Antler Point Restrictions

[Elkmagnet]

Although Mule deer are my favorite. I would support a 3-5 year ban on killing mulies state wide. We need to get the population back up to good numbers. I don't like it, but let's manage for the deer instead of the money.

This highlights the problem with government agencies being run like businesses instead of for the benefit of the people.
Currently game agencies don't like to reduce tags because it causes a hole in funding.
Perhaps the legislature should provide emergency funds after a bad winter with the requirement that tags be cut temporarily until the resource has recovered.
We provide emergency funding for all kinds of acts of nature.

 

[antlerradar]

Genuinely curious: Why should trophy quality be of any concern to the F&G dept. if their goal is managing for heard health & stability?

Because the biggest bucks in the herd are more in likely big because they are also the healthiest bucks in the herd. When we shoot all of the bucks with the best antlers at a young age and let the bucks with the poor antlers live longer, I would predict we will see a long term decline in herd health and stability.
Traditional APR's will only insure that we take the healthiest bucks out of the herd at a younger age.

 

[TOGIE]

i feel like it's just part of the zero sum management game. if you implement antler restrictions you can get away with cutting fewer or zero tags because in theory there are overall fewer legal animals to take than without antler restrictions - maintenance of opportunity. maybe in the long run it hurts trophy quality but trophy quality does not inherently and automatically equate to herd quality/health.

colorado's widespread 4 point bull restriction in part allows us to have the insane amount of opportunity we do while maintaining healthy and stable or growing herds.

 

[cowboy]

I’ve hunted out of a pack in camp that was one of the first to implement brow tine requirements on elk. At first I thought it was a good idea, twenty years later it would take 2 elk to total a 330 count.
My non biological background now tells me all inferior genetics are passing their gene’s on.

 

[idelkslayer]

APRS for mule deer don't work. They temporarily, and in my opinion artificially, raise buck doe ratios simply because at first fewer bucks get killed.

APR has been studied pretty heavily and the long term effect is negative. It may seem counterintuitive but APR forces all hunters to focus all hunting pressure on older age class animals which means, all the hunting pressure is focused on the subset of the population that hunters are trying to preserve with APR. Fact of the matter is that 1.5 yr old bucks have always been a large portion of the harvest even in the glory days.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I agreed with the G&F recommendation to remove the APR. They had done the job needed after the rough 22/23 winter. G&F has a history with APRs in this region doing a great job of restoring the age class most hard hit by winter. That history should have been trusted. However, the overwhelming public support was for keeping them. I like that the Commission listened to the public over the G&F. I wish they did that more often.

 

[ImBillT]

Because the biggest bucks in the herd are more in likely big because they are also the healthiest bucks in the herd. When we shoot all of the bucks with the best antlers at a young age and let the bucks with the poor antlers live longer, I would predict we will see a long term decline in herd health and stability.
Traditional APR's will only insure that we take the healthiest bucks out of the herd at a younger age.

Millions or billions of genes in a deer. Maybe a few hundred result in big antlers. I don’t believe that large antlers are meaningfully indicative of genetic health. Yes, they can indicate nutritional health, but that has nothing at all to with which one’s we shoot.

I’m not saying that none of the genes related to antler size contribute to health. I’m saying that gauging genetic health by antler size would select for less than 1% of the genes that contribute to health while ignoring the other 99%. Could genes unrelated to antler size cause poor health that resulted in small antlers? Definitely!!!! But I’m not aware of any scientific evidence that selecting for large antlers would result in improving genetics related to health outcomes. My GUESS is that it’s too small a pool of genes to focus on if health is what you’re after. So as far as using trophy quality, as a result of antler restrictions(not as a result of age class or herd size vs range conditions), I’m beyond skeptical. I don’t think it works.

Personally I like big antlers. Let’s preserve the genes that produce big antlers if we can, so that we can grow more deer with big antlers because we like them, not because selecting for big antler genes definitely improves health. BUT!!! Does protecting small antlered deer through antler restrictions cause large antlered deer to pass on their genetics more successfully? Well, imagine that you can only kill 4pts bucks. You make a guess, do more 4pt bucks breed in the future or less? Let’s change the restriction. You can only kill bucks with a 20” or wider spread. Guys who would have shot an 18” wide 4.5yo, are now encouraged to shoot the 22” wide 2.5-3.5yr old or eat their tag. Which deer breed? The wide ones? Or the narrow ones? Seems like the narrow ones get to breed for more years before being shot if hunters are only allowed to shoot the wide ones. The same for antler point restrictions. The longer a buck stays a 3pt, the more years he gets to breed.

 

[ImBillT]

i feel like it's just part of the zero sum management game. if you implement antler restrictions you can get away with cutting fewer or zero tags because in theory there are overall fewer legal animals to take than without antler restrictions - maintenance of opportunity. maybe in the long run it hurts trophy quality but trophy quality does not inherently and automatically equate to herd quality/health.

colorado's widespread 4 point bull restriction in part allows us to have the insane amount of opportunity we do while maintaining healthy and stable or growing herds.

I think a 4pt restriction on a bull elk does a much better job of protecting 1.5-2.5yr old bulls, while still allowing mediocre bulls to get harvested later in their life that a 4pt restriction on mule deer.

So I agree with your post completely, yet I’m against it on mule deer. I would say that 30+ % of 1.5 year old mule deer where I do most of my hunting are already 4pts. I’ve hunted some units in other states where I would say over 50% of the 1.5 year olds that I saw had 4pts. So in those cases, a 4pt restriction would literally cause the best of your 1.5-2.5 year old bucks to get harvested before every breeding while allowing the bottom half of the crop to pass on the genes that grew 2pt and 3pt antlers on the same exact range.

 

[TOGIE]

I think a 4pt restriction on a bull elk does a much better job of protecting 1.5-2.5yr old bulls, while still allowing mediocre bulls to get harvested later in their life that a 4pt restriction on mule deer.

So I agree with your post completely, yet I’m against it on mule deer. I would say that 30+ % of 1.5 year old mule deer where I do most of my hunting are already 4pts. I’ve hunted some units in other states where I would say over 50% of the 1.5 year olds that I saw had 4pts. So in those cases, a 4pt restriction would literally cause the best of your 1.5-2.5 year old bucks to get harvested before every breeding while allowing the bottom half of the crop to pass on the genes that grew 2pt and 3pt antlers on the same exact range.

I think I’m against it on mule deer too. Maybe not in time limited and targeted circumstances. But, conversely to Colorado elk, I feel that our entire lack of mule deer antler point restrictions is a contributing factor to Colorado’s high trophy quality hunting. Maybe dwarfed by factors such as habitat and limited rut hunting, but certainly a contributor.

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Although Mule deer are my favorite. I would support a 3-5 year ban on killing mulies state wide. We need to get the population back up to good numbers. I don't like it, but let's manage for the deer instead of the money.

would never happen, too much greed.....I suggested this like 5 years ago...stop hunting for all species for 1-3 years....

 

[IDiot]

I don't like point restrictions. Big bucks are cool but I don't think anyone's desire for more big bucks should trump anyone else's desire for any buck that would make them happy.

 

[ImBillT]

I think I’m against it on mule deer too. Maybe not in time limited and targeted circumstances. But, conversely to Colorado elk, I feel that our entire lack of mule deer antler point restrictions is a contributing factor to Colorado’s high trophy quality hunting. Maybe dwarfed by factors such as habitat and limited rut hunting, but certainly a contributor.

I’ll shoot a big bodied 3pt over a 1.5yr old 4pt if it’s legal. But if the rules are 4pt or better, and it’s the last day, I’m shooting a 1.5yo 4pt and he’s gonna taste great.

So yes. I think if CO had a 4pt restriction on mule deer they would have lower quality mule deer than they currently do.

 

[ImBillT]

I don't like point restrictions. Big bucks are cool but I don't think anyone's desire for more big bucks should trump anyone else's desire for any buck that would make them happy.

I think this is hands down the best post I’ve read so far. I don’t think it’s the state’s business to tell a hunter which male deer the hunter should be happy with. My replies have been aimed more toward the question of how he antler restrictions might effect trophy quality, but your post actually hits the more important issue at hand. I know two guys that have shot mule deer over 190”, and both are pretty much disinterested in shooting a smaller one going forward. That’s great, and I understand it. But should their desire to shoot a 220 limit the legality of me shooting a 145? I don’t think so. Also, neither has expressed that toward me, and I have no idea how either one feels about APR’s. One takes his daughters hunting and lets them shoot average mule deer. However, it do think it is some people’s desire to kill a top .5% buck that leads to restricting harvest for all the people who would be happy with a top 50% buck.

 

[Nunjagottam]

Shedgod was right on this one. LE state wide. Im a big proponent of 4-20 rule. 4 points or 20" wide. Gets the big forks and 3s killed. But you still lose young 4pts. Idk, nobody will ever be happy til we can shoot 170s from the road like the good ol days.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Shedgod was right on this one. LE state wide.

