Antler Restrictions Poll

[Tom Borck]

In your opinion does strict antler restrictions (ie. min. spread, points, etc.) benefit the heard?

 

[gadeerwoman]

depends on how you define 'benefit'. Do they help get a larger percentage of older bucks in the herd, yes. If you mean do they do anything for the overall health of a deer herd, no, other than possibly allowing for a reduction in population due to increased doe harvest in overpopulated areas.

 

[Jorge]

I voted no only because of the simplicity of the question. I don't believe antler restrictions alone benefit the herd. With that stated, we have antler restrictions on our club, which benefits our ability to harvest mature bucks. We also have other practices that are in place that further help our ability to harvest mature bucks and benefit the herd as a whole by lowering the deer population, balancing the sex ratio, and providing quality year-round food plots that can support the herd.

Jorge

 

[Junebug]

Benefit the herd; yes I think so. Though actually (over the longterm) I think it could possibly result in high-grading.

 

[Tom Borck]

Keep it simple. "benefit the heard" or or help the enitre heard......does, yearling, bucks both small and large.

 

[Jim Thompson]

Benefits the age of the bucks, that is about it.

(which I tend to enjoy)

Jim

 

[HT2]

Agreed...........

Benefits the age of the bucks, that is about it.

(which I tend to enjoy)

Jim

I'm with JT on this one.........

And, I like it too!!!!!!

 

[JBowers]

Based specifically on the question as asked, No.

 

[Jeff Phillips]

I agreed with John.

Antler restrictions alone don't do a thing to help the herd.

They also result in the killing of your best young deer. A2.5 year old 8 point that is wide as his ears gets shot, while the 2.5 year old basket 6 point walks.

I much prefer hunting for 3.5+ year old bucks.

 

[GeauxLSU]

No

I doubt selective harvest on something as arbitrary as antler size would do any species good.
The only potential 'benefit to the entire herd' would I guess be true random harvest of animals of all types assuming an overpopulation situation. In a normal population, culling the weak and/or inferior could help.
I can not think of any scenario where killing only the 'physically most desireable' (however you define it) is beneficial.
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

 

[GeauxLSU]

PS - Think if something was selectively killing (hunting) humans. They only killed big (say 6'0" and taller) healthy males in their prime, say between 17 and 30 years old. What do you suppose would happen to our population?
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

 

[Jeff Phillips]

PS - Think if something was selectively killing (hunting) humans. They only killed big (say 6'0" and taller) healthy males in their prime, say between 17 and 30 years old. What do you suppose would happen to our population?
Hunt/fish safely,
Phil

I'd have a lot of fun

I'm 5'11" and way past my prime

 

[Junebug]

Assumption: In a herd where the sex ratio is unbalanced, efforts to yield an equal proportion of bucks and does is beneficial (from a biological perspective).

If an antler restriction (of any specification) allows a buck (any buck) to survive in a herd with a lopsided ratio, isn't that a positve?

 

[Perry Hayes]

No, they have the genes when they are born.