Antler Point Restrictions

[Musky Buck]

True fox. But how tough is it really. Know when your season opens and ends, know when shooting hours are, know how many deer you can take in your area. I think our initial license statewide is for a buck or doe unless you are in a lottery area. Go hunt.

[Musky Buck]

I've been trying to find out how many non-residents come deer hunt in MN ? I notice like Iowa allows 6,000, sounds like they are doubling that to 12,000 and I think that is because of our recession or it must be $ related. Just curious if they restrict the number here in MN and didn't want to start a 1 question topic.

[Musky Buck]

Was thinking back a bit on some saying so you wouldn't be able to shoot that trophy 6 pointer. Over my 30 some years I haven't seen too many trophy 6's, a few, but not many. We had that deer once, dandy 6 and dad said don't you dare shoot him, give him a year. That dandy six the next year was a horse 8, without an odd marking on his shoulder we wouldn't have known him. So it is so difficult to make an across the board rule stick, what would work from north to south and east to west. I simply think it would diminish the cross tagging which is a problem, would put most of us in the same basket, but allow for new hunters through the age of 18 or over the age of 60 to take any buck. I'd like to see it for 3 years and then reassess it's affectiveness or non. No positive change try the next thing. A lot of what I read and hear is to try to protect the younger bucks, well this would be a start. Always remember you don't have to get a deer or bloody hands to be a man and hunting is a chance thing, just like when a person drops money in a slot machine or buys a lottery ticket, it's a chance. When will my buck herd shed, darn bucks think they need to be the last to drop em.

[lichen fox]

Musky,

There are no restrictions on non-resident deer license sales in Mn...I looked at some stats on the dnr website from 2006 and the numbers of non-res license sold for deer was just under 14,000...trend was an increase of about 10% per year over the last 6 - 7 years...

[Musky Buck]

Thanks "The Fox" awesome screen name. Was that I assume bow,rifle,muzzy ? Interesting. Sorry to raze you on our regulation book, I agree it is absurd and crazy reading, the more I read it the more ? I had about it, a newcomer might think what the____. It's a mess. From the book. Remember to not apply exploding arrow tips on your arrows guys. Or for duck hunters you can not use a stupifying substance to harvest migratory waterfowl.

[lichen fox]

Musky,

The stat's just indicated firearms, about 12,500 in '06 plus about 1300 achery....

As for the regulation book, I can take some razin'... but if there is a rule or recomendation in there I don't agree with, I just ignore it...hehehehe

[BLACKJACK]

I took the following quotes from an article from Mississippi where antler point restrictions have been in place since 1995.

Quote:

We conclude the 4-point antler restriction has

reduced average antler size of older bucks on numerous

public hunting areas in Mississippi. We emphasize these

results were from public hunting areas, and that’s where

the conclusions are most applicable, but these problems

could develop on private lands under similar management

conditions.

This post says it all, why would MN want to start a deer management policy that has failed elsewhere????!!

[buckhunter21]

I got this article off of a michigan website. Its kinda long but i think it shows that it really works. I have read a few other articles on the subject and they all lean the same way.

A story from Michigan:

Beginning in 1993 with the “Dooly County Experiment” in Georgia, several counties and deer management units (DMUs) across the U.S. have been placed under state-regulated antler restrictions.

Today, numerous counties or DMUs in Georgia, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, and other states are operating under some form of minimum antler restriction. These are in addition to statewide antler restrictions in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. Collectively, these restrictions have resulted from the growing support among sportsmen for opportunities to manage and hunt whitetails under the Quality Deer Management (QDM) approach.

The notoriety of the Dooly County project spurred the interest of Michigan schoolteacher and avid whitetail hunter, Marc Yenkel of Claire, Michigan. In 1996, Marc petitioned the Executive Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MIDNR) for an antler restriction in his immediate hunting area of about three square miles. It was politely refused.

