Balancing Opportunity and Age: The Impact of Buck Point Restrictions

[sndmn11]

I dont know enough about those units and the way they are managed to know whether it helps with bigger deer or not. I have LE Elk points so I pay attention to general season deer units more.

Personally, I dont think that it would make a statistically significant dent in the overall size of deer's antlers. I also think it provides an additional opportunity for people that are willing to shoot those bucks. I would also venture to guess that it takes deer off the landscape so you dont run into carrying capacity issues and removes them from the gene pool when it comes to breeding.

Personal thoughts but not something that I really pay attention to.

it seems like what cutty98 is asking about to a T.

 

[MuleyFever]

Do you think those help deer get bigger?

I dont think so because it is a season in addition to the regular hunt. A 3pt isn't getting shot instead of another deer but in addition to.

 

[CorbLand]

it seems like what cutty98 is asking about to a T.

I guess I dont see them being that similar.

OP is asking about a two tag system that restricts you to what type of tag you have and allocating more tags to two point or less and less to three point or better.

The management and cactus buck hunts are similar in that there are two, technically three, tags but I am pretty sure they allocate more tags to the actual premium/LE hunt and less to the cactus/management hunts.

 

[Scottf270]

Point restrictions are a poor attempt to manage for better bucks but it results in wasted, illegally shot deer and allows poor genetic bucks to stay.

What would be preferable would be to manage for age, regardless of antler size or configuration. I've about given up on ever getting anywhere with that. Too many "for the meat" hunters. Either reduce tags or let em shoot what they want. You can't have both, so take your pick.

 

[AHayes111]

I think your Idea is far better then traditional APR's for several reasons.

Focuses the harvest on younger deer, many of witch will die of natural causes before they are old enough to grow large antlers.
Focuses the harvest of older bucks on the ones that will never get big. and the harvest of young bucks on the ones that are more likely to to not ever get big. Some younger three points will turn in to giant bucks later in life, but the chance that a two or three year old three point turns in to a giant is much less than a two or three year old four point turning into a giant.
A way to preserve opportunity with out putting a pounding on young two and three year old bucks with great potential. I think the term management hunt is a miss label, This is more of an opportunity hunt.

On the other hand if hunters read the regulation as well as they read your OP, the idea is doomed to fail.

 

[Macegl]

Do you think those help deer get bigger?

I live in southern Utah, talking with the biologists it’s a way to provide opportunity to draw a tag with less points and take a type of deer that otherwise would be less likely to get harvested.

That said it can’t hurt the genetics of a herd to put some pressure on the portion of the buck population with less desirable antler characteristics. But it probably isn’t as big a factor as many think.

I am in favor of opportunity. So I’m a fan.

 

[cutty98]

I think your Idea is far better then traditional APR's for several reasons.

Focuses the harvest on younger deer, many of witch will die of natural causes before they are old enough to grow large antlers.
Focuses the harvest of older bucks on the ones that will never get big. and the harvest of young bucks on the ones that are more likely to to not ever get big. Some younger three points will turn in to giant bucks later in life, but the chance that a two or three year old three point turns in to a giant is much less than a two or three year old four point turning into a giant.
A way to preserve opportunity with out putting a pounding on young two and three year old bucks with great potential. I think the term management hunt is a miss label, This is more of an opportunity hunt.

On the other hand if hunters read the regulation as well as they read your OP, the idea is doomed to fail.

I like the phrase opportunity hunt. I think that sums up my idea pretty well. I would be interested to see it implemented somewhere in order to see what kind of population level impacts it may have.

For all our sakes let's hope they're reading the regs better than they read my original post.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[cutty98]

I live in southern Utah, talking with the biologists it’s a way to provide opportunity to draw a tag with less points and take a type of deer that otherwise would be less likely to get harvested.

That said it can’t hurt the genetics of a herd to put some pressure on the portion of the buck population with less desirable antler characteristics. But it probably isn’t as big a factor as many think.

I am in favor of opportunity. So I’m a fan.

I definitely agree with you about opportunity, which is why I thought of the idea in the first place.

Do those units in southern Utah offer more "management" tags than they do actual LE tags?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[cutty98]

Do you think those help deer get bigger?

The focus would not be solely on growing bigger. I think we all know what to do if one wants bigger deer. The focus would be two-fold, growing some big deer while maintaining some opportunity.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Bubblehide]

California had some 3 point or better zones several decades back. In the zones I hunted back then (much higher deer populations back then), those 3 point or better zones, I ran across way to many dead and left very large antlered 2x2 bucks. Unfortunately guys would typically jump these bucks and see their large antlers, and rush a shot before the buck was gone. The result back then was a kill rate significantly over the intended harvest number for these zones.

So, in my experience, I am not a beliver in antler restrictions changing. Furthermore, in California, the population decline we have seen since the 60s, was not a true population decline, as the population increase was due to artifical means. What I mean is that just prior to the 60s, land management practices were very diff3than they are now, and those land management practices directly resulted in significant increases in deer populations. Back then, land was being opened up (ranching, farming, timber harvesting) in ways that directly benefited our deer populations by providing much more conducive habitat, feed...

Since those regulations have been changed, restrictions.... our deer heard populations have decreased to prior historical population numbers and are now considered stable (for the most part)

Lastly, if your simply looking for increased anteler growth, there are plenty of resources on that subject matter, including here on rokslide, podcasts...

