new info on 4 pt restriction

[bearpaw]

I say SHUT IT DOWN.   No whitetail season this year.


Instead, open a wolf season and all those deer hunters can target wolves instead.   It's a win/win situation...

No doubt that would increase the deer herd...

[huntnnw]

I lived in north spokane in 124 unit the very fringe... this was a urban area..no shooting zone in most of the area... I would consistently see 30-50 does an evening in November.. I saw 2 antlered bucks the whole late season something is wrong with herd management... I cross the river into 127.. same setting most of it no shooting..urban area and see 12-20 bucks an evening!!! everytime I venture into the area. The habitat in the north half compared to south of the river in 127 is better up north, far more alfalfa and winter wheat, more browse and its thicker.

[muleyguy]

I can tell you this for absolute certain and you can not say this is wrong:  "If the state is too narrow minded to try an APR in NE WA, we will never know if it would have worked or not worked."

Is there something magical about NE WA that will make it "work" there??  The studies I linked to were from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and Mississippi Game commisions;

the argument "for" APR's many times is that in thick habitat bucks will get more escapement out of the 2.5 yr old class;  but, the data does not show that;  it shows the same thing happens in whitetail populations that it does in mule deer populations over time.  The habitat in Pennsylvania and Mississippi is very simalar to NE WA;

There is nothing to suggest that NE WA is some special place where APR's will mysteriously work.

If APR's don't work then why do we have them all over the state?

Because WA state is trying to find gimmicks to the problem instead of taking the hard medicine of reducing tag's; 

Here is a better questions to ask: WHY is WA the only Western State that still has APR's for its mule deer herd?

are we just "smarter" here???  no, the answer is all the rest of the states have scrapped APR's for mule deer because they are a disaster and not a solution.

If you are saying they don't work, then why don't we remove them all?

We SHOULD get rid of them all; especially in our mule deer herds as every other Western State has gotten rid of them;


Here is research from the Mule Deer Working Group of APR:

Antler point restrictions

Creating mule deer harvest seasons with antler point restrictions is popular amongst hunters who think it will help increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios in mule deer populations. But research in many western states shows that antler point restrictions do not produce more deer or larger-antlered deer.

Colorado implemented antler point restrictions statewide for six years, and in a number of game units for seven years. The result was a shift of hunting from pressure on all age classes of bucks (primarily yearlings) to bucks two years and older, and an increase in illegal or accidental harvest of yearling bucks. The number of mature bucks did not increase over time.

Idaho and Montana implemented two points or less seasons to reduce hunting pressure on older bucks and improve buck:doe ratios at the end of hunting seasons. Over the long term, two point seasons did not improve buck:doe ratios at the end of the hunting seasons.

Wyoming’s experience with four point or better seasons resulted in fewer hunters and a reduction in total harvest, fewer mature bucks, and a significant number of deer harvested with fewer than four points.

Utah abandoned efforts to implement antler point restrictions after five years when officials documented illegal harvest, reductions in overall harvest and fewer mature bucks.

Attempts to increase the number of mature bucks and buck:doe ratios using four-point seasons in Montana reduced buck harvest by 28 percent, increased illegal harvest of bucks with 3x3 points or less by about 40 percent, and increased harvest of bucks having more than 3x4 points.

Washington tried antler point restrictions in a few of their hunting units and experienced a smaller harvest of mule deer bucks, a switch in harvest from mule deer to white-tailed deer, and no increase in the number of mature bucks.

Oregon abandoned antler point restrictions in a few popular hunting areas when the number of older bucks and buck:doe ratios decreased after 12 years.

Most western states have concluded that changes in buck:doe ratios and increases in the number of mature bucks can only be accomplished through reductions in harvest of bucks.