“We wanted a chance to harvest 2 1/2- or 3 1/2-year-old bucks,” said Marc. “People around here had bushel baskets of 4-point racks. We wanted the opportunity, the challenge of hunting an older deer. I have 160 acres and the guy next to me has 3,000 and it really snowballed from there.”

Despite the failed first effort, Marc gathered several local supporters and petitioned the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (MNRC) in 1997 for a larger area of about 20 square miles. This also was rejected on the basis that it would break-up an existing DMU. Marc then joined the Mid-Michigan Branch of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) and together they drafted a proposal for all of DMU 118 (173,000 acres) with input from the MIDNR Wildlife Division.

Based on this request, the MIDNR adopted guidelines similar to those used in Georgia, which require, among other things, landowner and hunter surveys to be conducted in the affected area to gauge support. A minimum of 66 percent support from both landowners and hunters is then required for the antler restriction to be implemented. Eventually, a survey was conducted, which revealed 68 percent support from landowners and 53 percent support from hunters for a mandatory 3-points-on-one-side minimum antler restriction in DMU 118. The MIDNR withdrew their support due to the hunter survey not meeting the 66 percent minimum support requirement. Still undeterred, Marc and his supporters petitioned the MINRC again in 1999 and were successful in obtaining the necessary 4-vote majority within the Commission to proceed with the regulation for a minimum of five years.

Unlike most other county-wide antler restrictions, DMU 118 provides a unique opportunity to objectively assess the potential of this approach because deer harvest data have been regularly collected for many years, both pre- and post-implementation of the restrictions. Now, four years into the 5-year program, the results have been very encouraging. The following results were prepared from data provided by the MIDNR. Results

- total deer harvest in DMU 118 peaked in 1999 (the year following implementation of the antler restriction) at 416 deer and appears to be stabilizing around 250 animals, or slightly above the 3-year base average of 235 before the initiative began.

Importantly, the sex ratio within the harvest has improved considerably. Prior to introduction of the antler restriction, an average of 1.9 bucks were harvested for every doe harvested. The 4-year average during this initiative was 1.3 bucks harvested per doe (range 1.1-1.7). Also, the total antlerless harvest exceeded the 3-year base average of 104 during each of the four years, including 2002 when 109 antlerless deer were harvested. The steady decline in antlerless harvest during the four years of this initiative is likely due to a reduction in total deer density as reported by many hunters in the area.

One of the most encouraging results was that, contrary to many predictions, total buck harvest did not decline under this restriction. In fact, in all four years, except 2001, total buck harvest exceeded the 3-year base average of 131 (range 117-203).

Another positive result was the decline in the percentage of button bucks in the antlerless harvest (Figure 2). The 3-year base average prior to the restriction was 19 percent, compared to the 4-year average during the project of 11.5 percent — a 39 percent reduction. It is likely that the increased survival of button bucks was a major reason why total buck harvest remained above the 3-year base average when the total herd was being reduced through increased antlerless harvest.

The impact of the restriction on the ages of bucks in the harvest also was encouraging (Figure 3). Following a slight increase in the number of yearling bucks harvested in 1999, this number has declined to around 60 — a 41 percent reduction from the 3-year base average of 102. This decrease occurred despite the fact that the 3-points-on-one-side restriction only protects around 50 percent of the yearling bucks in this area.

As expected, the protection of yearling bucks resulted in an increased harvest of older bucks. For example, the 3-year base averages for 2 1/2-, 3 1/2-, and 4 1/2+-year-old bucks were 21, seven, and one percent, respectively. In contrast, the 4-year averages for these age classes following the restriction were 49, 23, and four percent, respectively. This translates to increases of 133 percent, 229 percent, and 300 percent for 2 1/2, 3 1/2, and 4 1/2+ year olds, respectively.

While the data show a drastic improvement, the regulations were a hit with many hunters in the area.