 

[cutty98]

California had some 3 point or better zones several decades back. In the zones I hunted back then (much higher deer populations back then), those 3 point or better zones, I ran across way to many dead and left very large antlered 2x2 bucks. Unfortunately guys would typically jump these bucks and see their large antlers, and rush a shot before the buck was gone. The result back then was a kill rate significantly over the intended harvest number for these zones.

So, in my experience, I am not a beliver in antler restrictions changing. Furthermore, in California, the population decline we have seen since the 60s, was not a true population decline, as the population increase was due to artifical means. What I mean is that just prior to the 60s, land management practices were very diff3than they are now, and those land management practices directly resulted in significant increases in deer populations. Back then, land was being opened up (ranching, farming, timber harvesting) in ways that directly benefited our deer populations by providing much more conducive habitat, feed...

Since those regulations have been changed, restrictions.... our deer heard populations have decreased to prior historical population numbers and are now considered stable (for the most part)

Lastly, if your simply looking for increased anteler growth, there are plenty of resources on that subject matter, including here on rokslide, podcasts...

Yes, the impact that traditional APR's have on deer is pretty clear. However, my original post did not propose a traditional APR.

Habit loss and fragmentation through the form of human development can have pretty significant impacts on deer herd health as well. I often feel that hunters often overlook these impacts, yet they are an important piece of the puzzle. I'm sure those impacts can be seen in certain parts of California as you have stated.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[AHayes111]

When you think about your idea, it would kind of mimic the way our grandfathers hunted, Most of them shot the first buck that gave them a good clean shot. Sure that buck was a monster some times, but most of the time it was small two or three point.

 

[CorbLand]

The focus would not be solely on growing bigger. I think we all know what to do if one wants bigger deer. The focus would be two-fold, growing some big deer while maintaining some opportunity.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Serious question. How is that any different than what most states are doing in most units or whatever that state calls them? Are there truly states that are not managing a balance to the level that there really is not any "big" deer in a unit/state?

I put big in "" because everyone's definition of big is different. Some the first two numbers better be 22 and others 15 fits the bill.

 

[roadrunner]

There are only two things to help "the herd": decrease in predation and an increase in habitat (or lowering the decrease in habitat).

 

[CorbLand]

I definitely agree with you about opportunity, which is why I thought of the idea in the first place.

Do those units in southern Utah offer more "management" tags than they do actual LE tags?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Quickly looked and if I did the math in my head correctly.

Cactus and Managment hunt on the Pauns
Tags - ~60
Avg Success - ~50%

LE tags on the Pauns
Tags - ~125
Avg Success - ~85%

 

[cutty98]

There are only two things to help "the herd": decrease in predation and an increase in habitat (or lowering the decrease in habitat).

I don't disagree with you as far as growth is concerned. I guess I was more interested in how it would impact age structure and distribution among bucks within a population. It's pretty clear that traditional APR's impact both age class structure and genetics, just not in the way that most hunters like.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[roadrunner]

I don't disagree with you as far as growth is concerned. I guess I was more interested in how it would impact age structure and distribution among bucks within a population. It's pretty clear that traditional APR's impact both age class structure and genetics, just not in the way that most hunters like.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

"Herd" health and trophy quality are rarely the same thing.

One is species preservation and thriving populations, the other is in the eye of the beholder and whether or not a shoulder mount is the outcome.

 

[Macegl]

I definitely agree with you about opportunity, which is why I thought of the idea in the first place.

Do those units in southern Utah offer more "management" tags than they do actual LE tags?

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Looks like corbland summed it up with his post. Less tags, but overall the mature management buck are definitely a smaller subset of the buck population.

I will say from what I remember the management buck tags have a much higher success rate than the cactus buck hunts. I would have no problem applying for one of the management buck tags.

The cactus buck hunt is a very tough hunt, and I don’t know that people know what they are getting into. There just aren’t that many, and often they are smaller antlered than most people imagine. Personally I wouldn’t use le points on that hunt.

 

[Macegl]

I don't disagree with you as far as growth is concerned. I guess I was more interested in how it would impact age structure and distribution among bucks within a population. It's pretty clear that traditional APR's impact both age class structure and genetics, just not in the way that most hunters like.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

One thing I think you are getting at and it’s question I have had for a long time is, by us putting pressure on the largest antlered deer in a herd are we over time removing the most fit individuals leading to a potential negative trend in that particular characteristic?

In theory the largest antlered deer have satisfied all the baseline nutritional requirements, grown the largest body their genetic makeup would allow, and had enough to spare to grow the largest antlers. This would “in theory” make those individuals the most fit for fighting and breeding as well. If those animals are removed, and less fit animals are left to pass on their genetics, does it have a long term negative impact?

I’m not sure that with all the other variables at play, we will ever know.

 

[Jaden Bales]

One thing that I think is overlooked in these conversations about APRs is the landownership makeup and general tags or not.

Near Lander, the implementation of 4 pt. APRs have reduced license sales and participation by 29% because it's a General tag and people will just opt out of buying a license that year.

There's a really interesting mixture of hard-to-hunt timber and private lands down low, so there's good buck escapement in our 6-day rifle season.

Compare Lander to Dubois where there's a 14-day any antlered buck season - mostly public ground. When I guide that late Dubois tag, I see significantly more big 2-points than in Lander.

I'd imagine the overall discouragement of hunting and lower bucks killed is why I'm seeing that.

They did a good little study in Baggs in their Season Setting Video with their APRs. I think that's another place where you would get "high-grading" and end up with a lot of young 2-pt bucks left after season, since they have fewer places to escape with all that open public land low brush country and roads everywhere.