solution to antler restrictions

[Doewhacker]

Animal husbandry is in fact a science, and there is no reason not to apply sound breeding practices to our free ranging herd of white-tailed deer in NY. In many areas hunters often observe fewer deer than meets their satisfaction and it’s easy to blame this on a number of things. We must not overlook the fact that every time a NY hunter pulls the trigger or releases an arrow, he or she is making a decision that will determine the herd’s characteristics for the next season. When a poor buck-to-doe ratio exists, we will experience a trickle rut. A breeding chronology that is extended as it appears to the case in some areas of NY is something that hunters can control. Only our stubborn adherence to outdated hunting traditions that results in annually clear-cutting the yearling buck population prevents us from refining deer breeding ecology.

Yearling bucks are capable breeders, and DNA analysis has shown that in white-tailed deer populations with a well-balanced age structure, yearlings will breed about 1/3 of the does. However, in unbalanced herds such as NY and other northeastern states with a poor buck age structure, yearlings by default are forced to conduct the bulk of the breeding over an extended period of time. This immature age class of male animals with the smallest physical stature, the poorest stored fat reserves, and the most inept breeding behaviors are forced to be the primary breeders over a needlessly long breeding season. It defies the basic logic of animal husbandry practices, yet is a time-honored scenario that currently plays out every fall, to the chronic long term detriment of overall deer herd health in NY.

There is some intelligence! Very well stated!

You mean ..Very well cut and pasted!

[Doewhacker]

Well doewhacker why are you so against having some public land for the AR hunters to hunt on. Scot is right 65% are for some sort of change.So why wouldn't the DEC want to keep the majority of paying hunters happy.  It probably wouldn't even affect you because you probably hunt posted land.

um what? Re-read Doc's first post here on this thread, he pretty much tells it like it is there.

[steve863]

Why don't you boys just admit it.  All you guys supporting AR's care about are antlers and that's it.  Everything revolving around deer and hunting boils down to antlers for you.  Your deer biology is centered on how big a rack you could grow.  That antler is the hunting utopia for you boys.  Every other hunting tradition others might hold dear mean absolutely JACK to any of you.  I often wonder what the general public, and I'm not talking about rabid anti-hunters, but those who have little opinion about hunting would think about hunting if they knew that the state is implementing rules that might potentially grow some bigger male deer for trophy hunters to shoot?  I think many non-hunters can accept deer being killed to control deer populations and for people to put meat on the table, but when you start throwing out the word "trophies" and "trophy" hunters their opinions may just start getting swayed against hunting sooner than later.  So keep up the good work boys!  Just wait until the word gets out to the man on the street about how your deer biology is all about the antlers that you want on your walls.  I will assure you that their will be even less private land available for people to hunt once all this becomes general knowledge and our already suspect reputations amongst non-hunters will not get any better either.  This is probably the reason the DEC has been reluctant to implement AR's elsewhere.  They know what the charade is all about and who is behind and they don't want to put themselves in a situation where private landowners and the general public think that they are now managing deer for trophies instead of population control.  So you guys can keep dreaming and tooting that the majority of hunters out there want AR's, but you will not see it implemented elsewhere in the state any time soon!  Don't think your WMU's where it is in effect is safe either from it being repealed.  Just wait and you will see.

[Doewhacker]

"I think many non-hunters can accept deer being killed to control deer populations and for people to put meat on the table, but when you start throwing out the word "trophies" and "trophy" hunters their opinions may just start getting swayed against hunting sooner than later"

Yes that is 100% true, they noted it in the one study I read in fact. People don't like the idea of Trophy hunting and the State knows it and is at least recognizing that fact.

[steve863]

Thanks Doe for also recognizing this.  Of course WE are the stupid, ignorant ones in the AR's folks minds who think we are resistant to any change.  With change come other consequences which I guess the AR folks don't bother to think about.  I give high marks to the DEC on this one for looking at the issue from all perspectives and NOT just taking the word of some vocal AR advocates.

[fasteddie]

I don't need the state to put restrictions on the deer's rack . I can do that myself . I have never shot anything larger than an 8 point basket rack but would like to before I die . It won't happen by shooting the little ones .

I practice my own QDM by taking a share of the does and passing on the little bucks . I leave the spikes & fork horns for the guys that "need" to shoot something with horns and think that's the Macho thing to do . http://www.downsouthhuntingforums.com/images/smiles/icon_smile_whistling.gif[/img]

[jimbodwb]

I think the best way to see if hunters are for or against AR's is for the state to put a simple yes/no question when you get your license. Make it so the system will not print out the license until the question is answered. That way the state will get the opinion of all hunters. I am not a betting man but I would put my money on more hunters being against AR's. I know how I would vote.

And Steve863, that was a great post and it really does say it all. The general population of non hunters would probably not take it too favorably if they thought that all hunters cared about was how big a rack a deer has.

What's next, a squirrel's tail must be  X-long or a rabbits ears must be X-long. How about beard restrictions or skull restrictions for bear. Don't shoot that coyote unless it is 20 inches at the shoulder. Sorry but that ducks bill is not long enough. Where will it end!

[Larry]

Last night around 7pm I saw a big 12pt it will score between 150 & 160 now the hard part to get permission to get on the land to hunt it. This deer is in a non AR zone

[burmjohn]

Steve, you are generalizing that every AR person is just in it for the antlers.  A few of these AR proponents here, including myself, are far from head hunters. I've only had the opportunity to take a few bucks in the 15 years I've been hunting.  In the area's where AR is implemented, or the area's AR is implemented and I have hunting experience in, the opportunity to take a buck has increase.

[steve863]

No, I don't think I am.  There is absolutely nothing that any of you have tried to tell us here that doesn't lead to bigger "antlers" as being the center theme. 

[burmjohn]

Yes you are, I just gave you one there that you chose to ignore. Again, in the area I hunt with AR, the opportunity has increased to take a buck.

[steve863]

How has it increased?  The buck take is down in the AR regions according to the DEC since AR was implemented.  According to their graph the number of 2.5 and older has increased slightly, but the overall buck take is down.  So who do you think is happier with this scenario?  The guy who cares only about bigger antlers or the guy who is happy with any buck he might have a chance to take? Plus a good many of the hunters in those regions can't even draw a doe permit, so there reasons for hunting should be what???

  http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/27663.html

[burmjohn]

Steve,

Again, in the area I hunt with AR, the opportunity has increased to take a buck.  The guy that cares about AR, QDM, or "Bigger Antlers" guys as you say, in addition to the guys that want to shoot anything; have more of an opportunity now in my area then before.  This is fact, based on my own research, my land, my neighbors and my immediate hunting area.  I am not speaking for anyone else other then that.  Doe permits are a different story, the DEC over shot their goals, so they had to reduce the doe permits.

Just as you posted the above, in the other thread, I am pasting what I had posted below.

Unfortunately it seems the DEC doesn't have the historical data by WMU on the site anywhere that I found,  it only went back to 2006.  With out seeing the actual numbers, its hard to come up with any kind of analysis.  Buck take was DOWN for quite a few years after the high numbers in 2003 statewide.

year    Adult Male    Fawn Male    Adult Female    Fawn Female    Total

2009    102,057    19,710    84,330    16,701    222,798

2008    105,747    20,000    79,953    17,279    222,979

2007    104,451    21,096    76,367    17,227    219,141

2006    96,569    18,336    60,102    14,101    189,108

2005    89,015    16,373    61,179    13,647    180,214

2004    88,733    21,022    80,196    18,455    208,406

2003    107,533    26,883    94,376    24,296    253,088

[steve863]

You're right, it would be better if we had more figures for those WMU's with AR's, but the link I posted does show that fewer bucks have been taken since AR's, so this can't completely be discounted.  It may be due to less deer in general or due to AR's, but it doesn't seem like more hunters are getting opportunities to shoot a buck if less bucks are being shot.  What you or anyone else is seeing in your neck of the woods doesn't mean everyone else is seeing the same thing.  From what I hear from you guys, that DEC graph would be off the chart since the implementation of AR's with successful buck hunters if things were as good as you guys claim. 

[Fairgame]

The only way all of us would know if it is working is if all of us knew how it was before.  Including the DEC.  You are right in the sense that I can only talk from what I see in my neck of the woods but also what I hear from others I know and have met from my area.  I know alot of people in the area after 17 years of hunting there. It is a big hunting community and most of the landowners in the area are from other parts closer to the city and come up on the weekends and during the hunting season.

If Antler Restrictions werent called Antler Restrictions but they were Buck Age Restriction, where you could only shoot a buck of a certain age I believe we would have more support from the non AR perople cause it is not limiting it on antlers but the age of a deer.  It actually sounds better in the sense that it keeps the mind off of antlers and more on the age structure of the buck herd.  As we all know they cant do that cause most of us would have a hard time aging the buck in front of us, so they gave us an easier way of judging the animal which is its rack.  Does it save all the small bucks? No, but it has save most of the yearlings for many of us in this area to see an older buck. 

I have no problem admitting that I want to shoot a big rack,no problem admitting it and that is the goal of alot of hunters.  I dont have to shoot an eight point.  I actually have my mind set on a big 5 point that we have pictures of at my place.  I know that he is an older deer probably 3 1/2, but a really cool looking buck.

[Larry]

  Animal husbandry is the science in part; of selective breeding of Domestic livestock obtain more desirable traits, like more milk from a cow or bigger breast on a turkey.

You also have to remember ½ the genes of any animal come from the female. When you put in a management plan that harvests primarily the biggest and best bucks you are giving what THEHUNTER calls scrub bucks a greater chance to breed not less. This is just fact you remove the best what do you have left. You may see that spike or 4pt. as a 6 or 8 the next year you may not. What you will probably see is a diminish gene pool down the line somewhere. This may be the just of the latest report out of PA.

[Larry]

this report has the take per wmu in 2009

09deerrpt.pdf

[TheHunter]

Larry,

Before quoting people you should read first.  Your fellow ANTI-AR friend DOEWACKER is the one that called 1.5's and 2.5's scrub bucks, not I.

And no PA has found zero evidence of any gene pool degration.  This is a quote directly from the document I linked to from the PGC.

Concerns over genetic impacts of selective harvest are common. Would selecting bucks based on the number of antler points they carried be enough to alter future antler development? Current research is clearly mounting evidence to the contrary.

About 1 in 4 litters will have fawns with different fathers.

Research has shown yearling antler points are poor predictors of future antler points and size.

Percent of hunters harvesting a buck is similar to previous decades.

First, yearling antler points are poor predictors of future antler development. Research indicates little relationship between a buck’s first set of antlers and those he carries at 4.5 years of age and older. So, using yearling antler points as a harvest criterion should not influence future antler development in the population as a yearling spike buck and a yearling 6-point can have similar sized antlers by age 4.5 years.

Second, most of Pennsylvania’s antlered males are harvested after the breeding season. About 75 percent of Pennsylvania’s antlered deer harvest occurs during the firearms season in late November and early December. The peak of breeding is mid-November. As a result, most antlered males harvested in Pennsylvania have already passed their genes onto future generations.

Third, a few mature males are not dominating breeding. In two different studies, yearling males successfully sired fawns in populations with high percentages of older males. In fact, most males, regardless of age, only sired one litter.

Fourth, does are regularly being bred by multiple bucks. Initially studied in captive deer, multiple paternity has been documented in every free-ranging white-tailed deer study in which researchers have looked. Populations with different male age structures in different states have seen litters with two or more offspring having different fathers at rates of 20-24 percent.

Finally, a buck’s mother contributes half of his genetic characteristics, but nobody can tell what a doe’s contribution to her son’s antlers will be. There is no way to visually evaluate the genetic antler potential of a doe. As a result, 50 percent of the genetic contribution to future antler development is randomly selected in Pennsylvania.

http://www.statelibrary.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/715029/handout_-_biology_and_hunting_-_antler_restrictions_-_v13_20090806_pdf

[Doewhacker]

Well when you are done reading about how great AR's are in NY and PA, go ask a PA hunter if they are happy with the way things are managed down there. You will be surprised at how unhappy alot of them are with the PGC.

[gipper]

One last post on this topic I started. The main point i was trying to make was would fellow hunters support the idea of designating 1 area in each county (public land) for hunters to practice AR. I think most of you would not even be affected and those that want it would have an oppurtunity to hunt a place that has some sort of AR guidelines.

Also all of you guys that say trophy hunting would sway non hunters to look at hunting in a bad light. Well I guess all those mid west states and Penn should be in big trouble with the general public because they have had AR in place for years.. I think that argument is BS.

[Doc]

One last post on this topic I started. The main point i was trying to make was would fellow hunters support the idea of designating 1 area in each county (public land) for hunters to practice AR. I think most of you would not even be affected and those that want it would have an oppurtunity to hunt a place that has some sort of AR guidelines.

Also all of you guys that say trophy hunting would sway non hunters to look at hunting in a bad light. Well I guess all those mid west states and Penn should be in big trouble with the general public because they have had AR in place for years.. I think that argument is BS.

Ha-ha ...... everybody has a plan  ;D . I remember those days before I retired from my job, when everybody around me (even people who didn't have any idea of what we did) had ideas on how we should do our job. Of course they didn't have a clue, but that didn't stop them from offering an opinion. What the heck, I do it too. Other than actual hunting, it's become the American hunter's favorite pastime ........ trying to second-guess the employees of the DEC. It's great fun, and who knows, maybe some day, one of us may actually accidentally come up with a real useful idea. probably not..... but maybe. In the meantime, I suppose there's no real harm in pretending we can actually do their job better than they can .

Doc

[MountainHunter]

So the hunter who goes a number of years choosing not to shoot the easiest buck to kill in the woods is made to be in to some trophy fixated heathen? Maybe they are just good hunters who take no satisfaction on killing an extremely naive age class of buck.

There is mo sense bickering here.no one is going to change any ones mind.

I would welcome a state wide vote among hunters on this issue.Or at least tier by tier.

[JCTheGC]

Scot, the thing is, even though a majority of us hunters wish to implement or practice AR that we don't have the right as majority to impose it on other hunters.  Even though the world rules by majority.  Its how we elect officials, presidents and  put laws into effect.  Its what makes the world turn.  Some how rules are OK for everything else that effects our daily lives, even when its comes down to something as simple as fishing.  There is a reason why you have to throw back the fish that doesn't meet the criteria.  In AR area's as you know, there is a reason for not shooting the 1.5's.  They get to live, reproduce and survive another year, and potentially grow and mature.  How that is a bad thing is beyond me, as in the area I hunt and from what others that are in AR areas have expressed here they have not only seen bigger bucks they have seen more legal bucks to shoot.  So the argument that it deters "first time" hunters from the sport seems like quite a week argument. And the expectation that a first time hunter to shoot a buck is ridiculous, I went over 4 years before harvesting my first buck as a hunter.  1/2 of my family lives and hunts in PA, some of these family members were against AR at first, but after a few years they realized that it not only more mature bucks, a great hunting experience, and a greater opportunity of harvesting a buck as well.  I understand all ends of the arguments, I was also on that other side, until I saw the results.  I respect everyones opinion, I am not bashing anyone, and I am only speaking from first hand experience and what I see.  Let them go, let them grow.

[SteveB]

there is a reason for not shooting the 1.5's.  They get to live, reproduce and survive another year, and potentially grow and mature.

Or

there is a reason for not shooting the 2.5's.  They get to live, reproduce and survive another year, and potentially grow and mature.

Or

there is a reason for not shooting the 3.5's.  They get to live, reproduce and survive another year, and potentially grow and mature.

If the 1st is valid, why aren't these?

[JCTheGC]

there is a reason for not shooting the 1.5's.  They get to live, reproduce and survive another year, and potentially grow and mature.

Or

there is a reason for not shooting the 2.5's.  They get to live, reproduce and survive another year, and potentially grow and mature.

Or

there is a reason for not shooting the 3.5's.  They get to live, reproduce and survive another year, and potentially grow and mature.

If the 1st is valid, why aren't these?

Yes, you are 100% correct and I agree, and at least the current AR allows the (most) 1.5's to live on.