If your goal is to shift harvest from 1.5 yr old animals to 2.5 yr old animals and have no corressponding increase in bucks, and have lower mature buck populations, then, by all means APR's are the way to go.  If your goal is "increase" deer herds, it isn't going to help in that regard;  if your goal is increase total numbers of bucks, it isn't going to do that either;  and, if it is your goal to increase mature bucks, it isn't going to do that one either;

It will simply shift harvest up 1 yr and create a bubble of 1.5 yr old deer in your population;  and, over time, will degrade your mature buck population;

The reason APR's are popular in WA is because we all think that will solve the problem so we don't have to take the hard medicine of reduced tag numbers;

There are a number of eastern states that use APR's;  but, the reason they do is the same reason why people want them here:  They want to shoot 2.5 yr old animals instead of 1.5 yr old animals;

once again, the "cost" of shooting one age class higher bucks takes a tremendous long term toll on the buck structure of the population; 

[1bugman]

 

[huntnnw]

Come take a drive with me this Nov in 127 and tell me apr dont work... then I will take you for a drive in some of the best areas in 121,117 and 124 and u can observe... The deer in 127 get hunted harder than most of the whitetails in this state and the cover is much thinner and the bowhunting pressure is tremendous.

[Miles]

Come take a drive with me this Nov in 127 and tell me apr dont work... then I will take you for a drive in some of the best areas in 121,117 and 124 and u can observe... The deer in 127 get hunted harder than most of the whitetails in this state and the cover is much thinner and the bowhunting pressure is tremendous.

Shane,

We have already discussed this numerous times, yet you keep going back there.   There are so many differences between the units south of the river, and those to the north.  Habitat, winter severity(snow accumulation), terrain, no late rifle season, shorter rifle season, etc...   To attribute the higher number of bucks seen to a 3 pt APR is a little much, don't you think?

[Miles]

Put the General rifle season at one week north of the river, and remove the late buck (rifle).  Then it would be the same as the units you are boasting about there being so many bucks in.   I bet you would see a difference without even implementing an APR.

[huntnnw]

nope.. I seen it before rifle rut..then it opened for 4 years with a general rifle rut hunt then now to what it is with the permit.. it still is,was and has been way better for bucks. The winters are the same, from the area to area I am describing, both are limited shooting zones to mostly bow only. The bowhunter density is greater south of river and the cover is heavier in the north part. I am not talking all the units in the south half or the the ones all over up north. I am basically talking south spokane to north spokane.. alot being the same in every aspect..but one rule 3 pt min. HUGE difference in buck density... and alot it of has to do with 3pt min... almost all the areas described dont get hit with gun hunters no matter what due to no shooting zones.They are compareble in almost everyway. These arent little areas either, from ID line to 195 .I have places where I can hunt almost on the spokane river on the northside, no shooting zone and see some bucks, almost never see them when driving the areas, 5 min and over the river and bucks everywhere, immediate difference. Night and day difference.

[Miles]

nope.. I seen it before rifle rut..then it opened for 4 years with a general rifle rut hunt then now to what it is with the permit.. it still is,was and has been way better for bucks. The winters are the same, from the area to area I am describing, both are limited shooting zones to mostly bow only. The bowhunter density is greater south of river and the cover is heavier in the north part. I am not talking all the units in the south half or the the ones all over up north. I am basically talking south spokane to north spokane.. alot being the same in every aspect..but one rule 3 pt min. HUGE difference in buck density... and alot it of has to do with 3pt min... almost all the areas described dont get hit with gun hunters no matter what due to no shooting zones.They are compareble in almost everyway. These arent little areas either, from ID line to 195 .I have places where I can hunt almost on the spokane river on the northside, no shooting zone and see some bucks, almost never see them when driving the areas, 5 min and over the river and bucks everywhere, immediate difference. Night and day difference.

Ok.   

Good thing the deer can't swim the river...wouldn't want them getting shot by the bowhunter sitting on the northside.

[Miles]

These 4 point whitetail threads have worn me out...and I'm tossing in the towel.   Shoot the bucks, the does, the fawns...I don't care.  Hunt north of the river, south of the river, in the river...I don't care.   I'll go after the mule deer again this year.

