# Deer hunting change?



## quackcommander (Aug 20, 2009)

I am just looking for the opinion of others on this topic. There is no need to bite my head off if you do not agree!
I have thrown this idea around to people over the past couple years, most have agreed with me. Most of the deer I see harvested in the general season units are young 2 points and there antlers are no bigger around than a pencil.
What is your opinion on a regulation to only allow 3 points and bigger to be harvested? Allowing the hunter to see more and bigger bucks....
I can argue both sides of this, I am not a head hunter and I know some will shoot anything just to fill the freezer. But what is your opinion on this topic


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

this topic get brought up every year and it get beat to death. I dont like it. that all im going to say.


----------



## reb8600 (Sep 8, 2007)

Does not work. It was tried once and deer were killed and left. If you want to hunt antlers, put in for the limited entry. A lot of people hunt for meat.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I liked hunting the 3 point or better units they had in the 80's. Saw many more deer with many more hunters. Guys can say it didn't work, but it was a heck of a lot better hunting then what you have today.8)


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Last year in the Cache unit a depredation officer agreed to work at the check station during the general season. Her findings were that there were more 4pt bucks harvested than anything else. Such findings would indicate that hunters are willingly harvesting mature bucks instead of harvesting younger bucks. 

Why on earth would you limit hunters to only hunt the superior animals? We manage elk exactly the opposite and harvest the genetically weak or keep it to yearlings only. Antler restriction in the opposite direction would lead to only the big animals to be harvested. Not trying to bite your head off, but asking for more restrictions really gets me angry.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I also hunted the 4 pt or better areas along with the 3 pt or better units and never did see any deer that were shot and left. I have found a lot more deer in the general units that have been shot and then left, not to mention the branched antler elk that I have found during the deer hunt that someone has shot during the spike hunts then saw that it wasn't a spike and then left it.


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

My opinion / preference:

3 point+ is good if you want to allow more to get to maturity in a hurry. Sometimes the herd needs this in the short term. I don't like it for a long term plan though. 

It is not uncommon for me to pass smaller bucks, but I hate how hunting is "go big or go home." Do these people ever eat anything they kill? 

Here is an opposing short term plan just to agitate the trophy mentality. 2-point or smaller. They are better eating, it leaves the superior genetics for breeding, it is better for shed hunters, and it makes for better wildlife viewing!!!!

Also, most of the deer I see harvested are not little. Its about 50/50. Maybe that will change in the next few years as my friends are starting to have teenagers. I think the type of deer harvested are more a function of who you are around than what is going on.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Hunting opportunity is limited the way it is set up now. If you had antler restrictions it wouldn't matter if you sold 200,000 permits because you would only be allowed to shoot certain deer. This way everyone who wanted a permit could get one allowing opportunity for all.


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

Fowlmouth said:


> I liked hunting the 3 point or better units they had in the 80's. Saw many more deer with many more hunters. Guys can say it didn't work, but it was a heck of a lot better hunting then what you have today.8)


that was the 80's all hunting was better LOL!!!!!!!!


----------



## Old Fudd (Nov 24, 2007)

-O,--O,--O,--O,--O,Been Beat o Death on this forum The only conclusion is this.If you were lucky enough to hunt Archery during the restrictions U Loved It..If you didn't get the chance Ya missed out. but I'am 68 yrs old and kinda live in the old days and am just a we pit nuts..


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

No, No, and No!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

On the argument that smaller is better, last year the buck that I shot weighed over 300 lbs on the hoof and was a 5x4, that meat is the best that I have had in a long time off of a deer even some 2 pointers. It all in how you care for it.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

It doesn't work state wide. Too many states in the past have tried it and found large numbers of 2 pts shot and left lay. Unfortunately, not all hunters are responsible.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> Last year in the Cache unit a depredation officer agreed to work at the check station during the general season. Her findings were that there were more 4pt bucks harvested than anything else. Such findings would indicate that hunters are willingly harvesting mature bucks instead of harvesting younger bucks.
> 
> Why on earth would you limit hunters to only hunt the superior animals? We manage elk exactly the opposite and harvest the genetically weak or keep it to yearlings only. Antler restriction in the opposite direction would lead to only the big animals to be harvested. Not trying to bite your head off, but asking for more restrictions really gets me angry.


Not trying to bite your head off just asking questions??? Don't all bucks carry genitics??? Are two points mature enough to breed there mamas ? The answer is yes!

So if hunters are restricted to only harvest the older age deer how will it hurt the genitics when the genitics are carried both by the does and bucks?

The answer is it won't and the two points that are left will only return a year older and there will be more older bucks to harvest the next year.

Your elk statment is also flawed. Imho you don't want to limit the harvest of the oldest and largest like our current le system. No that only causes butt jams in the draws and oil hunts. No you increase the tags and allow people to hunt the mature bulls and leave the younger for next years hunt!

Bulls and bucks are a renewable resource!

Also spike elk are not genetically weak, they are just immature! Same with spike deer. Infact there has been studies on wild whitail deer that proove you can't tell what the spike will turn into until it gets age.

