Antler Restrictions - What are your thoughts?

[wztirem]

Here is an article that supports somewhat  what BSH is saying.

At least that shooting the best can have a negative effective.

http://www.mississippigameandfish.com/hunting/whitetail-deer-hunting/ms_aa122902a/index.html

Good read!  What I would like to see published would be a similiar article based upon results of a scientific study concerning the AR prorgam in NY. Seemingly the argument continues adnaseum based upon opinion.

[SweetMike]

          I say give it a try for 3-4 years and see where it goes. If there are definite changes in antler growth and size keep it, if not we didn't really loose to much...    My self i hunt by the saying you cant take a great buck if you take the first good one.  If i want meat there are plenty of those bald ones running around out there for that.

[Doc]

          I say give it a try for 3-4 years and see where it goes. If there are definite changes in antler growth and size keep it, if not we didn't really loose to much...    My self i hunt by the saying you cant take a great buck if you take the first good one.  If i want meat there are plenty of those bald ones running around out there for that.

What's interesting is that we have had several test WMUs in the state for a few years now, and I don't know if anyone is gathering any scientific data or making and publishing any official and credible observations. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places, but it seems to me that it is kind of a waste to be conducting trials without paying any attention to the results.

Doc

[steve863]

          I say give it a try for 3-4 years and see where it goes. If there are definite changes in antler growth and size keep it, if not we didn't really loose to much...    My self i hunt by the saying you cant take a great buck if you take the first good one.  If i want meat there are plenty of those bald ones running around out there for that.

There are a good many WMU's that have NO doe permits issued, and many where it will not be easy to draw one.  It's not like doe permits are issued to everyone.  Many meat hunters might as well give up hunting if we had AR's.

[Larry]

I was looking at DMP allotments for the upcoming season. I found that in the AR area with the exception of 3J you have a slim to none chance of getting a DMP.  So I would think your chances of getting a deer for the table would be slim at best. But my real question is how many hunters no longer hunt in those WMU’s or have given up hunting all together? :-X

[steve863]

I was looking at DMP allotments for the upcoming season. I found that in the AR area with the exception of 3J you have a slim to none chance of getting a DMP.  So I would think your chances of getting a deer for the table would be slim at best. But my real question is how many hunters no longer hunt in those WMU’s or have given up hunting all together? :-X

Exactly!  I know a few hunters who abandoned those areas and now hunt where any buck is legal and where a doe tag is easier to draw.  They were lucky that they found another place to hunt.  Others aren't so lucky.  If I hunted in these AR units I surely would not be getting up 4 in the morning for a chance at not being allowed to shoot at just about any deer that might walk in front of me!  It would be a complete waste of time.  At least if they tried out these AR regulations in areas where deer are way more numerous and where doe permits where easy to get.  I really feel sorry for hunters in these AR units.

[Buckstopshere]

Today, the Pa. Game Commission released its 10-year whitetail deer management plan 2009-2018, and at first glance, it seems quite comprehensive taking into consideration new findings, especially where it concerns ARs.

Check it our yourself on the Pa. Game website.

Here is an excerpt from the section on antler restrictions.

Here is the direct quote from the study, minimizing the perceived effect (without mentioning it by name) of "High Grading":

"An expanding research base supports the position that antler restrictions will have minimal impact on future antler development of Pennsylvania‘s deer herd.

First, yearling antler points appear to have limited impact on future antler development (Koerth and Kroll 2008). Studies have concluded yearling antler points to have low heritability (Williams et al. 1994, Lukefahr and Jacobson 1998) and should not be used for harvest schemes to alter the genetic composition of a population (Lukefahr and Jacobson 1998). Thus, use of yearling antler points, as a harvest criterion should have limited influence on future antler development. Antler points at 2.5 years of age have higher heritabilities (Williams et al.. 1994, Lukefahr and Jacobson1998), but the Game Commission‘s antler restriction allows most 2.5 year-old males to be harvested.

