeding population. The genetics for poor-quality antlers would not be sustained in the population. The question is, can this really be done?








The net gun method of capture allows safe handling and easy release of animals.
Over the years, numerous studies have been conducted on the predictability of antler growth in whitetails. Results of the two most well known studies seem to conflict. Studies at the Kerr Wildlife Management Area by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department personnel suggested that spikes on yearling whitetails may be an antler type with low potential for antler growth at maturity. Thus, their recommendation is to cull spikes as a management tool to increase average antler size of bucks in that age group as they grow.


At the other end of the spectrum is a well-known study done by Dr. Harry Jacobson at Mississippi State University. Dr. Jacobson asserted spike antlers on yearling bucks could be related to many factors including age (when during the fawning season a deer is born) and nutrition. Results of the Mississippi State study indicate spike antlers could not be used reliably to judge antler growth potential. Therefore, culling of yearling bucks based on antler criteria would have little positive impact on average antler quality in the future deer herd and would simply result in fewer bucks available for hunting.


A primary drawback in both studies is that they were conducted with captive deer. It often is difficult to take results from confined animals with a known history and fed a high-quality diet and apply those results to animals born and raised under a wide variety of range and management conditions. Research similar to that conducted on captive deer needs to be done on a larger scale with free-ranging deer populations similar to the ones we hunt.


While that sounds great on paper, studies of this nature are not easy. One of the biggest problems in studying free-ranging deer is being able to positively identify a large number of known-age animals. Also, you have to be able to handle the animals in a manner where measurements can be taken from the same deer from one year to the next. Believe me, that is no easy task.








Buck Y-23 as a spike at 1 1/2 years old. Researchers wanted to know what size antlers he would produce in coming years.
The net gun method allows easy and safe handling of animals after they are entangled in the net. Once the animals are captured, we affix a color-coded ear tag that is individually numbered. The color of the tag tells us instantly the age of that deer when seen again in the future. We also tattoo a number corresponding to the ear tag on the inside of the ear in case the ear tag is lost. Antler measurements can be taken quickly and the animals released unharmed at the capture site. In a nutshell, that is the study and the methods we are using to accomplish this task.


By its nature, this is going to be a very long-term study. A large number of yearling bucks have to be captured so we can measure their first set of antlers. In just three years, we have captured and tagged 444 bucks over a three county area in South Texas. These same bucks will need to be repeatedly trapped in future years to measure the antler growth. Also, we are capturing new bucks each year along with recapturing bucks caught in previous years. In this way, we will have a sample of animals that are born and raised in different years in a variety of weather and range conditions.


At this point, we are only three years into the project. As such, we are not in a position to make positive conclusions about anything. The point of this article is to introduce the research so you can see what we have found so far and be able follow along as the study progresses.








On the right, buck Y-23 visits a feeder as a 10-point, 3 1/2 year old deer.
However, even with the short time period so far, some interesting trends are being revealed. Whether these trends hold throughout the remainder of the study remains to be seen. Nonetheless, these initial results may give you something to think about next hunting season.


For many hunters, one of the most important criteria in antler quality is the number of points. So let's look at the development of antler points from the yearling bucks we have captured and how they progress through various ages.


From our data, if you plot the number of antler points bucks had as yearlings against the average number of points those same bucks had the next year you will see that the yearlings with the fewest antler points still had fewer points as 2-year-olds. Yearlings with two or three points on their first set of antlers averaged about eight points as 2-year-olds. On the other end of the spectrum, yearlings with eight or nine points on their first set of antlers were 10-pointers on average the next year.


The middle group, yearlings with four to seven points, averaged about nine points the next year. On the surface this appears to support the contention that spike-antlered deer may be inferior and on average will never produce the kind of antlers that multi-pointed yearlings will.








At 1 1/2 years old, buck Y-34 produced six points.
However, remember these are really young deer with a lot of growing left to do. Another way of looking at the data is to compare the amount of growth each group put into antlers their second season.


If you plot the number of antler points that bucks had as yearlings against the percent of antler growth change in their second set of antlers, there appears to be somewhat of a different story.


The little guys were kicking butt by the next year. Much more energy appeared to be expended toward growing larger antlers by yearlings that started small. A yearling that starts with nine points and goes to 10 the next year is a small change. However, going from a spike to an 8-pointer is a tremendous change.


Still, a 10-pointer is better than an 8-pointer, right? If a yearling started with spikes or three points and only averaged about eight points the next year, that's still smaller than yearlings that started with eight or nine points and averaged 10 points on their second set of antlers. It doesn't matter how much energy they put into antler growth if they're still smaller. Is there some credence to the claim that small-antlered yearlings will never be as good as yearlings that start with a better set of antlers?


Let's fast-forward to year three and compare the average antler points those same yearlings had on their third set of antlers. If you plot the number of antler points that bucks had as yearlings against the average number of points those same bucks had as three-year-olds you will see that the yearlings with few antler points have caught up. Yearlings that started with spikes averaged just as many points as yearlings that had many more points on their first set of antlers. There are minor differences in the average number of antler points as three-year-olds, but basically there appear to be no real differences no matter the number of points a yearling started with.