You can have an idea what a deer or bull will turn into if you know what the doe or cows dna and the bucks and bulls dna looks like but that's not natural or wild. Its called genitic engineering


----------



## stimmie78 (Dec 8, 2007)

Sounds like a great idea! Then we can all drive to the places and see tons of massive two points like what you see when you drive around the book cliffs!


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

stimmie78 said:


> Sounds like a great idea! Then we can all drive to the places and see tons of massive two points like what you see when you drive around the book cliffs!


I see way more 4 points and three points then big two points in the bookcliffs.

Another thing nutriton or rain in the bookcliffs at the correct time can cause the deers quality to be down one year and up the next. This explains to me why one year I see so many crabby 4 points then another year you see loads of nice well formed and configured antlers. Lonetree has posted stuff on that aspect.

A buck that also reaches a certain age can also regress. This could also explain why the two points you do see are large bodied deer.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> Not trying to bite your head off just asking questions??? Don't all bucks carry genitics??? Are two points mature enough to breed there mamas ? The answer is yes!
> 
> So if hunters are restricted to only harvest the older age deer how will it hurt the genitics when the genitics are carried both by the does and bucks?
> 
> ...


Here is my response in regards to genetics... There are good genetics and there are bad genetics, some animals are genetically adapted to responding to human interaction differently. Some animals will freeze and stay concealed as a truck drives by, others will bound away catching the eye of a hunter as he is scanning a hillside. With an unrestricted and balanced opportunity for all hunters the buck with the inferior genetics might not make it to maturity. The concealed buck passes his genetics and receives approval to reach maturity through natural selection. This is only one example of genetic superiority.

Genuine trophy hunters should love this because it enables the experienced hunter to have an edge on all of the guys who look for movement only, but sometimes it leads to people getting on the internet and complaining that the giant 4pts that they saw in the past no longer exist. Antler restrictions reduce the gap between the deer that have the instincts to survive and the deer that need to be on the table for a novice hunter to enjoy and gain experience.

Antler restrictions are selfish... Its a way for the trophy hunters to intrude on the less experienced hunters and it detracts from tradition. It is a violation of natural selection and it reduces opportunity. Advocates of antler restrictions might not have vision of the whole picture of what hunting is about. This is a broad statement but I am willing to debate this topic every time that it comes up on this forum...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> Here is my response in regards to genetics... There are good genetics and there are bad genetics, some animals are genetically adapted to responding to human interaction differently. Some animals will freeze and stay concealed as a truck drives by, others will bound away catching the eye of a hunter as he is scanning a hillside. With an unrestricted and balanced opportunity for all hunters the buck with the inferior genetics might not make it to maturity. The concealed buck passes his genetics and receives approval to reach maturity through natural selection. This is only one example of genetic superiority.
> 
> Genuine trophy hunters should love this because it enables the experienced hunter to have an edge on all of the guys who look for movement only, but sometimes it leads to people getting on the internet and complaining that the giant 4pts that they saw in the past no longer exist. Antler restrictions reduce the gap between the deer that have the instincts to survive and the deer that need to be on the table for a novice hunter to enjoy and gain experience.
> 
> Antler restrictions are selfish... Its a way for the trophy hunters to intrude on the less experienced hunters and it detracts from tradition. It is a violation of natural selection and it reduces opportunity. Advocates of antler restrictions might not have vision of the whole picture of what hunting is about. This is a broad statement but I am willing to debate this topic every time that it comes up on this forum...


There is nothing stopping a buck that "freezes" to reach maturity in an antler restriction senerio as it does in the system we already have.

How is antler restriction we have on elk not a selfish act? How do they not intrude? How does it not reduce opportunity? I've never hunted a le unit for elk in my life and my kids and I will be decades in point building till we can. Imho You have a very twisted hypicritical way of thinking on the matter of deer vs elk antler restrictions. By your thinking we should give out 15, 000 spike buck tags and 5,000 le tags. Make it also an oil hunt. Hey what works for elk should work for deer right?

Antler restrictions for deer would allow more tags then we currently have in these stupid dink areas we have now. It would allow more mature bucks to be possibly seen durring the season. It would also allow the young to survive a season of blasting to learn the "freeze" technique. All it means is you have to practice trigger control. It may also mean those thousand yard cannon shots may need to be a little closer for point counts.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

There is nothing stopping a buck that "freezes" to reach maturity in an antler restriction senerio as it does in the system we already have.

How is antler restriction we have on elk not a selfish act? It is a selfish act I think the state could afford a lot more anybull unitsHow do they not intrude?It does How does it not reduce opportunity?It does intrude I've never hunted a le unit for elk in my life and my kids and I will be decades in point building till we can.I agree with you here Imho You have a very twisted hypicritical way of thinking on the matter of deer vs elk antler restrictions. By your thinking we should give out 15, 000 spike buck tags and 5,000 le tags.I'm lost here... I am an opponent of antler restrictions in any form including spike buck restrictions Make it also an oil hunt. Hey what works for elk should work for deer right?

Antler restrictions for deer would allow more tags then we currently have in these stupid dink areas we have now. Satisfaction index would decrease with lower success ratesIt would allow more mature bucks to be possibly seen durring the season. It would also allow the young to survive a season of blasting to learn the "freeze" technique.