Second, research on impact of sire on antler points is not applicable to our antler restriction. Research from the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in Texas concluded that antler points are related to genetics of the father (Harmel 1983). In this study, spike sires produced more spikes than a buck that had 6 points as a yearling. Sample sizes for this study were 8 spike-antlered sires and 1 six-point sire that was initially noted in the pens at 3.5 years of age as a buck with superior antler quality. Results of this study can be summarized as spike antlered males produce more spike offspring than a male with superior antler quality. These results apply to extremes – spike antlered males versus a superior quality male. Pennsylvania‘s antler restriction is not designed to compare the smallest antlers with the largest antlers. In the 3-point area, the relevant question concerning the impact of the proposed regulation is: What is the difference between antlered males with 2 or fewer points to an antler versus antlered males with 3 points or more to an antler? In the 4-point area, the relevant question is: What is the difference between antlered males with 3 or fewer points to an antler versus antlered males with 4 points or more to an antler? Research indicates there may be no relationship between yearling antler points and antler points at 4.5 years of age and older (Koerth and Kroll 2008).

Third, simulations of antler restrictions suggest no difference in antler growth between restrictions similar to our proposal and no restrictions. Strickland et al. (2001) conducted antler restriction simulations on a sample of 220 captive deer maintained on complete diets for optimal growth. Using a 75% harvest rate and a <6 antler-point restriction (both antlers combined), their results failed to show a statistical difference between 4.5 year-old antlers with or without an antler restriction. The average Boone and Crockett score of a 4.5 year-old buck with the restriction was 122, and without the antler restriction, the average 4.5 year-old buck scored 126. Besides a lack of statistical difference, there is no indication of biological significance of 4 Boone and Crockett points at 4.5 years of age on the reproductive success of bucks. Therefore, we do not expect a biologically significant decline in antler quality of Pennsylvania‘s deer population as a result of antler restrictions.

Fourth, most of Pennsylvania‘s antlered males are harvested after the breeding season. Around 75% of Pennsylvania‘s antlered deer harvest occurs during the firearms season in late November and early December. The peak of breeding is mid-November (Figure 4). As a result, most antlered males harvested in Pennsylvania already have passed their genes onto future generations. Timing of the firearms season further reduces the potential for negative genetic effects of antler restrictions in Pennsylvania.

Fifth, a few mature males are not dominating deer breeding (Sorin 2004, Shaw 2005, Sumners et al. 2007). In 2 different studies, yearling males successfully sired 14 percent and 22 percent of the offspring tested (Shaw 2005, Sumners et al. 2007). While the majority of fawns were sired by 3.5 old or older males, yearling and 2.5 year old males sire more than a third to almost half of fawns being born in a population (Shaw 2005, Sumner et al. 2007). In fact, most males only sire 1 litter annually (Sumners et al. 2007).Sixth, multiple paternity is common. In 2002, multiple paternity was documented in captive deer (DeYoung et al. 2002). Twenty-six percent of litters with greater than 2 offspring had more than 1 sire. This information completely challenged some aspects of ungulate reproductive ecology that were thought to be understood. In 2004, the first case of multiple paternity in free-ranging white-tailed deer was documented in Michigan (Sorin 2004). Here, 22 percent of litters with 2 or more offspring had more than 1 sire. This research also showed the oldest males did not monopolize breeding, demonstrating that a few dominant males do not do all breeding (Sorin 2004). Further male dominance ranks were not necessarily predictable or stable during the breeding season (DeYoung et al 2006). Early genetic studies of paternity involved captive deer and those in non-hunted populations having older male age structures. White-tailed deer are hunted across Pennsylvania. Age structures in hunted populations are skewed toward younger age classes. However, even in publicly hunted areas, multiple paternity still has been documented (DeYoung et al. 2007). One study tested 6 different populations with different male age structures and found evidence of multiply paternity in 20 percent or more of litters with 2 or more offspring in all areas (DeYoung et al. 2007)

Finally, a male‘s mother also plays an important role in antler development (Harmel 1983, Lukefuhr and Jacobson 1998), but is nearly impossible to consider in statewide regulations. There are no methods to selectively remove females to improve antler characteristics. Therefore, 50 percent of the genetic contribution to future antler development is randomly selected.

