# Deer antler restrictions WORK!



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

I hear so much talk of how 3 point or better antler restrictions don't work. They work very well by protecting those dumb, small body yearlings for one year giving them a chance to grow bigger bodies, bigger racks and hopefully wise up for one year after which, most of them are harvested. This does not produce more of the bigger bucks and probably produces fewer big bucks because hunters have to hunt harder and longer looking over yearlings in search of legal 2.5 year olds. In their extended hunts, they naturally encounter the even bigger bucks and kill more of them. Antler restrictions puts the hunt back in hunting. It is more difficult and more exciting looking over yearlings searching for a bigger buck. Killing yearling mule deer is not that much fun or challenging. They are not very wary. They tend to just stand around looking at you. They have the mentality of a doe which they have been hanging with all their life. The biggest downside of antler restrictions is that the range must carry the yearling bucks for another year. This is a perfect time to begin antler restrictions as the deer herd is low and the yearling bucks can be carried. Hunters will enjoy taking bigger bodied, bigger racked bucks except for the first year when the kill will be way down while protecting the yearlings. The other downside will be fewer bigger bucks from the increased hunting pressure and there will be some mistaken kills of smaller bucks. I think we should begin deer antler restrictions soon.


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

HT,

What you say seems logical, but in point of fact 100% of the data has proven otherwise time and time again.

People think that if you reduce the number of guns, by definition you will reduce the number of gun-related violent crimes too. What happens in reality, as was just proven once again in Australia, is that gun reduction simply makes law abiding people defenseless and crime skyrockets.

3-point-or-better anter restrictions have been tried all over the West, and the actual results have proven the method to be ineffectual. One recurring problem is that people shoot the yearling bucks and just leave them after finding they are illegal, then go shoot another legal animal thereby doubling harvest. Another major issue is that protecting the young bucks tends to increase buck to doe ratios. Older bucks are smarter and have higher surviveability. This leads to DECREASES in herd numbers and damages quality.

This is one of those topics where the reasoning seems completely legitimate, but the method has been tried, studied intensively, and found to be a failure for more reasons than the ones I've listed.


----------



## blackbear (Oct 18, 2007)

> I think we should begin deer antler restrictions soon.


I agree 100%... For rifflers. 8)


----------



## ram2h2o (Sep 11, 2007)

Have been hunting 4 points or better (Whitetail) for a while in Mississippi and have seen more deer and taken better whitetails than we did before the restrictions went into effect. Also have a 4 inch or better restriction on taking Turkey Gobblers and it has worked very well also.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> I hear so much talk of how 3 point or better antler restrictions don't work. They work very well by protecting those dumb, small body yearlings for one year giving them a chance to grow bigger bodies, bigger racks and hopefully wise up for one year after which, most of them are harvested. This does not produce more of the bigger bucks and probably produces fewer big bucks because hunters have to hunt harder and longer looking over yearlings in search of legal 2.5 year olds. In their extended hunts, they naturally encounter the even bigger bucks and kill more of them. Antler restrictions puts the hunt back in hunting. So would getting rid of rifles. How about we get rid of binoculars or any advantage while we are at it so it will be more true to hunting. Lets go back to a spear and long bows, now that is hunting.It is more difficult and more exciting looking over yearlings searching for a bigger buck. Killing yearling mule deer is not that much fun or challenging. That is your opinion, I know many people that don't kill these dumb yearling bucks and were out smarted by them. I will agree it is easier than a big mature buck, but it is not easy.They are not very wary. They tend to just stand around looking at you. They have the mentality of a doe which they have been hanging with all their life. The biggest downside of antler restrictions is that the range must carry the yearling bucks for another year. This is a perfect time to begin antler restrictions as the deer herd is low and the yearling bucks can be carried. Hunters will enjoy taking bigger bodied, bigger racked bucks except for the first year when the kill will be way down while protecting the yearlings. Not everyone is out to kill a trophy buck, some of us are out for the experience and if we connect, enjoy some delicious venison.The other downside will be fewer bigger bucks from the increased hunting pressure and there will be some mistaken kills of smaller bucks. I think we should begin deer antler restrictions soon.


I think we have a great happy medium how it is. Not saying the system is perfect, because it isn't, but antler restrictions is not the solution, IMO.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The bottom line is that you can't focus all of the hunting pressure on the older, bigger, and mature animals and still expect to have high numbers of older, bigger, and mature animals. It just doesn't work...Every state has tried them and all agree.

"Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.

Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.

Wyoming's experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.

Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.

Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks. They did experience an increase in buck:doe ratios because of the lower buck harvest and improved recruitment of fawns.

Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.

Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks."
http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinth ... rvest.html


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

A major factor in deer/elk populations in the west:


> Pinyon-juniper plant communities have expanded to over 74 million acres of the Intermountain West. Pinyon-juniper plant communities began expanding when livestock were introduced in the late 1800s, fire was reduced across the landscape and climatic changes occurred.
> 
> When pinyon-juniper initially encroaches into shrub steppe communities, habitat for mule deer improves with additional diversity of plants and cover. The improvement is short-lived. Because it is drought tolerant, pinyon-juniper woodlands eventually outcompete forbs, grasses and shrubs, especially in places where woodlands are adjacent to grasslands. *Biologists have documented a loss of 80 percent of mountain big sagebrush when juniper covers 50 percent of the canopy of an area.* Other plants and plant communities such as antelope bitterbrush, mountain mahogany and aspen are also lost when pinyon-juniper invades an area.
> 
> To manage pinyon-juniper woodlands for mule deer habitat, biologists recommend harvesting fuel wood and using fire in grasslands next to pinyon-juniper woodlands to reduce further encroachment and improve quantity and diversity of grasses, forbs and shrubs.


Until the habitat is improved, antler restrictions and/or limited tags being issued will be little more than band aids and will do NOTHING to 'fix' the root cause of why the deer/elk herds are struggling.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

3pt or better 100% agree. Many already practice this for ehtical or machismo reasons. But not enough. They can manufacture all the statistics they want. But isnt common sense and actual results worth anything.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Iron Bear said:


> 3pt or better 100% agree. Many already practice this for ehtical or machismo reasons. But not enough. They can manufacture all the statistics they want. But isnt common sense and actual results worth anything.


So where is this common sense and results you speak of?