On a final note Antler restrictions do give a hall pass to the oddities of large 2pt bucks like stimmie mentions. Genetically speaking you are sending an invitation to nature to code for these specific forkhorns to dominate the rut in the absence of bucks 3pts or better large 2pts spread their genes creating duplicate monster forkhorns. 

How come people always come on here asking for more restriction?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> How come people always come on here asking for more restriction?


'Cause they don't comprehend the situation.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

From what I see everyone wants to hunt and shoot big bucks. If that wasn't so then why does it take so long to draw a LE tag? But most and I would say 80-90% of the hunters out there will shoot the first legal buck that they see and then complain that there are no big bucks left in the state.

People say that if the state went to a 3 pt or better rule that there would be dead 2 pts all over, but from what I have seen there are dead does and spikes along with smaller bucks that people shoot and let lie just because they weren't big enough or that uncle Joe back at the campfire doesn't want to tag the little buck that you shot for him. 

I have said it before, I have hunted the Henry Mountains and the Book Cliffs when they were 4 pt and 3 pt or better and I never did see a deer that was shot and left. The hunters there hunted with a purpose and that was to shoot a nice mature buck and let the smaller ones walk away.


----------



## svmoose (Feb 28, 2008)

Why not run the entire state similar to the Dedicated hunter program in regards to harvest. Allow hunters to enroll in a multi year program but they can only fill x out of the total tags. This provides opportunity and limits harvest. Best of both worlds right?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Who is this quackcommander that started this post? Can we just kill this post and shut it down? I have not seen another post in regards to his original post...


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I could actually care less how they manage the rest of the state. Just give me the front 1-80 south to the point. Keep it archery only and keep it seperate from the rest of 17 c. Its not fair to include the high buck to doe ratios the front has with the timp area and then issue 1000's of tags across the board and further crap the timp area up. 

Do that and you would never hear a peep from me again!!!


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

Nambaster said:


> Here is my response in regards to genetics... There are good genetics and there are bad genetics, some animals are genetically adapted to responding to human interaction differently. Some animals will freeze and stay concealed as a truck drives by, others will bound away catching the eye of a hunter as he is scanning a hillside. With an unrestricted and balanced opportunity for all hunters the buck with the inferior genetics might not make it to maturity. The concealed buck passes his genetics and receives approval to reach maturity through natural selection. This is only one example of genetic superiority.


I hate to break it to you, but all mule deer behavior is not genetic. MOST of it is learned by experience or is merely the product of individual choice, just like human behavior is. If a particular buck _chooses_ to hide instead of run away it may allow him to survive and spread his genes. But when his offspring are put in the same situation, not all of them will choose the same way daddy did. Even if by some stretch of the imagination this behavior was genetic, and amounted to "superior" animals, it could not possibly be related to antler size or configuration.

I will support the statement that 3-point restrictions worked on the Book Cliffs and the Henry Mountains. However, those were different times. When those laws existed the Henry's and Books were remote areas that had many deer and relatively few hunters. The antler point restrictions did not place undue pressure on the older deer because there was very little hunting pressure altogether. So under those circumstances it worked well. With heavy hunting pressure the same regulations will not work. They will have the opposite effect of what is desired - fewer large bucks instead of more. The reason is simple: All those meat hunters that are so despised by trophy hunters will now be targeting older deer. They will remain in the field longer and hunt areas they otherwise wouldn't have. With more pressure on older deer, more of them will be killed. You would see more 2-year old deer for sure, but the big boys would become more scarce.

If you want to see more bucks and bigger bucks, hunt a place where only the mentally deranged individual would shoot a 2-point. Somewhere so rugged and remote that the thought of packing out a deer will paralyze the trigger finger for all but the biggest bucks. If you're looking for a chance at a big deer within 1/4 mile of the road, buy a CWMU tag or wait in line for LE.


----------



## quackcommander (Aug 20, 2009)

Hey Nambaster...what did I say, I was looking for the opinions of others. My opinion is in my opening post. Why should I get involved in the argument. You already know how I feel, plus I said I can argue both sides of this topic!
And just because a buck has 2 points does not mean it has bad genetics...It is immature. Are you saying only the 4 points genetics will produce 4 point babies?


----------



## 2full (Apr 8, 2010)

Some people say they hunted the 3 point areas back then and saw no deer shot and left.
I bow hunted up Salina canyon the first year of the restriction and saw 3, 2 points shot in left in 3 days of hunting. and that was on the bow hunt when you are close to the animal. Imagine a rifle shooting across a canyon. No way you can be sure on a smaller buck, 2 point? or 3 point?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Sorry Quackcommander I guess I just get really heated when the Antler Restriction post pops up. There are traditions in hunting that I prioritize as privileges that I would not like to lose. My wife has never shot an animal, my father will shoot any legal buck, and my sister is out hunting to be out hunting. If their odds of shooting a legal buck are 15% antler restrictions would limit their success rate to 3%.

What El Matador says concerning the availability of large bucks in rough terrain is very true. I observe close to 30 bucks during the general season, however when I am with my wife and she only hunts the opener it takes something short of a miracle to get her on a buck.

