# Wyoming set to use 3 point or better??



## goofy elk

May-be Goob or 22 can verifey this..

I'm hearing in Wyoming, The Lander distric, will use 3 point or better this
fall for one season to give young bucks (deer) in the hard hit winterkill areas
a jump start.......

Pretty sure it was just passed by the Wyoming Commision.
Anyone here know for sure?


----------



## wyoming2utah

This very well may be true...I was reading just recently where this was an option they were going to explore. I would not be surprised at all....

BUT, this is what Wyoming says about these regs in their mule deer iniatitive:

"Another harvest strategy sometimes employed to improve depressed buck:doe ratios is a 
"four-point or better" hunting season. It may seem counterintuitive, but antler point
restrictions do not necessarily produce more large bucks. In a 4-point or better season, the hunter is restricted to harvesting bucks with 4 points or more on either antler. Consequently, all harvest pressure is redirected to the largest deer in the population, which reduces their number. Since most yearlings and some 2-year old bucks are protected until they become small 4-point deer, the overall ratio of bucks to does will increase somewhat as a result of having more young bucks in the population. However, harvest is merely delayed until a buck grows its first set of 4-point antlers. The maximum benefit of a 4-point season is typically realized after the season has been in place 2 or 3 years, at which time most 4-point bucks are being harvested. Thereafter, the buck:doe ratio does not continue to increase and fewer bucks actually survive to grow truly large antlers. Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to grow large antlers) from the population. If the objective is to produce more large deer, the 4-point restriction must be lifted after 2 years so harvest is once again spread over more age classes. This allows more of the incoming cohort of 4-point bucks to survive to an older age and potentially grow much 
larger antlers. Should the overall buck:doe ratio again decline to an unacceptably low level, the 4-point or better season can be reinstated for another 2-3 years to augment the number of bucks in the population, and the process is repeated. Permanent 4-point or better seasons do not produce more large bucks and actually reduce the harvestable surplus because some of the younger bucks that could have been harvested will die from other causes before they grow 4-point antlers. In addition, some small bucks are mistaken for legal bucks and are illegally killed and abandoned. Those deer represent a resource that is lost from the population and impact hunter opportunity in future years."

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments ... 000344.pdf


----------



## goofy elk

Once again, I firmly beleive, this should be a tool used in Utah....

Short term, on low buck to doe ratio units.


----------



## JuddCT

goofy elk said:


> Once again, I firmly beleive, this should be a tool used in Utah....
> 
> Short term, on low buck to doe ratio units.


How low?


----------



## goofy elk

Personally,
I would like to see it used on units 12 to 100 and lower..


----------



## coyoteslayer

For how long? What would be your buck to doe ratio objective?


----------



## goofy elk

Once BtoD ratios are reached for the particular unit,(15-17 or 18-20)
Then maintain those levals with the correct amount of permit numbers issued.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Would you still lower the tag allotment?


----------



## swbuckmaster

w2u your a book and numbers kind of guy

do you find it ironic how one study will say how three point or better or four point or better will shoot out the genetics in a deer herd. 

Then another study will say you cant shoot out the genetics because the does carry half the genetics and if the the larger bucks are shot the younger bucks that are left will still do the breeding and younger bucks still carry the same genetics as the older bucks.

Then you have some who will say shooting every buck in sight on a 10 buck per 100 doe ratio unit wont have any effect what so ever on the genetics. It only hurts the genetics if you shoot the big bucks. lol

politics it all comes down to politics!


----------



## JuddCT

I don't know enough about antler restrictions to make an argument so take this as what it is AN UNEDUCATED OPINION:

I can see some positive attributes to doing something like this on a 1 year or 2 year basis if the BtoD ratios are below 12:100 (3 year average). However, I think the moment the BtoD ratio is back in the acceptable range (15-17 or 18-20) you change it back (not waiting for a 3 year average) as it seems to be well documented that antler restrictions over long periods of time don't have that much positive effect on the overal herd. I also think you could still leave tag allotments up higher (but be ready to deal with younger bucks still being shot due to mistaken identity). Maybe even let youth hunters (18 and younger) be able to shoot a spike.

Heck, maybe they should expirement out in the West Desert (Tintic & West units). However, there might be other issues out there that wouldn't allow it to work. But I don't know.


----------



## goofy elk

Just found it,, Not finalized in Wyoming yet,
Commission meets next month..

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/news-1000619.aspx


----------



## coyoteslayer

Goofy muy bien pedorro


----------



## wyoguy

In past years the area over south of Rawlins was a 4 point or better area, may still be. I don't know how it affected the genetics or buck to doe ratio, but lots of hunters chose not to hunt in areas where they can't shoot the first buck they see. This in itself helped the whole deer herd because of less pressure.


----------



## JuddCT

wyoguy said:


> In past years the area over south of Rawlins was a 4 point or better area, may still be. I don't know how it affected the genetics or buck to doe ratio, but lots of hunters chose not to hunt in areas where they can't shoot the first buck they see. This in itself helped the whole deer herd because of less pressure.


Good point. A 3pt/4pt or better unit will probably cause others to put in for other units nearby that don't have the restrictions causing draw odds to decrease.


----------



## MadHunter

coyoteslayer said:


> Goofy muy bien pedorro


Gas is always the answer!


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger

I do not like the three points or more idea at all as a general rule, but I do like the idea of using this rule rather than cutting tags in areas where the deer herds are really struggling.