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

jahan said:


> Hunter Tom said:
> 
> 
> > I hear so much talk of how 3 point or better antler restrictions don't work. They work very well by protecting those dumb, small body yearlings for one year giving them a chance to grow bigger bodies, bigger racks and hopefully wise up for one year after which, most of them are harvested. This does not produce more of the bigger bucks and probably produces fewer big bucks because hunters have to hunt harder and longer looking over yearlings in search of legal 2.5 year olds. In their extended hunts, they naturally encounter the even bigger bucks and kill more of them. Antler restrictions puts the hunt back in hunting. So would getting rid of rifles. How about we get rid of binoculars or any advantage while we are at it so it will be more true to hunting. Lets go back to a spear and long bows, now that is hunting.It is more difficult and more exciting looking over yearlings searching for a bigger buck. Killing yearling mule deer is not that much fun or challenging. That is your opinion, I know many people that don't kill these dumb yearling bucks and were out smarted by them. I will agree it is easier than a big mature buck, but it is not easy.They are not very wary. They tend to just stand around looking at you. They have the mentality of a doe which they have been hanging with all their life. The biggest downside of antler restrictions is that the range must carry the yearling bucks for another year. This is a perfect time to begin antler restrictions as the deer herd is low and the yearling bucks can be carried. Hunters will enjoy taking bigger bodied, bigger racked bucks except for the first year when the kill will be way down while protecting the yearlings. Not everyone is out to kill a trophy buck, some of us are out for the experience and if we connect, enjoy some delicious venison.The other downside will be fewer bigger bucks from the increased hunting pressure and there will be some mistaken kills of smaller bucks. I think we should begin deer antler restrictions soon.
> ...


Jahan you forgot to mention banning modern broadheads all archers should have to fabricate and use stonepoints.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

jahan said:


> Iron Bear said:
> 
> 
> > 3pt or better 100% agree. Many already practice this for ehtical or machismo reasons. But not enough. They can manufacture all the statistics they want. But isnt common sense and actual results worth anything.
> ...


Good questions my little friend!


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> jahan said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="Hunter Tom":3byn1b4l]I hear so much talk of how 3 point or better antler restrictions don't work. They work very well by protecting those dumb, small body yearlings for one year giving them a chance to grow bigger bodies, bigger racks and hopefully wise up for one year after which, most of them are harvested. This does not produce more of the bigger bucks and probably produces fewer big bucks because hunters have to hunt harder and longer looking over yearlings in search of legal 2.5 year olds. In their extended hunts, they naturally encounter the even bigger bucks and kill more of them. Antler restrictions puts the hunt back in hunting. So would getting rid of rifles. How about we get rid of binoculars or any advantage while we are at it so it will be more true to hunting. Lets go back to a spear and long bows, now that is hunting.It is more difficult and more exciting looking over yearlings searching for a bigger buck. Killing yearling mule deer is not that much fun or challenging. That is your opinion, I know many people that don't kill these dumb yearling bucks and were out smarted by them. I will agree it is easier than a big mature buck, but it is not easy.They are not very wary. They tend to just stand around looking at you. They have the mentality of a doe which they have been hanging with all their life. The biggest downside of antler restrictions is that the range must carry the yearling bucks for another year. This is a perfect time to begin antler restrictions as the deer herd is low and the yearling bucks can be carried. Hunters will enjoy taking bigger bodied, bigger racked bucks except for the first year when the kill will be way down while protecting the yearlings. Not everyone is out to kill a trophy buck, some of us are out for the experience and if we connect, enjoy some delicious venison.The other downside will be fewer bigger bucks from the increased hunting pressure and there will be some mistaken kills of smaller bucks. I think we should begin deer antler restrictions soon.
> ...


Jahan you forgot to mention banning modern broadheads all archers should have to fabricate and use stonepoints. [/quote:3byn1b4l]

Thanks I missed that. :lol: By the way, I like your phrase about taking kids hunting.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Trust me, Two year's of, 3pt or better state wide............AND............

Everyone would be driving around the hill's with there jaw's on there floorboard's......

.........Thinking..........Look at all these GREAT BUCK'S.............................

Why did'nt we do this year's AGO ?????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## hunter_orange13 (Oct 11, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Trust me, Two year's of, 3pt or better state wide............AND............
> 
> Everyone would be driving around the hill's with there jaw's on there floorboard's......
> 
> ...


thats why we need 2 years on, 1 year off. jmo.

where we hunt, its all a "brown its down" policy :evil: when my dads hunting friend got a 3x2 with a 25" spread, everyone was taking pics on our camp sight!!! thats sad.

the 07 he got a HUGE 5x5 and it was the biggest deer i've ever seen taken out of there! but he hunts rifle, everyday he can, passes on the spikes, so the neighbor hunters shoot it.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Most deer hunters do NOT want antler restrictions. The proof is that if they did want it they would self regulate w/o the DWR making it so. It's like people claiming the southern region has SOME areas with over crowding while admitting areas that have more deer are uncrowded, but they want the DWR to make it happen in stead of relocating on their own. If Utah deer hunters truly wanted antler restrictions they would stop with the "if it's brown it's down" hunting. Why should a MINORITY dictate something like antler restrictions on to the MAJORITY? Especially when it has been PROVEN over and over and over and over to not have the desired effects wished for. :?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Oh , come on PRO , All I'm ask'in for is TWO short years of three point or better...

You even Got to omit............It would be fun to watch every one S*** there pants
seeing what the bookcliffs looks like without having to go there.........Would'nt it??


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Oh , come on PRO , All I'm ask'in for is TWO short years of three point or better...
> 
> You even Got to omit............It would be fun to watch every one S*** there pants
> seeing what the bookcliffs looks like without having to go there.........Would'nt it??


When did the Book Cliffs go back to antler restrictions?  :wink: :mrgreen:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm just saying it would be fun to see the entire state's deer heard look like the book's..

By the way, I was there , The bookcliff's deer were better with Antler resterictions 20
years ago when ANYone and EVERYone could hunt it than it is today as a LE unit.

I saw it with my own eye's.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.


No Utah didn't. Utah continues with the practice and calls it a "management hunt".


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

> goofy elk"]Trust me, Two year's of, 3pt or better state wide............AND............
> 
> Everyone would be driving around the hill's with there jaw's on there floorboard's......
> 
> .........Thinking..........Look at all these GREAT BUCK'S.............................