I am here to defend the opportunity to harvest any legal buck. I am always in support on hunting opportunity and hunter recruitment.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

2full said:


> Some people say they hunted the 3 point areas back then and saw no deer shot and left.
> I bow hunted up Salina canyon the first year of the restriction and saw 3, 2 points shot in left in 3 days of hunting. and that was on the bow hunt when you are close to the animal. Imagine a crifle shooting across a canyon. No way you can be sure on a smaller buck, 2 point or 3 point?


I personally collected 2 point skulls with a conservation officer on the Monroe and Fillmore units in the 80's. Since I was only 7-8 years old at the time you can imagine how many 2 points had to be laying around on the entire unit if I was able to gather them with my limited mobility in tennis shoes.


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Nambaster said:


> I am here to defend the opportunity to harvest any legal buck. I am always in support on hunting opportunity and hunter recruitment.


What do you consider hunting opportunity? Drawing a general season deer tag every 3 to 4 years?


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

Fowlmouth said:


> What do you consider hunting opportunity?to get out hunting Drawing a general season deer tag every 3 to 4 years?


Drawing a general season deer tag annually


----------



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

Nambaster, Do you draw a tag every year? If you do, you are lucky. It took me 3 years to draw my last general season muzzleloader tag. This year I had 1 point and drew a rifle tag. Opportunity is limited when you only draw every other year or longer.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

My unit happens to be one of the under drawn units. I agree with you that opportunity is limited. Since 2pts and yearling bucks are the most expendable deer available I am a huge advocate of hunting them...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Antler restricions SHOULD absoluty be a managment tool ...

AR's need to be used on units with low buck to doe ratio's ...

They (dwr) should have used AR's INSTEAD of shorter hunting seasons ..

Nebo, Monroe, Stansbury, S Slope, Anthro are a few units AR's need to be used on ..

Wyoming is using AR's on 19 units to bring buck to doe ratios up,
WHY NOT UTAH:!:


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Goofy bucks don't have fawns! Lol


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I figured I say it before someone else compled the never ending circle jerk called utah deer/elk managment. :banghead:


----------



## Skally (Apr 20, 2012)

I love these types of posts.... everyone becomes a biology major and deer breeding expert


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

I am doing everything I can to contain this cancer... It usually comes up post season...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

"I shall have hunting in my life. And adventure. And mule deer, mule deer, mule deer, above all. Mule deer as there has never been in this day. Unbiddable, ungovernable, like a riot in the heart and nothing to be done, come ruin or rapture..." 

And antler restrictions ain't gonna do it fellers. These types of posts do well to pass the time, but little else. Focus your passion on pushing the game agencies to delve deeper into the muley fawn dieing mystery. Solve that and all else will go away...:shock:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

" Fawn dieing mystery"??

Well, there's 10,000 less coyote's in Utah than there was last
year during fawning season ...............

Bet we see a difference in fawn survival rates this winter......


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well, there's 10,000 less coyote's in Utah than there was last year during fawning season .


No... There were 10,000 coyotes killed. Then another 10,000 or 12,000 were born.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Fishtmn,
Might be in your best intrest to contact the DWR on this
subject, Thier estamates are no were near your numbers ......

I would reccomend speaking with Tyrell, price office. Preditor managment.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Goofy,
You're the one who said there were 10,000 less coyotes in Utah. I have no doubt that there were at least that many killed. But that doesn't mean that there are fewer coyotes in Utah. There were certainly coyotes born during the year. If there were 10,000 killed, and 10,000 born, then the net difference is zero.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

As specifed in this link:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/huntin...ons-about-utahs-predator-control-program.html

It seems locations and time frames were efective ...
Espscaily with aerial gunning ....

I know for a fact, coyote numbers have been found to be lower on
many fawning grounds so far this summer .....A very GOOD SIGN.;-).


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

The reason there are so many coyotes is because only the coyotes that ran out of the bushes got shot, leaving all of the more intelligent, genetically superior coyotes to reproduce.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Not sure about that El mat,
Have U ever witnessed those Aerial gunner guy's? FREAK'in Amazing!

They fly when pairs are doubled up breeding, VERY effective this year.

Tell U guys what, while ur out hunting during the next moth or two,
Check in with the sheephearders on your mountain range......
When thier saying "less coyotes",,,,It go's a LOOOONG way!


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

quackcommander said:


> I am just looking for the opinion of others on this topic. There is no need to bite my head off if you do not agree!
> I have thrown this idea around to people over the past couple years, most have agreed with me. Most of the deer I see harvested in the general season units are young 2 points and there antlers are no bigger around than a pencil.
> What is your opinion on a regulation to only allow 3 points and bigger to be harvested? Allowing the hunter to see more and bigger bucks....
> I can argue both sides of this, I am not a head hunter and I know some will shoot anything just to fill the freezer. But what is your opinion on this topic


Okie dokie, here's my opinion, for what it's worth.



> Most of the deer I see harvested in the general season units are young 2 points and there antlers are no bigger around than a pencil.


Over the last couple of years I have seen a VERY balanced buck take, from spikes to mature bucks. Over all, are there more young bucks killed on the *general* deer hunt? Yep: That is the way the DWR manages the resource in *general* units, and for good reason. We all hunt for different reasons, and to push a philosophy that YOU and a few of your comrads think would be best for ALL, isn't quite right in my book.



