Mule Deer four-point rule in Montana

[MTODhunting]

As I'm sure many of you know, in recent years the mule deer population in Montana and throughout the west has been on a downward trend. I believe this, along with other factors, such as poor management by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, has lead to much more limited trophy mule deer buck opportunities in the state of Montana. Currently, there are many elk hunting districts in Montana that only allow taking of a brow-tined bull elk, no spikes. This regulation seems to work well, and raises the overall average age of bull elk in these hunting district. I was wondering what everyone's opinion would be about a four-point rule, in at least some of the mule deer hunting districts in Montana. This would make it illegal to shoot a deer with less than four points on at least one side. This would also increase the overall age dynamics of buck mule deer in these hunting districts and also allow for more trophy hunting opportunities. So, what does everyone think?? Yes? No? Different ideas?

 

[WyOpitz]

I think this would be a great idea but disagree with a 4 point rule. I have seen some big mature 3x3s. I have always been in favor of a 3x3 rule here in certain parts of Wyoming with the exception of youth hunters 18 and under. I see too many trucks with fork horned mulies in the back.

 

[MThuntr]

I think this would be a great idea but disagree with a 4 point rule. I have seen some big mature 3x3s. I have always been in favor of a 3x3 rule here in certain parts of Wyoming with the exception of youth hunters 18 and under. I see too many trucks with fork horned mulies in the back.

I'd generally agree with this. I see a lot of forkies in the backs of trucks going down Main Street, parked at the hotels, & at the processors. In some cases, I'd even agree with putting some units into a draw system...although that comes with a whole other set of problems/costs (namely enforcement) that may outweigh the benefit of a better age class.

 

[MTODhunting]

I think this would be a great idea but disagree with a 4 point rule. I have seen some big mature 3x3s. I have always been in favor of a 3x3 rule here in certain parts of Wyoming with the exception of youth hunters 18 and under. I see too many trucks with fork horned mulies in the back.[/QUO

Thank you for setting me straight, a three point rule is a much better idea. But yes, that is where this idea arose, seeing too many forked horn mule deer in the back of trucks. I can understand a young kids first deer, or something along those lines, but grown men who have been hunting for years? Something just doesn't sit right with me when I see that.

 

[Triple BB]

They tried doing it here a number of years ago. All they ended up with was a bunch of large genetically inferior two points that were going to be nothing more than two points doing the breeding. Not what you want if yer managing for quality. They've been trying it here recently in some areas, but its supposed to be on a short term basis to improve quality. Guess we'll see if it helps...

 

[Dinkshooter]

research Colorado around 1986-1990 and see how well that worked,

 

[SFC B]

I have to say that with the draw system being the way it is here in CO I am a little skiddish. Also, when I was @ Ft Lewis had a similar issue but they applied it to Blackies and it made hunting really rough that first year. Saw tons of does and lil guys but mature Blackies around there are like ghosts in that ridiculously dense forest. Since they had no anterless tags it was very frustrating for someone looking to fill the freezer. I think that having at least some "trophy" units is a good idea to make sure that are some areas where the possibility is greater for some "bone". Also, I get how the forky thing is bothersome but I would say that it only really bothers me if the folks taking them could have taken a doe instead. If the intent was meat and no anterless was available I think that becomes a F&W program issue. Just my 2cents.

 

[MTODhunting]

I searched for information on Colorado deer hunting between 1986-1990 and turned up nothing. Could you please elaborate a little. And in Montana, its fairly easy to get an antlerless deer tag, either by drawing, or over the counter, and in most hunting districts, a hunter can shoot a doe whitetail on their general deer license.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Antler restrictions on deer in Colorado during that time frame was not a very successful way of growing big bucks.

 

[jryoung]

but grown men who have been hunting for years? Something just doesn't sit right with me when I see that.

Forgive me for preferring backstrap over tagsoup or farm raised anything. I hunt for the experience and the table, not for the wall.

 

[dustinf]

Antler restrictions on deer in Colorado during that time frame was not a very successful way of growing big bucks.

Who was the sexiest elk hunter during those years?

Bet he didn't waste time on mule deer...