----------



## MadHunter

I can understand this recovery method being used for extreme crash scenarios. The question is however, will the restriction be lifted once there is a recovery? I remember some state where LE was implemented to help numbers recover and was temporary. Hmmmm -Ov-


----------



## swbuckmaster

ttt



swbuckmaster said:


> w2u your a book and numbers kind of guy
> 
> do you find it ironic how one study will say how three point or better or four point or better will shoot out the genetics in a deer herd.
> 
> Then another study will say you cant shoot out the genetics because the does carry half the genetics and if the the larger bucks are shot the younger bucks that are left will still do the breeding and younger bucks still carry the same genetics as the older bucks.
> 
> Then you have some who will say shooting every buck in sight on a 10 buck per 100 doe ratio unit wont have any effect what so ever on the genetics. It only hurts the genetics if you shoot the big bucks. lol


----------



## Muley73

Do you guys really believe that an 3pt/4pt or better units would have a lower application number than an open unit? I might believe this if the unit was only this way for one season. However if it was a 2 or 3 year deal I think the apps would rival some of the LE units. 

Say what you want more people care about antler size then will ever admit it. 

The DWR will push to never let this happen. People might see that is worked and they dont want that.


----------



## JuddCT

Muley73 said:


> Do you guys really believe that an 3pt/4pt or better units would have a lower application number than an open unit? I might believe this if the unit was only this way for one season. However if it was a 2 or 3 year deal I think the apps would rival some of the LE units.


We are making the assumption that the BtoD ratio is below 12:100 and only allowing it to happen for a 1-2 year period before opening it back up again to all bucks. So yes, I think there would be a slight drop in apps for the 3pt/4pt or better unit to begin with. Once it opened back up you will probably see a slight increase in apps from where it was historically as most would assume there would be a higher % of bigger bucks. Is that so hard to believe?


----------



## willfish4food

JuddCT said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you guys really believe that an 3pt/4pt or better units would have a lower application number than an open unit? I might believe this if the unit was only this way for one season. However if it was a 2 or 3 year deal I think the apps would rival some of the LE units.
> 
> 
> 
> We are making the assumption that the BtoD ratio is below 12:100 and only allowing it to happen for a 1-2 year period before opening it back up again to all bucks. So yes, I think there would be a slight drop in apps for the 3pt/4pt or better unit to begin with. Once it opened back up you will probably see a slight increase in apps from where it was historically as most would assume there would be a higher % of bigger bucks. Is that so hard to believe?
Click to expand...

I would also add that the number of apps for the first year would also depend on the type of hunters that applied to the unit before the new regulations and how attached they are to the area. If the B/D ratio was low because every deer that had antlers was shot because the majority of the hunters were meat hunters, then obviously the apps would be down the first couple of years. But if the majority of the hunters were there because of tradition, and could care less if they harvested a deer or not, then app numbers might not decrease by much.


----------



## wyoming2utah

swbuckmaster said:


> do you find it ironic how one study will say how three point or better or four point or better will shoot out the genetics in a deer herd.


I have never read a study that says that....?

But, what I have read in everything I have ever see on APR's and mule deer is that they do NOT increase the number of bucks above the point restriction...


----------



## Fishrmn

wyoming2utah said:


> But, what I have read in everything I have ever see on APR's and mule deer is that they do NOT increase the number of bucks above the point restriction...


They can't increase the number of bucks above the point restriction. If you want big bucks, protect the big bucks. Quit shooting them. If you want more bucks, quit shooting them.


----------



## svmoose

What is the source for this information? I can't find it on the Wyoming G&F website.


----------



## swbuckmaster

wyoming2utah said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you find it ironic how one study will say how three point or better or four point or better will shoot out the genetics in a deer herd.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never read a study that says that....?
Click to expand...

so you mean you pulled this out of your backside "Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to grow large antlers) from the population."


----------



## MadHunter

swbuckmaster said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you find it ironic how one study will say how three point or better or four point or better will shoot out the genetics in a deer herd.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never read a study that says that....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you mean you pulled this out of your backside "Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to grow large antlers) from the population."
Click to expand...

Only some desirable genes. Does provide 50% of the genes and just because a buck is a 3 point doesn't mean that he doesnt carry monster antler genes. Most genes dont go dormant until a few generations of not showing up.


----------



## PBH

SW -- you want to discuss contradictions -- so let's discuss contradictions: 3-point or better rules specifically place hunting pressure on the larger deer. How can this possible increase the number of larger deer?

In this specific case, I do not believe that the WF&G is trying to increase the number of "larger" deer. To the contrary, i think they are trying to give the smaller deer a hand after a hard-hit weather season.


----------



## wyoming2utah

swbuckmaster said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> do you find it ironic how one study will say how three point or better or four point or better will shoot out the genetics in a deer herd.
> 
> 
> 
> I have never read a study that says that....?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you mean you pulled this out of your backside "Over the long-term, persistently targeting large bucks may also eliminate desirable genetics (the ability to grow large antlers) from the population."
Click to expand...

Oh geez....do you know what a study is? What I quoted was from the Wyoming Mule Deer Initiative...it was not a study. It simply considers the viewpoint held by some that "persistently targeting large bucks *MAY* also eliminate desirable genetics.." To my knowledge, this is NOT based on any study or any concrete evidence...this is simply a fear that some hunters hold. The Wyoming Game and Fish are simply addressing that fear...hence, the word "may".

...personally, I think that fear is bogus. But unlike you and others, if multiple studies done in multiple areas came out and showed that the idea not only held merit but was happening, I am smart enough to change my opinion.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher

Now they tell us!? Why didn't they tell us before I spent $350+ and my 2 points to hunt that area hoping for a 2-pt or a big 3 like here in UT?! I was really hoping to be able to tape a couple arrows to the front of the rig n hit the first forky I came across.


----------



## wyogoob

There was talk about 3 point or better in southwest Wyoming at the Evanston Big Game meeting. The meeting was all about Mule Deer, not elk, not antelope, not wolves. 

We broke up into work groups, hashed out the issues, talked over resolutions and then each group gave the G&F it's proposals.

Then the Game & Fish was supposed to take all the ideas from the Big Game meetings, make changes based on budgets...I mean science, and then get back with the members of the working groups before presenting any changes to the Legislature. 

I haven't heard anything yet, but I'm sure the results will be on numerouse out-of-state outdoor forums before the Wyoming Game and Fish has a chance to rule.


