We have it here in P.A. Some of the property I hunt is a 3 point on one side minimum, but some other property that I hunt is 4 point on one side. The crazy thing about it is, the only thing I have to do to change the antler restrictions is cross the road LOL. Thats right, they used a road as the determining factor on what you can shoot. I do agree with this in some aspect, everyone wants to shoot big bucks. I have had the opportunity to kill a few that were a little above average, but not only because of the restrictions, but because I scout. I do however have a problem with the youth thing. I hunted for 5 years without killing a deer and because of this I started to hunt does despite on my early thoughts of "killing does is wrong". Now, I don't care, it's all about the meat. The only thing that I think this rule doing is giving the youth the wrong impression. Hunting isn't all about killing things and if you truely enjoy hunting, the kil doesn't matter. We are obviously all out there to kill a deer but I get some of the most enjoyment out of watching the game not only shooting it.

That's what it is Josh. They see all these states that grow big bucks naturally or because of a lack of hunter numbers now charging $3000 for a week of whitetail hunting. They also see states getting large numbers of HORN HUNTERS paying hundreds of out of state dollars for tags. They want to grow a horn herd so they too can have USO Outfitters move in and lease up the land and raise the out of state tags to 5 or 6 hundred dollars. Mark my word. If they get their way in 7 or 8 years after some manufactured publicity folks will start loosing their hunting lands. They won't have a place to take little Joey to hunt because it'll cost him a months pay to do it. Mean while, Team Realtree will be making New York movies. It's an ill founded attempt to grow big horns. It's not following scientific evidence at all. It's following Mega Bucks rules but like you say, letting a lot of rag horns live to breed. They'd be better off to say NO bucks for 3 years or NO bucks with more than spike for 2 years or something.... but of course the horn hunters want to shoot macho buck if he happens by. In most cases.... he's the worst meat.

I agree that this is a money move and not a conservation move. I'm a meat hunter and I don't care how many horns are on a deers head! I just want to make sure the population will sustain.

Tom

I absolutely agree that Michigan should adopt the same restrictions, especially in the UP where there are loads of nonresident hunters who are happy to shoot whatever comes by with 3" spikes. There are plenty of residents who do the same though, don't get me wrong.The youth seasons should be antlerless I think too, or at least adhere to the same antler restrictions.

We don't need that rule in Illinois or Wisconsin. There are plenty of good deer around. Illinois does not have a rifle season, only slug/shotgun. In certain areas of wisconsin you can kill as many deer as you want up to 4 a day! And they still can't reduce the numbers much. This rule must be administered in a state by state and zone by zone method. Is it about the money? You bet! everything is these days!

This isn't about money.It's about the majority of hunters wanting to shoot a buck, and a bigger one than just a spike or forkhorn. end of story.

like i said earlier it isn't the perfect way to do it. how do you tell a hunter "don't shoot a spike if it's been a spike for two or more years"?

so it's all about meat guys right? sure it is .I'm sure all of you guys out there don't care in the least if you shoot a 150" 10 point or a little unicornspike. in fact you prefer the spike because the meat is better. i believe you, really, no, i swear i do, seriously!In fact, if the 10 and the spike were standing right next to each other, you'd definitely shoot the spike right?because you don't care you'rejust a meat hunter.

don't get me wrong, there's obviously a lot of people against antler restrictions. but, there are very very very few who really don't care if they shoot a spike or a huge buck.

I think the restriction should be based on the "class" of buck, not the number of points.Lots of immature5, 6, 7 and 8 points are taken. If it were restricted to 120 class or higher then you would really see an improvement in the number of big mature bucks. Also buck to doe ratios would be much more improved and many more truly mature bucks would live to breed thus greatly improving the health of the herd over a simple 3 point on a side rule. Not to mention hunter satisfaction. Much greater opportunities to harvest a mature animal. I don't think we should settle for a "partial" fix like the 3 point rule.

I think Missouri's point restriction was experimental and this is the last year.Conservation commission will decide what to make permanent. Atfirst I was against thepoint restriction. My thinking was it was unfair to new hunters. These days are the best hunting years of our lives but it is stilldifficult to kill a deer. Withthenumber of huntersdeclining we need measures to increase the interest andactive involvementin hunting, notmake it harder.To me the point restrictions just made it even more difficult for the new hunters.
On the other side of the coin it only makes sense to let the small racks get bigger because there are a lot of trophy hunters out there and they deserve to be represented as well. No matter the what the final decision you can't please everyone all the time. The restrictions didn't affect me at all yet, but I have 3 nephews who want to go hunting and hopefully I can keep them interested and they will understand the reason why they can't shoot that certain deer.

I do think it is about the money. It's all about the money. Here the Conservation department collects 1/8th of every cent that is spent in the whole state. Everyone knowshow great our Conservation department is. What gets me is that after all that money is collected,(1/8 cent tax), why does the cost of a deer tag keep going up???

It's hard enough for people to count points sometimes to make sure there are enough to make the deer legal. I can just see, beginning hunters especially, guestimating if a deer is 120" or more before they shoot!! Let's not make it that much of a guessing game!!

I support the 4 point on one side restriction in Missouri! One change I would like to see though is during the youth only hunts, DNR implement an earn-a-buck system, meaning that the youth would need to take an antlerless deer first and then be allowed to take a buck of any size! As stated earlier, most youths are tickled to death to shoot any deer, so the antlerless would be a great starting point while also contributing to the overall reduction in antlerless deer across the state.

Any thoughts?

I oppose any form of antler based restrictions , there is no biologically sound reason for them . If an individual wants to hold out for a bigger rack that's fine with me , but don't tell me what I can't shoot unless you're the DNR Director .