CouesRanger Report post Posted January 8, 2013 I was just wondering on everyones take on antler restrictions here in AZ. I guided in northern Colorado where the bulls must have 4 points on atleast one side in order to be harvested. I personally like the idea and was wondering how many of you agree. For all whitetail, muledeer, and elk I think there should be somekind of antler growth before it can be taken. It would result in larger animals Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AverageJoe Report post Posted January 8, 2013 Against it. If someone wants to shoot a spike, let em. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
6ANut Report post Posted January 8, 2013 Antler restrictions means more animals accidentally shot. Seen it with my own two eyes in Colorado and my late pa would roll over in his grave if I couldn't shoot any more spike elk. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
izquik72 Report post Posted January 8, 2013 It seems AZ has bigger elk than Colorado. I say leave it alone 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alpinebullwinkle Report post Posted January 8, 2013 No quality issues for Arizona unlike Colorado has for many reasons. Actually we used to have a horn limitation on the early gun bull hunts in September back in the 1970's. Don't see any reason to justify the proposed change for Arizona Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
goinhuntn Report post Posted January 9, 2013 Arizona is good the way it is!! Not everyone is out to kill a trophy and if someone wants to shoot a spike thats up to them!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CouesRanger Report post Posted January 9, 2013 People who shoot spikes are not always looking for spikes though. If there were restrictions the percentage of decent mature bucks would increase and the spike hunters would be able to harvest a bigger bull or buck. I myself have shot a spike just wanted everyone's input. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucafu1 Report post Posted January 9, 2013 you cant eat the horns. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CouesRanger Report post Posted January 9, 2013 True, horns are a bonus for sure Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yotebuster Report post Posted January 9, 2013 Colorado has a spike law so their cows get bred. Every single branch antlered bull gets shot in a lot of units in Colorado in the oct-nov hunts, and they'd kill every spike too if they were legal. Protecting the spikes assures that the following year will have a crop of raghorns to breed the cows before the whack the heck out of them in the following gun season. AZ is doing incredible managing their elk herds IMO. A lot of guys will argue that they over shoot them in az but my guess is they don't know how good they have it and haven't hunted an aweful elk state before! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Payne Report post Posted January 10, 2013 CouesRanger, I totally agree with you on all accounts. Utah has implemented antler restrictions and the trophy quality has shown significant improvement. In fact, Elk Hunter Magazine recently ranked a limited draw Utah bull tag as the No. 1 quality bull elk hunt in the west over Arizona. The problem with Colorado is they simply offer way too many tags with so many of them being OTC. You aren't going to make many friends on this forum by bringing up this topic though. Whenever it gets brought up everyone becomes a meat hunter and doesn't care about antlers anymore. I am a trophy hunter through and through and to me some delicious lean meat is a nice "bonus." Maybe that makes my motives wrong in some peoples eyes but at least I am honest with myself. I really don't see how people are willing to spend $1000+ on optics, $1000+ on long rang rifles, $$$$$ on tags, licenses, camping gear, 4x4 trucks, gas, meat processing, ammo, etc., etc. and then say all that really matters is the meat. You are looking at hundreds of dollars/pound for game meat when all is said and done. Last I checked T-bones were only about $10/lb at the grocery store. If it really is all about the meat then just put in for a cow tag every year and let us that care about antlers propose things like antler restrictions. The odds and success rates are a lot better for cow tags. With the way G&F keeps increasing tags it is going to get harder and harder to find trophy animals. Everybody wants to kill a monster but no one is willing to sacrafice the chance of killing a spike or raghorn for a few years to increase the age class of the animals. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azcouesfanatic Report post Posted January 10, 2013 +1 I totally agree with you on all accounts. Utah has implemented antler restrictions and the trophy quality has shown significant improvement. In fact, Elk Hunter Magazine recently ranked a limited draw Utah bull tag as the No. 1 quality bull elk hunt in the west over Arizona. The problem with Colorado is they simply offer way too many tags with so many of them being OTC. You aren't going to make many friends on this forum by bringing up this topic though. Whenever it gets brought up everyone becomes a meat hunter and doesn't care about antlers anymore. I am a trophy hunter through and through and to me some delicious lean meat is a nice "bonus." Maybe that makes my motives wrong in some peoples eyes but at least I am honest with myself. I really don't see how people are willing to spend $1000+ on optics, $1000+ on long rang rifles, $$$$$ on tags, licenses, camping gear, 4x4 trucks, gas, meat processing, ammo, etc., etc. and then say all that really matters is the meat. You are looking at hundreds of dollars/pound for game meat when all is said and done. Last I checked T-bones were only about $10/lb at the grocery store. If it really is all about the meat then just put in for a cow tag every year and let us that care about antlers propose things like antler restrictions. The odds and success rates are a lot better for cow tags. With the way G&F keeps increasing tags it is going to get harder and harder to find trophy animals. Everybody wants to kill a monster but no one is willing to sacrafice the chance of killing a spike or raghorn for a few years to increase the age class of the animals. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jim Report post Posted January 10, 2013 I would be all for the restrictions. That would totally increase the horn size for elk. Thats why san carlos has the mass on their elk in their trophy area's. Bulls have a chance to get older and grow more mass because they are not getting killed at 3 to 5 years old. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AZkiller Report post Posted January 10, 2013 I would be all for the restrictions. That would totally increase the horn size for elk. Thats why san carlos has the mass on their elk in their trophy area's. Bulls have a chance to get older and grow more mass because they are not getting killed at 3 to 5 years old. San Carlos has those elk because they don't shoot the heck out of them or have nearly the "Oppertunity" that we do. All for it! 6pts or more! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flatlander Report post Posted January 10, 2013 I was just wondering on everyones take on antler restrictions here in AZ. I guided in northern Colorado where the bulls must have 4 points on atleast one side in order to be harvested. I personally like the idea and was wondering how many of you agree. For all whitetail, muledeer, and elk I think there should be somekind of antler growth before it can be taken. It would result in larger animals This is the part of the argument I disagree with. I have hunted antler restriction units and what I saw was actually the opposite. In this case the mandated harvest of 4 point mule deer encouraged bad genetics and created a lower "trophy quality" among surviving bucks. What would benefit AZ's game from this restriction is the overall lower harvest. Less animals harvested = more animals growing to maturity. Specifically regarding coues deer I see a practical problem. Whitetail antlers are small and many of the tines are barely more than an inch long. I do not own a pair of Kowa's. I do own 15's but I cannot honestly say that I can see every little tine on every buck, and my hunting style is predominantly glassing. I know a lot of guys who still like to "Bust Brush" or try to jump deer and even others who glass but do not own 15's. I see it as an added burden on these guys to either change their hunting style or upgrade their gear. Hunting is expensive already and not everyone spends $1000+ on optics, $1000+ on long range rifles, etc. For those guys, requiring them to count every point before shooting would do two things, decrease their odds of success and increase the number of accidental game violations. I am not a supporter for this restriction on any species. One Utah hunt out ranking Arizona's is not a great indicator of the success of this program. If you spend any time in UT forums (which I do being a former resident of that state) you would find the same complaints we have here: All the big bulls are gone, They issue too many tags, etc. Another thing that really benefits UT is that their archery hunts are so early. These hunts are not in the heat of the rut like AZ's. This prevents a lot of big bulls from getting arrows put in them. Lastly UT conducts a general, OTC spike hunt throughout most of the state. Clearly that practice would not benefit AZ, so cherry picking which management practices they use and giving them credit for their increased quality is probably not a wise choice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
