3 point or Better addicts.

desertjunkie · Mar 1, 2012

So here is some info to all those that still think that this is a sound management tool.Time to think again.
Antler point restrictions

Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.

Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.

Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.

Wyoming?s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.

Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.

Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.

Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.

Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks

lundellhunting7 · Mar 1, 2012

+1 man well said!!!

huntindad4 · Mar 2, 2012

Too many variables, the Gunnison basin lost 60% of its herd over the last 5 years and they have no antler restrictions, therefore units without antler restrictions MUST lose a significant portion of their population.

Forgot to mention they had a couple really bad winters in there, but I don't think that matters (insert sarcasm)!

Point is there is a ton of other info that needs to be considered in your given examples as well.

May or may not be the answer in some places but i saw in a unit i grew up hunting in my teens the population of bucks drop overnight because of a reduction of antler requirements from 3 or better to 2 or better.

Harvest numbers WILL go down even with the illegal accidental kills of undersized deer. The people who shoot the undesized buck are probably inexperienced or desperate and will not find another legal buck later so even if just as many young deer were shot illegally (there wont be) the harvest number would not go UP so I dont see how a negative effect on population is possible?.

The truth is the number of deer illegally killed in these areas is very low.you say the number of illegally killed bucks went up 40% on one of your examples, i dont get it how could it go up from a time when there was no antler restriction? No restriction equals no illegally killed bucks or at least a very low nunber say maybe one or two shot somehow illegally (from the truck or on private etc.) so up 40% would probably equal a pretty small number. But they would be no less dead if they were shot without a restriction.

I think in areas of LOW buck population it is a way of still allowing opportunity to hunt without hitting the population as hard. There is ALWAYS a reduction in harvest numbers that comes with antler restrictions. What I dont know for sure is what effect it has on herd dynamics which can be hard to determine based on narrow studies, IMO. If numbers are LOW (under carrying capacity) it makes NO SENSE to shoot does or small bucks, whether to effect buck to doe ratios or to give OPPORTUNITY to those who have to kill a deer every year.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!

travishunter3006 · Mar 2, 2012

So everyone that sets point restrictions themselves are hurting deer populations?

BPKHunter · Mar 2, 2012

I think the point is they are not achieving the desired result which is a better overall age class of deer. Older=Bigger

They had a 4pt or better unit in SE idaho that was historically famous for it's genetics back in the day. By the time they changed that unit back to any buck in 09, it had become very famous for 3 pt genetics, which is another unintended result.

I think if you want a better age class you kill less bucks also. This means less hunters get to hunt.

El_Matador · Mar 2, 2012

The antler point restrictions worked pretty well in certain areas of Utah for a while. I think the reason is that we had a fairly low ratio of hunters to deer back then however. These days if you were to impose a 3 point or better restriction it would not have the same effect. The biggest problem is that hunters would be in the field longer and would be focusing only on the older bucks. So while it's true that you'd have a lot more 2.5 year old bucks running around, you would actually have fewer bucks that are older than that. If a hunter shoots the first spike he sees, he is then off the mountain and done for the year. But if he has to pass on that buck, he will still be out chasing the 3 and 4 points. I don't buy the arguments about illegal kills or genetics as much. Though they are factors, I believe the bigger consideration is the increased pressure on older bucks. So what starts out as a strategy to increase mature bucks actually ends up reducing them.

huntindad4 · Mar 2, 2012

Good points above.

El Matador although I agree with much of what you say, it could be argued that the guys who shoot the first legal buk they see are not very serious and would simply not hunt or not return if they didnt have early success.

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!

tchoate3 · Mar 2, 2012

I personally don't think a 3 point or better is the best way to increase older age class deer. I do not think that any visible antler is helping out either.
I think it should be at least a forked anler, in my state (Oregon) all Mule deer buck hunts are visible antler, no matter what season or weapon. If it was fork or better there would be higher yearling survival rate and a better chanch for those bucks to grow into mature bucks.
One other thing to consider is hunting party's. In my state ther can be up to 18 hunters in one party. The majority if the common deer hunters in my state do there best to fill all the party's tags. So what you get are a few of the party's hunters filling the other party's tag with a pile of spikes just to say "we tagged out". I do not believe for one second that if a party tags out the everyone in that party shot ther own deer.
So if it was a fork or better and a reduction in hunting partys, I think that would help.

lgriffiti · Mar 2, 2012

I have a self-imposed limit....I've harvested 2 180+" bucks in my life. I have no intention of pulling the trigger on a buck that I believe to be smaller than 180". To that point, I haven't harvested a mule deer since 2001. I really don't see where I (personally) impact any of the units that I hunt. For me, it is all about the experience. I want to be out in the field. Whether I harvest or not, doesn't matter. What does concern me is the continuing decline of opportunity to be in the field.