“It only took about two years to see the results and it just keeps getting better,” Marc said. “This year I took a buck that grossed 107 inches and my son took a buck 97 inches, and they were heavy deer. The buck to doe ratio has improved drastically.”Discussion

The results from this study provide strong evidence that state-regulated antler restrictions can produce positive outcomes in whitetail herds, and in a relatively short period of time. At least in this example, it appears that the three primary objectives of this antler restriction — increased antlerless harvest, decreased button buck harvest, and increased harvest of older bucks — are being achieved. The increased antlerless harvest has apparently reduced deer density, which provides obvious benefits to landowners and agricultural producers. The decreased button buck harvest demonstrates that hunter education and commitment to a QDM-type program are determining factors to hunter selectivity. The increased number of older bucks has resulted in a more balanced adult sex ratio and an increased number of older, larger-antlered bucks available for harvest. The increased presence of older bucks also increases the intensity of rutting activities and provides opportunities for hunters to incorporate rattling and calling techniques into their hunting strategies.

Despite the obvious success of this initiative, a recent survey by the MIDNR revealed that landowner and hunter support for continuation of the restriction is still below 66 percent. It remains unclear if the MIDNR will continue the restriction beyond the 2003 hunting season, the end of the initial 5-year period. Regardless, the results of this study reveal that the combination of proper doe harvest and protection of yearling bucks can produce positive outcomes for deer herds, deer habitats, and deer hunters.

[Bowfin]

Always remember you don't have to get a deer or bloody hands to be a man and hunting is a chance thing, just like when a person drops money in a slot machine or buys a lottery ticket, it's a chance.

But you do have to shoot a deer and get bloody hands to put venison in the freezer. I don't think you need to shoot a trophy every year to be a man. Shooting big antlers is also a chance.

[Bowfin]

What about this idea? Take a page out of the "catch and release" fishing strategy.

Make any buck 10 points and over illegal to shoot.

This would guarantee good genetics are preserved for breeding. Big bucks don't taste as good as little bucks anyway. We would have greater chances of seeing "really big" deer because if they make it to 10 points they are off limits. We hunt for the experience, not the shooting and none of us have big egos so we wouldn't mind letting the 14 point drop tine buck walk as long as we saw him. Right?

I think not! - but if we really want a QDM strategy a maximum points allowed rule would probably be the best strategy. Would anyone support it? I doubt it cause shooting is part of hunting and the allure of taking that big buck is what we have been dreaming of since we were knee high to a grasshopper and what keeps many of us hunting until they nail the coffin lid shut. It is satisfying to bring the big one into camp and get slapped on the back once in a while.

I don't think we should protect those bucks - if you are able to shoot a big one every year it would lose its appeal.

[skee0025]

I would support and antler restriction before I would support EAB.

I'm just the opposite. EAB lets everyone feel the pain. QMD'ers whether they want to admit it or not are for limiting the hunting experience of others so they can get what they want. It seems to me they hunt the antlers not the deer. With EAB at least they will also experience the feeling of seeing what they consider a "trophy" and not being able to harvest it if they havent met certain requirements.

[BuckKiller]

yes but id like to be able to take the trophy when I see it

[skee0025]

So would I thats why I dont need or want QMD'ers deciding what is and what is not a trophy. To small for you dont shoot, its that easy.

[RuttenBuck]

Quote:

QMD'ers whether they want to admit it or not are for limiting the hunting experience of others so they can get what they want. It seems to me they hunt the antlers not the deer.

5 out of my last 6 deer have been mature does, which I'm pretty sure is similiar to most people who practice QDM. I get annoyed when you say we "hunt the antlers not the deer". The problem is the hunter who watches 3 sets of does and fawns walk by and smokes the first spike he sees. Then they repeat these steps for a few other party members. Those are the hunters that "hunt the antlers not the deer".

[Musky Buck]

I'm limiting someone else's experience by providing neighboring land owners with more bucks to hunt and giving them a chance to mature ?