----------



## bullsnot

Muley73 said:


> Say what you want more people care about antler size then will ever admit it.


I think I could easily hit the ball right back to you on that one about opportunity.


----------



## Muley73

bull,
I am sure you could. But watch the apps. They will increase if a unit starts putting out bigger bucks. I firmly believe it a unit goes 3pt/4pt or better for 2 to 3 years that unit will see a big rise in applications.

Ironically if you read the entire study that you sent me about buck doe ratio done in CO it kind of touches in this subject in the summary.

"However, because many hunters desired
some level of quality hunting opportunity while
maintaining adequate hunter participation levels
(McCullough and Carmen 1982, Freddy et al. 1993),
statewide reductions in harvest may have struck an
equitable balance in harvest management that was
satisfactory to a majority of hunters."

Guess what the current numbers being suggested are not anywhere as restrictive as Colorados. Which tells me you could cut even more and increase quality and the masses would be happy. Or maybe our hunters are nothing like the CO hunters???

I firmly believe this is what the UDWR is ultimatily afraid of. If hunters actually see better success and better quality they will be more willing to set out a year or two or three or more. If that was the case the UDWR would lose dollars. Less tags means less dollars!!! That is the whole key to this situation, the UDWR does not want to lose dollars. No science, its dollars.


----------



## redleg

2 years from now, there wil be a lot of 2 point bucks


----------



## bullsnot

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> I am sure you could. But watch the apps. They will increase if a unit starts putting out bigger bucks. I firmly believe it a unit goes 3pt/4pt or better for 2 to 3 years that unit will see a big rise in applications.
> 
> Ironically if you read the entire study that you sent me about buck doe ratio done in CO it kind of touches in this subject in the summary.
> 
> "However, because many hunters desired
> some level of quality hunting opportunity while
> maintaining adequate hunter participation levels
> (McCullough and Carmen 1982, Freddy et al. 1993),
> statewide reductions in harvest may have struck an
> equitable balance in harvest management that was
> satisfactory to a majority of hunters."
> 
> Guess what the current numbers being suggested are not anywhere as restrictive as Colorados. Which tells me you could cut even more and increase quality and the masses would be happy. Or maybe our hunters are nothing like the CO hunters???


Colorado wasn't as restrictive as it is now in 1982 and 1993 so I'm not sure the same is still true. I know that when Colorado went to much higher buck to doe ratios in the late 90's many hunters simply quit due to the long waits to draw a tag. Not sure that losing hunters is the best thing for our sport.



Muley73 said:


> I firmly believe this is what the UDWR is ultimatily afraid of. If hunters actually see better success and better quality they will be more willing to set out a year or two or three or more. If that was the case the UDWR would lose dollars. Less tags means less dollars!!! That is the whole key to this situation, the UDWR does not want to lose dollars. No science, its dollars.


We've discussed this before but I don't think this argument holds much water. Killing too many this year means lots of lost revenue in years to come. If the division was truly motivation by money they would be doing all they could to improve productivity, not diminish it. Killing too many animals for the sake of revenue is a good way to generate revenue in the short term but is a horrible long term business model. I'm not just speaking about buck only mule deer hunting here.

And believe it or not there are many hunters out there that even though they want quality, actually being able to hunt is more important.

Oh and probably the biggest hiccup in your thoery is that the WB makes the decisions on these matters, not the division.


----------



## Muley73

bull, 
I guess we will never know unless we try it? You are on a RAC, push for a 3pt/4pt antler restriction for 3 years on 5 units. You pick the units, only thing I ask is 3 of the 5 be mostly public land units. Lets see what the apps do on those units? Maybe I'm wrong and they will go under subscribed? But I'm saying they will rise.

The DWR would not sacrifice short term dollars at the chance of losing the resource???? Really? 800,000+ deer down to 286,000 now. Looks like they have already done it!!!

No hiccup, the WB usually follows the numbers recommended by the DWR. Go check the numbers the past 20 years. Let's see what they do this year?


----------



## proutdoors

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> I guess we will never know unless we try it? You are on a RAC, push for a 3pt/4pt antler restriction for 3 years on 5 units. You pick the units, only thing I ask is 3 of the 5 be mostly public land units. Lets see what the apps do on those units? Maybe I'm wrong and they will go under subscribed? But I'm saying they will rise.
> 
> The DWR would not sacrifice short term dollars at the chance of losing the resource???? Really? 800,000+ deer down to 286,000 now. Looks like they have already done it!!!
> 
> No hiccup, the WB usually follows the numbers recommended by the DWR. Go check the numbers the past 20 years. Let's see what they do this year?


I pray that bull is far too smart to do something so foolish as use GENERAL SEASON deer units as test laboratories on antler restrictions that have already proven to NOT work over, and over, and over, and over, and over again!

Are you seriously implying the deer herd went from 800,000 to 286,000 because the DWR was looking to make a quick buck (pun intended)? Really? Please tell me I am reading this wrong!

The WB gives directives BEFORE the DWR makes their recommendations, so the DWR number's are reflective of the directives from the WB. The higher buck:doe ratios is NOT in place because this is what the DWR came up with all on their own. The WB and the special interest groups mandated the higher buck:doe ratios. The DWR simply submitted numbers based on the current deer management plan and the directives given to them by the Wildlife Board. Blaming the DWR for the number of permits issued each year is akin to blaming gravity for a plane crashing to the ground. :roll:


----------



## Muley73

I keep waiting for bulls answer?

However, gravity is the reason anything hits the ground.


----------



## Packout

Some of us have been waiting for Muley's answers to questions for months......... 

I'd bet Muley is right. Hunters would try to draw tags where they -perceive- an easier chance to shoot bigger bucks. Of course that may do nothing for the deer herd. I thought we wanted to have management that helped the deer herd. This idea puts all the hunting pressure on the mature bucks before they have a chance to rut. I thought mature bucks were what we wanted breeding our doe herd. So much for "its all for the kids", uuuhhhh, I mean "deer".