[muleyguy]

nope.. I seen it before rifle rut..then it opened for 4 years with a general rifle rut hunt then now to what it is with the permit.. it still is,was and has been way better for bucks. The winters are the same, from the area to area I am describing, both are limited shooting zones to mostly bow only. The bowhunter density is greater south of river and the cover is heavier in the north part. I am not talking all the units in the south half or the the ones all over up north. I am basically talking south spokane to north spokane.. alot being the same in every aspect..but one rule 3 pt min. HUGE difference in buck density... and alot it of has to do with 3pt min... almost all the areas described dont get hit with gun hunters no matter what due to no shooting zones.They are compareble in almost everyway. These arent little areas either, from ID line to 195 .I have places where I can hunt almost on the spokane river on the northside, no shooting zone and see some bucks, almost never see them when driving the areas, 5 min and over the river and bucks everywhere, immediate difference. Night and day difference.

none of this matters;  the reason you are seeing "way better buck density" is because the APR protects yearling bucks from harvest, so, you see them because they are protected;  all you have to do is go look at the harvest report for 127 and you see exactly what the effect of APR's are;  your reference to come take a drive and you can see the difference, explains it perfect..........you are seeing yearling bucks, thats what you see driving around;

all of the harvest is focused on older age class bucks; and, it just shifts the harvest from 1.5 yr old deer to 2.5 yr old deer;  then compare it the harvest in 121 or 124 and you see a much better spreading of the harvest over all the age classes;

3pt and 4 pt APR's protect the yearling class of bucks, and shifts the harvest up one age class;  so, in the typical deer season now, the average hunter is seeing a bunch of yearling bucks running around (because they are protected) and shoots a 2.5 yr old buck.

To a WA hunter, this seems like heaven;  you see more bucks during the day (even though they are yearlings) and you can tell all your buddies that saw 7 bucks today instead of 1; and, you get to shoot a 2.5 yr old deer with a slightly bigger rack;

If that is your goal, then 3pt or 4pt APR's will achieve that very well;  the problem is that it comes at a high cost to the buck structure of the population; can skew genetics towards smaller animals and results in younger bucks doing more of the breeding.

If you want an APR structure that would work much better (even these have problems though), then this would be the structure:

2 pt or less;

you instantly protect every age class of buck above 1.5yr old;  every buck that makes it past his 1st year is "safe";  after several years, when you achieve proper buck to doe ratio's, then you can give out special tags for 3pt or larger bucks;

this type of APR protects the OLDER age class bucks, and lets them do the breeding;  you eventually get a stockpile of older age class bucks and you can give out special opportunities to harvest those bucks;

anybody who has lived in Yakima and spends any time elk hunting can see the dramatic difference spike only APR has had on the bull population and the age class of the bulls in the population;  it is nothing short of dramatic to those who have watched the herd between the two management schemes.

I am not necessarily advocating 2pt or less, I am just pointing out that different APR's have different consequences;  3pt and 4pt APR's focus the harvest on older age class bucks;  2pt or less focus' the harvest on yearlings;

The best management scheme is to just reduce tags though;  the average hunter will shoot the first buck to pop up in front of him, so the average hunter focus' his harvest on yearling bucks;  3pt and 4pt minimums are all about not having to reduce tag numbers and to let everybody hunt every year; 

If you reduce the tags, most hunters will still focus on yearling bucks, leaving lots of older animals in the population and providing better herd dynamics;  that is the best scheme;  2pt or less is the "better" form of APR's and 3pt or 4pt APR's are the WORST form of managment.

[bearpaw]

http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/aug03/6.html

ARE ANTLER RESTRICTIONS REALLY WORKING?
By Tom Fegely

Time was when passing up a buck anywhere in Pennsylvania was a rarity. No matter if it was a hat-rack 10-pointer or a scrawny spike, it didn’t stand much chance of getting by an alert hunter.

Last year, however, all that changed as some 40,000 bucks that might have been shot in previous seasons were let go to grow at least another year, some longer. It wasn’t necessarily a charitable move by any of the Keystone State’s near-million deer hunters, rather abidance to a new, controversial antler restriction regulation in its first trial season that had game managers and serious deer hunters from across the nation keeping close watch. Like Pennsylvania, many other states also kill a disproportionate number of yearling bucks each fall.

Harvest statistics from the last bow, gun and muzzleloader seasons stretching from late September to mid-January strongly indicate that the move to save young bucks was a colossal success. Consider that in 2001, 203,247 antlered deer were tagged by hunters. In the 2002 seasons, the buck harvest dropped to 165,416, the result of a new 3-points-on-one-antler restriction imposed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission.