If everyone would get their a**es out of the truck and hunt a little away from the crowds (road hunters come to mind) their jaws would drop, big bucks don't get big by being stupid, they stay back away from the crowds.

Trust me on that one, back home we have had a 3 point rule for 10 years, we don't kill any bigger bucks now than before. Every deer is checked back there so they have all the harvest data, the numbers don't lie.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

goofy elk> Your going to catch hell for busting open that can of worms.Beleive me I know where you are coming from,, The Books Cliffs during 3 point was better than is now,Fishlake was better, Phavant was better, Monroe was better, Salina Creek was a whole lot better. Sterling, Mayfield Big Muddy up by Ferron. Sheep Valley I could go on and on. I'am telling you. there are guys on this forum that will think you have lost your mind, And then some real strange use of the english language, will be directed toward you , Then , not knowing you from Batman.You'll be lumped into the stero typical good ol boy who never gets out of his new pickup truck, and don't know nothin about game management. cause you don't have total command of the english language, If you had a degree in being brain dead and rude, well you'll see when the poo starts hitting the rotating fan.. I do agree with you, point restrictions should have started yesterday...


----------



## The Naturalist (Oct 13, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> A major factor in deer/elk populations in the west:
> 
> 
> > Pinyon-juniper plant communities have expanded to over 74 million acres of the Intermountain West. Pinyon-juniper plant communities began expanding when livestock were introduced in the late 1800s, fire was reduced across the landscape and climatic changes occurred.
> ...



Well done PRO. Habitat destruction is the #1 reason for population declines in most species.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

oldfudd said:


> goofy elk> Your going to catch hell for busting open that can of worms.Beleive me I know where you are coming from,, The Books Cliffs during 3 point was better than is now,Fishlake was better, Phavant was better, Monroe was better, Salina Creek was a whole lot better. Sterling, Mayfield Big Muddy up by Ferron. Sheep Valley I could go on and on. I'am telling you. there are guys on this forum that will think you have lost your mind, And then some real strange use of the english language, will be directed toward you , Then , not knowing you from Batman.You'll be lumped into the stero typical good ol boy who never gets out of his new pickup truck, and don't know nothin about game management. cause you don't have total command of the english language, If you had a degree in being brain dead and rude, well you'll see when the poo starts hitting the rotating fan.. I do agree with you, point restrictions should have started yesterday...


One small problem with your little 'story', Sterling, Mayfield, and the Big Muddy up by Ferron were NEVER part of the antler restricted areas!  Those areas are my home turf, it was ONLY the Fish Lake FS, not the Manti LaSal FS that was restricted, which is SOUTH of the aforementioned areas. :? The older ones gets the better it was. :roll:

Naturalist, thank you for your work in the past on habitat, and for your compliments. 8)


----------



## bigbuck81 (Oct 10, 2007)

I think its ridiculous to make an antler restriction!! If a guy or a gal or a kid wants to shoot a 2point they should have that oppurtunity! When I take my son on his first deer hunt, I want him to be able to harvest a deer! You put out restrictions and that lowers the possibility of being successful. Do you think if you take a child out for their first time and see many 2 points and tell him he cant shoot them because some guys complained about the herd because they are too lazy to get away from the roads...do you think he will continue to hunt? Sure, its possible, but with the youth these days, they want some action, and if they dont get it, they may tell you they dont ever want to hunt again because they just wanted to harvest an animal, NOT A BIG ANIMAL, just an aminal (DEER). I know if there were antler restrictions when I started hunting deer, I would have never experienced what it was like to harvest a deer. I have killed ALOT of 2 points, sure I dont want to kill 2points anymore but when the last 2 days of the hunt come, I want some venison in my freezer because I and my family love to eat venison. 

On another note...I am so darn sick and tired of people saying get rid of the rifle hunting...its not ethical, or you should only be able to hunt with a bow or muzzy, that is so ridiculous, all you bow hunters on this forum, ok let me rephraise that, SOME of you bow hunters on this forum think you are so much better than the rifle hunters, thats great you think bowhunting is the only way, but thats just your opinion. I have been on this forum for a couple years now and I honestly am starting to think I will never pick up a bow because I dont want to be one of those guys who thinks he is so much better than all the rifle hunters because he can get 15 yards away from a deer. Thats just not the way I want to hunt, sure I bet I would enjoy it but I dont think it makes you a better hunter if you can sit in a stand all day and wait for a deer to come to you, I spotted my buck at 700 yards this year and stalked into 300 yards and made the kill, now thats exciting to me! I hear people on here saying its UNETHICAL to hunt with a rifle, are you kidding me? So you think its ethical to shoot a deer and let it bleed to death with a bow when you can shoot a deer with a rifle and drop him in his tracks? There is so much stereotyping on this forum about rifle hunters it makes me sick and I just had to say something. Whats the difference in using a bow that has amazing technology compared to using a rifle? If you are so against rifle hunting you should be using a Long Bow with home made arrows like Tred Barta. Now thats cool! The bows these days are amazing, you might as well be using a rifle, there is more technology in modern bows than there is in rifles these days, so the guys who are bowhunting with modern bows should never make a comment about how rifle hunting should go away, or is unethical, because your bow is way more modern than my rifle. Sorry to go off like that but something has to be said, we are all hunters and should stand together no matter what weapon we choose. Im sure I will get attacked for this post but so be it. I am a very passionate rifle hunter who was raised rifle hunting and thats what I like, I dont bash you bow hunters for what you do so dont bash me for rifle hunting and carrying on traditions my family made years and years ago! NOT ALL RIFLE HUNTERS POP OFF SHOTS AT 1000 YARDS WHEN THEY SEE A BUCK, SOME OF US ACTUALLY HAVE GOOD ETHICS AND WONT SHOOT UNTIL THEY ARE 100% SURE THEY CAN KILL THAT DEER! Im not saying its unethical to shoot a deer at 1000 yards but you better be really good with your rifle and have a very good scope to shoot at that range! _O\ _O\ _O\ _O\ _O\ _O\ _O\ _O\ _O\ _O\


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

proutdoors said:


> oldfudd said:
> 
> 
> > goofy elk> Your going to catch hell for busting open that can of worms.Beleive me I know where you are coming from,, The Books Cliffs during 3 point was better than is now,Fishlake was better, Phavant was better, Monroe was better, Salina Creek was a whole lot better. Sterling, Mayfield Big Muddy up by Ferron. Sheep Valley I could go on and on. I'am telling you. there are guys on this forum that will think you have lost your mind, And then some real strange use of the english language, will be directed toward you , Then , not knowing you from Batman.You'll be lumped into the stero typical good ol boy who never gets out of his new pickup truck, and don't know nothin about game management. cause you don't have total command of the english language, If you had a degree in being brain dead and rude, well you'll see when the poo starts hitting the rotating fan.. I do agree with you, point restrictions should have started yesterday...
> ...