> What is your opinion on a regulation to only allow 3 points and bigger to be harvested?


Antler restrictions can work fairly well if done the right way, and for a specific reason. If it's decided that a herd needs a higher mature buck ratio for whatever reason, two things need to be done to accomplish that. It must be for a limited short period of time, 3 to 5 years, AND tags for that unit MUST be reduced substantially during that period, and in perpetuity afterwards to maintain that ratio. Kinda sounds like LE to me. Idaho did a study a few years back on this very thing, and it seemed to work out well for it's *intended *purpose.

AR's will NOT improve the overall health of a deer herd, and they will NOT improve the herd numbers, period. That's been proven time and again in virtually every western state. Self imposed AR's are being done on every premium/limited entry unit right now. If it's the will of the majority to use AR's on a general unit, who am I to say different? If it's the will of the majority to keep things as are, and provide a much higher opportunity factor for the blue collar hunter with no ill effects on the herd, then why should a few push AR's down these folks' throat? They shouldn't. As hunters and conservationists, we MUST change our priorities for the benefit of the *entire* herd, not just what adorns the wall.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Here's were I believe Utah MISSED the boat,

Should have used antler restrictions INSTEAD of shorter hunting seasons.

Now forward, we should use AR's on units that drop below 12/100 B/D ratios.

JMHO.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I know..... In order to have more mature bucks, let's only kill mature bucks..... What could be wrong with that? If you wanna see more mature bucks, quit killing them. Cull the yearlings.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Still talking about **** that makes no difference. It is because of conversations like this, that our wildlife is in the shape it is in. Coyote bounties, and antler restrictions, are like "retarded kids throwing ice cubes at the sun". 

Goofy, you want to bet on how the fawn crop will be next spring?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Nope,

Give the spikes and two points a free pass for a year ....

You'll see more mature bucks REAL quick.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> Nope,
> 
> Give the spikes and two points a free pass for a year ....
> 
> You'll see more mature bucks REAL quick.


And this grows the mule deer herds how?

Address the issues that suppress the overall population, and you will have more bucks, if you have more bucks, you will have more big bucks.

A cure is when you kill the disease, not treat the symptoms. You all are talking about symptoms, that wont get us anywhere.......bandaids are not a substitution for cut prevention, nor do they kill gangrene.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

No, you won't. You'll concentrate all of the hunters on the mature bucks and they'll all get shot. If you didn't already know this, the yearling animals don't handle winter weather as well as more mature animals.

If you protect the yearlings, they'll get killed as 2 year olds. If you protect everything older than 2 years old, then you'll see 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 year old deer. But not if you concentrate all of the hunting pressure on the mature animals. PERIOD.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

There are still a handfull of us around that saw AR hunting in Utah ..

Antler restriced hunting in the 80's was by far the BEST genral
season hunting Utah ever saw ......

Hunting the Henry's and Book cliffs every year with two buck deer
tags in your pocket was AWESOME ....To bad we'll never see it again.


----------



## Kevinitis (Jul 18, 2013)

I am in the opportunity camp. I want to take my sons hunting and more and stricter regulations encumber my ability to do that.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

goofy elk said:


> There are still a handfull of us around that saw AR hunting in Utah ..
> 
> Antler restriced hunting in the 80's was by far the BEST genral
> season hunting Utah ever saw ......
> ...


One can only hope. :mrgreen:

The UDWR's position on AR:

"Wildlife blog administrator
April 30, 2011 at 11:21 am

The subject of antler point restrictions has come up several times in the responses, so I want to comment on it.
Antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or deer with larger antlers.

Most western states, including Utah, have tried mule deer antler restrictions, and in nearly every instance, the results were poor or counterproductive. Point restrictions resulted in a significant increase in illegal harvest of younger bucks as hunters mistakenly killed and abandoned them (it's often difficult to judge the number of points on a live buck). Antler point restrictions also cause increased hunting pressure on mature bucks, and this increased pressure results in fewer of these animals.

*Utah abandoned point restrictions after five years when we documented an increase in illegal kills, reductions in overall harvest and noticeably fewer mature bucks.* Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington and Oregon have all experienced similar results with antler restrictions. The bottom line is that the available evidence and repeated experience with deer antler point restrictions show that these restrictions do not work."

But what do they know...

Enough of this two dimentional thinking fellas, lets focus on something substantial that has merit and value to the overall health, stability, viability, growth, and sustainability of our mule deer. Figure out what common denominator occurs across the west, in ALL areas where mule deer live that effects all of the above, then find a way to reduce or eliminate it. :smile:


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I dont buy the "*illegal kills" .....*

I hunted AR units all 5 years, all three seasons. 
NEVER SAW ONE SINGLE YEARLING BUCK SHOT AND LEFT!!!!

And another thing,
"*noticeably fewer mature bucks.*" Heck , that came over the next
2 seasons on every single unit they lifted the Restrics on ....

How bout noticeably every buck GONE two years after retrics were gone.