[PEATMOSS]

Anyone that even remotely considers antler point restrictions a good idea really needs to take a minute and do the math to see what this would do to the genetics of the heard LONG TERM. Apr would probably result in some of the finest buck hunting ever seen, for about a decade, then the effects of selectively harvesting the genetically superior deer would start to show up in a big way.

PLEASE take the time to do the math on this one.

[Black_Bay]

Anyone that even remotely considers antler point restrictions a good idea really needs to take a minute and do the math to see what this would do to the genetics of the heard LONG TERM. Apr would probably result in some of the finest buck hunting ever seen, for about a decade, then the effects of selectively harvesting the genetically superior deer would start to show up in a big way.

PLEASE take the time to do the math on this one.

How would shooting a 10 pointer with "good genetics" be any different than shooting a fork horn with "good genetics"? I'm not trying to be a smart ace but you can't see genetics. This years fork horn very well could be a 10 pointer in a year or 3. The Minnesota herd has great genetics. The deer just need time to grow those big racks. Numerous scientific studies have been done that show that spikes are just as likely to grow big racks as are forked bucks of the same age.

Time, time, time, time, time is what Minnesota bucks need to grow bigger racks. The genetics are here, nutrition is here although it can be better especially in the northeast, we just need TIME.

EAB is used for reducing herd size. OK?

Moving the season hasn't been proven to change the buck harvest. OK?

Buck party hunting should be eliminated.

BTW antler restriction do work. Just look at Pennsylvania. That state is a much better comparison than Mississippi. I made numerous posts on this earlier this winter.

[B. Amish]

The way hunters shoot 1 1/2 year old bucks right now is basically unselective. What I mean is, everything gets treated the same. The spikes get shot just as much as the eights, etc. There is no preference one way or the other. "If it's brown, it's down."

Add in AR's. Now your forcing the hunter to be selective. He/she has to shoot a buck that has at least 4 points on one side. The object is to protect young bucks, mainly 1 1/2 year olds. Most 1 1/2 year olds have less than a 8 point rack. It's a good theory and it does work quickly.

Now, what happens when all those 1 1/2 year olds live and are now 2 1/2 year olds? Most will have at least an 8 point rack and will be legal to shoot. And most will probably be shot. But, what about the ones that aren't legal? They get a free pass and live to 3 1/2 and get to breed for another year, passing on their genetics. This is probably a very very small number of deer.

Move ahead one more season, the illegal 2 1/2 year olds are now 3 1/2 year olds. Maybe they are now legal to shoot. But, maybe a few are still not legal to shoot. Again, they get a free pass and breed for another year.

Do you see a cycle here? The poor genetics are protected under AR's. You can't argue that. The longer that AR's are in place, the bigger the problem becomes.

AR's do work fast and they do protect most 1 1/2 year olds. But, the LONG TERM EFFECTS ARE NOT WORTH IT!!!!!!

[Bear55]

I understand the effects of long term AR's and I agree it probably isn't the best option over the long haul but if I had to choose between AR and doing nothing I'd take AR's every time. These genetically weak deer are so few and far between its really not a concern unless you are maybe talking about long periods of time, maybe 50 or 100 years. You also have to remember that the does carry half the genes so even if you had a perfect management program and culled all the genetically weaker bucks you will never be able to whipe them out. I see this as working both ways, if you were to take out all the young genetically superior deer you still have plenty of does carrying their genes around. AR might be just what this state needs to jump start the buck herd.

[Bear55]

Originally Posted By: BuckKiller

I would support and antler restriction before I would support EAB.

I'm just the opposite. EAB lets everyone feel the pain. QMD'ers whether they want to admit it or not are for limiting the hunting experience of others so they can get what they want. It seems to me they hunt the antlers not the deer. With EAB at least they will also experience the feeling of seeing what they consider a "trophy" and not being able to harvest it if they havent met certain requirements.