It is all about Fawns, Fawns, Fawns.


----------



## proutdoors

Muley73 said:


> However, gravity is the reason anything hits the ground.


 :roll:


Packout said:


> I'd bet Muley is right. Hunters would try to draw tags where they -perceive- an easier chance to shoot bigger bucks. Of course that may do nothing for the deer herd. I thought we wanted to have management that helped the deer herd. This idea puts all the hunting pressure on the mature bucks before they have a chance to rut. I thought mature bucks were what we wanted breeding our doe herd. So much for "its all for the kids", uuuhhhh, I mean "deer".
> 
> It is all about Fawns, Fawns, Fawns.


Good post!


----------



## coyoteslayer

> Some of us have been waiting for Muley's answers to questions for months.........


I don't believe he has any answers. He just blames the DWR for everything.


----------



## swbuckmaster

Packout said:


> This idea puts all the hunting pressure on the mature bucks before they have a chance to rut. I thought mature bucks were what we wanted breeding our doe herd. So much for "its all for the kids", uuuhhhh, I mean "deer".
> 
> It is all about Fawns, Fawns, Fawns.


In all fairness it isn't the mature bucks doing the breading on our general deer now. So maybe having loads more smaller bucks would allow them to get the breading done earlier so the fawns aren't being born in June?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Muley these guys are spot on when it comes to the old WB when it comes to bucks/bulls. Especially when it comes to the antlered aspect of how an animal gets hunted.

You however might be onto something about the antlerless part though. It seems the WB/SFW doesn't always get their way when it comes to antlerless tags in fact it usually goes in favor of the division.


----------



## coyoteslayer

swbuckmaster said:


> Packout said:
> 
> 
> 
> This idea puts all the hunting pressure on the mature bucks before they have a chance to rut. I thought mature bucks were what we wanted breeding our doe herd. So much for "its all for the kids", uuuhhhh, I mean "deer".
> 
> It is all about Fawns, Fawns, Fawns.
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness it isn't the mature bucks doing the breading on our general deer now. So maybe having loads more smaller bucks would allow them to get the breading done earlier so the fawns aren't being born in June?
Click to expand...

I don't think this is quite right. I saw many nice bucks during the rut with the does.


----------



## Muley73

sw,
I agree with you on the antlered elk. I think they have all taken a sit and wait stance on antlered deer. This includes DWR, WB and even SFW.

I guess from my experience I seem to see more mature bucks at all times during the years when it was 3 pt or better. Again just my experience. I also know the numbers were spun by the DWR because they did not like being told what to do. I listened to off the record comments and threats made that would support my belief. Again I do not believe we will ever actually go back to antler restriction.

I do believe however it is a good tool to increase buck doe ratios while still allowing opportunity to be in the field. The DWR seems to think antler restriction works great on the elk herds and our premium LE deer units. So why is it so far fetched to believe it would work on general units??? 

I find it funny that a large portion of the posters on this site disagree with anything other than the status qou or even reverting back to state wide OTC sales. We can grow more deer in this state, but not if we stick to the status qou. We have proven that I've the last 20 years.

One last note. An answer is still an answer regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Maybe I just need to question your intelligence , make comments about your families or angrily call people names to make it count??? :?


----------



## swbuckmaster

coyoteslayer said:


> I don't think this is quite right. I saw many nice bucks during the rut with the does.


ya I think your right there are always "many" nice bucks on units with 10/100 doe ratios.


----------



## ridgetop

swbuckmaster said:


> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is quite right. I saw many nice bucks during the rut with the does.
> 
> 
> 
> ya I think your right there are always "many" nice bucks on units with 10/100 doe ratios.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he wasn't on the Stansburys or Tintics or West Desert.


----------



## coyoteslayer

ridgetop said:


> swbuckmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coyoteslayer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is quite right. I saw many nice bucks during the rut with the does.
> 
> 
> 
> ya I think your right there are always "many" nice bucks on units with 10/100 doe ratios.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure he wasn't on the Stansburys or Tintics or West Desert.
Click to expand...

I have seen nice bucks on the Tintics and West Desert. I have never been to the Stansburys. I showed my cousins a map where to look in the West Desert unit this last year and he came home with a very nice buck heavy 4x3 27 inches wide. It's bigger than his Bookcliffs buck that he shot a few years ago and he didn't have to play the bonus point game.

My brother found a lot of nice bucks ever since his mountain goat hunt and this area is still producing results. I believe the buck to doe ratio is higher than 10 bucks per 100 does. He still scouts it a lot even though it's farther away.


----------



## 2full

As Pro said earlier, antler games have been played and FAILED many times. I was on one of the early boards before the days of RACs in the late 80's. At a meeting in Salt Lake this was being evaluated and talked about. I had bow hunted Salina that year for the bow hunt, It was 3 point or better at the time. I found THREE 2 points shot and left in 3 days of hunting. That is the bow hunt when you are close to the deer. So I asked the head biologist what they figure the rate of 2 points lost was running in those units at that meeting. His answer was 1 to 1. He then stated that for every deer taken and tagged, that 1 was shot and left. That was his words not mine. I have never forgot that meeting and have been against antler point games since. 
Kind of expensive game management.............

I know, I know, that was then this is now ..... people don't do that now.........etc. etc.
I am not going to say that they were shot on purpose, but in the heat of the moment and the excitement of the moment it happens. Sometimes good people do things they later regret and feel bad about.


----------



## Muley73

So we are ok and careful enough on every single elk unit in the state and on the premium LE deer units. Yet we just can't figure it out on general deer units. That's just weird to me??? :?


----------



## proutdoors

Muley73 said:


> So we are ok and careful enough on every single elk unit in the state and on the premium LE deer units. Yet we just can't figure it out on general deer units. That's just weird to me??? :?