How bout have to completly close down hunting on the Henrys, Bookcliffs,
Oak city ........

I was in the Bookcliffs the first year resrtiction were lifted on the rifle
hunt, Dead bucks in every truck!!!!!!!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> I dont buy the "*illegal kills" .....*
> 
> I hunted AR units all 5 years, all three seasons.
> NEVER SAW ONE SINGLE YEARLING BUCK SHOT AND LEFT!!!!
> ...


I was there in the Books also that year. There were three to four times the number of hunters out there that year and there was a dead spike or 2 pt on every 4 wheeler, it was a slaughter. After that it started to get hard to find a diecent deer to shoot and then a couple of years later they closed it in 96.


----------



## Nambaster (Nov 15, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> one can only hope. :mrgreen:
> 
> The udwr's position on ar:
> 
> ...


case closed!!! Thanks stillhunter


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Like I said goofy, two dimentional thinking will get us nowhere. I don't say that for your benefit, you will never change your philosophy or your desire to push it onto those who just plain don't want it. I say it for those with an open mind willing to look behind the curtain and see just what is there.-O,-


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

So, a queaston. 

Did any of you against AR's ever hunt those units in Utah 
when they were being used????

Still, Nambaster, Fishrmn , LT , Any of U actualy hunt them?


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

We already have antler restriction units. Put in for the true LE units if you want antler restrictions.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Antler restrictions are not ment to grow big antler deer! They are not ment to increase the deer herds! 

They are ment to allow more tags (opportunity) without shooting the bucks out.

Stills article is full of bs. The bookcliffs was a great place to hunt at the time of restrictions. Soon as the division quit the restrictions and let anyone hunt it. Way too many people showed up and shot every buck alive. Thats called piss poor managment!

Do you think hoards of people would flock to hunt a faild program? Your an idiot if you do! They flocked because it was good! However it wasn't good for monster bucks like sfw wants! No it was good for 2 year old 3 and 4 point bucks.

If you want huge racked bucks with age Le is your huckleberry. 

You are now seeing the first part of Le utah. The division has gone in on some of these new micro units and shot them out in the first year just like the bookcliffs. 
17c is one you will see cuts on. You simple can't put 7, 000 hunters on a small a area as they did. Its now a 18 buck to doe ratio unit. Lol the only reason its that high is its attached to the front which carries above 30/100 ratio. So you take the mean that says the buck to doe ratios on the none front side of 17c is LOW good luck rifle hunters on that area. The jokes on you


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

Here is the thing for all you folks that keep pointing to the Books in the '80s, or any other area for that matter in the "good ol' days. How come when they lifted the antler restrictions in Utah, the deer in Idaho also declined? I have pointed out this fact over and over again, but some folks here, don't seem to get it. Mule deer numbers have risen and fallen, synchronously across the West. This goes for Moose, and Bighorn sheep as well. They all started to decline in the early '80s, with additional declines in the early '90s, and the early 2000s. This is the same time frame for an unprecedented increase in invasive weeds in the West. Amphibian declines follow the same course. The current pine beetle invasion began in 1980 in earnest. And the phragmites that is invading many waters in the US, all took off, in the early '80s. This is an ecological collapse.

Predator control has not brought the deer back. Antler restrictions did not bring the deer back. Its not fire. Its not highways. Its not pinion and juniper encroachment. Its not the elk. And I almost forgot, Option WTF? will not do it either. 

Goofy, do you think that antler restrictions will fix the moose problem? How about bighorn sheep? Are they declining because people only shoot small rams?

You antler restriction guys don't know what you are talking about. You may feel, or believe a particular way about this issue, but that does not mean anything. There is nothing to support your argument. After antler restrictions were dropped, deer, moose, and bighorn sheep declined in the early '90s. Was this because there were no antler restrictions in place? Remember these declines happened across the West, not just Utah.

Further more, the units with antler restrictions in Utah, saw the same declines as units that did not have antler restrictions. 

If any of you antler restriction guys, want to put your money were your mouth is, how about we bet the fate of next years fawn crop. Any takers?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt

None of the restrictions, short hunts, ect are a fix end all especially if its acid rain killing our deer like you say. Its only a way to manage what we presently have. 
Just like oil hunts are just that oil hunts. Too much demand and not enough resource. Lt If you gave every rifle buck hunter a moose permit do you think there would be a good moose calf crop next year? Do you think we could issue 90, 000 permits for bighorn sheep and have a good ewe crop next year? How about the next year?

Good luck getting the acid rain shut off. Good luck with bringing the dust bowls back. Good luck stopping the sun flares.


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

I'd like a no cone, please.

Make mine a no, double dipped in hellno sauce. 

Oooh, boy, that pitcher looks to be throwing a no-no tonight! 

When I see that thirty inch two point again, I won't miss this time. -O,-


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt
> 
> None of the restrictions, short hunts, ect are a fix end all especially if its acid rain killing our deer like you say. Its only a way to manage what we presently have.
> Just like oil hunts are just that oil hunts. Too much demand and not enough resource. Lt If you gave every rifle buck hunter a moose permit do you think there would be a good moose calf crop next year?
> ...