Given all of this information, the complexity of the white-tailed deer‘s breeding ecology, and high genetic variation, large scale alteration to Pennsylvania‘s deer herd‘s genetics is unlikely."

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Wow. Thread over?

[steve863]

So are they admitting they were wrong about AR's when they say.

"An expanding research base supports the position that antler restrictions will have minimal impact on future antler development of Pennsylvania‘s deer herd."

[/size]Sure sounds like it, don't it?  LOL  All this AR, QDM stuff is nothing but bafoonery thought up by some biologists down in Texas who were paid by some rich trophy hunters to come up with some ideas.  None of it worth a darn it seems!  If the herd has good antler genetics, you will have big bucks, if it doesn't you can implement AR's all you want and you won't see much of an improvement if any.

 

[SteveB]

Thanks BSH!!!!

So much for the 'let's try and and see what happens" arguement some here still think is a sound management practise.

[Buckstopshere]

Reading between the lines, it sounds to me that they are (pardon the pun,) pulling in their horns a bit.

Yes, Steve863, they are admitting that ARs have virtually no impact on the future antler size, age structure, physical size, population ratio or anything else for the whitetail deer in Pa. And those points have been great selling points to Joe Deerhunter.

But, I'm afraid that in a way, the Pa. Game Commission deer biologists are digging in and holding the position that the majority of hunters would be more satisfied shooting a six-point, whether it was a 1.5 year old or a 4.5 year old once every few years, than shooting a spike or a fork buck every year.

If the deer hunters would just say on the survey forms that it does not matter whether they shoot a four-point, five point or a six-point buck, it would go a long way. It is more about hunter satisfaction than anything else, I think.

Which would you rather shoot, a five point buck or a six point buck? (In a non-AR zone of course.) It shouldn't matter a hoot. But we have been sold on this antler point worship thing  instead of the quality of the hunt, the shot, the total experience, etc. etc.

Obviously we all fondly remember some of the smaller bucks we have killed in great detail and yet have all but forgotten some of the bigger bucks...that proves that the great god of antler points is something that has been sold to us. Sorry, I'll get off my soapbox now.

I think they are wrong. Hunters care more about the total experience than they do points down deep in their hearts.

And a glance at the new Pa. Game Management format it says that they are not going to be based on a "Deer density" model (like NY,) but upon one that is more flexible, bowing to the will of the majority of hunters, landowners and the general public. It seems that the biologists of the Pa. Game Commission have come down out of their Ivory Tower a bit, at least in this 123-page tome.

After the next round of meetings, if the organized hunters in Pa. protested enough against ARs, if I am reading it correctly, then AR's may be suspended in those areas. The new Pa. study is encouraging for that alone.

[steve863]

Where's that guy from the old forum who told us guys who were opposed to AR's that we needed to get with the times and be educated, most especially by highly intelligent people like himself now???  Eating antler soup maybe...

[Buckstopshere]

I like that old expression...maybe some of you haven't heard it lately:

"If you could buy a man for what he's worth and sell him for what he thinks he's worth, you'd make a heck of a profit."

[steve863]

BSH, I'm afraid you are right, it sure doesn't sound like PA is abandoning AR's at this point, but at least this report takes a good bit of air out of the balloon for those pushing AR's in NYS. 

You are absolutely correct about the antler worship in todays hunting world.  I have seen hunters feel superior because there deer had a piddly 6 points compared to the other guys piddly 5 points.  A sad world we live in where everybody needs to beat out the next guy, and if they don't they don't feel satisfied.

[wztirem]

BSH, I'm afraid you are right, it sure doesn't sound like PA is abandoning AR's at this point, but at least this report takes a good bit of air out of the balloon for those pushing AR's in NYS. 

You are absolutely correct about the antler worship in today's hunting world.  I have seen hunters feel superior because there deer had a piddly 6 points compared to the other guys piddly 5 points.  A sad world we live in where everybody needs to beat out the next guy, and if they don't they don't feel satisfied.