I will address the premium LE deer unit issue first: People who draw a premium LE deer permit are not looking at killing the first buck they see, unlike GENERAL season deer permit holders. Also, the make-up of those with a premium LE deer permit are more experienced hunters. They are also more likely to be VERY selective on which deer they pull the trigger on. Of course there are exceptions to these, but not many. As for the elk; there are HUNDREDS of mature bulls killed during the yearly spike hunts. Some are accidental, some are intentional.....just as I think is the case in regards to antler restriction areas for GENERAL season deer units.


----------



## Muley73

pro.
WHAT????? The premium LE hunts with antler restriction or mostly youth and elderly hunters my design! Inexperience and poor vision! Yet it works good enough to keep doing it. 

Taking the time to properly indentifiy our target whether it is a general unit or not is something we should all be doing as true sportsmen. 

Hunders of illegal bulls killed??? Where? Please provide some numbers. Not percentages but actual numbers and the units they are on?? They must be acceptable as we recently added even more units into the mix????


----------



## proutdoors

> "Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck." --*Thomas Jefferson*


 As I read this morning, Muley73 came to mind.................................. :O•-: :mrgreen:


----------



## bwhntr

2full said:


> As Pro said earlier, antler games have been played and FAILED many times. I was on one of the early boards before the days of RACs in the late 80's. At a meeting in Salt Lake this was being evaluated and talked about. I had bow hunted Salina that year for the bow hunt, It was 3 point or better at the time. I found THREE 2 points shot and left in 3 days of hunting. That is the bow hunt when you are close to the deer. So I asked the head biologist what they figure the rate of 2 points lost was running in those units at that meeting. His answer was 1 to 1. He then stated that for every deer taken and tagged, that 1 was shot and left. That was his words not mine. I have never forgot that meeting and have been against antler point games since.
> Kind of expensive game management.............
> 
> I know, I know, that was then this is now ..... people don't do that now.........etc. etc.
> I am not going to say that they were shot on purpose, but in the heat of the moment and the excitement of the moment it happens. Sometimes good people do things they later regret and feel bad about.


1 to 1??? Bullsh*t, not a chance in hell I believe that. Like you I don't have any facts to prove my belief, but I just don't believe it. The numbers are probably closer to that of which does get mistakenly killed and left to waste on our current general hunts.


----------



## bullsnot

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> I guess we will never know unless we try it? You are on a RAC, push for a 3pt/4pt antler restriction for 3 years on 5 units. You pick the units, only thing I ask is 3 of the 5 be mostly public land units. Lets see what the apps do on those units? Maybe I'm wrong and they will go under subscribed? But I'm saying they will rise.


They say the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again yet expecting different results. I would not be in favor of trying something that we know doesn't work. We know that antler restrictions doesn't grow more deer. There is no point in trying it yet again. I know that illegal killings are a concern but aside from that there just is no biological benefit. Typically you actually see a decrease in mature bucks unless you severely limit the number of tags (like on LE units) which neither scenario is good for general units.



Muley73 said:


> The DWR would not sacrifice short term dollars at the chance of losing the resource???? Really? 800,000+ deer down to 286,000 now. Looks like they have already done it!!!


Agree to disagree. Without the work that has been done by many Utah organizations I fear that mule deer numbers would be much lower today than they already are. The reason for deer declines has nothing to do with hunters IMHO.



Muley73 said:


> No hiccup, the WB usually follows the numbers recommended by the DWR. Go check the numbers the past 20 years. Let's see what they do this year?


You may be right but that's only because the recommendations make sense to the board. The division has no leverage against the board so the board has no motivation to follow the divisions recomendations other than they believe them to be correct. How do you reconcile that in your conspiracy theory? If the division is in it for the money and over utilizing the resource and the board doesn't benefit from it why would the board allow it to continue?

The board has recently decided to modify several mangement plans, including the deer plan twice, without any recommendation from the division to do so.


----------



## 2full

bwhntr,
bull.... or not, the facts I used were from the DWR biologist. There must have been some kind of "evidence" that it wasn't working as the point games ended a year or two after that.


----------



## Muley73

bull,
If you have an antler restriction that mirrors the CURRENT antler restriction used on PREMIUM LE units I believe you would actually INCREASE MATURE BUCKS in those units. Similar to the results of the spike hunts on all elk units. If it is more about just being out with a tag in your pocket then why will the same not work on our deer units?

pro,
I am guessing from your response that you did not understand the antler restriction I was refering to being with. I will also guess that no you do not have any idea of actual numbers of illegal elk kills in UT???? :? 

2full,
If you know the TRUE history of antler restriction in UT you would better understand the "evidence" and reason the DWR did not support antler restriction.


----------



## elkfromabove

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> If you have an antler restriction that mirrors the CURRENT antler restriction used on PREMIUM LE units I believe you would actually INCREASE MATURE BUCKS in those units. Similar to the results of the spike hunts on all elk units. If it is more about just being out with a tag in your pocket then why will the same not work on our deer units?
> 
> You're absolutely right, the CURRENT antler restriction used on PREMIUM LE units would actually INCREASE MATURE BUCKS in those units because the only CURRENT antler restriction used on PREMIUM LE units is the management buck restriction, 3 point or smaller, (page 12, 2011 Big Game Field Regulations) that PREVENTS you from harvesting a 4 point. And shooting the smaller ones will, indeed, leave more of the bigger ones. In other words, 3 points or smaller may work to increase mature bucks, but your 4 points or bigger doesn't.
> 
> pro,
> I am guessing from your response that you did not understand the antler restriction I was refering to being with. I will also guess that no you do not have any idea of actual numbers of illegal elk kills in UT???? :?
> 
> See above. I don't know about the illegal elk kills.
> 
> 2full,
> If you know the TRUE history of antler restriction in UT you would better understand the "evidence" and reason the DWR did not support antler restriction.
> 
> And what is the TRUE history of antler restriction in UT, the "evidence" and the reason you speak of and where can we find it? Does it happen to be the same TRUE history of antler restriction and "evidence" and reason that we also can't find in any of the surrounding states or in any of the studies we've encountered?