 

[MTODhunting]

Forgive me for preferring backstrap over tagsoup or farm raised anything. I hunt for the experience and the table, not for the wall.

Then buy a deer B tag and shoot a doe, or shoot a whitetail doe on your general deer license. I'm concerned about not only trophy potential in Montana, but also age dynamics of mule deer, especially on public land.

 

[Oak]

You can start your research here:

Ballard, J. 2008. Making a point. Wyoming Wildlife LXXI(3):34-39. [“…the Mule Deer Working Group of the Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies has little positive data to report from its analysis of antler point restrictions.” “Antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.”]

Barsness, J. 1997. Twilight for the gray deer? Field & Stream Dec:53-58. [Trophy management has several costs: (1) lost hunter opportunity, (2) wasted dead deer, and (3) cheapened live deer. Idaho biologist Lon Kuck says “I’d rather puke in my hand than use point restrictions.”]

Baxter, D., D. Harmel, W.E. Armstrong and G. Butts. 1977. Spikes vs. forked-antlered bucks. Texas Parks & Wildlife, Mar:6-8. [“deer which were spikes as yearlings developed inferior antlers at 2.5 and 3.5 years as compared to the ones which were fork-antlered as yearlings.”]

Bender, L.C. and P.J. Miller. 1999. Effects of elk harvest strategy on bull demographics and herd composition. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 27(4):1032-1037. [“3-pt strategies allowed greater yearling survivorship and consequently slightly increased bull:cow ratios compared to the any-bull strategy, but did not increase survivorship into older age classes.]

Bender, L.C., P.E. Fowler, J.A. Bernatowicz, J.L. Musser, and L.E. Steam. 2002. Effects of open-entry spike-bull, limited-entry branched-bull harvesting on elk composition in Washington. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 30(4):1078-1084. [Proportion of branch-antlered increased, but calf production was unaffected under limited-entry hunting.]

Biederbeck, H.H., M.C. Boulay, and D.H. Jackson. 2001. Effects of hunting regulations on bull elk survival and age structure. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29(4):1271-1277. [“bull escapement and proportion of bulls killed when first legally available for harvest did not differ under any-bull and minimum-point regulations.”]

Bitler, Craig. 2006. Antler restrictions: the science behind the idea. Deer & Deer Hunting 29(9):44-46,50,52. Aug. [Mortality became focused on mature bucks and illegal kills increased. “It is evident that APRs have a long, but not particularly distinguished history in the western United States.”]

Boyd, R.J. and J.F. Lipscomb. 1976. An evaluation of yearling bull elk hunting restrictions in Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 4(1):3-10. [4-points on one antler focused pressure on older bulls and resulted in “largest number of abandoned bulls ever reported” and decreased total annual harvest].


California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. California deer management. Antler restrictions: do they really work? California Hunter 3(3):32-33. [“Antler point restrictions…have a damping effect on producing or maintaining trophy bucks…” 12 of 14 Western states no longer have point restrictions as of 1994].

Carpenter, L.H. and R.B. Gill. 1987. Antler point regulations: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Proc. Western Assoc. Fish & Wildl. Agencies 67:94-107. [“An interesting irony of APRs is that hunting pressure is greatest on the segment of the herd that the regulation was designed to ‘produce’… The ugly of APRs for deer is that they are likely to be quite costly in wasted animals and discouraged hunters.”]

Casscles, K.M., B. Wilson and H. Jacobson. 1991. Effects of restricted harvest on a public hunting area. Miss. State Univ. Abstract. Southeast Deer Study Group. Baton Rouge, LA. [After 12 years of restrictive harvests, data indicates “there has been little change in the male age structure, and examination of reproductive data suggests no change in the periodicity of the rut.”]

Causey, M.K. and H.L. Stribling. 1991. Quality deer management: A case study of negative results. Auburn University. Abstract. 14th Southeast Deer Study Group. Baton Rouge, LA. [Alabama study, 1984-90: “None of the positive changes in deer quality as indicated by body and antler size has been observed since initiation of the (restrictive buck, liberal antlerless) harvest strategy.”]