FYI - I don't critized those who take smaller bucks...just don't like to listen to them complain that there "aren't any big bucks anymore". The only way bucks get big is to survive past 4-5 years. My support of that goal is I limit my harvest.

My .02 cents.

-lgriffiti

nontypical · Mar 4, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-12 AT 12:20PM (MST)[p]Yeah,DJ-that information is very general.You never mention how long the antler restrictions went on.2yrs?5?I think point restrictions work well in certain instances,as long as they don't last for more than 2-3 yrs,and are used to increase b/d ratios.Your information did mention that harvest decreased during that time.What I get out of that is that more bucks are possibly surviving hunting season.I've seen Wyoming use antler restrictions with great success to raise b/d ratios and average buck age,as long as they used it for 2-3 yrs only.I think if states were to use this management technique in special circumstances for short time periods,it's a very effective mechanism.

tx_packmule · Mar 4, 2012

Of course there will be decreases in harvest. The last paragraph sums up what point restrictions do. If a legal buck had to be a 7x7, will harvest numbers go up? Will there be more bucks around bc of a difficulty of meeting the criteria?

justamacguy · Mar 4, 2012

Ummm.... DJ did say how long it went on... 3rd paragraph, first line "Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years"

Dave32g · Mar 4, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Mar-04-12 AT 03:01PM (MST)[p]>So here is some info to
>all those that still think
>that this is a sound
>management tool.Time to think again.
>
>Antler point restrictions
>
>Creating mule deer harvest seasons with
>antler point restrictions is popular
>amongst hunters who think it
>will help increase the number
>of mature bucks and buck:doe
>ratios in mule deer populations.
>But research in many western
>states shows that antler point
>restrictions do not produce more
>deer or larger-antlered deer.
>
>Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide
>for six years, and in
>a number of game units
>for seven years. The result
>was a shift of hunting
>from pressure on all age
>classes of bucks (primarily yearlings)
>to bucks two years and
>older, and an increase in
>illegal or accidental harvest of
>yearling bucks. The number of
>mature bucks did not increase
>over time.
>
>Idaho and Montana implemented two points
>or less seasons to reduce
>hunting pressure on older bucks
>and improve buck:doe ratios at
>the end of hunting seasons.
>Over the long term, two
>point seasons did not improve
>buck:doe ratios at the end
>of the hunting seasons.
>
>Wyoming?s experience with four point or
>better seasons resulted in fewer
>hunters and a reduction in
>total harvest, fewer mature bucks,
>and a significant number of
>deer harvested with fewer than
>four points.
>
>Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler
>point restrictions after five years
>when officials documented illegal harvest,
>reductions in overall harvest and
>fewer mature bucks.
>
>Attempts to increase the number of
>mature bucks and buck:doe ratios
>using four-point seasons in Montana
>reduced buck harvest by 28
>percent, increased illegal harvest of
>bucks with 3x3 points or
>less by about 40 percent,
>and increased harvest of bucks
>having more than 3x4 points.
>
>
>Washington tried antler point restrictions in
>a few of their hunting
>units and experienced a smaller
>harvest of mule deer bucks,
>a switch in harvest from
>mule deer to white-tailed deer,
>and no increase in the
>number of mature bucks. They
>did experience an increase in
>buck:doe ratios because of the
>lower buck harvest and improved
>recruitment of fawns.
>
>Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in
>a few popular hunting areas
>when the number of older
>bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased
>after 12 years.
>
>Most western states have concluded that
>changes in buck:doe ratios and
>increases in the number of
>mature bucks can only be
>accomplished through reductions in harvest
>of bucks

this is pretty good info!!
where is source of your info coming from??

desertjunkie · Mar 4, 2012

This is the source. WWW.createstrat.com/muledeerinthewest/harvest.html

Ok this sucks trying to do this on my phone. I have witness the decline in the salina canyon area when it was a 3 point or better area. Yes the 1st years was good but the decline happened quickly to were there was hardly a decent buck worth shooting. I also have a self imposed size. I have not shot a deer in 7 yrs myself but my 2 boys have shot 3 bucks , 1st buck goes 172 , 2nd buck went 192. 3rd buck my youngest 1st buck was 162. I have tried to teach my boys to have this self imposed ethics for the furture of our heritage. It starts with me and how i pass it onto my boys to pass it on. What am I willing to do. That is my motto. I love the Mule deer and the diversity of each herd. I buy and apply each yr my tags just cause it pays those in charge of our herds. Hopefully they are on the right path now. 30 units should be more like 35. Just my thoughts