+1 Naturalist

I must be one of the exceptions. I hunt from Manti to I-70. This year I had 2 first timers, 1 second year, 1 fourth year hunter and myself. For us it was a great year. Opening day we saw more deer with antlers then with out. Those young people walked my butt off. This area does not need antler restrictions. This area needs to stay the course. I see the DWR doing work on the winter range. The weather Gods have been good. One thing I have learned is that when things change slowly they have a tendancy to last longer. As others have said fix the Habitat and the rest will correct itself. Ignore it and most everything else is a bandaid.


----------



## Hunter Tom (Sep 23, 2007)

The only real objection raised against antler restrictions is illegal kills. I don't believe there will be that many. Hunters are more responsible now than earlier when some of these studies were done. Anti poaching efforts have made hunters more aware of fines and loss of hunting privledges. Also, we have lost a lot of hunters lately. Many of the casual, less interested hunters are gone or going. You can't be serious about self regulation. The average hunter is going after a buck most of which are yearlings. He is going to take what is available and what the law allows. The state could phase it in one unit at a time. This would allow them to study the effects but it would shift hunting pressure away from that unit the first year then towards that unit the second year and beyond. I don't see how you can object-it greatly improves buck hunting.


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

Hunter Tom said:


> The only real objection raised against antler restrictions is illegal kills. I don't believe there will be that many. Hunters are more responsible now than earlier when some of these studies were done. Anti poaching efforts have made hunters more aware of fines and loss of hunting privledges.


you should tune in to the waterfowl section or just spend some time at Farmington Bay if you think hunters are any more responsible today than at any other time in the history of man killing animals!


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

It boils down to this:

Anyone who is for antler restrictions is quite simply uninformed. The theory of going 3-point or better and having an abundance of larger deer in 2 years seems dead on when you are thinking about it as a hypothesis.

The scientific method we all learned in Jr. High says that you should form a hypothesis, experiment or test, and then observe the results.

This has been done time and time again in actual, real life. The results have been detrimental to quality and herd health in almost every case.

I actually fell victim years ago to the "hey back when 3-point or better restrictions existed on the Henrys, Books, etc. the hunting was great so it must have been the anter restrictions" fallacy. Then I educated myself on the topic and found out the truth. Namely that it was the deer herds which were different 20 years ago, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with the 3-point or better regs.

If you are for antler restrictions, I suggest educating yourself and looking at facts (results of the experiments) instead of the hypothesis. Here's the thing: Where herds are healthy and have the habitat they need to thrive, hunting for mature bucks will be good. The guy's earlier comment about a whitetail area that produces w/ 3-point regs is a prime example -- the habitat and herd are likely healthy which produces good hunting, not the restrictions.

"Back in the day" the deer populations and habitat conditions of areas like the Henry's and the Books were drastically different. The large, healthy herds produced the better hunting.


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Pro, Sorry about the Mayfield , Big Muddy and Sterling. Your right never had 3 point restrictions..Sanpete County is part of my stomping grounds.. Use to hunt all that country above Spring City,, Oak Creek (now is spring city canyon) Cannel, haystack. Black canyon and so on.. It breaks my heart to see the decline in what use to be loaded with truly great bucks., Back in the 60's my Dads cousin shot a monster one mile out of Spring City while checking his cows. that won him a truck at old Zinks sporting goods,, I guess what I should a said is I hope theses units would become 3 point areas.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Huntaholic, I wouldnt share the great deer hunting you found in public. As regulations stand now. Every hunter in the central region could show up and then what. One of the biggest beefs I found guys have when it comes to deer are the DWR simply does nothing to try and control hunters harvest. On an area that has been so beat down you would think it couldnt get worse. And yet it does. For the last 15yr I have thought the deer herd is cyclical and we hit the bottem. It couldnt get any worse than this. And It does. I have given up that kind of thinking and honestly wouldnt be suprised to see deer go all but extinct on Monroe. in the next 15 yrs. :shock: 

As for riffle hunters I have absolutly no problem with you even if you could shoot your deer from 3000 yds or from your house. Distance doesnt concern me. I believe if the DWR did whats was right yrs ago we still could have 3 hunts per yr and one harvest. That is what made most of us the die hards we are. Not putting in for a measly deer tag, choosing your region waiting for the hunt to come around to see 10 bucks in 5 days (2pts). My beef isnt about trophy hunting. Its about #s.

Maybe there could be an exeption to the 3pt rule. Under 16 can shoot any buck. Although that woulds only be valued the first 2 or 3 ys until those youths started seeing 4pts.

There you go problem solved. End of dicussion. :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

oldfudd, I have killed several book bucks in that area above Sterling and Mayfield. I grew up just outside of Mayfield. The single biggest thing I see that has had an impact on mature bucks up 12 mile and 6 mile is ATV trails and usage. The bucks have nowhere to escape the masses. 

Antler restrictions will only restrict those who like shooting younger bucks, not you guys pushing for antler restrictions. Is that how we really should be managing deer, to FORCE others to hunt 'our' way? If that's the case I demand the whole state go archery only and you can hunt from Aug 15th through the end of December.  :wink: 

Big bucks are there on EVERY unit in Utah. Not as many as "back in the day", but they are there. As long as habitat is a limiting factor, which conservation groups are working hard to improve, and weather has bad cycles, and ATV's are allowed on every other ridge, the number of mature bucks will be severely limited. Antler restrictions and/or harvest limits will have little short term positive effects and NO long term positive effects. It would be akin to putting a tire patch on a crack in the Hoover Dam.