Collier, B.A. 2004. Evaluating impact of selective harvest management on age structure and sex ratio of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Arkansas. PhD Dissert. University of Arkansas. 189pp. [The use of antler restrictions (3-points on a side) were expected to shift male survivorship into older age classes. "My results indicated that those shifts were canceled out by increased selectivity of sub-adults under current regulations (and possibly high quality yearlings), allowing no more males to reach mature (>3.5 year old) age classes than under historical regulations." ]

Cook, Gary. 1999. The irony of trophy deer management. Bow and Arrow Hunting. Aug:26-27. [“our hunting heritage lies not in the production of trophies…never has the purpose been to restrict hunter opportunity over large geographic areas.”]

Crawford, Andy. 2005. 6-point experiment set to expire, less than booming success. Louisiana Sportsman 25(2):12-14 (Feb). [The 3-year experiment did not result in significantly larger deer or antlers, but did result in fewer bucks being harvested. Biologist Dave Moreland said, "he believes the results of the 6-point experiment highlighted problems with antler restrictions…his preference would be to implement other management practices" (habitat management, herd control).]

DeBoer, S.G., et al. 1948. Jackson County deer survey. Wis. Conserv. Bull. XIII(5):3-4. [7 of 22 illegal kills found were spike bucks during fork-buck season. Ed. Note: WI discontinued forked-only buck seasons in 1956.]

Demarais, S. and B. Strickland. 2003. “4-point” regulation subject of wildlife study. Mississippi State University – www.cfr.msstate.edu/fwrc/wildlife/4point.htm [“four-point rule caused antler size for specific age classes to decline”. On genetic effects they said: "The proportion of smaller antlered, older males that are protected with SHCs should be minimized because heritability estimates for antler characteristics in this age category are high and therefore gene frequencies for a particular antler trait could be shifted in successive generations."]

Demarais, S., B.K. Strickland, and L.E. Castle. 2005. Antler regulation effects on white-tailed deer on Mississippi public hunting areas. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildlife Agencies 59:1-9. [A 4-point restriction resulted in reducing total buck harvest by 42% and antler size decreased within cohorts. “Antler restrictions should be considered a short-term solution to age-structure problems because of the potential negative biological effects.”]

DeYoung, C.A. 1989. Mortality of adult male white-tailed deer in south Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(3):513-523. [“These data show that managing for mature males can be inefficient because 25-29% of males/year will die before reaching mature age.” That is, only 36-42% of yearlings will survive to age 4 if not harvested sooner.]

DeYoung, R.W., S. Demarais, R.L. Honeycutt, K.L. Gee, R.A. Gonzales. 2006. Social dominance and male breeding success in captive white-tailed deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 34(1):131-136. [“Although dominant males sired most offspring, subordinates sired offspring in 5 of 6 trials”… “dominance ranks were not necessarily predictable or stable during the breeding season.”

Ditchkoff, S.S., E.R. Welch, Jr., R.L. Lochmiller, R.E. Masters and W.R. Starry. 2001. Age-specific causes of mortality among male white-tailed deer support mate-competition theory. J. Wildl. Manage. 65(3):552-559. [“males >3.5 years old tended to die from non-human causes (e.g., fighting, predation) more frequently than did younger deer.”]

Durkin, P. 2004. Buck or Doe? Antler restrictions spell conservation. Antler restrictions spell controversy. American Hunter 32(2):28-32. (Feb). [Evaluations of ARs in PA may cut new ground in the East. Gary Alt says that the paramount goal “is to steer them [hunters] onto the greater mission of getting deer in line with their habitat.”]

Easton, J.J. 2002. Is the 4-point rule working? Mississippi Game & Fish Magazine. December? www.mississippigameandfish.com [“…over-all quality of harvested bucks within age-classes is going down.]

Ellis, Kevin. 1990. Why antler restrictions didn’t work. Terrestrial Resources. Nov:44-51. [Biologists from Utah, Oregon, Wyoming and Colorado report that antler restrictions resulted in fewer, not more trophy animals. APRs caused lower hunter participation and satisfaction, increased illegal kill, and reduced numbers of mature bucks. Controlling (reducing) hunter numbers had greatest effect on buck age structure.]