At 2 1/2 years old, buck Y-34 had grown nine antler points.
By the third year, data from our wild-trapped bucks seems to agree more with the results of Dr. Jacobson and the Mississippi State study. Yearling bucks with small antlers seemed to have just as good a chance of turning into a good deer by their third year as the yearlings with larger antlers did.


Now, we realize there is much more than simply the number of points that make a high-quality set of antlers. However, this indicates the trends in the data we have seen to this point. As we stated earlier, this study is still in progress and the final results may lead us in a totally different direction. However, our results in the study so far show there is no indication that the size of antlers on yearling deer is a good predictor of what a buck might grow in the future if allowed to mature.


Some other interesting aspects from the study we have found so far are that the number of spikes in a herd varies from year to year and can be affected tremendously by weather conditions ‹ specifically rainfall. This is especially true in drought-prone areas like south Texas. Comparing data between years on the number of spikes and 3 pointers on a single ranch where we captured bucks is quite revealing. In 2000, 23 percent of the yearling bucks were spikes. If you add in 3-pointers, 33 percent of the yearling age class had three points or less. While not a great rainfall year, it certainly was better than the next year.


In 2001, with even less rainfall, 53 percent of the yearling bucks were spikes. Again, if you add in 3-pointers, 64 percent of the yearling age class had three points or less. The number of spikes and 3 pointers essentially doubled in one year. The genetics didn't change in one year, but the average antler quality of yearling bucks sure did. If you were in a program that culled spikes and 3 pointers as inferior deer, you would have lost nearly two-thirds of that age class in the low rainfall year. Think of how many bucks that would leave you to hunt in a few years.








At 3 1/2 years old, buck Y-34 was caught on film and had produced a 10-point rack.
However, we don't want to lead you to believe that we think culling is not a worthwhile management practice. We still contend you can change the average antler quality of a well-managed deer herd by culling bucks with inferior antler quality.


However, results of this study so far support our long-standing contention that culling should be done only on the older age classes of bucks ‹ never on the yearlings. Young bucks, especially yearlings, are just too sensitive to weather and growing conditions to give you a good idea of the kind of antlers they are capable of growing in future years.


Also, an effective culling strategy not only involves removing bucks with perceived inferior antler quality, but also includes removal of females. An adequate doe harvest allows you to control the overall population, manipulate the age structure and remove the less productive females from the herd. In the long run, there really is only a need for enough females to produce the annual crop of bucks and replacement females. Usually, this is far fewer females than many think.


Early in a management program, we feel you should remove the older age does. This results in an immediate reduction of the population and significantly lowers the average age of females left in the herd. Also, younger does usually produce fewer fawns, so maintaining control of the population is not as difficult in the future.


As time goes on, having a young doe age structure allows you to better take advantage of improving nutritional conditions and overall genetic makeup of the remaining herd. If you have been doing a good job of culling bucks, the younger does are the ones most likely to have been conceived by the higher antler quality bucks you have left to breed. Thus, the offspring potentially have higher genetic quality than their parents and are more likely to pass on those quality genetics to their offspring.


There are few issues that have created more controversy than the culling of spikes. While we still do not have the definitive answer, results of our study should increase our understanding of antler growth in free-ranging whitetails. At this point, it appears that culling of yearling deer, no matter what they produce as their first set of antlers, may not be a good idea.




jcchartboy 11-16-2005 08:23 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

ORIGINAL: SteveBNy
Still waiting to hear how protecting spikes and forks while targeting young 6 or better helps the herd.

Also waiting on what the official and legal definition of a "TROPHY" will be. Right now sounds like a 80 class 1 1/2 6 point may be it.
Who were you discussing that with?

Phade 11-17-2005 06:04 AM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

ORIGINAL: jcchartboy


Steve said:
Phades answer is that thebio data is but one very small part of the consideration of mandatory AR

Phade said:
Steve has it nailed.
So then it is final...
You both agree that biological data is in fact relevant to AR...

This is exactly what I said in the first place, and the reason I posted the original article.

I am glad we have that straightened out.

:)


It's relevant AFTER you answer the social question. Until then, it's just numbers on paper.

You quote QDMA like you belong to it, and are pretty involved. That's all you spout. And unfortunately, it is too bad you can't disconnect yourself from it to look objectively. It's like me spouting info on why cigarettes are good for youfrom a study done by Phillip Morris. It just does not carry any power.

That info you just posted above doesn't do anything for me. Theidea thay they have similar growth (although inarguably they are smaller-both articles state that), the AR rules won't allow those spike or forks to get to 3 years old at any higher rate than what we have now. They'll still be shot on site as soon as they'd be legal, certainly by 2.5 y/o. And I hasten to believe they'll be shot more often because of the AR, since that buck can be legally taken.

I think you should either state a position or step out of this thread. Your devil's advocate action is worthless, unneeded, and it is not your responsibility to just randomly insert "bio info" into any issue you are not involved in. I personally, think it was a poor character move, and really changed my opinion on you from your previous posts.

jcchartboy 11-17-2005 03:58 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

Phade said:
It's relevantAFTER you answer the social question..(in reference to the biological data I provided)
The fact that it is relevant... is, and has been... my position from the first post I made in this thread. I made that very clearly with the the following statement...


JC said:
Relevant reading for anyone interested in this subject...
Ialso considered responding to your last paragraph. After reading it a few times I realized itsimply did not deserve a response. This boardencounters enough issues without posts of that nature, that I will not add to the problems.

Phade 11-17-2005 05:03 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 

ORIGINAL: jcchartboy


Phade said:
It's relevantAFTER you answer the social question..(in reference to the biological data I provided)
The fact that it is relevant... is, and has been... my position from the first post I made in this thread. I made that very clearly with the the following statement...


JC said:
Relevant reading for anyone interested in this subject...
Ialso considered responding to your last paragraph. After reading it a few times I realized itsimply did not deserve a response. This boardencounters enough issues without posts of that nature, that I will not add to the problems.
That's funny. Re-read your first post to thesource in this thread, and your random statement about politics. Seems like you have a history of doing what you claim to be the problem. At least that is what I can see from recent postings. That's a completely objective view, not an "issue" as you like to call them.

As far as your "position," it is clearly a devil's advocate role here. The thread is about whether AR should be for NY. You glue yourself to that "relevant" point, and nothing else. I honestly inquire as to your thought on AR in NY, as the thread states? Or do you wish to continue this off-topic banter? I prefer the former.

And I really like your misquote of me. Try to not infer statements out of my words that aren't there. I said that info is relevant AFTER the social question is answered. Until then, it's only numbers on paper. MEANING, it is NOT relevant until after the social question is answered. Understand the difference? It cannot be "always has been relevant" until after the laws/regulations have been addressed on what a trophy is. I don't see why you can't understand that. Like I said, until you, the state, and the rest of our sportsmen and women decide on what a trophy is, then and only then will those numbers become relevant bio data. Before that, its as worthless as used toilet paper, and not relevant.

jcchartboy 11-17-2005 05:07 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
The state of Pennsylvania struggled with many of the issues we are discussing here before they moved to the decision on AR. Their biologists spent a great deal of time reviewing scientific information to base their decisions on. Here is the summation of their findings concerning protecting spike and forked antler yearlings, and its possible effects on future harvests...


PA State Biologists Summation...

Protecting yearling bucks with fewer than 3 or 4 points to an antler will degrade antlers of future bucks.
This statement relates to how well a yearling buck's antlers represent the quality of the buck's genes. Research from Mississippi and Texas - where most antler research has occurred - differ. Results from Mississippi State University suggest that yearling antler points provide little information about the genetics of a buck. On the other hand, research from the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in Texas suggests that yearling antler points do reflect the genetic quality of a buck.
An independent review by an animal breeding and genetics expert concluded that problems existed with the data used by both states and, therefore, that no strong evidence exists for either conclusion. Despite the important role of a buck's mother in his antler characteristics, neither the Mississippi nor Texas results have provided valid estimates of maternal effects on antler growth. Studies specifically designed to evaluate maternal effects are needed. Also the Texas data include high levels of inbreeding - no new deer have been introduced to the deer pens since the 1970s -and many of the deer are related to one buck, "Big Charlie."
A recent review of the scientific literature on genetics in hunted populations concluded that there is little evidence available to suggest that hunting, including selective harvests, has long-term genetic consequences. One reason for this conclusion is the combination of genetics and harvest regulations apparently diminish suspected negative impacts. For example, if antler restrictions did selectively harvest "better" bucks, antlerless harvests are generally nonselective in their removal of "better" or "poorer" does. Thus, a continued mixing of "better" and "poorer" genes throughout the deer herd reduces the amount of change.
We do know that genetics is just one of many factors that determine the number of points on a yearling buck. A buck's mother and her genes, nutrition, health and other factors affect antler points. All these factors create a situation where there is no strong evidence that the new antler restriction will hurt or improve genetics of Pennsylvania's deer herd.

Phade 11-17-2005 05:17 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
I'm speechless. Another randomly inserted bit of info. Except this one goes in circles.

That TX study history is odd, because TX has AR is 15+ counties, and they do not use the 3 point per side rule. They harvest wider than the ears bucks, and bucks with at least one unbranched antler. Everything in between is off limits.

But again, more random info, and no thoughts or positions.

jcchartboy 11-17-2005 05:51 PM

RE: NY do u think we should have a antler restrictions?
 
If you can not understand the document perhaps you should reread it.

Why you are referencing the specifics of antler restrictions in Texas while refering to the article above I am not clear.All of the deer discussed in the artcicle have been located in an enclosed research facility that has been inisolated for over 30 yrs.

If you can not understand how the information provided relates directly to antler restriction, (remember this document came from the PA game commision website that is titled DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM and ANTLER RESTRICTIONS), then perhaps you need reconsider your understanding of AR.

I will send you a PM directly to adress the nature of your posts...

JC


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:02 AM.


Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.