3 Point Rule

[BikerRN]

Howdy all.

 

I was on another website, sorry Amanda but I do have to visit other sites to help keep fresh ideas in my pea sized brain sometimes, and the discussion was on instituting a 3 Point Rule for Mule Deer. I realize this site is dedicated to the Grey Ghost, but I think some of the issues are, or could be, relevant to the Coues Deer. This is what I had to say regarding a 3 Point Rule. What say you all?

 

Interesting topic.

 

As a kid I remember reading a magazine article written by a Game Biologist. What I distinctly remember is that a "spike" was an animal of inferior genetics. He was of the opinion that spikes should be shot, and the meat harvested at every opportunity to take them out of the gene pool. Was he right? I have no idea, as wildlife biology isn't my forte'. I do know that spikes taste good on a plate though, so I'm willing to shoot one if that's what presents me with the opportunity.

 

If the latter is true then restricting the deer taken by the number of points on the antler is folly. I am inclined to believe that the deprivation of predators can only be a good thing. Since we let the voters in Tucson and Phoenix decide how game management should be achieved we have lost Trapping as an effective means of predator control. Back in my younger years I remember that coyotes were poisoned by Game and Fish. The rabbit population grew out of control, but the deer herds grew also. Now I hardly see a rabbit when compared to yesterday, but I sure see plenty of coyotes.

 

What's the answer? I don't know. I do know that I am convinced that when man introduces himself in to a situation he manages to mess things up for the wildlife. Common sense game management doesn't seem to be very popular with the voters, the majority of them don't even hunt, yet they seem to think they are qualified to decide matters of such importance. So, the long winded answer to your question: "Who is in favor of a 3pt rule?" is not I.

 

Biker

 

I'm interested in what you all think.

 

Biker

[AntlerObsession]

It makes sense that with a minimum points rule, bucks with good genes get shot whether they are 1.5 years old or 10, and genetically inferior bucks then pass on their genes, whether they're 1.5 or 10.

 

That is the dilemma with everything hunting. Unless you pattern a buck for a few years, its difficult to tell the maturity of a buck, where he is at in his development. By shooting the first big buck we see, we may be cutting short the very genes we want to see in future generations!

[308Nut]

If a game department want to increase buck trophy potential, they should go with a 'spike' only rule for a few years. After a few years many of the lesser genes are gone and first year bucks will be 2 point bucks making them illegal. After a few years of spikes getting harder and harder to find, viola.

 

The goal is to weed out the ones you dont want. That cannot be done with a 3 or 4 point rule.

 

I will use Washington and Alaska as an example:

 

Some number of years ago there were some areas in Washington that were changed from branch antlered bull elk to spike only. After 10 yards or so there were not a whole lot of spikes to go around. Most of the first year bulls were forked and there was a whole host of mature trophy bulls available. At first the sportsmans bi^@$! and moaned but after about 10 years they were all pretty happy with the results.

 

In Alaska, we have a 'full curl' rule for dall sheep. The idea was so that the resource would be protected. Only mature males would be harvested and younger 'illegal' rams would take their place. The problem is that full curl rams are becoming MUCH more difficult to find. This is because the full curl genes are being wiped out. We can still shoot sub full curl rams IF they are age legal (8+ years). Many times you cannot judge age legal rams in the field on the hoof. We can also shoot broomed rams. The problem there is that it takes a full curl to put their horns in a place where it can get a broom. From a trophy percpective, the full curl rule DOES NOT work.

[soazarcher]

The theory that spikes are genetically inferior has been disproven many, many times.

[BikerRN]

The theory that spikes are genetically inferior has been disproven many, many times.

 

Got any research material to support that?

 

As I said, my information came from a magazine article many years ago.

 

Biker

[AzHuntingAddict]

Wait, am I missing something here? A spike is a yearling, young buck right? How is a young buck genetically inferior?

[BikerRN]

Wait, am I missing something here? A spike is a yearling, young buck right? How is a young buck genetically inferior?

 

I was taught that a spike can be of any age, and that it's just an old wives tale that a spike is a yearling. That makes it genetically inferior if what I was taught is true.

 

I am asking for proof that a spike is not genetically inferior because I don't know.

 

Biker

[CaptSam]

There have been studies conducted on this very subject on eastern whitetail bucks. I know you are asking about mule deer bucks, but I would think each species share enough genes to be comparable. Check out these two articles about "cull" bucks and "genetic inferior" bucks...

 

http://qdmworks.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/why-we-cant-manage-deer-genetics/

 

http://www.deerhuntingpros.com/deer-hunting-what-is-a-cull-buck/

[SunDevil]

Pennsylvanie instituted a point restriction a few years ago. it was hotly debated. within a few years they found that success rates returned to normal and the avg age and size (antler size and body size) of the deer being harvest had gone up.

[azslim]

The guy that pushed for it called it QDM - Quality Deer Management, was a few articles about it over the years.

[billrquimby]

Pennsylvanie instituted a point restriction a few years ago. it was hotly debated. within a few years they found that success rates returned to normal and the avg age and size (antler size and body size) of the deer being harvest had gone up.