----------



## jahan (Sep 7, 2007)

Most people aren't about killing the biggest buck they can find, most actually kill the first buck they see. Most of you assume that everyone wants a giant buck. Most would take a big buck if it presented itself, but most people are too lazy or don't know how to find the big bucks. Many are content with killing a spike of two point every year so they have so meat. I also agree with Pro that this is really a mute point anyways until the habit issues can be fixed. I am not against trophy hunting at all and that is why there is L.E. units and most trophy hunters set their own antler restrictions anyways.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Antler point restrictions are like fishing regulations--if you have fishing regulations that allow only the harvest of fish 15 inches or greater, most of the fish are going to be less than 15 inches. If you have a fishing regulation that allows for harvest of fish greater than 20 inches, most of the fish are going to be less than 20 inches. If you manage deer to allow only for the harvest of deer greater than 3-points, then you end up with the majority of your bucks below 3 points. It has nothing to do with genetics and every thing to do with the harvest--how can you apply all of the hunting pressure on the smallest portion of the population and expect that portion to grow in number?

The only way you can assure a unit to have more big bucks is to restrict the total harvest of all bucks. The more restrictive deer hunting gets and the less hunting is a family sport...also, if you increase buck/doe ratios you lose recruitment and growth. Why would we want to decrease recruitment and growth on a unit that is below objective?


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

Pro, I'am an archery hunter only person. And I wouldn't want to see state wide archery only.Call me selfish.its bad enough now, The problem that concerns me . because I'am not a trophy hunter. Is the overall population of are deer herds,Most of my 45 yrs of archery hunting has taken place. atleast the first 10 days. on the west Pahvant Range., Sorry to say , but I've watched this unit go downhill for sometime.. All I can say is when this unit was 3 point or better> I was the first jerk to complain,, but into the 3rd year I seen more deer .. bucks and does with twin fawns. than I had seen since the 60's. One afternoon I counted 47 deer bucks does and fawns in one canyon.. Ive hiked that canyon. last few year and you'd be lucky to spot half dozen in a day., So this old BONE HEAD!! will never change his mind..If it,, 3 point didn't work what happened? I can say, the year restrictions were removed .Guess I should apoloigise to the rifle hunters now.. They came in and shot the unit all to hell, That my freinds is a fact of life,, If I had been a rifle hunter I would have been there to harvest my deer.. It stands to reason why this happened, When a unit has been closed to 3 point restrictions for 5 yrs or so, and people didn't want to hunt these units because of the restrictions,, does is not make perfect common sense, to go hunt these units when they were open to any buck?The year restrictions were removed. I was over on the Fremont Junction area. what I witnessed made me sick. people were out of control, any buck from spike on up was blasted. talk to anyone who has hunted this area since then. and if they say it has not been runied., Well they haven't spent enough time down there..


----------



## stablebuck (Nov 22, 2007)

I have read that once a mule deer buck reaches 5 years of age...the chances of that deer being harvested drop off dramatically. My question is...should we attribute that more to the buck's ability to avoid hunting pressure or the fact that many hunters settle for smaller 3 and 4 points than what the area might hold???
I know it's a combination, but what would y'all say is more of a contributing factor to this occurence?


----------



## utfireman (Sep 7, 2007)

Do PRO and WYO actually agree on something?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

utfireman said:


> Do PRO and WYO actually agree on something?


I have to humbly admit that w2u has given my amble data, links to data, and well thought out points on this issue to 'adjust' my line of thinking into agreement with him on antler restrictions NOT working. I was an antler restriction advocate as little as 2 years ago.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> utfireman said:
> 
> 
> > Do PRO and WYO actually agree on something?
> ...


Now if I can just get you thinking like me with elk....

....I know probably won't happen.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > utfireman said:
> ...


Not likely to happen. 8)


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Iron Bear said:


> Huntaholic, *I wouldnt share the great deer hunting you found in public. As regulations stand now. Every hunter in the central region could show up and then what. *One of the biggest beefs I found guys have when it comes to deer are the DWR simply does nothing to try and control hunters harvest. On an area that has been so beat down you would think it couldnt get worse. And yet it does. For the last 15yr I have thought the deer herd is cyclical and we hit the bottem. It couldnt get any worse than this. And It does. I have given up that kind of thinking and honestly wouldnt be suprised to see deer go all but extinct on Monroe. in the next 15 yrs. :shock:
> 
> As for riffle hunters I have absolutly no problem with you even if you could shoot your deer from 3000 yds or from your house. Distance doesnt concern me. I believe if the DWR did whats was right yrs ago we still could have 3 hunts per yr and one harvest. That is what made most of us the die hards we are. Not putting in for a measly deer tag, choosing your region waiting for the hunt to come around to see 10 bucks in 5 days (2pts). My beef isnt about trophy hunting. Its about #s.
> 
> ...


With the current level of hunters for this region, sorry I don't have any fears. I have already seen it at it worst. Things go up and down. I learned to accept this a long time ago hunting this area. Ya there might me a year were there is a lot of people. More times then not the next year everybody says that was crap and they go some were else. But I have learned that regardless of what the people do I have never seen this area total shot out. That is why I believe that the hunter is a small part of the equation. There are things when combined that are a bigger influence to our deer numbers (i.e. habitat, weather). I do get tired of guys wanting to change things every few years to try and get one more inch. In this area I would beg to say that after all the garbage through the years the size of the deers antlers has not changed all that much. People have spent a lot of time trying to come up with some magic thing that is going to put a 32" buck in everybodys camp. If they would have spent that time and money fixing the habitat instead, we might have the big one in everybody camp. The only thing that these regulations have done is make my wife happy. I'm not entitled to a 32" buck around every corner. I'm a hunter and I am expected to hunt. Anything less is lazy. I still see big deer. The funny part is that when everybody says that we are going to have a bad year, that is when I see the biggest bucks.

I do feel for you brothers in hunting that are seeing a decline. It does hurt. But the problem is not simple and one thing is not going to fix it.