Erickson, G.L., J.R. Heffelfinger and J.H. Ellenberger. 2003. Potential effects of hunting and hunt structure on mule deer abundance and demographics. Chapter 4 in deVos, Jr., J.C., M.R. Conover and N.E. Headrick (eds.). Mule deer conservation: issues and management strategies. Berryman Inst. Press, Utah State Univ., Logan. [This review concludes that, “APRs have been tried in most western states, but have failed to produce the desired results despite their popularity with the public.” Downsides of APRs included reduced harvest and increased illegal kill of bucks. An alternative for allowing more mature bucks in the herd is limited license sales.]

Gasson. W. 1986. Quality deer. Wyoming Wildl. XLX(9):6-13. [WY hunters report, “seeing ‘trophy’ deer was number 31 on their list of 42 most important hunting experiences. The most over-rated and least understood “quality” regulation is the “4-point or better” rule.]

Geist, V. 1997. On mule deer management. Mule Deer. Spring:11-14. [“keep the process of mule deer management public, transparent, and open…protect mule deer from private whims and management for marketable values.”]

Goldstein, Micah. 1994. Reflections from Dooley County. Quality Whitetails Summer-Fall:33. [Micah reports early enthusiasm from hunter for 15-inch beam spread restriction. Personal communication with Micah revealed that Dooley County has 158 sq.mi of deer habitat and about 1,000 hunters. If all hunted on the same day, there would be about 6 hunters/sq.mi; rather exclusive hunting by Midwestern standards!]

 

[Oak]

And continue:

Harju, H. and W. Gasson. 1984. Spikes excluded elk seasons - effects on antlered elk harvest and hunter numbers. Intra-dep. Memo. Wyoming Game and Fish Dep. 6pp. [Spikes-excluded elk seasons “do not increase numbers of bulls in the population, nor do they increase the number of older bulls in the population. In fact, …there are fewer older, mature bulls in the population.”]

Harju, H. 1989. The "4-point or better" controversy. Wyoming Landowner Newsletter 4(2):1-2. [“When hunting pressure is concentrated on old animals, fewer deer have the chance to become really big than if hunting pressure were spread out across all age classes in the herd. Antler point restrictions have resulted in wasted game.”]

Heffelfinger, J. 2001. Are trophy hunters draining the gene pool? Can hunting cause a long-term decline in the quality of a deer herd? Mule Deer. Summer:17-20. [Some allege that harvesting mature bucks allows smaller bucks to pass on inferior genes. But, no “antler gene” has yet been identified and females have as much to do with antler quality as do bucks. “The gene pool of a population is extremely diverse and constantly changing in response to an infinite number of environmental variables.”]

Hellickson, M.W. 1996. Don’t shoot spikes! Trophy Magazine 2(1):42-45. Jan/Feb. [Radio-tagging study in south Texas found that 54% of bucks will die of natural causes by age 5. Shooting spikes prematurely depletes buck pool and spikes have the potential to be a future B&C. Mickey recommends that phenotypic culling not begin until age 3.5. After age 7.5, natural mortality more than rates tripled.]

Hellickson, M.W. 1998. Nature takes a toll on old bucks. Deer & Deer Hunting 22(4):72-80. [His Texas study indicated that 71% of buck fawns died of natural causes before “maturing” to age 5.5.]

Hernbrode, B. 1987. Elk harvest management: meeting the challenge of quantity and quality. Proc. Western Assoc. of Game and Fish Comm. 67:88-93. [They increased diversity of hunting experiences by adding quality elk areas. They limited elk licenses and eliminated antler restrictions. "By making all bulls legal, some hunters invariably will choose to take a yearling, thus allowing more mature bulls to actually reach older age."]

Hughbanks, D.L. and L.R. Irby. 1993. Evaluation of a spike-only regulation in southeast Idaho. Pages 45-49 in J.D. Cada, J.P. Peterson and T.N. Lonner, compilers. Proc. Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop. Montana Dep. Fish, Wildl., and Parks.