----------



## 2full

Muley,
Enlighten me, I am open to being educated if others reasons were factors. 
o-||


----------



## wyoming2utah

The truth is that APR's have NEVER increased the number of bucks above the restriction in any state at any time...why revisit it? Doing it would be called stupidity!

IT is a feel-good regulation that hunters like but don't understand...how can you get more "big" bucks if you don't protect them? You cannot harvest only the large portion of your population and expect to have more of them...it makes zero sense.


----------



## bullsnot

Muley73 said:


> bull,
> If you have an antler restriction that mirrors the CURRENT antler restriction used on PREMIUM LE units I believe you would actually INCREASE MATURE BUCKS in those units. Similar to the results of the spike hunts on all elk units. If it is more about just being out with a tag in your pocket then why will the same not work on our deer units?


Again those scenarios only work at increasing the number of mature bucks because tag numbers are seriously depressed on those units. (High buck:doe ratio objectives.) You are only killing a few of the mature animals and no one is killing the younger ones. Again antler restrictions have been tried on general units (Lower buck:doe ratio objectives) with more tags and it doesn't work as intented. We put too much pressure on the mature animals in addition to other problems but the bottom line is it does not have the intended results and that being more mature buck deer on the unit.

Can't compare elk and deer. They are different animals....pun intended.

If your idea is to make several new LE units then yes it will work but I do not feel that is what Utah sportsmen want.


----------



## swbuckmaster

wyoming2utah said:


> The truth is that APR's have NEVER increased the number of bucks above the restriction in any state at any time...why revisit it? Doing it would be called stupidity!
> 
> IT is a feel-good regulation that hunters like but don't understand...how can you get more "big" bucks if you don't protect them? You cannot harvest only the large portion of your population and expect to have more of them...it makes zero sense.


This is where I believe you are wrong WY2U. What muley is talking about and what this whole post was talking about has nothing to do with increasing the size of the antlers or the size of the bucks on these units so trophy guys can have at it. This whole post was about increasing the buck to doe ratios on these units. This in fact would increase the buck to doe ratios because it is protecting the one and two year old deer. There are always more one and two year old deer on the mountain then there are big old bucks.

In this situation you could in fact issue more buck tags and raise the almighty dollars the division cant seem to live without because you are not killing every buck on the mountain you are only killing the larger ones.

If you do care only about having a tag and being able to hunt with the possibility of shooting a buck like you say you do then this is the best offer on the table for you. I guess ill sit back and wait for your response on this one. o-||


----------



## bullsnot

swbuckmaster said:


> What muley is talking about and what this whole post was talking about has nothing to do with increasing the size of the antlers or the size of the bucks on these units so trophy guys can have at it.


You are right about the original post but not about Muley.....



Muley73 said:


> bull,
> If you have an antler restriction that mirrors the CURRENT antler restriction used on PREMIUM LE units I believe you would actually INCREASE MATURE BUCKS in those units.


----------



## swbuckmaster

So hes saying he wants to shoot spike bucks and go OIL for the big ones? I would never go for that!

I guess i'm the one who cant follow this post. I cant seem to see any antler restrictions on our Premium LE deer in Utah. As far as I know there isn't any in Wyoming either.. If you draw the tag you can shoot what ever you want is how I understand it.


----------



## wyoming2utah

swbuckmaster said:


> This is where I believe you are wrong WY2U. What muley is talking about and what this whole post was talking about has nothing to do with increasing the size of the antlers or the size of the bucks on these units so trophy guys can have at it BS! that is exactly what this is about...the trophy guys know that more bucks means bigger bucks; they are unhappy because so many bucks are being killed on GS units that not very many are left alive to reach "trophy" sizes...that is EXACTLY what this is about. It has NOTHING to do with herd health or productivity!. This whole post was about increasing the buck to doe ratios on these units. This in fact would increase the buck to doe ratios because it is protecting the one and two year old deer. There are always more one and two year old deer on the mountain then there are big old bucks.
> 
> In this situation you could in fact issue more buck tags and raise the almighty dollars the division cant seem to live without because you are not killing every buck on the mountain you are only killing the larger ones.
> 
> If you do care only about having a tag and being able to hunt with the possibility of shooting a buck like you say you do then this is the best offer on the table for you. I guess ill sit back and wait for your response on this one. o-||


Clear back on page one, I posed this question:



wyoming2utah said:


> Would you still lower the tag allotment?


I asked this question because it wouldn't bother me too much if we put some kind of APR on a few units as a trial as long as we didn't reduce tag numbers. We could see if we could increase ratios without limiting hunters...not a bad idea.

With that being said, I still have some reservations...



wyoming2utah said:


> Since most yearlings and some 2-year old bucks are protected until they become small 4-point deer, the overall ratio of bucks to does will increase somewhat as a result of having more young bucks in the population. However, harvest is merely delayed until a buck grows its first set of 4-point antlers. The maximum benefit of a 4-point season is typically realized after the season has been in place 2 or 3 years, at which time most 4-point bucks are being harvested. Thereafter, the buck:doe ratio does not continue to increase and fewer bucks actually survive to grow truly large antlers.


So, after 2 or 3 years, what are we really gaining? And, what are we potentially losing?

Guys forget about this:


wyoming2utah said:


> Permanent 4-point or better seasons do not produce more large bucks and actually reduce the harvestable surplus because some of the younger bucks that could have been harvested will die from other causes before they grow 4-point antlers. In addition, some small bucks are mistaken for legal bucks and are illegally killed and abandoned. Those deer represent a resource that is lost from the population and impact hunter opportunity in future years."