BCBOY · Mar 4, 2012

I live and hunt in an area that has had 4 point or better seasons (excluding the eyeguards) for over 20 years. The reason isn't to grow bigger bucks but rather to reduce overall harvest during times when mature bucks are more vulnerable (ie the rut). It takes time to correctly identify a legal buck. That time is sometimes all it takes for a buck to clue in and get out of dodge. We have set out seasons to harvest over all age classes by giving a mix of anybuck seasons and 4 point or better seasons. Sept 1-9 s anybuck archery and anybuck youth. Sept 10-30 4 point or better. Oct 1-30 Anybuck. Nov 1-Dec 10 4 point or better. The vast majority of hunters in this province are meat hunters and most of them harvest during the Oct anybuck season. This means less hunters out hunting during the rut as they think counting 4 points is tough. The reduced hunting pressure coupled with the resriction means we don't have to limit hunter opportunity through means of draws. And after 20 years of doing this, we still are cranking out big mature bucks.

Zeke · Mar 5, 2012

I'll be the first to admit that I don't have enough knowledge on the subject but I still have an opinion based on one limited experience.

I used to hunt the Henry mountains every year, for a number of years, when it was 3 pt or better. There were always large bucks to be found, always. I only shot 3 of them because I looked at it like a LE area (although it was not). If I wanted to just shoot "a" buck I could have done it much closer to home.

Then the F&G "opened" it up to any buck. Everybody and their dog came down and shot all the bucks. The unit was closed and reopened as a limited entry unit to never be hunted again by me.

This one experience does not make me an expert but I really liked what the 3pt restriction was doing.

Zeke

Deersman · Mar 5, 2012

Funny this antler restriction debate consist of 2 primary sides.

One who supports antler restrictions based on personal experience in the field. And testimony they have seen the positive results first hand. I personally know 100s with this view.

And the other that may have in the field experience but sights illegal kills as the reason they don't support it. You know the "I saw dozens of 2pts left to rot" guys. And to further back up their stance will reference various study saying antler restriction doesn't work. I only of a handful of guys on the internet with this view.

I think deer management is complex so few policies can determine the direction of any given deer herd single handedly.

Its argued that antler restriction puts too much pressure on mature bucks. I believe this is true in certain circumstances. Private land and LE units effectively AR hunts. But the difference is the limited hunters. AR in open units with basically unlimited hunters may not be the best thing for mature bucks. Especially with depressed deer populations and on units with easy access to every ridge. Now so long as LE is being used to control hunters numbers (opt 2) I believe it can work.

Back to the argument that AR puts too much pressure on mature bucks. That is only true when you have open units with maybe a couple dozen mature bucks present. And I would argue those boys are already targeted pretty hard. And if seen stand little chance of making it through the fall.

Now the illegal kills argument. The last time I witnessed AR in Utah was during the early 80's. Sadly I admit my camp had a much different attitude on deer. I mean their were so many deer they were like jack rabbits. We figured even if you tried you couldn't hurt the deer herd. I'm not aware of any illegal kills in our camp but I can believe it was happening in others. Today hunters have a much higher respect for deer. Coupled with advances in optics and technology. I believe the illegal kill issue would be minimal today.

We all know a deer gets smarter as they age. And a majority of 2 pts are killed from the roads. So I would like to see AR implemented on a limited basis in Utah with their new 30 unit plan. And give a yearling buck another yr of experience under his belt before he was shot off the side of the road.

Gator · Mar 5, 2012

+1 BCBOY said it can work good and does work given the time and the right mind set.

"I have found if you go the extra mile it's Never crowded".
>[Font][Font color = "green"]Life member of
>the MM green signature club.[font/]

Zeke · Mar 5, 2012

I agree Deersman!
While there will be some accidental Illegal kills in a point restricted area, the number of dead deer is much higher on an any buck hunt. ie; 5 accidentally killed 2 pt bucks is still significantly less than 100 legally killed 2 pts!

I'm sure that study after study can be cited stating that antler point restrictions don't work (on general season hunts) but we're dealing with LE type, smaller unit hunts now.

I'd like to see them in a few areas because I think they would work just fine. Most of us limit or restrict our harvest anyway.