Jense, G. 1990. Three-point hunt strategy in Utah. Utah Div. Wildl. Intra-dep. Report to Utah Board of Big Game Control. 11pp. Mimeogr. [“Although preliminary data indicated that antler-point regulations did not work well, the regulation grew in popularity with the public… The regulation resulted in “an inordinate amount of illegal loss of sublegal bucks…and additive hunting pressure on older age classes of bucks.” APRs “do not work for managing deer under average field conditions with high hunter pressure and less than 40% hunter success.”]

Johnson, F.W. 1939. Deer kill records – a guide to management of deer hunting. California Fish and Game 25(2). [The forked-horn antler restriction “was ineffective in preserving quality of deer crop under heavy hunting effort.” Ed. Note: probably 1st remark of this sort in American literature.]

Lockwood, M.A., D. B. Frels JR., W.E. Armstrong, E. Fuchs and D.E. Harmel. 2007. Genetic and environmental interaction in white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 71(8):2732-2735. [Though designed to improve antler development, this study carries a warning of high grading when using antler point restrictions. “…this study clearly demonstrated that phenotypic change within a white-tailed deer population can occur with intensive selection of yearling sires.”]

Kerasote, T. 1998. A different kind of record book. Mule Deer. Fall:9-11. [Record books that include hunters’ names tend “to produce good ends for the wrong reasons.” “We need to shift from a record book of trophies to ‘a Record Book of Habitat Conservation’ to list those that have done the most to save wildlife range.”]

Koerth, B.H. and J.C. Kroll. 2007. Juvenile-to-adult antler development in white-tailed deer in south Texas. J. Wildl. Manage. 72(5):1109-1113. [“By 4.5 years of age there were no differences (P>0.05) in antler measurements regardless of the amount of development of the first set of antlers at 1.5 years.” ]

Kufeld, R.C. 1994. Antler point restrictions. Page 341 in Deer. Stackpole Books. Harrisburg. [APRs began in CA, CO, OR, UT, and WY in late-1980s. APRs “not only failed to increase the proportion of prime-age bucks but also could harm the herd in general.”]

Mayer, K. 1998. Can antler restrictions produce bigger bucks? Deer & Deer Hunting 22(1):111-112. [Biologists in Western states have found antler restrictions are “a recipe for small-antlered bucks.”]

McCaffery, K.R. 1997. QDM: Does this trend threaten deer hunting and management? Deer & Deer Hunting 21(4):129-131. Nov. [Mandated rules to change sex and age ratios of deer involve license limits or antler restrictions. Few hunters want to sacrifice hunting opportunity and antler restrictions can virtually wipe out mature bucks.]

McCaffery, K.R. 2002. A closer look at traditional deer management. Whitetails Unlimited Mag. Fall:33-40. [Traditional management allows hunters to hunt every year for the entire season and in the area they choose. Point restrictions focus mortality on mature bucks, protect only smallest-antlered deer, cause higher levels of accidental-illegal kill, pose penalty problems, and do not result in ‘natural’ sex and age structures.”]

McCaffery, K.R. 2003. The problems with QDM in the Midwest. Deer and Deer Hunting 27(3):124-125. Oct. [Many QDM programs are being sold using off-center and misleading biology. Privatized deer management is being promoted at the risk of public hunting and the North American Model of wildlife conservation.]

McCaffery, K.R. 2003. Points of debate: Antler restrictions. Wisconsin Outdoor J. 18(6):14-17. [After decades of use in Western states, evaluations of antler restrictions report disappointing results. It is better to maintain herd sizes well below maximum carrying capacity if concerned about herd sex and age ratios and antler development.]

McCaffery, K.R. 2005. You can't eat the 'horns.' Deer & Deer Hunting 28(7):45. ["…if we were truly seeking a natural sex and age ratio, we would be focusing our harvest mortality on the fawns of the year." "Food has been the foundation for hunting since the ascent of man. We don't eat the antlers." Other motives for hunting invite criticism.]

McCaffery, K.R. 2005. Antler restrictions: the “new” fad? Whitetales Fall:20-21. Minnesota Deer Hunters Assoc. [“APRs seem popular among some hunters, but I wonder if they understand the consequences of APRs. Most biologists are not enthusiastic about mandatory antler restrictions.”]