Yup - he was.

 

[huntin24/7]

I don't like point restrictions. Big bucks are cool but I don't think anyone's desire for more big bucks should trump anyone else's desire for any buck that would make them happy.

I do fully agree with you on this. At the same time, we can’t pretend that a hunter that has to have a tag every year and kill a buck of any size every year is somehow more noble than the hunter who only targets big bucks and doesn’t kill a buck every year. I think there are good and bad to both sides on this at times.

 

[IDiot]

I do fully agree with you on this. At the same time, we can’t pretend that a hunter that has to have a tag every year and kill a buck of any size every year is somehow more noble than the hunter who only targets big bucks and doesn’t kill a buck every year. I think there are good and bad to both sides on this at times.

There was no judgement in what I said. Shoot what makes you happy, just don't impose what you want onto everyone. Point restrictions are an attempt to do that.

 

[huntin24/7]

There was no judgement in what I said. Shoot what makes you happy, just don't impose what you want onto everyone. Point restrictions are an attempt to do that.

Point restrictions flat out don’t work, at least not with muleys. They literally have the opposite effect of what people advocating for them want. Lol. I didn’t take what you said as being judgy. My feelings have always been that everyone with a tag should be allowed to shoot what they want, but seasons and management should make it difficult enough that not every one can kill whatever they want with minimal effort(example being any weapon lengthy seasons in open country during the rut) if that makes any sense.

 

[antlerradar]

Point restrictions flat out don’t work, at least not with muleys. They literally have the opposite effect of what people advocating for them want. Lol. I didn’t take what you said as being judgy. My feelings have always been that everyone with a tag should be allowed to shoot what they want, but seasons and management should make it difficult enough that not every one can kill whatever they want with minimal effort(example being any weapon lengthy seasons in open country during the rut) if that makes any sense.

I agree with this, In my opinion, the goal of management going forward is move harvest more towards a random harvest than a selective harvest.

 

[antlerradar]

Millions or billions of genes in a deer. Maybe a few hundred result in big antlers. I don’t believe that large antlers are meaningfully indicative of genetic health. Yes, they can indicate nutritional health, but that has nothing at all to with which one’s we shoot.

I’m not saying that none of the genes related to antler size contribute to health. I’m saying that gauging genetic health by antler size would select for less than 1% of the genes that contribute to health while ignoring the other 99%. Could genes unrelated to antler size cause poor health that resulted in small antlers? Definitely!!!! But I’m not aware of any scientific evidence that selecting for large antlers would result in improving genetics related to health outcomes. My GUESS is that it’s too small a pool of genes to focus on if health is what you’re after. So as far as using trophy quality, as a result of antler restrictions(not as a result of age class or herd size vs range conditions), I’m beyond skeptical. I don’t think it works.

Personally I like big antlers. Let’s preserve the genes that produce big antlers if we can, so that we can grow more deer with big antlers because we like them, not because selecting for big antler genes definitely improves health. BUT!!! Does protecting small antlered deer through antler restrictions cause large antlered deer to pass on their genetics more successfully? Well, imagine that you can only kill 4pts bucks. You make a guess, do more 4pt bucks breed in the future or less? Let’s change the restriction. You can only kill bucks with a 20” or wider spread. Guys who would have shot an 18” wide 4.5yo, are now encouraged to shoot the 22” wide 2.5-3.5yr old or eat their tag. Which deer breed? The wide ones? Or the narrow ones? Seems like the narrow ones get to breed for more years before being shot if hunters are only allowed to shoot the wide ones. The same for antler point restrictions. The longer a buck stays a 3pt, the more years he gets to breed.

I think we agree 100% on the antler point restrictions.
Maybe I didn't make my self clear on the genetics. I am not talking about the genes that determine antler shape and size. From what I understand, much of those genes are carried by the doe, and there for difficult to impossible to select negatively against. I was thinking more of genes that effect stuff like metabolism, the immune system and milk production. The buck with the most efficient metabolism, with go into winter and come out of winter with the best body condition and there for have a head start on other bucks when it comes to growing antlers. There is research that the biggest deer also are the ones that had the best start as a fawn. The does with the genes that produce the most milk are going to be does that mother the bucks most likely to grow best antlers. My concern is if we are continually taking out the best bucks at a young age are we also taking out the bucks and does with the best genes when it come to metabolism, milk production and other genes that effect the health of the deer. I don't know if my concern is valid or not, but it is a question we need to figure out.