Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Does your state have a deer regulation that defies common sense?
User avatar
ranwin33
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: Kansas and Missouri

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby ranwin33 » Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:27 am

ORIGINAL: hunter480

ORIGINAL: ranwin33

ORIGINAL: hunter480
Wow JPH-

Elvolved as in, they buy in to your brand of hunter restrictions?

I clearly see your point about poaching as in the shooting too close to the road, but what exactly are you saying?

I`m looking hard here for some sense that you`re not implying that short of accepting qdm/tdm, that you`re not "evolved" as a deer hunter......

Come to Missouri - you'll see what he means.[:D] 


What happens in Missouri???

Venison taste sweeter? More hunters, who pay their share of license fees, kill more deer? Maybe, better yet, in Missouri, do the "knowledgable" hunters stop dictacting to the poor slob, "average" hunters what they may kill?

I can only dream.

[:D]

Road hunters, poaching at night, poaching out of season, shooting before legal shooting hours, no law enforcement in the area, locals trespassing, locals sitting in a pickup on the other side of the road on a property they don't own so they can watch over your property after shooting hours, property damage.  Just some of the things I've experienced or watch happen to others in 6 years.
 
MDC does the dictating so we knowledgable hunters don't have to, that's why we have APRs - God bless them.
 
But I'm also from Kansas so I tend to think most Missourians are less evolved[:)] - especially my brother. [:)]

User avatar
ranwin33
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: Kansas and Missouri

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby ranwin33 » Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:33 am

ORIGINAL: JPH

ORIGINAL: hunter480

Wow JPH-

Elvolved as in, they buy in to your brand of hunter restrictions?

I clearly see your point about poaching as in the shooting too close to the road, but what exactly are you saying?

I`m looking hard here for some sense that you`re not implying that short of accepting qdm/tdm, that you`re not "evolved" as a deer hunter......


Vald question. "Evolved" can be a loaded term. I'll do my best to explain.

Iowa (where I live) has a culture of respect for property, game laws, and safety. For example, Iowa law states that the hunter must know that he has express permission to hunt at all times. Land does not need to be posted or fenced in order for tresspassing to stick. In Missouri and New York the landowner has the burden of posting their land.

Iowa has not needed to enact APR's or other motivators to reduce the buck harvest. They simply added more doe tags. Iowa has some of the best deer hunting in America! Very high success rates, high hunter satesfaction and some of the biggest bucks in the world. If you want to shoot a yearling buck in Iowa, you can and I'll be among the many who will congratulate you. But many hunters in Iowa choose to hold out because of the ample doe tags.

The level of poaching I encounter in Missouri (where I own land) is unreal. Tresspassing, cutting fences, shooting wildly from the road and vandalism are all commonplace during the season. I have total strangers joke to me about poaching on a regualr basis. They never even hesitate about it. It is expected.

North Missouri has it's share of true outdoorsmen and clearly, Iowa has some outlaws. We have had a few major poachers arrested in Iowa, and most of them have been from southern states. In my area of Missouri, they seem to be held up like local heros.

Bottom line. I consider hunters who are exceedingly safe, careful with property, willing to harvest does and cautious with their choice of bucks (for reasons of conservation) to be "evolved". I seem to encounter these types in Iowa more often than in other states. 

Having traveled most of the United States, I will say this - when you drive through Iowa you will see some of the nicest, most well maintained properties anywhere.  Not only farms but in the cities too.  You can tell that people take pride in their state; it truly seems to be a cultural thing there.

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby JPH » Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:27 am

BTW, before this gets out of hand, I love my neighbors in Missouri. They have done so much to make my family and me feel welcome and they are good friends. We have never had a problem that could not be solved by a face to face.

Secondly, the majority of Missouri hunters are excellent at what they do. The problem is, they do not stand out. It is the lazy, ignorant, and dangerous "hunter" that makes it hard for everyone. They are the ones that stand out.

My whole point is that I feel the Iowa DNR and local pressure does a better job of ridding hunting of these types, than in the area I hunt in Missouri.

NWPAHunter
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby NWPAHunter » Thu Aug 28, 2008 11:13 am

I feel that PA needs to go to statewide 4pts to a side instead dividing the state the way they do....AR is great my last 5 buck were by far my best. I am in the 3pt side of PA but choose to harvest 8pts or better. I will say that there is a monster 6pt hanging in one of my honeyholes near the end of season he'd be hard to pass up.