Previously, Pennsylvania’s only antler-related regulation was that any buck with spikes of three or more inches or two or more points to an antler – no matter what the length – was legal. The regulation was in effect for 50 years. The 3-point-on-one-side antler restriction has been in effect only one year.

The most restrictive antler minimum in the nation is in a 10-county region of northwestern Pennsylvania woodland, farm and swamp country south of Lake Erie where a 4-points-per-antler restriction is enforced. Studies here, in habitat perfect for growing big and old whitetails, show that as many as 56 percent of yearling bucks sport eight or more points at age 1-1/2, hence, the more stringent regulation.

40,000 Bucks Spared

“We were expecting a large harvest (of bucks and does) last year and we got it,” said Dr. Gary Alt, chief of the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s Deer Management Section. “However, about 40,000 more antlered bucks made it through the winter than in years past and that’s what we hoped would happen.”

Although pleased at the eventual acceptance of the antler restriction program by a vast majority of Pennsylvania hunters – followed by fewer small bucks hanging from meat poles around the state – Alt had hoped for an even bigger “save” of the state’s young, antlered deer.

“We fully expected the number of bucks making it through the season to at least increase by 2-1/2 times but we only roughly doubled it,” said Alt. “However, we are extremely pleased with what was accomplished in the first year.”

Alt, formerly a black bear biologist, spent the better part of two years traveling the state with a slide show on his new deer management plan, appearing before overflow audiences and greeted by everything from cheers to jeers. By the time the 2002 seasons were on the horizon, however, Alt’s support had mushroomed to a welcome 75 percent, Game Commission surveys showed.

Mississippi and Arkansas lead the way

Pennsylvania may be making the biggest buck management news but historically the state yields to Mississippi and Arkansas, which began their antler restriction programs in 1995 and 1998, respectively. Also showing interest in setting new standards via antler restrictions are nearly 20 other states that have adopted antler minimums in experimental regions or on specific wildlife management areas. This year Mississippi hunters will be honoring a minimum 4-point (total) antler point requirement for the eighth year. Arkansas has protected young bucks with a 3-point-on-one-antler rule – like Pennsylvania’s – for the past five years.

As in most states, Arkansas hunters have historically killed more yearling bucks than any other age group. Prior to the institution of antler restrictions, 79 percent of the buck harvest was composed of 1-1/2-year-old deer. Afterward, the harvest of yearling bucks plummeted to 28 percent. Furthermore, the percentage of 2-1/2-year-old bucks – sporting an average 7.3 points – has doubled and the percentage of older age class has grown in recent years.

Mississippi hunters have had a longer period in which to analyze buck harvest figures and make up their minds about the effectiveness of point restrictions.

“The program had widespread support after the first year,” said Larry Castle, deer management coordinator for the Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks. “There was also a tremendous increase in 2-1/2-year-old bucks.”

Biological Backlash?

Although Castle declares his support for antler restrictions, he is quick to note that studies carried out in cooperation with Dr. Stephen Demarais of Mississippi State University show a possible biological backlash. In one study, conducted at the Sunflower Wildlife Management Area, an average decline of 19 inches of antlers in the Boone & Crockett scores of 3-1/2-year-old bucks (shot since the 4-point rule was imposed in 1995) was evident. The reason, says Castle, is that smaller antlered yearling bucks were protected because of the 4-point rule but other yearlings with larger antlers and more points were legally killed. The bigger yearlings, said Castle, are the bucks that should have been spared. In a related study using penned deer, select harvests were simulated by physically removing certain deer that, in the wild, would have been shot. Similar declines in the antler quality of older bucks were evident.

Alt has also noted the great variation in antler sizes of 1-1/2-year-old bucks, although he forms different conclusions than in the Mississippi study as to whether it makes any difference if a spike or a thin-tined 8-pointer is taken by a hunter.

“There are a lot of factors affecting what kind of rack a deer will have in its second year” explains Alt. “But the size of a yearling’s (first) antlers does not correlate with what it may become.”

Alt’s contention is that “environmental factors” strongly influence the development of a buck’s first antlers.

“A 6-inch spike is not necessarily inferior to a 12-inch, 8-pointer,” said Alt. “The spike may have been born late, maybe it was raised in an over-browsed forest or, perhaps, was one of three fawns raised by the same mother.”