Guess what skee, that works both ways. Sure we want to save some young bucks and some guys won't be able to shoot some of those young bucks depending on how things might change. However, the guys blasting 3-4 young bucks ever year are certainly limiting the experience of the QDM crowd. I'd also say they are putting a hurt on the buck/doe ratio and throwing the natural balance clearly out of whack.

[B. Amish]

It didn't take 50 or 100 years in Mississippi (see my quotes from earlier)

It started to happen in 10 years!!!!

[Jameson]

...The Minnesota herd has great genetics....

YES!!!, the Minnesota herd has great genetics, and puts out many a big buck EVERY year. So why change what ain't broke?

The genetics would really show in the first 10 years. After that it would be downhill. I guess if I am only concerned about the hunting for the next 10 years I could support AR. I want what is best for the future, don't think it's AR.

[RuttenBuck]

I understand some of the concerns that people have mentioned with the long term affects of AR. However, I have read many articles about culling inferior bucks that has done absolutely little to nothing to the overall antler and body size of the deer herd. It is nearly impossible to control genetics in free-ranging deer. With that being said, maybe we don't need AR forever, maybe just 3-5 years. Is that going to skew our genetics negatively? Very unlikely. But, it will improve our buck to doe ratio and age structure of bucks. After a few years, people would start being more selective on their own as they would know and see bigger deer around and would try to harvest one of those deer instead of that first little buck that walks by.

[Musky Buck]

I'm with ya rutten buck, wadena,ot counties. I hear the argument clearly and both sides have good points. I guess I'm leaning toward you shoot a buck you are done buck hunting. I'm tired of the few guys around that blast their wife one, daughter one, mom one and maybe never use their own tag saving it for a now extended muzzleloader season for rifle and bow hunters. There is just no way to stop the abuse of our tagging system. I'd still like to see a few years of AR so some of these inferior bucks can see their 2nd birthday. I wish they'd have an every other year AR or something. Many of our does recently are being bred by inferior bucks already anyway. I still am not a big believer in what other states are doing, we need a MN plan for our herd.

[B. Amish]

There is a big difference between someone "culling" a buck and AR's.

AR's would mean that everyone in the state would be doing the same thing. When everyone is selecting a buck with 4 points or more per side, you're going to have an enormous impact on 50% of the gene pool.

[Bear55]

It didn't take 50 or 100 years in Mississippi (see my quotes from earlier)

It started to happen in 10 years!!!!

You post an article from Mississippi, then someone else posts one from Michigan that has a positive impact. It doesn't really matter because people have opinions and most of the time they use they skew the facts to represent their own opinion. Would AR's for 25 years decimate our gene pool? I doubt it.

[BobT]

Quote:

I'm tired of the few guys around that blast their wife one, daughter one, mom one and maybe never use their own tag saving it for a now extended muzzleloader season for rifle and bow hunters.

How would the change you propose have any effect on this problem? Unless mom, wife, and daughter are also hunting in the party at the time these deer are taken, these deer are already being taken illegally and will continue to be.

Bob

[B. Amish]

Originally Posted By: B. Amish

It didn't take 50 or 100 years in Mississippi (see my quotes from earlier)

It started to happen in 10 years!!!!

You post an article from Mississippi, then someone else posts one from Michigan that has a positive impact. It doesn't really matter because people have opinions and most of the time they use they skew the facts to represent their own opinion. Would AR's for 25 years decimate our gene pool? I doubt it.

The Michigan article basically stated the obvious. AR's help more bucks get to 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 years old. Most states haven't had AR's in place long enough to see the effects that they are having on genetics. That's why the Mississippi study is more relevant to the genetic side of this arguement, because they have had the AR's in place since '95 and are seeing the effects on genetics.

I'm not arguing that AR's don't work to help get an older age class of bucks. My point is the negative efffect they will have on the gene pool, especially if the whole state is under the same restriction.

[Black_Bay]

B Amish could you tell us where you found that Mississippi deer article? I'd like to read the whole thing.

Thanks.

[B. Amish]

http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2427.pdf