Excellent point!

I was under the impression that the ultimate goal of AR was to balance out the age structure ,improve genetics,increase hunter satisfaction etc. Now this report is published.All I can say is "wow".

In PA, many hunters complain more about the scarcity of deer due to the efforts of the PGC to protect habitat by killing perhaps too many does.

In any event, the NYSDEC has it right by saying that there is no biologic need for statewide AR. They just want deer killed to meet their requirements.

[Doc]

I was looking at DMP allotments for the upcoming season. I found that in the AR area with the exception of 3J you have a slim to none chance of getting a DMP.  So I would think your chances of getting a deer for the table would be slim at best. But my real question is how many hunters no longer hunt in those WMU’s or have given up hunting all together? :-X

As far as I can find, no one is doing any study anywhere that looks at the impact to hunter numbers due to AR in areas where there should be none. That includes the NYS experiments and the PA statewide results or any other state that has ARs. I'm not saying that such studies don't exist, but I have not been able to find any. I really don't think that it is a research priority with any of these state game agencies, and it certainly is not a priority with the "Let's jam ARs down everybody's throat" crowd. Personally for me, that is the only issue with ARs. I don't care about high-grading, or any of the maneuvered and biased studies on how AR is an emergency mandatory salvation of the species. I could care less whether there are old sway-back bucks behind every tree or not. That sort of thing has zero priority with me. What I do have a problem with is regulating hunters right out of the field, and the fact that nobody is even asking the question whether that is happening or not.

Doc

[Larry]

I think putting a ban on killing all or almost all small bucks would put undue pressure on large bucks. That would seen to let the smaller bucks do more of the breeding. Somewhere down the line it looks like you would end up with a diminish return on antler size. As smaller bucks do the breeding ???

[Buckstopshere]

Doc: The Pa. study on page 14 shows us the Pa. success rate. I think it mirrors the hunter satisfaction rate. Prior to the watershed year of 2002 when Gary Alt, et. al. instituted AR's in Pa., deer hunters tagged over 200,000 bucks (in 2,000 and 2,001.) In 2007, that total buck take figure dropped like a stone to an all time low of 109,000 bucks in 2007. Is it a stretch to say that buck hunters in Pa. took HALF the bucks they were tagging back a few years prior to "The Pa. Experiment?" I don't think so.

So flip over a few pages to page 36 of the study. License sales over the last 20 years. 'Course it shows the drop in hunting....like everywhere. But, Pa. was selling over 1 million deer licenses up until "The Experiment" now it has dropped 75,000 after 2004. Why 2004? I think hunters gave ARs a chance for a couple years, but became discouraged by the lack of success in the woods.

I think the results of "The Pa. Experiment" are as plain as the nose on my face. Hunters are not happier with AR's. In fact, AR's have caused the opposite of its stated intention...less deer, though better quality will make hunters happier.

But in reality, there were less deer, the timber interests were happy, but the average guy is becoming very discouraged in Pa. And I have been buying a license there since 1971 and I am seriously considering saving my money this year because the deer population there...not to mention the buck population is ridiculously low now.

And you should know me by now that with me, it is not all about the kill. But when there is no sign, no tracks, no rubs and scrapes, licking branches to fool with...and all I have to do is spend my time with my trail cams and scouting back here in NY...I can use the Pa. non-resident fee to buy another trail cam!

In other words, I do not think that we need another study. Pa. and Mississippi have both experimented with AR's and the results are in. Though the intentions were good, in reality AR's were colossal failures in both states and have severely damaged participation in our hallowed sport.

Of course if someone wants to practice AR's on his or her property...go for it. More power to you. I am speaking about this Management Philosophy on a global (statewide) level. One size fits all where the average guy who 1. Isn't rich, or 2. Does not want to dedicate his life to deer hunting...the average Joe,  doesn't stand a chance.

The results are in.