Good luck with your children's and grand children's heritage. At least mine will know I actually tried, rather than throwing my hands up, and saying its too big to do anything about. If me and others do not succeed in bringing about the level of conservation that is required in these times, at least it wont be because of ignorance, or because we took the easy way out, for short term appeasement. Though it may end up being because of a lack of will from our fellow "hunters".

I am sure as hell glad that our founding fathers, and guys like Leopold, and Roosevelt, did not have the same deferment, oh no we can't attitude, that you do.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

Lt
As far as your fawn crop bet my guess is the deer herd is in a rebuilding cycle trending up. Its been that way since 2010 in the areas I hunt. It however will peter out or level off. It won't keep going up! The habitate can't handle too many more deer/elk/moose.

I'm curious to how you think the fawn crop will play out. I'm curious to hear your reasons to why you come to your conclusions how it will play out. I've got my eye on you. Lol


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

swbuckmaster said:


> Lt
> As far as your fawn crop bet my guess is the deer herd is in a rebuilding cycle trending up. Its been that way since 2010 in the areas I hunt. It however will peter out or level off. It won't keep going up! The habitate can't handle too many more deer/elk/moose.
> 
> I'm curious to how you think it will play out. I'm curious to hear your reasons to why you come to your conclusions how it will play out. I've got my eye on you. Lol


We are no where near being at the carrying capacity of the habitat, that is not even a factor, and equilibrium with habitat does occur as the animals reach it, they always go past it. They go way past it before it becomes a limiting factor, that will not have anything to do with slowing current growth, for many more years.

Deer number across the West were relatively flat from 2007-2011, this was our wet cycle, all of the significant gains were in 2012, and this year. This year has been a mixed bag, the deer came in looking excellent, and fawn numbers were up. But, we had a few spring storms, that did not look good for them, and air quality this year has been bad.

We have been sitting in a monsoon cycle(not normal) for quite some time, but we have not seen the monsoon rains yet. The pattern we have been sitting in, may explain the air quality. If we get a standard monsoon, clean things out, along with a cold storm at the end of the month, things should look going into fall. We will see that crisp clean fall air, and some lower temps, this will be a good sign. If the winter remains relatively normal, with lots of clear skies through the end of November and into December for the rut, then next years fawn crop should look pretty good*.

If we see extensive inversion conditions through this winter, we can expect to see all deer number gains wiped away. As these conditions will be bad for the rut, and fawn gestation. Not to mention what a wet spring might add.

*I placed an asterisk on the above statement, because we wont really know body condition of the deer heading into late fall/early winter, until late October. And regardless of which way this fall and winter goes, we still have a bigger problem that needs to be addressed. Just because deer numbers are rising, does not mean that we are out of the woods.

Sidenote: One of the reasons that monsoon rains do not have the negative impact that spring rains can have, is that mature plants have hardened, and have some resilience to pollutants. They are not "soft" and at mid growth. The growth that follows summer monsoons, is thought to not be as affected, because it follows the rains, verses having them during their peak green up.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Lonetree said:


> Here is the thing for all you folks that keep pointing to the Books in the '80s, Mule deer numbers have risen and fallen, synchronously across the West. This goes for Moose, and Bighorn sheep as well. They all started to decline in the early '80s, with additional declines in the early '90s, and the early 2000s. This is the same time frame for an unprecedented increase in invasive weeds in the West. Amphibian declines follow the same course. The current pine beetle invasion began in 1980 in earnest. And the phragmites that is invading many waters in the US, all took off, in the early '80s. This is an ecological collapse.
> 
> ?


OMG! You point at thr early 80's/90's deer decline ..
Point toward weed invation, acid rain, solar flares, opt 2, --------

EVERYTHING BUT THE WINTER of 1983 and 2002 ?????
NOW THAT"S WTF?

And once again AR's are a tool to manage the herds we have.PERIOD.


----------



## ram2h2o (Sep 11, 2007)

I don't know about AR in Utah, but back in my home state of Mississippi they put AR's in effect years ago with a 4 pt or better reg. It worked, as larger racked bucks were taken in the years after it was in place. Then they put even more AR regs in place. Height of the racks and width between the main beams. Sure folks complained,but in the past 4 seasons we have taken bigger racks off my families property than have ever been taken in the past 40+ years. I know we are comparing Whitetails to Mule Deer, but it does apparently work with Whitetails. Plus now the Deer are competing with the growing populations of feral hogs for the fall acorn crops.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

goofy elk said:


> OMG! You point at thr early 80's/90's deer decline ..
> Point toward weed invation, acid rain, solar flares, opt 2, --------
> 
> EVERYTHING BUT THE WINTER of 1983 and 2002 ?????
> ...


Goofy, pay attention, seriously.......Not only did I mention the winter of '83, and '02, I mentioned the winter of '92. Try to keep up. So what made the those winters so detrimental to mule deer, and moose, and bighorn sheep? They had all gone through many winters prior to those, without the same kind of declines. So.....what made the winters of '83, '92, and '02 more detrimental than prior winters? So '83 was heavy, but '92, and 02" were not all that spectacular. It comes down to how they went into those winters, and what made those winters different from others. If you look at ice climbing reports for the Wasatch front, you will see that those winters logged the most climbs. Winters that have long and sustained inversions, build the best ice, because above the inversion it is warm and the sun is shining. So above the soup, snow is melted, and as it runs down into the layer of inversion, it freezes, forming ice structures.

