Florida makes Buck Changes

[Tennessee Lead]

BSK-thinking a little deeper, my idea of a B&C every couple of years in some places of TN is almost definitely exaggerated, but it goes without saying that if we took out best areas for hunting and regulated them better, we would over time see more of these 170+ deer.

I don't disagree with that Master Chief. But again, at what cost to all hunters? The state should NEVER be in the business creating restrictions for everyone so that one or two lucky hunters get to kill a booner each year. I honestly believe 95% of hunters couldn't give a rip about how many booner bucks come from their area. The "true booner" crowd is a tiny minority of the hunting public.

I believe you are correct BSK


Sent from my iPhone that I ain't smart enough to use with tapatalker

 

[megalomaniac]

And the only thing more damaging than outlawing the killing of some yearling bucks is to set up a system where the largest yearling bucks get killed while the smallest are protected. THAT will be a disaster, as it was in MS, where antler scores of mature bucks dropped DRAMATICALLY after implementation of poorly designed antler restrictions.

That's only half the story... got to give Mississippi credit, however...

The AR's that were a disaster were the ones put into place back in '95... the infamous '4 point rule', where a legal buck had to have 4 points. So essentially, only the smallest of the 1.5 y/o age cohort were protected and allowed to grow, while the average and above average yearlings were killed. After several years, the state realized that they were high grading bucks and effectively reduced the average antler scores of bucks killed older than 1.5; SO Mississippi CHANGED the AR regs to better protect ALL 1.5 y/os based on spread and beam length, rather than points. And those changes HAVE resulted in better age structure and antler scores. AR's are based on potential for the particular geographic regions as well, just like FL's proposal (in fact, I would strongly suspect that FL took their initiave from MS's regs... right down to exempting juveniles from any AR's.)

But honestly, I don't think AR's are even needed to get an improved age structure, and because of such, I don't implement them myself on my properties. What DOES work is to reduce overall buck harvest, yet allow an individual hunter to shoot whatever buck they choose and are happy with. For that reason, my personal system of allowing each hunter to shoot ONE buck of their choice on my farms has worked perfectly. The kids (and adults who may not have killed many bucks) can shoot whatever THEY choose, and they have found it extremely empowering to be the one making the decision regarding what to shoot or what to watch. At the same time, some of us are still able to hold out for mature bucks and have a reasonable expectation that there will be a huntable population of them year after year since we are recruiting more bucks into adulthood. In above- average densities, I would say around 1 buck killed per 200-300 acres would be about right to produce a natural buck age population. Since most properties are smaller than that, killing 3 bucks by one single hunter annually would simply be too much unless there are no other hunters in the next square mile (which just doesn't happen in most areas of TN). The other benefit of reducing pressure on the male segment of the population is having much more enjoyable hunting experiences. It is not unusual to see 7 or 8 bucks on a single hunt, and buck spars are commonplace, along with vocalizations. Even all- out fights being observed aren't terribly rare. I've personally enjoyed watching deer be deer more than killing them as I've aged.

 

[MUP]

I sure hope Tn never contemplates trying to restrict deer hunters by using spread and beam length.

 

[chris1976]

BSK-thinking a little deeper, my idea of a B&C every couple of years in some places of TN is almost definitely exaggerated, but it goes without saying that if we took out best areas for hunting and regulated them better, we would over time see more of these 170+ deer.

I don't disagree with that Master Chief. But again, at what cost to all hunters? The state should NEVER be in the business creating restrictions for everyone so that one or two lucky hunters get to kill a booner each year. I honestly believe 95% of hunters couldn't give a rip about how many booner bucks come from their area. The "true booner" crowd is a tiny minority of the hunting public.

I believe you are correct BSK


Sent from my iPhone that I ain't smart enough to use with tapatalker

I also agree with Brian. I have been deer hunting for about 30 yrs. Many of these years were spent obsessing over big antlers. I am trying to get back to a point of being just as grateful for ANY Deer not just my "dream" buck. To each his own I guess.

 

[BSK]

But honestly, I don't think AR's are even needed to get an improved age structure, and because of such, I don't implement them myself on my properties. What DOES work is to reduce overall buck harvest, yet allow an individual hunter to shoot whatever buck they choose and are happy with. For that reason, my personal system of allowing each hunter to shoot ONE buck of their choice on my farms has worked perfectly. The kids (and adults who may not have killed many bucks) can shoot whatever THEY choose, and they have found it extremely empowering to be the one making the decision regarding what to shoot or what to watch. At the same time, some of us are still able to hold out for mature bucks and have a reasonable expectation that there will be a huntable population of them year after year since we are recruiting more bucks into adulthood.