Larry: Exactly. But according to the new Pa. study, since 1/2 the genetics come from the doe, and since breeding does by bucks is completely random, even the effect of High Grading (breeding by the smallest, protected animals) is watered down.  It would be like if you and I were breeding bird dogs and we decided to always pick the smallest, runtiest, camel-gaited, possum-tailed dog as a sire. (That's what you are in effect doing when you shoot off all the big bucks and leave the squirts to do the breeding.) But....the does carry the genes of the bigger bucks in their population...like if we allowed our runty sires to mate at random with any bitches in the breed. At least that is what the Pa. study concludes...

But I used to fuss with bird dog breeding and talking to some experts like the late, great Bob Wehle of Scotsville who was a student of not just bird dog breeding, but horses and cows...he said that there was a tendency of all breeding to go towards the mediocre in any strain and it took a real effort to elevate the qualities through selective breeding.

If that is true, (And who am I to doubt those words from a true breeder of animals?) Then as the Pa. Study concluded, there is really little effect by letting the spikes and forks do most of the breeding (because they are all that's left and protected.) But thankfully, the does still carry the good genes to ameliorate the influence of the protection and overabundance of runts and inferior males.

[Doc]

Well, as far as I am concerned, that is the most powerful argument against AR of any that I have heard. In fact for me it is the only argument that matters. I am not for any new regulations that drive hunters from our ranks. It's not necessary and if it does harm to our already diminishing numbers, then why would anyone be for it?

Doc

[WNYBuckHunter]

I think putting a ban on killing all or almost all small bucks would put undue pressure on large bucks. That would seen to let the smaller bucks do more of the breeding. Somewhere down the line it looks like you would end up with a diminish return on antler size. As smaller bucks do the breeding ???

You may want to do some searches on what bucks do the breeding in a deer herd, you would be very surprised to see the results.

[Larry]

i think Doc is right

[steve863]

I am not for any new regulations that drive hunters from our ranks. It's not necessary and if it does harm to our already diminishing numbers, then why would anyone be for it?

Doc

Because there are some hunters out there who want less hunters out hunting.  Their thinking is that with less hunters there will be more deer for themselves and more land available.  It's not like greed doesn't rear it's ugly head in the hunting world also. 

[Doc]

I don't think that is really any part of the motives behind AR. It may be the unintended consequence, but I don't believe it is intentional. No I honestly believe that they don't even think of that part of the potential consequences or they look at their own hunting and habitat conditions and can't imagine that anyone might not have those same circumstances as they do. I don't think there is any malicious intentions on the part of AR proponents.

[steve863]

I don't think that is really any part of the motives behind AR. It may be the unintended consequence, but I don't believe it is intentional. No I honestly believe that they don't even think of that part of the potential consequences or they look at their own hunting and habitat conditions and can't imagine that anyone might not have those same circumstances as they do. I don't think there is any malicious intentions on the part of AR proponents.

Well, the AR supporters are probably not looking at it from an angle that it would reduce the number of hunters in the field directly, BUT a good many of them look down their noses at anyone who doesn't support AR's, so I'm sure they would prefer that these hunters who don't think the same way they do would just step aside and somehow disappear.  AR's were proposed in the unit I hunt last year and it was basically because of some little known sportsman clubs in the area that somehow took the initiative to speak for everyone else who hunts in the unit.  No one ever asked me my opinion, that is for sure.  I did write the DEC of my thoughts once I found out that AR's were on the table.  I have NO doubt that the AR proponents would prefer that people like myself didn't take a stance, so that they could get their way.  Tough noogans for them, though! 

[Doc]

There does seem to be a bit of a "bandwagon" effect going on these days where a lot of hunters are saying they are for AR without a whole lot of actual thinking about the ramifications. They have heard other people talk about it, they get visions of huge bucks all of sudden becoming easy to get and say, "why not".

Yes, I do believe that some of the more devoted AR fans would just as soon that the ones against AR would get out of the way, one way or another. But whether that comprises a significant number of them or not, I can't say. I get the feeling that most would still rather persuade the rest that AR is a good idea.