----------



## Dark Cloud (Dec 17, 2007)

Instead of making it 3 point or better why don't we push the issue of making more units in the state instead of the 5 units that we have. Make it into 20-40 units and then making antler restrictions on some of the units that need help. Take some of the hunting pressure off of some of the areas. Instead of 30% of the tags for the southern area hunting in the beaver area it would force some of the hunters away. I have seen lots of places come and go with big bucks. I had a secret little spot that had lots of big bucks 3 years ago and in just two years everybody has found them and shot them out. And now I have found another spot that shows hope but I am sure someone will find it and soon it will be no good. The answer is not point restrictions it's hunter control. We should not be able to hunt in ONE GIANT AREA, reduce the size of the units and the hunting pressure will drop and the size of deer will go up. Look at colorado and wyoming they both don't have just 5 general hunting areas they have many and they both kill nice deer. I am not saying we don't kill nice bucks, I have seen lots of them, and missed lots of them with my bow. You can't let people just go where ever they want to go and expect to have a healthy herd. When some one goes hunting and sees nothing for the first two days of hunting in lets say price, and then talks to some co-workers and finds out that the deer herd is unreal in lets say lasal, for the year, they should not be able to drive 100 plus miles away and hunt that. Word of mouth travels far and soon everybody is in one spot and killing all of the deer in one area. Then all the deer are shot out of an area and they do it some where else the following year, and the pattern just moves around the units. I say reduce unit size and improve habitat. Just my 2 cents


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

So, you would rather have the DWR move hunters around instead of hunters doing on their own. :? WHY?


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Dark Cloud said:


> Instead of making it 3 point or better why don't we push the issue of making more units in the state instead of the 5 units that we have. Make it into 20-40 units and then making antler restrictions on some of the units that need help.


Done, with the exception that we don't use antler restrictions to help units in trouble. Instead, we reduce the season or close the unit entirely. I think you're talking about eliminating regional permits, which is hunter management. But there's no biological reason for doing that as long as we continue to manage deer by units.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I am against antler point restrictions.I think what Dark Cloud is talking about is a system similar to Nevadas.I think there are 32 or 36 units in Nevada I would have to look it up for exact numbers but the concept is the same.I can't say that I would be entirely opposed to Utah adopting a similar system.They manage deer and hunters with their system.I like the idea of managing hunter numbers because it prevents areas from getting pounded for one and two it stops the carousel effect.By that I mean everybody knew the winter kill in the northern region was extreme last winter.I hunt deer out in the desert.This was the fourth year I hunted out there.The three previous years I saw 7 other hunters and 2 atv's.This year I thought Pattons Army had come to this area to hunt and polaris was giving a free atv to everyone in this area.You see tons of people shifted from where they usually hunt out to the desert thinking the deer fared better out there through the winter.I don't think the herd fared any better and the harvest was a little less than half as the year before.The tradeoff with this kind of system is you don't get to hunt every year.I think it would be workable and maybe even palatable to alot of people if we changed group applications from 4 in a group to say 8 it would make it where families could hunt together but it would only be every 3-5 years instead of every year.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

I'll tell you what, let me assign you a tree stand in January and that is the only place you can hunt. I'll move you around every year to a different tree and since we are worried about stressing the deer you can not scout until one week before the hunt. And you only get to hunt once every 3-5 years.

I'm sorry, but if came down to 3-point or better ever year or small areas (the tree stand) every 3-5 years sign me up for the 3-point or better.

I think it is funny that we have comparisons to places like Nevada, yet the hunters in Nevada come to Utah to hunt because they can not draw in their own State.

Sorry trying to pick a spot to hunt in January to hunt in October and have that decision based on anything but guess work to me is not hunting.


----------



## blazingsaddle (Mar 11, 2008)

restrictions-restrictions-restrictions- thats all we ever get, and for what benefit? Sometimes it seems that the weight of the restriction was not worth the weight of the gain?
DEER ANTLER RESTRICTIONS DON'T WORK.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> I'll tell you what, let me assign you a tree stand in January and that is the only place you can hunt. I'll move you around every year to a different tree and since we are worried about stressing the deer you can not scout until one week before the hunt. And you only get to hunt once every 3-5 years.
> 
> I'm sorry, but if came down to 3-point or better ever year or small areas (the tree stand) every 3-5 years sign me up for the 3-point or better.
> 
> ...


Well I am sorry but when I go hunting I don't like listening to 10,000 4wheelers buzzing up and down the road and I hate watching an orange wave roll across the mountain.If I wanted to be surrounded by a bunch of morons I would just stay home.I go hunting because I like the solitude of being by myself.That is why I started hunting deer out in the desert.The trade off is there are alot less deer but I am not surrounded by a bunch of 4wheeler owning,fat arse toothless bubba morons whose idea of hunting is getting lucky and have a deer run across the road in front of them.Before you start with your get out and hike lecture I camped and hunted the first four days of the season and in those four days logged just under 60 miles on my pedometer and gps.Some areas get hit especially hard while others recieve relatively light pressure.The smaller areas serve to more evenly distribute the hunting pressure.I am not particularly fond of the idea of only getting to hunt deer every 3-5 years either.But If the deer herd continues to decline it will ultimately come to that in my opinion.Deer hunting every year is not a right.It is a priveledge that we have enjoyed here alot longer than folks in neighboring states and sadly it is probably coming to an end here.As far as your comment about Nevada hunters coming here to hunt that doesn't even hold water.There are many hunters from Colorado,Wyoming,Montana,and Idaho that come here to hunt deer.All of those states have as much or more opportunity to offer as Utah.I used Nevada as an example because I have hunted there and have a little knowledge about their system.Another little tidbit for ya there are many Utah residents that apply for Nevada tags every year and draw and hunt there.


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

There is a lesson that many politicians and environmentalists have learned. It is that if you tell the same lie long enough and loud enough, it eventually becomes perceived as the truth. So it goes with the lie that antler restrictions don't work.

I started hunting in the mid-60's. I have bow hunted the same southern area and rifle hunted the same northern area almost every years since then. I know what I have seen with my own eyes, and not just the fuzzy math and phoney statistics that somebody else has dreamed up. Toward the end of the time when there were antler point restrictions I saw a lot more bucks and a lot bigger bucks than at any other time in the last 40+ years.

The trouble is, the only reason the DWR started the restrictions in the first place is because of hunter complaints that bucks had almost become extinct and there were not enough left to breed all the does. Obviously, you can't go from the point of having almost no bucks to having an abundance of bucks in just a year or two, but that seems to be what everybody expected. After five years, when it was just starting to pay off, the DWR declared it a failure. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The DWR just didn't have the guts or the patience to give it a real chance. Sure, there were a few small bucks killed illegally, and that was a crying shame, but now almost all of the small bucks are killed every year completely legally. They are just as dead either way.

