Thoughts on EAB - combined threads

[Lunatic]

Lunatic - let me clear up what I am saying.

 

I agree with you there are bucks in the woods. I am hunting a property now that is a sausage fest!!! I am getting 3 bucks to 1 doe on camera right now. We haven't shot a button or small scrub buck on this property and the improvement is showing. So there are bucks in the woods.

 

If hunters/clubs are shoot the buttons on their property for a chance to shot a legit racked buck, they are killing their future and that is probably why they are seeing less bucks. You can't have it both ways.

 

IF EAB were to go away we have the potential for more bucks. If hunters policies themselves regardless of what the regs are it would also help! Just because you have the RIGHT doesn't make it right. We as hunters need to not just do something because the regs say we can.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I understand. At the end it comes down to letting more bucks live and maybe the best way to do it is to protect young animals.

[Oneday121o]

"No Buck = No reason to hunt" - maybe for you and if that is your hunting beliefs that is fine for you. For others that isn't he case. Meat hunters looking just to fill the freezer to get through the year to the next hunting season. Not everyone just hunts horn.

Also more does = more deer is accurate to a degree but if there isn't a balance and you read QDMA to many does is also a bad thing. Bucks run themselves into the ground breeding. The rut also trickles and is why in this state does see some of the strong chase other states see.

This state needs more "management" for the right reasons. We will NOT all agree, we all hunt for different reasons. The choices the state makes needs to be for the betterment of the herd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

have you hunted public land before??? Trust me there is plenty of QDMA! Early season is the only time I see bucks before they scatter from the pressure! Last year I saw 2 doe...

[Lunatic]

have you hunted public land before??? Trust me there is plenty of QDMA! Early season is the only time I see bucks before they scatter from the pressure! Last year I saw 2 doe...

 

I think the incredible and constant pressure on public land is the main reason people see very few deer.  

[BenedictGomez]

 I understand the argument about not killing the genetically inferior bucks causes them to live and then spread their genes.  

 

Yes, but it's worse than that.  You're also killing the genetically superior bucks, keeping many of them from living another year (or two, or even three maybe) and having further breeding opportunities to pass on their excellent antler genes.

[SlugsnArrows]

have you hunted public land before??? Trust me there is plenty of QDMA! Early season is the only time I see bucks before they scatter from the pressure! Last year I saw 2 doe...

Yes - hated it and went out and found some private land.

 

I got tired of listening to the war zone during 6 day. People walking through my area as I sat and the Orange army yelling Yo Buck.

 

It takes time and effort to acquire Private Land but once you do you won't hunt public again.

 

For those that do hunt public and like it awesome I know a bunch that do and are successful.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BenedictGomez]

 

But, the PGC has published alot of data about it and it seems to support it.  Here is a link that has some older data:  

http://www.pgc.pa.gov/Wildlife/WildlifeSpecies/White-tailedDeer/Pages/AntlerRestrictionsAreTheyWorking.aspx.  

 

Read the section entitled: Biology: Genetic impacts.  In summary they are:

 

1.  Yearling antler growth is a poor predictor of mature antler growth.  So, using yearling growth antler points as a restriction shouldn't have a large negative impact on mature antler growth.  In other words, that yearling 4 pointer may become a 10 pointer.  That yearling 6 pointer may never be more than 6.  

2.  Most deer are taken after breeding anyway (at least in PA due to firearms season).   So, the APR doesn't influence whether or not the genes are passed on.  Or doesn't largely impact it at least...

3.  Does contribute 1/2 of the genetics that impact antler growth.  So, APRs don't impact that aspect.  

4.  Mature males don't dominate breeding.  So, that 4.5 y/o fork isn't crowding out the smaller 8 point.  

I have found these arguments compelling; but keep an open mind about it.  

 

The above is such shockingly poor scientific "analysis" that the only rationale I can draw is that it was obviously written by PA Fish & Game with an eye and a bias towards "support" of their PA antler restrictions. 

 

  At best it leaves out all the relevant "buts" that would refute and weaken their position in the reader's mind, which they should have included if honesty was their intention.  At worst one part of it is completely false.

Edited July 24, 2017 by BenedictGomez

[Pathman]

"In other words, that yearling 4 pointer may become a 10 pointer. That yearling 6 pointer may never be more than 6."

 

This may be the case, BUT, their study doesn't acknowledge the yearling 8-10 point bucks that meet the APR restriction and are killed as yearlings. These young males are starting out as young genetically superior deer, and are killed before their potential can be reached, where the more inferior males (spikes and fork horns) have to be let go.

So what happens is, they're gambling that the inferior males "might" improve rack size as they get older, rather then betting on the sure thing (8-10 pt yearlings, that are already there) and allowing the younger superior males to get to the next age class instead of being killed as the best yearlings out there.

 

That being said, it's hard to argue with their data regarding percentage of yearlings that were killed (80%) prior to APRs, as opposed to after APRs were implemented. There's a significant difference, and maybe they're striking a balance between a larger number of 2.5 yr old males, which the majority of hunters are happy taking, as opposed to possibly growing fewer, but higher caliber bucks.

 

As usual, it's difficult to make everyone happy, and I would guess if the majority of hunters were polled, they'd opt for quantity over quality.

Plus, Low densities don't sell licenses or tags.