McCorquodale, Scott. 1991. Biased sex ratios and spike-only herds: products of open bull hunting? Bugle (winter):11-19. [Point restrictions tend to shift harvest from yearlings to 2-year-old bulls, but “the proportions of bulls at least 4 years old are nearly the same in open bull and branched-antler units.”]

McKean, Andrew. 2008. New world record elk? Part II. <http://www.outdoorlife. Com/articles/hunting/2008/10/new-world-record-record-elk-part-ii>. [“Spider Bull” scored 500 inches but was taken by hunter after investing $170,000 for a “Governor’s Tag” in Utah. Author puts up flag of privatization and commercialization on public land and concludes, “you are seeing an animal produced by serial exclusivity, not by the American tradition of equal access for all.]

Miller, S.E. 1992. 1992 public attitude survey. Wildlife Inservice Note 664. Ohio Dep. Nat. Resour., Div. Wildl. Columbus. 15pp. [83% of respondents supported hunting for food, while only 10% approved of trophy hunting.]

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1991. Constituent inventory: What Minnesotans think about hunting, fishing, and native plant management. St. Paul, MN. Unpubl. Rep. [84% of respondents supported meathunting, but only 6% supported trophy hunting.]

Mohler, L.L. and D.E. Toweill. 1982. Regulated elk populations and hunter harvests. Pages 561-597 in J.W. Thomas and D.E. Toweill (eds). Elk of North America: ecology and management. Stackpole. Harrisburg. 698pp. [Mainly cite from Boyd and Lipscomb (1976). Modeling indicated 4-pt restriction resulted in trade-off of 3.9 non-trophy elk for each trophy elk produced.]

Moreland, D.W., A. Vidrine and L. Savage. 1999. Mandatory QDM regulations—A parade to mediocrity. Louisiana Dep. Wildl. and Fish. Page 17 in Abstracts 22nd Southeast Deer Study Group. Fayetteville, Arkansas. 70pp. [Mandatory statewide rules remove options from biologists. Antler restrictions protect only smallest antlered deer. “Harvest data from Louisiana clubs…suggest that these small yearling bucks do not catch up and develop into the quality bucks that hunters really desire.”]

Nelson, M.E. and L.D. Mech. 1986. Mortality of white-tailed deer in northeastern Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):691-698. [“Yearling males were more vulnerable to hunting…but adult males …are more predisposed to predation.”]

Phippen, W. 1996. The mule deer dilemma. Montana Outdoors 27(5):19-22. [“Point-restriction seasons focus all the hunting pressure on larger bucks…illegal harvest of smaller bucks tends to be a problem.”]

Pyshora, L. 1979. California’s first quota buck hunt. Californa Fish and Game. Intra-Dep. Rep. 4pp. Mimeogr. [A 3-point on one antler restriction established in 1963 seemed to be causing very high illegal kill. Shifting from an APR to buck quotas led to greatly improved buck age structure and higher quality experiences for those fortunate enough to get a permit.]

 

[Oak]

And continue:

Quartarone, F. 1996. Third time's a charm - Colorado tries again to improve its mule deer buck population. Mule Deer, Sum:10-12. [Colorado biologist Rick Kahn says, “Antler point restrictions haven’t worked particularly well for deer anywhere in the West.”]

Schultz, S.R. and M.K. Johnson. 1992. Antler development of captive Louisiana white-tailed bucks. Proceedings of Southeast Assn Fish Wildl Comm. 67-74. [“Spike-antlered yearlings continued to exhibit inferior antler development at the 2.5- and 3.5-year age-classes compared to branch-antlered yearlings.”]

Shea, S.M. and R.E. Vanderhoof. 1999. Evaluation of a five-inch regulation for increasing antler size of harvested deer in northwest Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm. Page 18 in Abstracts 22nd Southeast Deer Study Group. Fayetteville, Arkansas. 70pp. [The 5-inch rule resulted in high-grading of yearling deer and resulted in reduced antler mass of 2.5-yr-old bucks.]