The fact is, any buck that is killed when it is small will never become a big buck, period.

The trouble is, if it is legal to kill any animal, somebody will. Back when the whole state was either sex, it was hard to find a doe or even a fawn by the end of the season in my neck of the woods. When it was bucks only, and three point or better, it was a whole different story. Besides the increase in big bucks, you could see small bucks and does all through the season, and a lot of those small bucks were bigger bucks by the next year.

You could also just ask the spud heads. They have had point restrictions in the Malad area for the past several years and every spud head I have talked to has said the the hunting has greatly improved there.


----------



## skeptic (Apr 17, 2008)

I agree Bugle I also have hunted southern for over 25 years, hunted in the glory days, hunted during the restrictions I have seen good and bad. I believe 3pt COULD work with enforcement. I do know the population is not even close to what it once was.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

I have been studying Nevadas' harvest tables from 2007 since my earlier post.This is for resident any legal weapon.
47% hunter success
Animals harvested broke down by point class as follows:
spikes 269
2 point 1456
3 point 1485
4 point 1439
5 point 143
6+ point 51
34% of animals harvested 4 points or better.
I might note Nevada does not have an antler point restriction.I included a link if you want to check it out for yourself.FYI Huntoholic 1762 Utah residents applied for deer tags in Nevada in '08.

http://www.ndow.org/hunt/resources/odds ... arvest.pdf


----------



## bigbuck81 (Oct 10, 2007)

Wow LUV2FISH&HUNT, I wish I was as good as you but I guess Im just a moron because I RIFLE hunt. THE STEREOTYPING CONTINUES ON THIS FORUM. iF YOUR NOT A BOWHUNTER OR MUZZY HUNTER ON THIS FORUM YOU WILL GET THE COLD SHOULDER ON MOST OF YOUR POSTS. I AGREE THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE GENERAL SEASON HUNT BUT THERE IS JUST AS MANY MORONS BOWHUNTING AND MUZZY HUNTING THESE DAYS! wHAT EXACTLY MAKES YOU BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE?


----------



## Dark Cloud (Dec 17, 2007)

It seems to me when we had antler restricions the deer herd was about 40% stronger then what we have now, so you can't tell me that everybody killing two points has caused the decline in the deer population. It has everything to do with winter kill, which in return means we need to create habitat for winter range. Going to three point or better means instead of killing a 12 inch two point you will get to shoot a 15 inch three point, really what is the difference. I don't think the antler restiction is the answer, habitat is the answer. If you look at the when the deer started to decline it was when the bad winter of 91 came and that was right in the middle of when they started managing the state for ELK and not deer. Everything is about the elk now and the deer are just there to fend for themselves. I see just as many big bucks now as I did 15 plus years ago I just don't see as many deer on the mountain as there was back then.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

bigbuck81 said:


> Wow LUV2FISH&HUNT, I wish I was as good as you but I guess Im just a moron because I RIFLE hunt. THE STEREOTYPING CONTINUES ON THIS FORUM. iF YOUR NOT A BOWHUNTER OR MUZZY HUNTER ON THIS FORUM YOU WILL GET THE COLD SHOULDER ON MOST OF YOUR POSTS. I AGREE THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE GENERAL SEASON HUNT BUT THERE IS JUST AS MANY MORONS BOWHUNTING AND MUZZY HUNTING THESE DAYS! wHAT EXACTLY MAKES YOU BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE?


First off Bigbuck81 how did I give you the cold shoulder and secondly I am a rifle guy too.I own a muzzy and a bow.I bowhunted one year and have never hunted with my muzzy.I never said anything about being better than anybody.I made a post that perhaps smaller areas to more evenly distribute hunting pressure during the ANY LEGAL WEAPON {rifle} hunt might be a good thing and then posted a follow-up with harvest numbers from Nevada to demonstrate that maybe their system was working better for the deer and the hunters.Maybe you have a complex because your idea of hunting is driving up and down the road.When was the last time hunter success even came close to 47% in Utah and 34% of the deer harvested being 4 points or better? If you want to debate and trade ideas back and forth that is fine.I have an open mind and will consider opinions that are contrary to my own,I will not however engage in a debate with someone who reacts out of emotion.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Dark Cloud said:


> It seems to me when we had antler restricions the deer herd was about 40% stronger then what we have now, so you can't tell me that everybody killing two points has caused the decline in the deer population. It has everything to do with winter kill, which in return means we need to create habitat for winter range. Going to three point or better means instead of killing a 12 inch two point you will get to shoot a 15 inch three point, really what is the difference. I don't think the antler restiction is the answer, habitat is the answer. If you look at the when the deer started to decline it was when the bad winter of 91 came and that was right in the middle of when they started managing the state for ELK and not deer. Everything is about the elk now and the deer are just there to fend for themselves. I see just as many big bucks now as I did 15 plus years ago I just don't see as many deer on the mountain as there was back then.


I am not real sure what your getting at here.Habitat especially winter range are major factors in the equation.I don't think antler restrictions work or do anything to increase herd size.Alot of the historic winter range is now subdivisions and there in lies the problem.We cannot create winter range.Land resources are a finite resource we can only try to protect and improve what we have left.The winter range and the forage contained on said range is what dictates the carrying capacity of the entire range.When there is a substantial winter kill it tells me there are more animals than the range can sustain.


----------



## bigbuck81 (Oct 10, 2007)

First off Bigbuck81 how did I give you the cold shoulder and secondly I am a rifle guy too.I own a muzzy and a bow.I bowhunted one year and have never hunted with my muzzy.I never said anything about being better than anybody.I made a post that perhaps smaller areas to more evenly distribute hunting pressure during the ANY LEGAL WEAPON {rifle} hunt might be a good thing and then posted a follow-up with harvest numbers from Nevada to demonstrate that maybe their system was working better for the deer and the hunters.Maybe you have a complex because your idea of hunting is driving up and down the road.When was the last time hunter success even came close to 47% in Utah and 34% of the deer harvested being 4 points or better? If you want to debate and trade ideas back and forth that is fine.I have an open mind and will consider opinions that are contrary to my own said:


> I dont believe in road hunting, that shouldnt even be called hunting. I didnt say you gave me the cold shoulder in particular. It was the comment about the orange swarm that got me. I agree there are places where it is a total joke to rifle hunt. I just get sick of hearing all the bowhunters act like they are better than rifle hunters and constantly make comments about the "pumpkin Patch". It just gets so old. Yes we have to wear orange to be safe, does that make me less of a hunter, I dont think so, but alot of bow hunters do. We are ALL HUNTERS! We all get on this forum daily because we have a major passion for the outdoors not to bag on each others hunting ethics, or weapon. Thats all. So dont get too offended hunt&fish, I just want the stereotyping to stop, thats all.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> Huntoholic said:
> 
> 
> > I'll tell you what, let me assign you a tree stand in January and that is the only place you can hunt. I'll move you around every year to a different tree and since we are worried about stressing the deer you can not scout until one week before the hunt. And you only get to hunt once every 3-5 years.
> ...