----------



## wyoming2utah

swbuckmaster said:


> So hes saying he wants to shoot spike bucks and go OIL for the big ones? I would never go for that!
> 
> I guess i'm the one who cant follow this post. I cant seem to see any antler restrictions on our Premium LE deer in Utah. As far as I know there isn't any in Wyoming either.. If you draw the tag you can shoot what ever you want is how I understand it.


The only APRs on LE deer in utah are the management hunts that require bucks to have 3 points or less...otherwise, LE hunts don't have antler point restrictions. I don't have a clue what Muley73 is saying either...


----------



## Treehugnhuntr

swbuckmaster said:


> So hes saying he wants to shoot spike bucks and go OIL for the big ones? I would never go for that!
> 
> I guess i'm the one who cant follow this post. I cant seem to see any antler restrictions on our Premium LE deer in Utah. As far as I know there isn't any in Wyoming either.. If you draw the tag you can shoot what ever you want is how I understand it.


I believe they are speaking to self imposed APRs. Guys know how difficult it is to draw a tag and the likelihood of getting one again, so they are selective. As was mentioned, this would work if we want to manage GS units like LE units.


----------



## Muley73

sw,
Currently we have Management hunts on the Premium LE units for deer. What are the Management hunts? They are nothing more than antler restriction hunts. Who hunts those hunts? Mostly inexperienced youth, or elderly hunters, by design. The DWR seems to think that the illegal harvest is controlable on this hunts. Why would it be different on a 3pt or 4pt or better general units?

Also everybody is screaming that it is all about oppurtinity. That many many people are fine to just be out and shoot the first buck they see. Quality is in the getting to go not the size of the deer. Ok fine. So why could be not issue 300 management tags(3pt or less) on a unit and 100 any buck permits. This would spread the pressure on all age classes and actually protect more of our mature breeding bucks. You eliminate the genentic arguement of growing giant forkhorns? It should be a win win. Plenty of tags for the oppurtunity guys and more mature bucks for the guys that want to wait a little longer for a tag. We seem to believe this system works great for you elk herds and we would not be just shooting spikes. You'd big giving the oppurtinity guys a much bigger selection of animals than on the elk system. 

Im sure the agrument will come that we will create a log jam in the system for mature bucks. But remember more hunters just want to hunt every year, its about the oppurtunity. So if that is true the log jam should not happen? Make hunters pick, either you apply for a management tag or you apply for a mature buck tag. Lets see where the numbers fall. I can see no negative scientific issues with this system so it would all be social.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I see where you are going with this and agree the system could help with seeing more larger antlers. 

The positives I see are state can issue more tags because you simply wont be able to just shoot any buck you see. You will have to hunt for the one that you have a legal tag for. Great money revenue builder for the state. The state is already LE units anyways. 

But then we get to the negatives
Lifetime lisecnse holders and dedicated will eat up all the big buck tags. So thats a deal breaker for me right there!

I think there are way toooo many tards in this state to apply this sort of system to a genearal area. They shoot way to far and shoot with the kill first and ask questions later approach. 

I think also think it complicates the general system to much. 

I could see where it could contribute to more party hunting problems. 

I still think if an area that is having problems with increasing its buck to doe ratios from under 10 bucks to what I would like to see 18-20+ bucks per 100 the state only has 2 options. The first one "I LIKE" is focusing the harvest on the 4 point or better population. I like this approach because it allows for more tags but protects the younger population of bucks. There might only be 100 bucks in a unit that meets the 4 point or better rule but they could issue 10,000 tags. It would be nice to actually go out with the kids and have a better chance at a 3 year old deer. 

but I would settle for tag cuts. I understand we simply cannot keep these struggling sub 10 buck per 100 does and could also throw in the under 15/100 as well on life support any more. Something has to be done!

again if the unit is at the 18-20+ i'm fine with keeping things running how we are already hunting them its a general unit. I don't expect to see 4 pointers running around all over the place. I know in the 18-20 range you can with some work tag a decent buck.


----------



## proutdoors

Over-complicating things will drive people away as well. And, how would the DWR enforce the several different types of tags issued? Remember, this is GENERAL SEASON deer units, NOT Limited Entry or Premium Limited Entry!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dkhntrdstn

> The DWR seems to think antler restriction works great on the elk herds and our premium LE deer units. So why is it so far fetched to believe it would work on general units???


I'm lost on this part.Where does it say you can not shoot a two point on a LE deer tag ? I have not heard anything or ready anything on antler restriction on any LE hunts in Utah. The people that are putting in for this tags are going after the big boys no matter what.Some will shoot a nice buck towards the end of the hunt and some will eat tag soup.But for GE tag holders. They are there to kill a buck no matter what. Yes some will only kill four point or better and there other that will shoot the first buck they can.So im lost one the quote part.So some body help me out on that. Thanks.


----------



## dkhntrdstn

> Hunders of illegal bulls killed??? Where? Please provide some numbers. Not percentages but actual numbers and the units they are on?? They must be acceptable as we recently added even more units into the mix????


Look at the strawberry area every year there are big bulls getting killed there and left and some even try sneaking them out. Not sure on the numbers.


----------



## Muley73

Both the Pauns and the Henrys have ANTLER RESTRICTION management hunts. The DWR believes they are successful ways to manage those units. This is what I am talking about.

sw,
However I believe you are correct in your feelings on regular AR. It did work and it would work. But it will never be done again.

Pro,
By all means let's avoid doing something cause it might be difficult. That solves most problems. Still waiting on those elk numbers.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Muley73 said:


> Both the Pauns and the Henrys have ANTLER RESTRICTION management hunts. The DWR believes they are successful ways to manage those units.


Actually, the DWR wants more deer taken off those units because they know that buck/doe ratios are too high. The WB and hunter groups pushed for APRs as a way to harvest bucks without hurting the top end and reducing the overall trophy potential.

It is also important to note that all of the bucks harvested by management tags must be viewed by the DWR to be deemed legal...kind of a hard sell if you want to throw this into a GS hunt.