Sorin, A. B. 2004. Paternity assignment for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): Mating across age classes and multiple paternity. J. Mamm. 85(2):356-362. [“Oldest males did not monopolize matings.” Despite a preponderance of older males in the age structure, yearling males successfully bred mostly with yearling does.]

Strickland, B.K., S. Demarais, L.E. Castle, J.W. Lipe, W.H. Lunceford, H.A. Jacobson, D. Frels, and K.V. Miller. 2001. Effects of selective-harvest strategies on white-tailed deer antler size. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 29(2):509-520. [Selective harvest criteria may negatively impact cohort antler size in subsequent years particularly in areas of high buck exploitation.]

Strickland, B.K. and S. Demarais. 2007. Using antler restrictions to manage for older-aged bucks: navigating the tangled thicket. Mississippi State Univ. Extn. Serv. Publ. 2427. 16pp. [Protecting yearling bucks with a 4-point restriction on public hunting areas in Mississippi resulted in a 42% reduction in buck harvest density and antler size within age classes generally declined. An alternative is a quota on bucks (e.g., limited licenses) or trying more complex antler restrictions (e.g., beam width and points).]

Stringham, S.F. 1993. Trophy bull management: An alternative strategy. Bugle. Fall:123-126. [Antler restrictions have focused mortality on mature bulls. “Focusing hunting pressure on preadolescent and adolescent males is a better approach…until they reach a 6x6 minimum.”]

Thomas, Lindsay, Jr. 2004. Rules to hunt by: A guide to mandatory antler regulations at the state and regional level – their history, their impacts and their future. Quality Whitetails 11(2):14-22. [Summarizes AR status and questions in Eastern states. Curiously, 6 of 7 states experimenting with ARs continue to have bag limits of 2 or more antlered bucks, although TX went to 1 buck in the AR zone.]

Wiegand, J.P. and R.J. Mackie. 1987. What’s working and what’s not: an overview of approaches to management for quality hunting. Proc. Western Assoc. of Fish and Wildl. Agencies 67:69-76.

Winand, C.J. 2009. Antler restrictions: Do they work? Bowhunter 38(3):56,58. [Author summarizes some results of the Texas “slot limit” where branch-antlered bucks with beam spreads less than 13 inches were protected: larger bucks and those with one or more unbranched antlers were legal. The proportion of older bucks in the harvest increased while total harvest was unchanged. Herd management efficacy and hunter densities and effort were unstated.]

Yendes, A. 1988. Do point restrictions build better bucks? Petersen's Hunting. Sep:53-55,122-123. [After 12 years of 4-point regulations in Oregon, legal harvest “declined 50 percent…and there has been a 30 percent decrease in buck ratios.” “When something sounds good, our immediate response is to form a line and question why we are standing in it later.”]

Young, K. 2003. Is quality management working in Arkansas? Arkansas Sportsman. September(?) www.arkansassportsmanmag.com [after 5th year, “overall deer kill has decreased some 40 percent”].

 

[Carl]

It's a complex situation, but I'd be opposed to antler restrictions. Would be much more in favor of reducing/eliminating antlerless opportunities.

 

[Carl]

Any chance you could distill some of that for us Oak?

 

[jryoung]

No thanks, I've already spent over $1,500 on my MT licenses this year and there aren't many deer in the area. I only got a BGC just in case I see a deer.

Do you think take limitations will have a more profound impact on trophy quality than habitat?

 

[MTODhunting]

clearly, many people are against antler point restrictions, and some data suggests they don't work. If this is true, and they don't work, what are some alternatives??

 

[MTODhunting]

No thanks, I've already spent over $1,500 on my MT licenses this year and there aren't many deer in the area. I only got a BGC just in case I see a deer.

Do you think take limitations will have a more profound impact on trophy quality than habitat?

In some cases, yes. The Missouri river breaks for example, for the most part have gone unchanged, and been somewhat immune to over development because they are a national wildlife refuge. However from what I can tell, taking of trophy mule deer from the breaks has gone down in the last decade. This maybe due to over harvest, warranting a regulation change, also the breaks have become a much more popular hunting spot in the last decade, meaning more deer are being harvested there, also supporting the idea of over harvesting.