3 point min or spike only to improve trophy quality?

[Pete112288]

I have heard quite a bit of debate about this and would like some good opinions. I have heard that the 3 point min is causing the average bull taken in general areas to be smaller, that heard bulls are averaging smaller. A book I read talked about this in detail "Hunting High Pressure Elk" I think is what it was called. The spike only units with having special draw for mature bulls makes sense to me. That way any bull that makes it past those early spike year(s) has a safety cushon to grow bigger. Rather than having to fight to live every year after it hits 3 points. I have seen the same idea work well for bass fishing, you can keep more smaller ones, but only one over into the "trophy" size, this way more trophies stay and it takes out the compitition when they are young so its easier for the survivors to become healthy trophies. Any thoughts anyone? If anyone sees any flaws in my logic please point it out to me. Would you rather have 3 point mins for general season or spike only with special draws for branched bulls? Im thinking about the idea of increasing trophy quality and numbers.

[rtspring]

Huge fan of spike only! You still get to hunt every year. Plus the caliber of bulls is amazing conpared to say the  80'S.  I will hunt spikes until I draw the coveted tags!!! Plus they taste great...

[Jonathan_S]

I'm not sure.  I don't think APR is generally implemented to "improve trophy quality" I think it's more of a herd management tool.

I, for one, would not support a spike only restriction on Roosevelt Elk without seeing some hard evidence that it would help the herd(s). 

[Pete112288]

I like the idea of what rtspring said, that was my exact thoughts. But that is true as well that it would be nice to see some evidence of it working on the westside first. All I know is that in the area of the 550 I hunt, I cant go up without seeing almost more spikes than cows. I see groups of 10-30 animals and it is very common for me to see over half of each group is spikes. The record for me so far just had my jaw dropped. Scouting in August I saw a group of 27 elk, 1 BIG bull (never got a good count on points it was in and out of the trees, I was watching this group from 700 or so yards across a ravine with the spotting scope for an hour or so) 7 cows, 1 calf, 18 spikes. Then on the hike out going the other direction saw another group of 6, 2 were cows, 4 were spikes.

[jay.sharkbait]

Trophy schmofy

I shoot the first legal animal I see.

[Humptulips]

Trophy schmofy

I shoot the first legal animal I see.

 
I killed some big bulls when it was any bull, not since. IMO it's just a way to limit hunters and sell special hunt apps.

[jackmaster]

genetics is what improves the quality, feed and minerals and good genetics is everything, kull out the degens and let good genetics take over

[Halo]

I dont think we can take a one size fits all approch in Washington with all the differences in units, East side vs West side, Rosevelt's vs Rocky's and tribes not on board with the same rules and management plan.

[PlateauNDN]

   I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way.  Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.

[huntnphool]

  I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way.  Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.

+1

[JLS]

  I was just going to bring this up since I seeing it going that way.  Less road access would be of better improvement in certain areas/units.

+1

+2

The genetics are already there. 

[bobcat]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

[JLS]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

That can be done with APR's, limiting access, or limiting the number of hunters.

I'd be a strong supporter of limited access with the use of gates, but the problem is it seems the state wants to give the Indian tribes keys to all the gates. Not sure if the same thing is happening on federal lands.

APR's are kind of the same deal. Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.....

Who cares about creating more trophies that can be shot on winter range and sold for a profit?

[Jonathan_S]

The "age vs genetics" debate is valid only if animals are living long enough so in a lot of cases it's a moot point.  Most people would be happy to shoot a 4.5 year old bull with bad genes 

Why limit us to only spikes, or 3 point minimum, when another group of people don't have to follow the same rules? All it does is create trophy areas for them, and less opportunity for us.

  

[bobcat]

I don't think genetics is a very important factor. It's more an issue of age. You have to let the bulls grow up for them to reach their true potential.

Sure they are.  An old bull or buck with crappy genetics may not equal a four year old with great genetics.

I agree, but as you said in your previous post- "the genetics are already there."