[BenedictGomez]

 their study doesn't acknowledge the yearling 8-10 point bucks that meet the APR restriction and are killed as yearlings. These young males are starting out as young genetically superior deer, and are killed before their potential can be reached, where the more inferior males (spikes and fork horns) have to be let go.

 

Precisely.  

 

And it's worse than that really, at every example in the 1-4 listed, the PA Fish & Game is putting the best possible "spin" on it to defend their program, and are intentionally leaving out all the counter negatives (one of which you listed above).

[JHbowhunter]

I had several outstanding year and a half old bucks regularly last summer, early fall.  One was a high 8, the other a freak palmated 10pt...  Although I passed them several times, somebody shot them without APRs in place, and somebody would have shot them with APRs in place.  APRs are not protecting those freak genes regardless..(assuming that a sporty rack at age 1 means freak genes,  as I don't believe there is proof that a same age 4pt or spike that would have been protected by APRs would not grow more bone than the two I mentioned by age 4 or 5...) 

[Pathman]

"I don't believe there is proof that a same age 4pt or spike that would have been protected by APRs would not grow more bone than the two I mentioned by age 4 or 5...)"

 

Not sure I agree with that part of your statement JH if I'm understanding your point.. The "two" you mentioned already had "the right stuff" to be high quality/high scoring bucks if given 2-3 more years of growth, they certainly wouldn't have deteriorated in that time, right? But the spike and four pt. only have the possibility (if the current data is accurate) of "catching up" in the same number of years.

As you mentioned earlier, you've killed a mature freak of a buck (forget what you called him) that only had a few points. So it's evident that a spike or forky can remain that forever, while I don't believe it's possible, under normal conditions, for a yearling 8-10 pt to go backwards, unless old age takes its toll of course.

 

So given the option, which yearling would you prefer to kill if quality males were your objective? You'd have to say the spike or fork, correct?

 

So the objection to APRs is that they inherently protect the wrong males, if quality antlers are your goal. Now, if a game commission attempts to strike a balance between quality and quantity, that's where things get fuzzy!

[JHbowhunter]

"Not sure I agree with that part of your statement JH if I'm understanding your point.. The "two" you mentioned already had "the right stuff" to be high quality/high scoring bucks if given 2-3 more years of growth, they certainly wouldn't have deteriorated in that time, right? But the spike and four pt. only have the possibility (if the current data is accurate) of "catching up" in the same number of years."

 

I would not expect a 1.5 year old 8 or 10pt to go backwards unless they had an injury.  However - I am not convinced that a spike is a spike at age one because of genetics, especially when there is evidence that a spike can easily grow to be 170+ inches.  Isn't it possible that a lot of spikes and forkies were just born much later the year prior as opposed to the 1 year old 8pt? Just figure the difference between being born in April, vs being born in July - 3 months may not make a difference by age 2 or 3, but when both start growing their first set of antlers by end of April, one is 12 months the other is only 9 months old.  

 

The gestation period for a whitetail is about 6.5 months.  Let's say the earliest ones are conceived around October 15, and the later ones being conceived around February 15th.   (there are probably even more extreme outliers than that, but lets leave a 4 month window).  That puts the earliest birth on April 1st, and the latest birth at August 1st.   I could make a case that the following year, when antler growth starts, the buck born 4 months earlier has a huge advantage in antler growth. 

 

Just something to consider, as surely genetics play a huge role but in that first year I believe so does age. 

[Pathman]

I think you're putting way too much into an anomaly regarding the varying conception dates JH. The vast majority are conceived within the regular mid November breeding period, I believe the female fawns that come into estrus late don't have a significant impact in the number of late born male fawns, not to the degree that would impact antler potential on a statewide basis.

 

You have to get out of zone 5 on occasion JH!

[dlist777]

....

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just asking this for my own knowledge.  Reading your responses, I think you agree APRs in PA increased the total supply of bucks and 2.5 y/o's especially but your view is it hurts the supply of big ones by protecting the genetically inferior.  

 

My question is:  If APRs do this, why do most outfitters put APRs in place (or minimum inch requirements)?  I guess one answer is that they can go out and harvest that mature fork as a management hunt to reduce the impact of adverse selection.  They seem to have a real financial incentive to encourage big antlers....

 

 Is there something more to it that I'm missing?

[BenedictGomez]

 

 Is there something more to it that I'm missing?

 

The answer you proposed about killing mature spikes I think is a good one.  It may also be as simple as they don't want all their "new inventory" taken out.   It could also be they arent well-versed in genetics and/or they dont care given it could take a few decades for the negatives to genetically appear (at which point they might not even be in business).  On the flip-side of that, installing APR should IMO lead to bigger racks in the short-term, so there's that benefit as well.

[Pathman]

777, yes I agree that the system creates a larger number of males in general, as well as more 2.5+ males.

 

What you're missing in regards to the private ranches and farms is the fact they use size as a criteria, not simply number of points. A yearling 6 point has the possibility of growing a better set of antlers, but a 4.5 yr old 6 point has pretty much shown most of its potential, so they will take that buck out as a so called management buck. You'll never see those guys take out a yearling or 2.5 yr old 8-10-12 point, that defeats the entire purpose, but in state APR programs, that's the only males that are allowed to be taken!

 

That's the main objection in state run APR programs, simply using number of points as the sole criteria has unwanted effects (one being the killing of young superior males) on the overall impact and effectiveness of a quality Buck program.