It is these inversions that trap pollutants for long periods of time in the winter. This is breathed by animals, and deposited by snow onto feed. If we have these inversions early they decrease fertility during the rut, especially if the animals head into winter in less than stellar shape. Does carrying fawns through these winters will see reduced viability, and the immune systems of animals will be suppressed, making them vulnerable to disease, and depleting their energy reserves.

This is all supportable, with actual science, and studies. Just like the numbers and science, that show that antler restrictions don't work, and can not increase deer herds.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

ram2h2o said:


> I don't know about AR in Utah, but back in my home state of Mississippi they put AR's in effect years ago with a 4 pt or better reg. It worked, as larger racked bucks were taken in the years after it was in place. Then they put even more AR regs in place. Height of the racks and width between the main beams. Sure folks complained,but in the past 4 seasons we have taken bigger racks off my families property than have ever been taken in the past 40+ years. I know we are comparing Whitetails to Mule Deer, but it does apparently work with Whitetails. Plus now the Deer are competing with the growing populations of feral hogs for the fall acorn crops.


White tails are not suffering from the same declines as mule deer. antler restrictions are not why white tails are thriving. What does Mississippi do for their bighorn sheep?


----------



## BugleB (Sep 24, 2008)

I have a better idea. Let's limit it to only killing bucks over 30" wide. How many truck loads of 2 points does it take to be worth one 30" buck anyway? 

A neighbor died yesterday. He had a garage with at least 50 2 points and small 3 points hanging all around the walls. He had a huge typical and a B&C big non-typical hanging in his house, and he wouldn't have traded either one of them for a whole garage full of 2 points.

Killing nearly all the baby bucks every year before they can grow older and get big is pitiful. Just pitiful.


----------



## Kwalk3 (Jun 21, 2012)

BugleB said:


> I have a better idea. Let's limit it to only killing bucks over 30" wide. How many truck loads of 2 points does it take to be worth one 30" buck anyway?
> 
> A neighbor died yesterday. He had a garage with at least 50 2 points and small 3 points hanging all around the walls. He had a huge typical and a B&C big non-typical hanging in his house, and he wouldn't have traded either one of them for a whole garage full of 2 points.
> 
> Killing nearly all the baby bucks every year before they can grow older and get big is pitiful. Just pitiful.


This idea may sound wonderful to you, but for many people, the size of the deer is just a bonus. Some of my best memories growing up involved general season rifle hunts where my dad shot a poor little "baby" two point. To this day my dad wouldn't trade those forkhorn antlers in the garage for a truck load of 200 inch bucks and his name in the b&c record book.

This isn't to say that he wouldn't shoot a big buck, or even that he didn't want to. Just shows that for some of us, the experience of hunting has less to do with the size of the antlers, and more to do with the ability to enjoy the awesome resources we have available to us with the people we care the most about.

Perspective is interesting. I love to see bucks, including big bucks, but the opportunity to pursue deer of any size means more to me than a chance to stick an arrow in a monster. When my son is old enough to tag along with me, I can guarantee you I won't be picky, and the antlers off that deer will be right at the top of my favorite and proudest, no matter their size.


----------



## Lonetree (Dec 4, 2010)

BugleB said:


> I have a better idea. Let's limit it to only killing bucks over 30" wide. How many truck loads of 2 points does it take to be worth one 30" buck anyway?
> 
> A neighbor died yesterday. He had a garage with at least 50 2 points and small 3 points hanging all around the walls. He had a huge typical and a B&C big non-typical hanging in his house, and he wouldn't have traded either one of them for a whole garage full of 2 points.
> 
> Killing nearly all the baby bucks every year before they can grow older and get big is pitiful. Just pitiful.


If it does not grow over all deer herds, which antler restrictions do not do, then it is just social engineering on the part of "wildlife managers". Or in other words, it is nothing but hunter management meant to appease the ill held beliefs of those that know no better.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

It might sound to some like I'm a horn hunter and you may think I want to force my horn hunting philosophies. This is so far from the truth its not funny. I don't like reading posts above where someone is making fun of a person with a bunch of two point bucks. 

The only reason I try and think outside the box is because we have had some areas in this state where its obvious there has been some problems with managment. Low buck doe areas. Three day hunts ect. 

I'm all about opportinity but not to where it practically shuts down an area after a hunt. If people are madd that the quality sucks I say shorten the range of the weapons. I'm all about spreading the pressure out. Thats another reason why I like the 33% 33% 33% tag allocations. Thats why I like antler restrictions. I know there are few legal bucks to shoot but folks can still have a chance. 

The state went option 2. I didn't like that rout because it cuts opportunity. I have to go with it now and adapt because that's the just way it is now. I hate it though! I also simply don't like hunting small areas. 

I could honestly care less what any of you shoot as long as it makes you happy and you take care of the meat. If you post a photo of a yealing and you sound happy in your post ill be one of the first to congradulate you.

Good luck in the upcoming hunts!


----------