Muley73 said:


> It did work and it would work. But it will never be done again.


What do you base your opinion on? You say APRs worked...what is your evidence?

As far as them never being done again, I certainly hope so...but many hunters are just stupid enough to want them again even though they failed the first time through. It is called ignorance. It shows how uneducated and simple-minded hunters are...



Muley73 said:


> Still waiting on those elk numbers.


Hmmm...I have been waiting for any kind of evidence from you on a long list of issues for a long time now. How about some proof that says higher buck/doe ratios will improve deer herds? How about some proof that APRs have actually worked and benefitted a deer herd? I imagine that I will have to wait a long time....and probably never get any!


----------



## bullsnot

Muley73 said:


> Both the Pauns and the Henrys have ANTLER RESTRICTION management hunts. The DWR believes they are successful ways to manage those units. This is what I am talking about.


Packout can speak to this better than I can but the management hunts were created with the intention of providing a bit more opportunity on these units by allowing hunters to come in and harvest bucks that would otherwise never be harvested by regular tag holders.

The management hunts were not created with the intention of managing genetics or the number of mature bucks on the units.

Packout please correct me on this.


----------



## wyoming2utah

bullsnot said:


> Muley73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both the Pauns and the Henrys have ANTLER RESTRICTION management hunts. The DWR believes they are successful ways to manage those units. This is what I am talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Packout can speak to this better than I can but the management hunts were created with the intention of providing a bit more opportunity on these units by allowing hunters to come in and harvest bucks that would otherwise never be harvested by regular tag holders.
> 
> The management hunts were not created with the intention of managing genetics or the number of mature bucks on the units.
> 
> Packout please correct me on this.
Click to expand...

You are exactly right...these restrictions were NOT designed to increase buck/doe ratios but, if anything, to decrease them. They are also very limited tags...

....part of the reason they may work is that the number of illegal kills will certainly go down because the number of tags is much lower than on a general unit with much higher tag allotments. Also, these hunters are more careful in selecting because many/most are looking for a "trophy" or "quality" buck rather than simply a harvestable buck. Big difference.


----------



## Packout

Well, since I have been asked I will oblige. I proposed the management tags while on the Mule Deer Committee. It was interesting to see the push-back from certain individuals, but we got them through. 

Anyway, the intent of the management tags was to kill bucks which would never have been killed by hunters. We thought it would reduce the buck to doe ratio, without putting more pressure on the top-end bucks and allowing more hunting opportunity for a resource which was there. APRs on the LTD areas work because the hunters are very limited, wait years to do the hunt, have to pass a course on the internet, must check in the buck, and have little competition so they do not have to "rush" their decisions. 

Overall, biologists in ID, WY, CO and UT have all said the costs of APRs on a wide scale (illegal kills, all the pressure on the mature bucks) does not warrant the use of the idea for long-term management. Now, some hunters in UT will always say it worked, while I know guys who said it didn't. The guys who thought it worked killed mature bucks and the guys I know who say it didn't found many illegal kills. Back when APRs "worked", didn't we have a larger deer herd? What has changed since? My best friends growing up hunted the Book Cliffs during its APR time. I remember him talking about all the 2 points they found dead and left to rot. Collateral damage of a poor management strategy.

It is my opinion that APRs work for elk because we are shooting the yearlings. Elk are easier to distinguish the antler specifications, in most cases. Hunters respect elk more- as crazy as that sounds- and are less apt to shoot and then check. 

I think one or two season APRs, such as WY may try, may work to save some bucks. I would rather cut tags, than implement APRs, which would be akin to a tent and a camel's nose.


----------



## proutdoors

Muley73 said:


> Pro,
> By all means let's avoid doing something cause it might be difficult. That solves most problems. Still waiting on those elk numbers.


I am NOT afraid of doing something 'difficult', I just oppose doing difficult things that have REPEATEDLY been proven failures! Driving hunters, and potential hunters, away all so YOU can more easily find mature bucks is NOT how 'most problems' are solved.......

As for the elk numbers; tell you what.....you provide the numbers I and others have REPEATEDLY asked for in regards to higher buck:doe ratios being a proven means of increasing deer populations, then I will provide some elk numbers. I won't even ask for you to pony up your 'evidence' that antler restrictions work.............now that is a hell of a deal, yes? :O•-:


----------



## proutdoors

Packout, yet another excellent post!


----------



## 2full

Yes indeed, very well put Packout.


----------



## Finnegan

Packout said:


> Well, since I have been asked I will oblige. I proposed the management tags while on the Mule Deer Committee. It was interesting to see the push-back from certain individuals, but we got them through.


If I remember correctly, I was one of those pushing back. I definitely remember that the word "trophy" was getting tossed around way too much for my liking, creating at least the appearance not only that the committee was overly concerned with trophy management but that we were asking the DWR (state) to define "trophy" as a hunting regulation... never mind the apparent contradiction between having an antler restricted hunt just as we were rejecting the notion of antler restrictions.

For example, when I proposed that the committee become a permanent standing committee, (still a good idea), the most vocal rep on the committee blustered that "he" didn't have time for such a committee. But when the Pauns came up at our last meeting and I suggested that we were running out of time, the same rep proudly declared that he was willing to continue meeting for as long as it took. Seemed like some seriously messed up priorities to me at the time. Still does.

In retrospect, I may have been wrong about possible effects of the management hunt. But I still maintain, stronger than ever, that managing for antlers is poor management. Seriously, there are much bigger problems on the Pauns than "inferior bucks". In a few years, _Friends of the Pauns_ will be wishing they'd paid more attention to those problems.


----------



## Packout

Finn- I remember your stance on the issue. You were not the "push-back" I was thinking of though. Your reservations with the strategy are valid, but I just think it was the only viable way to go on those 2 units. I might have let the camel's nose in, as we now see some interpret the APR's success on very limited management hunts and think it can be a widely used strategy.


----------

