Phade

This one will break the cycle of plot posts

Regarding AR (antler restrictions) on a state level. Which do you think from a biological standpoint would be better (in a purely biological answer, not necessarily antler growth- rather a healthy, superior-gene herd)?

#1. The three pointson oneside rule? Limit TBD.

#2. The two buck limit. One must have a spread of 13 inches or bigger (basically to the ears and beyond). The other, must have one unbranched antler (a spike antler). Everything in between is off-limit.

I see problems with both to a point. Just wondering what you think. Also state if you have any deer biology experience beyond hunting/QDM.

farm hunter

Option 1 - I assume you mean 3 point minimum - on at least one side. Is enforceable and does ensure the survivalof more than 1/2 of the yearling bucks. I like this simple option at the state level - even if its not biologically the best option.

Option 2 is tough to enforce at the state level - really, really tough in NY

But better biologically maybe because it protects the best of the yearling bucks (most 1st year racks in NY anyhow - will not exceed 13" inside spread).I don't agree witht the spike culling - but if the goal is to increase the genetic potential of the herd - this option is better.

FH

kevin1

None of the above , it isn't right to force your ways on others .
The best thing you can do is just shoot more does and obviously genetically inferior bucks .

Phade

Thanks for your input, but that is not my purpose of intent with this thread. I'd like this to be a strictly biological conversation regarding AR on a state level. Not in terms of QDM practice/theory.

I'm not for AR. Merely looking at thoughts, and practices.

bspencer

the easiest to enforce and to understand would be #1....... the buck would have to have atleast 3 points on one side before you could legally harvest it

BrutalAttack

I like this restriction. It's easy, simple, and it allows the best of your spikes to realize their potential. This will cut down on total harvest as well. Using this in combination with antlerless harvest is used by many states. IMO doe harvest is vastly more important.

I wouldn't base the rule on spread. I would base it on points such as "greater than four points on a side". The spread thing is confusing and difficult to judge under normal hunting conditions.

Biologically, I don't see much logic in harvesting a >13" spread buck and a spike. You could be culling potential and removing prime bucks who are servicing the majority of the does. To me this option isn't an option. You want to give the spikes a chance to get big while at the same time allowing your prime bucks to breed as many does as possible.

It's almost not biologically feasible to have no antlerless harvest at the state level.

rgarza

#1 has no basis on the age of the buck. With that rule, even your best 1.5 year old deer would be harvested. You could shoot a 4 point or better 1.5 year old, and that's your better stock! In addition, you would be protecting spikes, which I firmly believe are inferior based on the latest data. This rule would not fly on my property, and would not benefit most state goals of protecting young bucks and creating a better age structure (harvesting older deer).

#2 does a better, if incomplete job. The spread rule is designed to protect younger deer, as most 1.5-2.5 year old deer will not meet the minimum spread of eartips or greater. Keep in mind that this distance varies across the country. The spread rule would help promote the harvest of older deer. The second part of #2 helps in culling your herd. Unbranched antlers are easy to identify and genetically inferior. It would promote the harvest of young deer, but they would be the right young deer to harvest.

These would not be my culling/harvest guidelines, but at least #2 has a rule based on logic and what we know about deer characteristics.

Don't forget to shoot does and maintain a healthy doe:buck ratio.

BrutalAttack

And what data might this be? You seem to beoperating under the assumption that any spike you see will never get bigger which is of course nonsense.
Can you explain thata little better? Thanks.

Assuming that there MUST be some buck harvest, the 3 point or better is a herd building choice. Remember he is talking about the state level not a piece of land.

yeoman

You don' t provide enough information on which to make this decision. You first have to know the goal, which from your post I'd assume is to bring the sex ratio and age structure of your herd to a more natural level, which almost everywhere means protecting younger bucks and killing more does. You then need to determine by sampling, which, in this case, antler characteristic, most reliably and practically accomplishes that goal.

sgara is most on target with his comments, in my book. A 3 point restriction in most of the US will result in removing the genetically superior antler growing animals from the 1 1/2 year olds in the herd. I doubt that's what you had in mind. Where I live in Maryland, this restriction would allow removal of 50% of our 1 1/2 year olds. At 4 points per antler, we would still lose 40% of the 1 1/2 year olds. A 5 points rule would protect almost all of the 1 1/2 year olds, but would be unaccepatable to hunters, as it would also protect 30% of the 2 1/2 year olds, including some seriously impressive animals.

The 13 inch spread requirement is better, but where I am in Maryland, would still dig into 15-20% of the 1 1/2 year olds. Here, at 14 inches, we would protect 95% of the yearlings.

As to enforceability, abiding by the game laws is almost entirely dependent upon the morals of the public. 90% of hunters will obey the rules, provided they believe game management decisions are being made in the best interest of the game and hunting in general. The would be some initial frustration with the spread rule, but studies under such rules in Georgia showed hunters were surprisingly good at it and the frustration subsided.

As for spikes, where I live, almost all spike bucks are the result of later birth dates of fawns, caused by the skewed sex ratio of the herd. They are not genetically inferior and could turn into large racked bucks. That said, removing a spike from the herd will have little impact on the future number of 3 1/2 and older bucks. This is because the probablity of a buck surviving is only around 60% each year. The spike is already a year behind the curve and is going to have to survive an extra year to catch up in antler growth to his cousinborn earlier in the same year. Only 1 in 5 bucks will make it to 3 1/2 and only 1 in 8 to 4 1/2. Bottom line, there's only a 12% chance you hurt your chances of seeing a good racked mature buck somewhere down the road by shooting the spike. Given you have to feed him during that time and that you probably already have too many deer in the herd, shooting a spike is not a lot different than removing a mature doe. That's my two cents.

rgarza

Woah, big fella. I purposely tried to avoid starting the spike debate, but since it's probably relevant to this disscussion, I'll add my 2 cents.

As background, I am a nephrologist (kidney doctor) with a B.A. in biology. I am not a wildlife biologist. I have read the entire Kerr Wildlife Study, the Mississippi study, and have attended numerous deer seminars in my home state of Texas. I most recently attended a lecture given by Dr. Mickey Hellickson, King Ranch Manager, regarding his latest capture data which has been capturing deer and following them over time. He also summarized and compared the two definitive studies (at times felt to be conflicting) regarding spikes, the Kerr study and the Mississippi study.

I used to believe spikes should be protected. I no longer protect spikes. It is certainly true that most spikes are 1.5 years old. It is also true that spikes do not remain spikes throughout their lifetime. It is also true that late birth dates can influence the production of spikes as a first set of horns. It is also true that some spikes can reach great proportions as a mature buck (very rarely).

However, broadly speaking, 1.5 year old deer with forked antlers grow better antlers based on B&C scoring at maturity, than their spike antlered brethren.

Here's a statistical example from his capture data yet to be published:
30% of yearling spikes ever reach >130 B&C at maturity
30% of 3-5 point yearling bucks reach >140 B&C at maturity
30% of 6 point+ yearling bucks reach >150 B&C at maturity.

If you are going to harvest any deer at 1.5, it seems obvious which ones you should harvest.

This is Texas data and may not be applicable in all circumstances, but it is founded on good data and does not conflict with the Kerr study OR the Mississippi study. They showed similar trends. 3 studies reaching the same general conclusions should be listened to, in my opinion.