 

 

Pennsylvania has 25 times more people hunting deer (as well as a heck of a lot more deer) than we do. More importantly, it does not have the large number of deer-eating predators that we have. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Bill Quimby

[SunDevil]

Pennsylvanie instituted a point restriction a few years ago. it was hotly debated. within a few years they found that success rates returned to normal and the avg age and size (antler size and body size) of the deer being harvest had gone up.

 

 

Pennsylvania has 25 times more people hunting deer (as well as a heck of a lot more deer) than we do. More importantly, it does not have the large number of deer-eating predators that we have. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Bill Quimby

 

well both are fruit and I would imagine the same fruit management programs that would be put in place to grow big apples could also be used to grow big oranges.

[DubTee]

I did not read the research articles about culling or QDM, but as a transplanted midwesterner I am very familiar with both of those subjects. As soazarcher eluded to, spikes are yearlings 99% of the time. It has been proven that they can grow into very nice bucks given time. Most of what I have read is that spike bucks are 1.5 years old and many were born a bit later (by does who were bred later), or frequency of spikes increases as feed quality decreases, maybe due to tough weather conditions, etc. As many of the culling articles will tell you, it is very hard to cull inferior genes out of a free ranging herd. Antler restrictions are put in place to increase the average age of harvested animals, thus protecting a majority of the younger ones. Generally there are good genetics around, many larger antlered animals get to breed, the "inferior" small antlered animals are almost selectively bred out anyway. What is pretty much a must for trophy animals is age, antler restrictions can help protect younger bucks. All the talk about there being a bunch of dead deer around under AR because hunters will shoot first and ask questions later is bologna in my opinion. Sure, a few would be mistakingly shot, but poaching is poaching. I have also heard that there would be no big bucks left if AR is implemented because you can't shoot the younger/smaller ones any more. Horsecrap, most hunters cannot find a buck, let alone a mature one, age will protect the bigger ones just like it always has. I'm not sure on 308nut's washington example. I have been directly involved in 12 or so elk hunts in AZ and NM over the past 3 years, filtered through thousands of trail cam pics of elk, and very rarely do I find a 1.5 year old bull that isn't a spike. If a young bull does fork, it is usually just one side, making him legal for the spike hunt. I have not seen a bunch of inferior bulls in the areas we hunt, even though there are tons of spikes around. If washington went from branch antlered to spike only, then there were a bunch of mature bulls around years later due to the fact that you could not kill them. Reasonable antler restrictions work in producing more older aged animals (usually sporting trophy head gear) because it protects animals when they are most vulnerable (young). Put some age on them, and they'll protect themselves. Any consistently successful trophy hunter (who does the actual hunting) will tell you that mature animals are different, they move on different paths, at different times. That is why most mature animals are killed during breeding seasons (really the only time a mature buck/bull is truly vulnerable). Like Bill Q. said, I'm not sure AR would work throughout AZ like it has in other states. However, I do think AR could be used in alternative management areas like the Kaibab or possibly in other specific units for muleys, coues, or elk for that matter. Biker, here is an article with research done by one of the most respected deer experts in the field regarding spikes, hope this helps.

 

http://www.petersenshunting.com/content/shooting-spike-bucks/1

[BikerRN]

Thank you all for giving me much to think about.

 

I used to think that spikes were usually yearlings, but then had my thinking change due to supposed "research" and a published article. It makes one wonder when you have two "experts" that come to different conclusions with what is pretty much the same data. God it's frustrating.

 

Biker

[NTBoy]

Just a couple of comments from an outsider as far as hunting in Arizona goes, most of my deer hunting experience is here in Texas, at least as far as white tails are concerned.

 

Texas has been trying various "QDM" type programs and while some folks like them, a lot of folks don't. I also have friends in Pennsylvania that are not overly impressed with the programs that are in place up there.

 

I killed my first white tail in 1970, so do have some experience. Spikes usually are genetically inferior deer. Bucks that have spike antlers at 1.5 years old may eventually have branched antlers but rarely ever develope normal main frame 8 point or better racks with very very much mass to them.

 

It is too difficult to accurately age a deer on the hoof in the wild as someone else stated. In my opinion, that is why the states that develope plans, base it on the size of or number of points on the bucks antlers.

 

Some counties here in Texas require a legal buck to have a minimum inside antler spread of 13 inches. It is really hard to tell the difference in a legal 13 1/2 inch buck and an illegal 12 3/4 inch buck at 100+ yards. That is not a big deal for trophy hunters, but for folks just wanting some meat it may mean going 2 or 3 years without getting a buck.

 

For me that is no problem, as all I shoot any more is does. In some of the counties with the AR's the limit is 5 deer with a limit of 2 bucks, only one of which can be a "Trophy" buck, or a hunter can legally shoot 2 spikes, and is encouraged to do so.

 

The problem I have observed with the 13" rule, is there are bucks in the herd that while having 8 or 10 point racks, will never on their best day make 13 inches inside spread, no matter how much protein feed they have available, and as someone else stated those bucks with those inferior genetics, do their fair share of breeding and passing those genes along.

 

Same can be said for spikes, as I have killed or been in on the killing of spikes that were over 3.5 and even older.

 

I just feel that some of the various schemes of deer management that are based on the antlers don't really, in the long run, benefit the health of the deer herd. Could be wrong on that, but with as many deer as we have here in Texas, I really don't think that TP&W has real time data as to the makeup of the herd in any one area.

 

Sorry for the ramble folks, just stating an observation.