The 8-pointer, conversely, may have been born with the proverbial “silver spoon,” ideally the product of a lone birth with no siblings with which to share milk and living in farm country surrounded by apple orchards, cornfields, alfalfa pastures and woodlots raining acorns.

Yearling Dispersal

Completing the young buck’s natural urges is the tendency to disperse, perhaps offering the aforementioned spike new habitat and sustenance and the opportunity to catch up or surpass its 8-point counterpart. Pennsylvania studies show that 50 to 80 percent of young bucks will disperse an average of five miles from their natal ranges, although shifts exceeding 30 miles have also been documented. Currently the Pennsylvania Game Commission is conducting radiotelemetry studies on 500 bucks that are expected to yield more information on a little known aspect of whitetail behavior than ever before – including dispersal, aging and antler growth.

Yet another factor entering the buck survival equation is the identification and conservation of button bucks, some of which never reach antler-production age. In some states where special permits are needed to hunt antlerless deer (note that the hunting regulations are labeled as “antlerless deer seasons” and not “doe seasons”), bucks going into their initial winter produce nothing more than hair-covered “bumps” on their noggins. At close range or when viewed through binoculars, most experienced hunters can pick out the “bumps” atop the head of a button buck, bowhunters in particular, and pass on them even though in most states they may be legally tagged as “antlerless deer.”

A substantial 20 percent of Pennsylvania’s antlerless deer kill each year is composed of button bucks. Passing on them will account for more yearlings come the next hunting season.

Doe Bonus Control

Point restrictions have brought an additional benefit to deer management programs. As buck kills drop, doe kills are rising. Hunters who may have once shot smaller bucks for venison are now filling their licenses or permits with antlerless deer that, with few exceptions, are at the core of deer overpopulation problems. Prior to 1998, end-of-year figures showed that Arkansas hunters took 70 percent bucks and only 30 percent does. In the first year point restrictions were enforced the doe kill increased by more than 60 percent and the buck take fell by almost 40 percent. In Pennsylvania, antlerless deer harvests jumped from 283,000 in 2001 to 352,000 in 2002. A change in the traditional bucks-only season was necessary to permit filling county-issued doe licenses during the two-week, post-Thanksgiving season.

Do antler restrictions really work?

The answer is… maybe. Antler restrictions appear to improve quality at least in the short term. But many states are proceeding with a bit of hesitation. Unlike Mississippi, Arkansas and Pennsylvania, some states are first sticking their toes in the pond with experimental studies before instituting antler restrictions statewide. Georgia, New Jersey, Florida, Alabama and others are utilizing state-owned management units for point restriction research. Mississippi State University is delving into findings that older bucks in antler restriction areas are losing length and mass of their antlers. A Kentucky study is focusing on restrictions that include beam widths. Even in Arkansas, after five years of antler restrictions, some initial supporters of the concept are questioning whether the management plan is actually improving buck quality.

Antler restrictions will continue as the most contentious and controversial of deer hunting issues this season and in the years ahead. Look for variations on the minimum antler size theme that will sooner or later affect every one of us who hunts whitetails.

[bearpaw]

http://muledeerfanatic.com/2008/05/09/do-antler-point-restrictions-work/

Do Antler Point Restrictions work?
Whether antler point restrictions work or not depends on what you think the objective is. If the objective is for hunters to see more mature bucks while hunting, then it works. If the objective is to increase buck harvest or to improve herd genetics, then maybe it doesn’t.

A story from Michigan:

Beginning in 1993 with the “Dooly County Experiment” in Georgia, several counties and deer management units (DMUs) across the U.S. have been placed under state-regulated antler restrictions.

Today, numerous counties or DMUs in Georgia, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, New Jersey, and other states are operating under some form of minimum antler restriction. These are in addition to statewide antler restrictions in Mississippi, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania. Collectively, these restrictions have resulted from the growing support among sportsmen for opportunities to manage and hunt whitetails under the Quality Deer Management (QDM) approach.

The notoriety of the Dooly County project spurred the interest of Michigan schoolteacher and avid whitetail hunter, Marc Yenkel of Claire, Michigan. In 1996, Marc petitioned the Executive Director of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MIDNR) for an antler restriction in his immediate hunting area of about three square miles. It was politely refused.