User avatar
dtrain56
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:41 am

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby dtrain56 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:17 am

NWPA Hunter, i hunt in forest county a 3pt area and i agree, a four point restriction would be better...and yes the deer herd has improved.. the last two bucks i have harvested were out to or past the ears one a 4.5yr old eight point and the other a nice 7pt (2.5)

User avatar
EatDeer
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:02 pm

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby EatDeer » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

ORIGINAL: hunter480

ORIGINAL: EatDeer

I don't know of any self-respecting deer bioloigest that would put "social wants" ahead of research and doing thier jobs correctly. Whether, I like it or not outfitting has increased by leaps and bounds. I think the reason why, is because many new hunters want a large buck. It's not about putting meat in the freezer to many of todays new hunters, but that is a beneifit of course, if they don't donate it all. Drawing non-resident hunters is why the outfitters have AR's in place,harvest does,as well as why they are trying to improve herd health.  I think states that see the reults outfitters are getting, they in turn want to get in on the action. The fact is more larger bucks mean more hunters, and more state revenue.


In a single paragraph, you contradict yourself. You say no self-respecting biologist would put social wants ahead of doing their job correctly, then you say that bigger deer put more money in state coffers.

You can`t have it both ways.

It`s a fact however, that social wants don`t necessarily kill the biological health of a herd.....right away. So, it`s possible to have both for a time.

The real issue at hand is, what`s in the best interest of the herd, long term?

Again, with herds busting at the seams of the carrying capicity of the available habitat, does it make sense to reduce hunter opportunity, and protect any deer from being removed from the field?
Don't confuse outfitter needs with biological facts, they may beneifit both parties, but for different reasons. Buck's arent produceing fawns, and the buck herd in most areas is over harvested. In MO. AR's are proven to promote doe harvest without a decline in total harvest.
"Let a young buck go, so he can grow."

hunter480
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:44 am

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby hunter480 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:28 pm

ORIGINAL: EatDeer

ORIGINAL: hunter480

ORIGINAL: EatDeer

I don't know of any self-respecting deer bioloigest that would put "social wants" ahead of research and doing thier jobs correctly. Whether, I like it or not outfitting has increased by leaps and bounds. I think the reason why, is because many new hunters want a large buck. It's not about putting meat in the freezer to many of todays new hunters, but that is a beneifit of course, if they don't donate it all. Drawing non-resident hunters is why the outfitters have AR's in place,harvest does,as well as why they are trying to improve herd health.  I think states that see the reults outfitters are getting, they in turn want to get in on the action. The fact is more larger bucks mean more hunters, and more state revenue.


In a single paragraph, you contradict yourself. You say no self-respecting biologist would put social wants ahead of doing their job correctly, then you say that bigger deer put more money in state coffers.

You can`t have it both ways.

It`s a fact however, that social wants don`t necessarily kill the biological health of a herd.....right away. So, it`s possible to have both for a time.

The real issue at hand is, what`s in the best interest of the herd, long term?

Again, with herds busting at the seams of the carrying capicity of the available habitat, does it make sense to reduce hunter opportunity, and protect any deer from being removed from the field?
Don't confuse outfitter needs with biological facts, they may beneifit both parties, but for different reasons. Buck's arent produceing fawns, and the buck herd in most areas is over harvested. In MO. AR's are proven to promote doe harvest without a decline in total harvest.

 
??????????????
 

User avatar
EatDeer
 
Posts: 740
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:02 pm

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby EatDeer » Sat Aug 30, 2008 3:03 am

Outfitters simply have AR's for producing bigger antlers, to advertise to more customers. Bioloigests want AR's to improve the health/age structure of the deer herd, without thinking about any money issues. Limiting the harvest of young bucks allows more bucks to move into older age classes.  When you move bucks into older age classes, the younger bucks don't use all thier body fat breeding does in the rut as often. This allows young bucks to be less stressed and promotes healthier body growth, but in turn puts the rut stress on the already mature shoulders of the older bucks. Doe's are the deer that are producing multiable fawns, so if a hunter passes a young buck, then that hunter is more opt to harvest a doe. That harvest of a doe would basicly take out 3 fawns a year, for as long as the doe would have lived.  More is shown in the video produced by the MO. DNR on AR's, and a bioloigest could explain in much greater detail.   
"Let a young buck go, so he can grow."

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby JPH » Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:17 pm

I saw a good example of why I am not very big on APR's today. I was out hanging stands in Iowa and I jumped a buck out of tall grass, about 5 yards in front of me. 8 points and about 15" wide (hard antler). The first thing I thought was "2.5 year old". But after he had made 3 or 4 bounds, I noticed that his body was much too small. He was actually a very good looking yearling.
 
I know this buck is safe this year because the hunters in the area have all elected to lay off yearlings. However, had this been on my Missouri property, that buck would be doomed. Too many hunters in that area look for the first thing with a 4 point side and blast away.
 
 

User avatar
Archery_NUT
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:51 am

RE: Pilot Antler Restriction Project

Postby Archery_NUT » Tue Nov 11, 2008 5:43 pm

in michigan that would be a gtood idea but either way my neighbor shoots anything that is brown and moving so either way it wont matter with him
bad day of hunting beats a good day of school or work anytime

PreviousNext

Return to Dumb deer laws

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests