Kathwacckkk

I was hoping to hear different hunters opinions on how their state's antler restrictions have helped or hurt the quality of bucks being seen. Here in Michigan, as long as the buck has one antler three inches or better in length, it is legal. At Drummond Island (MI) the DNR has institued a 3 point on one side minimum for a legal buck. I have seen bigger bucks since they instituted this restriction. Lower Michigan has a ton of deer with a lot of avialble high protein food and many people believe a good antler restriction would allow us to be a "big buck" state. But does this turn youngsters looking for their first buck away from the sport? Maybe allowing the gun liscense to take any doe or a buck with at least 3 points on one side. Anyways, I would like to here some opinions, ideas and stories.

TXhighrack

I dont like antler restrictions, they are a horrible way to manage whitetails. Ar's are just a quick solution for the widlife department to use which gets certain people off of their backs and makes them happy for a while. All Ar's do is turn young promising bucks into prime targets and postpones the death senctence for the spikes and forkies. Which its good to let 1 1/2 year old spikes and 4 points live longer, but the same should be done for the 1 1/2 year old 5,6,7, & 8 pointers. Properly managing wildlife on a statewide level is extremely difficult and aggrevating, its so much easier on private land.

cardeer

We have it A couple years here in Pa. I can just testify on my area. Not much difference that I seen, I did see lots of small baskets last year. In this area we always had are share of big ones. But last year I seen less big ones 130 + buck and more 4 PT baskets. I'm in SE Pa.

recurver67

Kathwacckkk, your second buck has to have 4 points on one side.

GRIZZLYMAN

Arkansas has had a three point on one side rule for a few years. I think in the first few years, it was effective and then it wasn't. They considered a four point rule this year, but didn't do it. Problem is that people are shooting basket rack bucks that have five or more points. I think a better alternative would be first buck-no restriction, second buck-four point rule. I would say that common sense dictate whether you take a buck or not based on overall quality, but most of the time there isn't much of that (common sense).

Deerslayer_37

A guy wrote in Wisconsin Outdoor Journal about AR's and how they're really terrible ideas. Basically, you end up culling out the older deer in your herd because people whack the first thing with enough points. It really doesn't improve age structure at all. Quality deer management is a private land tool. No public land, because it doesn't satisfy everyone. Antler point restrictions are not a great way at all to manage deer. I cringe when i see people even on private land saying that antler point restrictions help their herd. minimum spread is much better, and gross B&C score is probably the best, like a 130" minimum rule. On our farms, it's pretty much 120" basic. We all know what a good buck in our group is, and there really isn't a set score or spread or point restriction. One thing that bothers me extremely is people saying they want to see bigger deer and complain how people on videos get to go to awesome places and private landowners are bad but yet they'll shoot the first thing with horns they see. it's all about restraint, just let the little ones walk and chances are you'll start seeing better deer.

slayer

TXhighrack

Here is an idea and something that I think would work on public lands in the eastern and southern parts of this country for whitetails..


Why dont states like PA. Ny. WV. etc take a lesson from states like Utah and Wyoming. What if they created "trophy" units in states for whitetails?? You can have two types of public land, the "trophy units" and the "kill what ever the hell you want units". In each state set aside large areas of public land and have the state MANAGE the whitetails. Nobody is allowed to hunt these units unless, lets say they have a drawing for residents to hunt them. And if there is not enough public land to set aside as "trophy units" then the state can come in and offer private landowners a percentage of $$ to lease their land to the state. The state would then turn these private pieces of land into "trophy units" and they would follow the same management programs and hunting requirements as public lands that are already enrolled in the "trophy unit" program. The private land owner would be allowed to continue on with the daily bussiness on his land, and the states lease would have to be renewed each year after deer season was over.

I think this idea could and would work. When it comes to public land you mainly have two types of hunters, the guys who only want to kill trophy bucks and the guys who want to kill anything. With "trophy units" you can make both parties happy. Everybody could and would be allowed to hunt the "kill what ever the hell you want to" units, but guys who want a chance at a "trophy" size buck could buy applications and put in for a chance to hunt the "trophy units". All the money that is made from the application fees would go back into the "trophy unit" program and would be used to pay for the biologist that would be hired for each unit.


How does this idea sound? Do you think I'm onto something, or am I just wasting my time?.................

nodog

In Ohio you can shoot only one buck 3" and up. We have no shortage of big bucks. I think all other states should follow our program.Let the hunter decide on if they want to burn their tag on a spike or not. Control the population leave the rest up to the hunter.

Zoomer

How much public land do you think is there in each DMU?? Want to set aside Alleghaney or Stuben County in NY for trophies - they are the best in the state for big deer (aside from Long Island - which has no REAL gun season) What about the 14,000 deer taken by hungry farmers/families/friends... I think thats a silly idea.

TXhighrack

Zoomer:

How is it a "silly" idea? Because its something different?

I dont know your state, or any of the WMA. There all the same to me. It would be up to the state and perhaps the hunters to decide which units would be turned into "trophy units". You dont have to start with the "best" units in the state to form one of the trophy units. If it was already a good unit then I would leave it alone. I would take the average to slighlty above average units and turn them into "trophy units". Trust me, with proper management and strict rules you can make almost any area into something special.

Once again that is up to the state. If they are killing those deer out of season, I believe that would be called poaching if I'm not mistaken. But a piece of public land shouldnt be mistreated or raped simply because it is surrounded by a community in poverty. But this is not something I want to get into. I'm talking about "trophy units" and dont really want to argue about other things.

So what do the rest of you think about "trophy units" in the eastern and southern states??