I'm the last person to tell someone else that they shouldn't kill a legal buck but I also think there should be some units with greater restriction.

Zeke

huntindad4 · Mar 5, 2012

+1

Bill

Kill the buck that makes YOU happy!

sjhgraysage · Mar 5, 2012

Kinda long, Sorry.
I live in WA, and we have for the most part antler restrictions. Our mule deer hunting is limited to 3 points minimum on at least one antler including browtines and a point must be 1 inch in length to be considered a legal point.
The unit I have hunted the most lately (15 years or so) is comprised of mostly private land and is mostly farm land or sagebrush scablands with sage rarely over 4 feet tall and much of it about 2 feet tall. Tags for all weapon choices and corresponding seasons are over the counter for both resident and non-resident hunters. Most if not all of the farm ground is used to grow wheat or other small grain and hay, with some corn and potato fields to round things out, elevations range probably from 1500 to 2500 feet above sea level.
In this area before point restrictions there were less hunters and probably less deer than now, but if a deer had antlers it likely died sometime on opening weekend of the 9 day modern firearms season. I remember a year just before point restrictions, scouting the ranch that my inlaws own plus two other adjacent ranches that I had permission to hunt on and saw one spike buck along with about 20 to 30 does on all of the property probably somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 acres total.
Then came Conservation Reserve Program with point restrictions and we saw deer numbers increase. The DOW kept seasons about the same except for expanding archery for many years and then about three years ago added this unit to the list of units open for muzzleloader hunting prior to modern firearm. IMHO Since the additional muzzleloader season and the hunt reports (mandatory reporting) showing how many deer were harvested I think we are seeing the number of bucks and deer in general starting to decline.
I guess my real point is that in some areas where escape cover is poor or almost nonexistent point restrictions may be about the only way to have any buck escapement. The only other way is to limit the number of hunters and many will fight that to the death it seems.

nontypical · Mar 5, 2012

Hey macguy-Thanks for pointing out my obvious error.It seems Utah used AR for 5 years as well.Still doesn't change my opinion,though.In fact,those years of AR in those states show that AR doesn't work for extended years,except in BC,where AR seems to work well in conjunction with other management strategies,according to BCBOY.IMO,AR is a valuable management strategy in a micro-management sense;to be used sparingly in units that have poor age structure and/or b/d ratios.As a side note,the unit I mentioned in my previous post went from 4pt or better to 3pt or better.These restrictions have been in place now for about 5 yrs.Mature bucks were plentiful during the 2-3 yrs of 4pt or better(at least where I hunt there).Seems the first yr of 3pt or better the quality slipped noticeably.Of course,we have had a couple of bad winters since the first year of 4pt or better,too.Good points by all posters here!

GntShedz · Mar 5, 2012

I think this system can be a tool if used right. point restrictions every other year or every two years. point restrictions have been used on many private ranches with some success if used right. it tends to breed bad genes if used incorrectly. if we care about mule deer as hunters we wouldnt have to worry about this. we wouldve been shooting mature bucks only anyways b/c as an avid mule deer fanatics we actually care about the health of our herd. yet its still hard for a buck to live past 2 1/2 yrs old on general areas. it makes me sick how bad the deer herd i like to watch and hunt is doing, yet every skinning rack on the mountain is full of 2 pts or dinker 4 pts. gives me no faith in hunters as sportsman/conservationist. thats why i believe in limited tags b/c you cant leave it to hunters to do the right thing by the deer herd

desertjunkie · Mar 5, 2012

Gntshedz.
"gives me no faith in hunters as sportsman/conservationist. thats why i believe in limited tags b/c you cant leave it to hunters to do the right thing by the deer herd"

I believe this also.

The very few that have self control to pass that first buck they see or to accept what they shot and put a tag on it. I really think that there are that many that need to shot the first deer that they see to fill the feezer. It is about 6's to buy a side of beef to do that.Just like we all recieve training at work for new ways and changes, maybe the F&G needs to put a exclusive hunt just for 2 PT or smaller hunt and then give us more dedicated hunters a chance at 4 Pt or better season.I believe that we will see many new and old practices with these 30 units.

BCBOY · Mar 5, 2012

>Hey macguy-Thanks for pointing out my
>obvious error.It seems Utah used
>AR for 5 years as
>well.Still doesn't change my opinion,though.In
>fact,those years of AR in
>those states show that AR
>doesn't work for extended years,except
>in BC,where AR seems to
>work well in conjunction with
>other management strategies,according to BCBOY.IMO,AR
>is a valuable management strategy
>in a micro-management sense;to be
>used sparingly in units that
>have poor age structure and/or
>b/d ratios.As a side note,the
>unit I mentioned in my
>previous post went from 4pt
>or better to 3pt or
>better.These restrictions have been in
>place now for about 5
>yrs.Mature bucks were plentiful during
>the 2-3 yrs of 4pt
>or better(at least where I
>hunt there).Seems the first yr
>of 3pt or better the
>quality slipped noticeably.Of course,we have
>had a couple of bad
>winters since the first year
>of 4pt or better,too.Good points
>by all posters here!

Nontypical,
In our case, we have a strong healthy herd with great buck to doe ratios and lots of bucks in all age classes. The reason: we harvest over all age classes and we also have limited entry on muley does. I'm sure that last one will raise a few eyebrows on this site.

All our buck hunting is over the counter and we can harvest 3 deer province wide but have to travel to different Regions to acheive this as Regional baglimits are set at one muley buck. In my home Region I still can acheive the 3 deer limit by harvesting a muley buck, a whitetail buck or doe and a muley doe on Limited Entry. We have the longest season in the province and we produce the biggest muley bucks on average. The 4 point or better seasons are not designed to produce big bucks, they are instead designed to limit harvest. I must also add that the only Bow only season is the first 9 days of Sept. The rest of the seasons from Sept 10th to Dec 10th are any weapon.
Here's what 20 years of proper management can produce.

These are just my friends and I who are all just weekend warriors.

150525_10150315149475005_566330004_15748186_5067300_n.jpg

Grizz · Mar 5, 2012

very awesome pictures.....let the kids shoot the small bucks or hold out for the trophy. Let the big boys work hard for that 3 point or better. Now what are the flaws of this strategy?

Deersman · Mar 5, 2012

Those are some great bucks.

Makes me think I should just hunt the weekends.

tx_packmule · Mar 5, 2012

maybe it's where we hunt, but a 3pt is a pretty easy find.

desertjunkie · Mar 5, 2012

Grizz what are the flaws in this strategy

BrowningRage · Mar 6, 2012

My only question is in regards to LE units. Though there are not 'point restrictions' in place, a unit like the Henry's is really a 180" or better unit... And look at the quality of bucks there. The Pauns is like a 170" or better unit, and the other LE units in the state are like 150" or better really...

I'm just curious why those "unspoken" type of self-regulated restrictions seem so effective..? I realize they are all about personal preference and many lesser deer are likely harvested. But to some extent you have to admit that there are expectations, and plenty of deer that would otherwise be killed, are passed on...

Just wonderin what y'all think... if anyone cares about this post anymore...

"Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!" 2 Ne. 28: 24

nontypical · Mar 6, 2012

+1,GntShedz.Hunters are going to kill what they want to kill.But that's the way it should be.BR also brings up a good point.We all have varying ideas about what quality we are looking for.Limiting hunter numbers are what makes the Henrie's,Pauns,etc have higher quality animals.Maybe the states could take a page out of BC's deer management booklet!!Looks like BC is doing it right!BCBOY-How have total deer numbers fluctuated in BC over the past 20 yrs?Any info on that?Mule deer have so many problems facing them today,I don't even know where to begin.Having regulations like AR and LQ are really only band-aids to cover the real problems.However,as I've said previously,those things can help the situation while habitat,development,predators,etc,are addressed.

Deersman · Mar 6, 2012

Traditional LE units in Utah have had relatively low hunter numbers compared to general units. The harvest in these units are a tiny fraction of gen units. That's the primary reason for "quality bucks" in these units.

I have contended for decades general units are insane and negligent in today's day and age of mule deer decline. If the goal is to preserve the herds then why such a hands off approach? For decades I was pulling my hair out watching the DWR use comprehensive tactics to manage elk why they neglected deer. Thank god for option 2. Now I believe the DWR will be forced into more comprehensive management for deer. And some of the tools like AR can be explored with a realistic chance of success.

travishunter3006 · Mar 7, 2012

Basically what I have read in this thread are the 2 opinions already mentioned.

1. Antler Restrictions work

2. AR'd Don't work because..yadda yadda yadda... But I myself impose a 4 point or better..yadda yadda yadda...

So what I really see is..

1. AR's really work

2. AR's don't work if the DWR tells me to do it but Sr's DO work if they are self imposed.

Kinda sounds like they work to me...

I truly believe that the guys that want to shoot the first buck they see will infact not hunt and put an incredible amount of pressure on bucks. I think that those of us that hunt hard and hunt all year long will continue to do so.