Sorry but do the math. What we have at most on a unit +/-14000. Find out how many square miles per individual.
And like you have said, it is not your right to have the whole mountain to yourself. I am sorry, but I don't agree with your comment about hunting every year coming to an end. It will only come to an end if we restrict it to one guy on the mountain. Yes there will be years were some areas get hit harder then others. You live with it, knowing that next year people will shift.

My comment about hunters from Nevada does hold water. I have worked with some of these guys for over 12 years. They hunt Utah more than their own state. And if you have people from Montana spending more time in Utah than their own state, well that should raise a flag to you.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

luv2fsh&hnt said:


> I have been studying Nevadas' harvest tables from 2007 since my earlier post.This is for resident any legal weapon.
> 47% hunter success
> Animals harvested broke down by point class as follows:
> spikes 269
> ...


And if Utah had only 10293 hunters yes it would be pretty nice. But your drawing odds would not be 3 to 1 either. You can wait in line if you want, they are called LE hunts. Me, I like to hunt every year and point size and having the mountain to myself are way down the list of problems.


----------



## luv2fsh&hnt (Sep 22, 2007)

Huntoholic said:


> luv2fsh&hnt said:
> 
> 
> > Huntoholic said:
> ...


I posted a link to Nevadas data.Check it out for yourself.A Nevada resident has an overall chance of 1 in 3 of drawing a tag with a 47% rate of harvest and 34% of the deer harvested being 4 points or better.Utahs numbers aren't even close.I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.All of our surrounding states have more deer and more opportunity than Utah.The reasons hunters travel to other states to hunt are many and have more to do with personal desire than opportunity.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I think just to settle this argument, everyone should go to the RAC and demand to let,,,,,

Old fudd, Hunter Tom, BugleB, Myself and that new Skeptic guy be allowed to manage
one deer unit for three years and see what happens...

Let us try are "Antler restriction" on the Manti skyline , And in a couple of years if there's
not a buch of nice buck's,,,,, Well , then you can tell us we don't know s###..

BUT IF.......It's the best hunting you've seen for year's then, .give us a few more units.
We'll fix them to.........................................................................................


----------



## skeptic (Apr 17, 2008)

I'm in    
Seriously I think we all have something to share, we all care about the same things but its like talking to my teenagers, I look at this site daily and don't post because most of the time these post do not stay civil. We have RAC meetings we join different clubs and organizations but the DWR ends up doing what ever they want with no consequences to them it just affects us hunters. I have seen the decline of deer and the increase in elk. I know something has to be done and if we actually could all agree on something we do have the power together to get it done!


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> I think just to settle this argument, everyone should go to the RAC and demand to let,,,,,
> 
> Old fudd, Hunter Tom, BugleB, Myself and that new Skeptic guy be allowed to manage
> one deer unit for three years and see what happens...
> ...


Sorry "goofy elk" there is already a bunch of nice bucks on the Manti Skyline and they are already on a nice trend up. Don't need any special regs. What was and is needed is range managment. If DWR continues with the current plan then it is going to get nothing but better.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

> I posted a link to Nevadas data.Check it out for yourself.A Nevada resident has an overall chance of 1 in 3 of drawing a tag with a 47% rate of harvest and 34% of the deer harvested being 4 points or better.Utahs numbers aren't even close.I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying.All of our surrounding states have more deer and more opportunity than Utah.The reasons hunters travel to other states to hunt are many and have more to do with personal desire than opportunity.


I did check it out.

Utah 2006 (the latest numbers) report page 16, general deer hunt; 38% success and an almost one to one draw for most of the units (areas). While I did not see a breakdown for the types of animals it is hard to say. I know that Utah is on the small side overall. But that is the price to hunt more often. You keep your 9% and hunt every three years. Me I'll be hunting next year instead of sitting home.

Now please don't get me wrong, I already limit myself to 4-point or better. But that is my choice. But I am taking the next generation of hunters out and if they want to harvest a legal animal then so be it. It is easier to teach selective hunting when they see the bigger one hanging in camp and see bigger ones on the mountain than what is hanging in camp.
Without any special regs.

Edit:
And even if you remove urban, and all the rest, I believe you will find that there is still miles per hunter.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Huntoholic, I'm just using the skyline for an example. But I do live on Hwy89 and have
hunted the Manti for over 30 year's. I've seen the skyline much better in years past.

I can only imagine the potential that range has with just two or three year's of restriction's.

Can I dream a little???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If you want to do it on Monroe *I will let you*. :lol:


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

goofy elk said:


> Huntoholic, I'm just using the skyline for an example. But I do live on Hwy89 and have
> hunted the Manti for over 30 year's. I've seen the skyline much better in years past.
> 
> I can only imagine the potential that range has with just two or three year's of restriction's.
> ...


We can never stop dreaming brother.

I too have over 30 years on the Manti's. And for those years I can not say that things are all that much different for all the regs I have to fight. I still see large deer. Some years are better then others. All I know is that I used to start hunting deer in August and I finished in November. Now I'm down to 5 days and I still seem to find deer that make my heart stop.

In a nut shell I just believe Habitat is were it is at. Fix the habitat and you won't have to have a bunch of special regs.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Huntoholic, you are 100% correct, Habitat is were its at.............

I forgot about Iron bear!!!!!!!!!!

Let's make it Iron Bear, Old Fudd, Hunter Tom, BugleB, Skeptic and myself and,,,,,,,,,,,,

We'll try it on Monroe............How about that?


----------