I completely agree with the basic tenant behind these statements. Simply kill less bucks than new bucks recruited into the herd each year, and buck age structure will improve.

The only downside is, you can only keep doing this for a limited number of years. The process works by increasing the number of surviving bucks, which increases buck density the following year. Eventually, the buck population would grow beyond the habitat's ability to support it.

 

[BSK]

It's debatable as to whether to try to improve an area that is already lacking versus an area that is already above par. It would seem that if an area is on the lower end any improvements would be more noticeable quicker but it would also seem that if they are already at the lower end there is a reason. If that is environmental I don't see how you could improve upon that on a large scale. If it's a hunter oriented cause it may could be regulated for some improvement. On the other end of the spectrum, if an area is towards the upper end then there is also a reason. The environment is already probably more conducive to growth. Tweaking hunter regulations may show more of a noticeable improvement where those possibilities already exist than otherwise.

My comments about experimenting on those areas that "need it most" or are the "poorest" are based on harvested buck age structure. Buck age structure is most likely not environmental, but hunter-related. And by experiment, I mean trying a different buck limit, or any other experimental method of increasing the number of older bucks in the population/harvest.

 

[AT Hiker]

So let me get this straight; if a AR is in place, for example a 4 on one side, you stand a higher chance of highgrading than not having one in place at all?

Im not understanding this at all. Lets say there are 15 bucks on said property, 5 fawns with no visible antlers 5 yearlings (spikes, fork horns, 8pt, and a freak 10pt) 3 2.5 8pts, 1 3.5 8pt and a 1 4.5 yr old 8pt (these are all arbitrary) If Joe Blow everyday hunter walks into the woods there is a better chance that one of the bucks under 2.5 will walk by him, agree? IMO no matter if a AR was in place or not he would shoot one of the yearling 8pts(ie high-grading) if they walked by. To me it is irrelevant if he would shoot a spike or sub par 8pt or not, the point is he would shoot the 8pt regardless of age.

So in short I think high-grading will happen no matter what. Until the majority of hunters are all on the same page (which im not advocating) it will continue to happen. I just dont understand how it happens with a AR in place.

I guess maybe I am looking at it from a different angle, the inferior deer will get a pass with a AR in place. Hence overtime more inferior deer will populate the herd. Giving the impression that high-grading happened because of a AR when in my reality what happened was more inferior deer made it through and are now the majority. I have seen this happen in Western Mule deer states, 7.5 yr old fork horns walking around with no fear because they are off limits with the 3pt rule.

Can someone please tell me why Im wrong in this, I hope I explained my logic better this time. If that sounded facetious i did not mean for it to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheLBLman]

IMO no matter if a AR was in place or not he would shoot one of the yearling 8pts(ie high-grading) if they walked by. To me it is irrelevant if he would shoot a spike or sub par 8pt or not, the point is he would shoot the 8pt regardless of age.

You are correct in that "Joe Blow" would shoot that yearling 8pt regardless of age.

But here's what you are missing:

"Joe Blow" would most likely shoot a DIFFERENT yearling buck INSTEAD of ANY of the 8-pointers you listed ---- in the ABSENCE of any antler restrictions.

BECAUSE of ANTLER RESTRICTIONS, "Joe Blow" is forced to "let walk" those below-average antlered bucks HE would normally shoot. This provides him with more hunting time, for which he then becomes more likely to encounter that 8-pt yearling. So it's not that Joe wouldn't kill that 8-pt yearling no matter what, it's just that because of antler restrictions, he becomes much more likely to encounter that 8-pt yearling.

Bottom line, Joe would be more likely to shoot a spike or smaller yearling than that 8-pt yearling, and/or that 8-pt yearling would be more likely to survive in the ABSENCE of any antler restrictions.

 

[AT Hiker]

I think we are just explaining the same answer but from different parallels. Kinda like glass half full or empty type of thing. Though your explanation Wes makes perfect sense and explains the other side of my scenario, which I didn't give much thought to.

So bottom line is in a AR area inferior deer are more likely to make it through and above average deer are more likely to get killed. Hence changing the overall averages of scores because more lower scoring deer make it and less higher scoring deer do. In a non AR area more inferior deer are killed and less superior deer are killed hence making average scores higher.

If thats the case then I dont think its high-grading per say, more like changing the make up of the stats (mean, median, mode, etc). But I do see where a few more younger bucks with greater potential are killed, I just dont think its that many because the numbers are overshadowed with inferior bucks making it through.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AT Hiker]

What about the first year or two with ARs in place, is there a commonality amongst them? For instance; less bucks killed, more, more yearlings, more 2.5, 3.5, etc? I could almost see the probability that after the first year or two more younger bucks with greater potential are killed simply because there are more of those in the pool.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BSK]

So let me get this straight; if a AR is in place, for example a 4 on one side, you stand a higher chance of highgrading than not having one in place at all?

Im not understanding this at all. Lets say there are 15 bucks on said property, 5 fawns with no visible antlers 5 yearlings (spikes, fork horns, 8pt, and a freak 10pt) 3 2.5 8pts, 1 3.5 8pt and a 1 4.5 yr old 8pt (these are all arbitrary) If Joe Blow everyday hunter walks into the woods there is a better chance that one of the bucks under 2.5 will walk by him, agree? IMO no matter if a AR was in place or not he would shoot one of the yearling 8pts(ie high-grading) if they walked by. To me it is irrelevant if he would shoot a spike or sub par 8pt or not, the point is he would shoot the 8pt regardless of age.

In a no AR scenario, the hunter wouldn't out for an 8-point (at least the average hunter would not). He/She would shoot the first buck he/she sees, whether that's a spike, an 8, or whatever. The 8 and 10 point yearling have an equal chance of living as the spike and fork-horn. In the AR situation, the hunter HAS TO pass up the spike and forkhorn, and wait for a buck with 4-points on one side. This means that if a yearling gets killed, it's guaranteed to be the 8 or 10 point, two bucks that would have probably been top-notch mature bucks.

This isn't theory. This is tested fact, and the results--in habitat of high enough quality for yearlings to grow larger antlers--are sufficiently negative to preclude this tactic for protecting yearling bucks (unless habitat quality is very poor, and then a simple "no spikes" rule can work great).

 

[BSK]

So bottom line is in a AR area inferior deer are more likely to make it through and above average deer are more likely to get killed. Hence changing the overall averages of scores because more lower scoring deer make it and less higher scoring deer do.

This is it exactly.

In a non AR area more inferior deer are killed and less superior deer are killed hence making average scores higher.

No. There is no difference in the number of superior and inferior young bucks killed in the non-AR situation. The bucks are killed far more randomly. Basically, which ever buck shows up first.

In the non-AR situation, an inferior young buck has the same chance of living as a superior young buck. In the AR situation, the inferior young bucks are guaranteed to survive, while the harvest pressure is all concentrated on the superior young bucks, greatly decreasing their survival rate.

 

[BSK]

What about the first year or two with ARs in place, is there a commonality amongst them? For instance; less bucks killed, more, more yearlings, more 2.5, 3.5, etc? I could almost see the probability that after the first year or two more younger bucks with greater potential are killed simply because there are more of those in the pool.

The crop of yearling bucks each year (pre-hunt) is not influenced by ARs. It is controlled by fawn recruitment (this year's yearling bucks are last year's male fawns). ARs definitely save yearling bucks, hence there will be more 2 1/2s the next year.

 

[AT Hiker]

This isn't theory. This is tested fact, and the results--in habitat of high enough quality for yearlings to grow larger antlers--are sufficiently negative to preclude this tactic for protecting yearling bucks (unless habitat quality is very poor, and then a simple "no spikes" rule can work great).

No offense but to say it is tested fact throws up a red flag to me. Im sure your educated interpretation of the data proves the idea of negative effects on ARs but if Im understanding your explanations correctly one major factor in the results includes a human psychological stance which is maybe where Im indecisive on the whole idea. We only assume they would or wouldnt shoot those inferior deer. Heck I would speculate that more and more hunters every year pass up inferior deer because quality is improving, the 8pt is the new 6pt if you catch my drift.

I personally think it is more than high-grading, maybe something as simple as more inferior bucks make it through the next year and become more susceptible once they reach that "legal" size and by default of their own genetics contribute less to the overall score. This isnt high-grading, its adding more legal deer to the pool that otherwise wouldnt make it. The top end bucks are still there just harder to kill.

I just hate the notion for someone to say; "yep, here is the problem and here are the facts to prove it so lets move on to the next issue".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shed Hunter]

So what you are saying is antler restrictions are a good QDM practice, but not trophy deer management?

No. Just opposite. Antler Restrictions are a terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE practice for any reason! THEY DO NOT WORK AND DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD! (with a few exceptions, such as areas with very poor habitat quality)

In your earlier post you said you have no doubt ARs help more bucks reach maturity. How is that bad for QDM?

Let me add-I am all about big antlers so trust me, I don't want an AR as it is clear that they cause high grading, just pickin you for info

 

[gator-n-buck]

One thing I can add to this topic is that hunting in FL is like night and day compared to hunting in TN and some other states. Just the density of the woods makes it tough and that's one reason running deer with dogs down there are legal. There are bucks that die of old age in those swamps just like bucks do in the mountains of E. TN.

 

[TheRealSpurhunter]

I am gettin dizzy from these posts. I think your going to have to start posting pictures for some of the guys to understand how high-grading yearling bucks works. Im not smart but its clear as day to me.

 

[AT Hiker]

I am gettin dizzy from these posts. I think your going to have to start posting pictures for some of the guys to understand how high-grading yearling bucks works. Im not smart but its clear as day to me.

I dont think anybody is really denying high-grading, I personally think it is more than high-grading meaning more inferior bucks make it to "maturity" and their gross scores are typically smaller hence lowering the overall score of ALL bucks killed. The opportunity to kill bigger bucks exist its just hunters dont kill them because there are more smaller bucks around.

Texas for example allows harvesting spikes in some areas, at least they used too. This allowed the most inferior bucks to be killed and more opportunity for the hunters, texas also had a spread limit as well which protected those superior young bucks.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AT Hiker]

Here is a scientific article that explains antler restrictions and it also states that the evidence against AR causing high-grading is inconclusive. http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/se ... s_faqs_pdf

Here is another one that discusses it from another angle. Note that at least 60% of yearling bucks have less than 8pts and only express 25% of their potential B&C score at 1.5. http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2427.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BSK]

This isn't theory. This is tested fact, and the results--in habitat of high enough quality for yearlings to grow larger antlers--are sufficiently negative to preclude this tactic for protecting yearling bucks (unless habitat quality is very poor, and then a simple "no spikes" rule can work great).

No offense but to say it is tested fact throws up a red flag to me. Im sure your educated interpretation of the data proves the idea of negative effects on ARs but if Im understanding your explanations correctly one major factor in the results includes a human psychological stance which is maybe where Im indecisive on the whole idea. We only assume they would or wouldnt shoot those inferior deer. Heck I would speculate that more and more hunters every year pass up inferior deer because quality is improving, the 8pt is the new 6pt if you catch my drift.

I personally think it is more than high-grading, maybe something as simple as more inferior bucks make it through the next year and become more susceptible once they reach that "legal" size and by default of their own genetics contribute less to the overall score. This isnt high-grading, its adding more legal deer to the pool that otherwise wouldnt make it. The top end bucks are still there just harder to kill.

I just hate the notion for someone to say; "yep, here is the problem and here are the facts to prove it so lets move on to the next issue".

AT Hiker,

Your post makes it sound like you don't realize how many times, in how many locations, over how many years Antler Restrictions have been tried. I've been involved in the deer research world since the early to mid 90s, and I remember seeing research projects studying the effects of ARs from the very beginning of that time. I can probably come up with 30+ published studies on ARs. They've been tried on a myriad of WMAs, military reservations, counties, and states. The results of ARs are well-understood within the wildlife research community. The consensus is, they ARE effective at reducing--and sometimes GREATLY reducing--the harvest of yearling bucks. However, they also produce well-documented problems, everything from reducing buck harvests too much, driving hunters out of hunting, reducing the recruitment of new hunters, and excessively high-grading the highest potential young bucks while protecting the lowest potential bucks of all ages.

In addition, there is the serious question of just how much "protection" is needed for the yearling age-class of bucks. In the ultra-high hunter density areas of the northern states (Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.), legally protecting yearling bucks has merit. In other areas, the value of this practice is dubious at best, especially considering the continuously declining yearling buck harvest patterns of hunters in general (hunters voluntarily becoming more selective over time). Yearling buck harvests as a percentage of total buck harvests has been declining across the country for more than a decade. Biologically, it's very hard to make the case that yearling bucks require more protection in the Southeast and MidSouth.

For these reasons, the effects of ARs are "tested fact." You may not like the results, but the results are tested fact.