“We wanted a chance to harvest 2 1/2- or 3 1/2-year-old bucks,” said Marc. “People around here had bushel baskets of 4-point racks. We wanted the opportunity, the challenge of hunting an older deer. I have 160 acres and the guy next to me has 3,000 and it really snowballed from there.”
Despite the failed first effort, Marc gathered several local supporters and petitioned the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (MNRC) in 1997 for a larger area of about 20 square miles. This also was rejected on the basis that it would break-up an existing DMU. Marc then joined the Mid-Michigan Branch of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) and together they drafted a proposal for all of DMU 118 (173,000 acres) with input from the MIDNR Wildlife Division.

Based on this request, the MIDNR adopted guidelines similar to those used in Georgia, which require, among other things, landowner and hunter surveys to be conducted in the affected area to gauge support. A minimum of 66 percent support from both landowners and hunters is then required for the antler restriction to be implemented. Eventually, a survey was conducted, which revealed 68 percent support from landowners and 53 percent support from hunters for a mandatory 3-points-on-one-side minimum antler restriction in DMU 118. The MIDNR withdrew their support due to the hunter survey not meeting the 66 percent minimum support requirement. Still undeterred, Marc and his supporters petitioned the MINRC again in 1999 and were successful in obtaining the necessary 4-vote majority within the Commission to proceed with the regulation for a minimum of five years.

Unlike most other county-wide antler restrictions, DMU 118 provides a unique opportunity to objectively assess the potential of this approach because deer harvest data have been regularly collected for many years, both pre- and post-implementation of the restrictions. Now, four years into the 5-year program, the results have been very encouraging. The following results were prepared from data provided by the MIDNR.

Results
- total deer harvest in DMU 118 peaked in 1999 (the year following implementation of the antler restriction) at 416 deer and appears to be stabilizing around 250 animals, or slightly above the 3-year base average of 235 before the initiative began.

Importantly, the sex ratio within the harvest has improved considerably. Prior to introduction of the antler restriction, an average of 1.9 bucks were harvested for every doe harvested. The 4-year average during this initiative was 1.3 bucks harvested per doe (range 1.1-1.7). Also, the total antlerless harvest exceeded the 3-year base average of 104 during each of the four years, including 2002 when 109 antlerless deer were harvested. The steady decline in antlerless harvest during the four years of this initiative is likely due to a reduction in total deer density as reported by many hunters in the area.

One of the most encouraging results was that, contrary to many predictions, total buck harvest did not decline under this restriction. In fact, in all four years, except 2001, total buck harvest exceeded the 3-year base average of 131 (range 117-203).

Another positive result was the decline in the percentage of button bucks in the antlerless harvest (Figure 2). The 3-year base average prior to the restriction was 19 percent, compared to the 4-year average during the project of 11.5 percent — a 39 percent reduction. It is likely that the increased survival of button bucks was a major reason why total buck harvest remained above the 3-year base average when the total herd was being reduced through increased antlerless harvest.

The impact of the restriction on the ages of bucks in the harvest also was encouraging (Figure 3). Following a slight increase in the number of yearling bucks harvested in 1999, this number has declined to around 60 — a 41 percent reduction from the 3-year base average of 102. This decrease occurred despite the fact that the 3-points-on-one-side restriction only protects around 50 percent of the yearling bucks in this area.

As expected, the protection of yearling bucks resulted in an increased harvest of older bucks. For example, the 3-year base averages for 2 1/2-, 3 1/2-, and 4 1/2+-year-old bucks were 21, seven, and one percent, respectively. In contrast, the 4-year averages for these age classes following the restriction were 49, 23, and four percent, respectively. This translates to increases of 133 percent, 229 percent, and 300 percent for 2 1/2, 3 1/2, and 4 1/2+ year olds, respectively.
While the data show a drastic improvement, the regulations were a hit with many hunters in the area.

“It only took about two years to see the results and it just keeps getting better,” Marc said. “This year I took a buck that grossed 107 inches and my son took a buck 97 inches, and they were heavy deer. The buck to doe ratio has improved drastically.”

Discussion
The results from this study provide strong evidence that state-regulated antler restrictions can produce positive outcomes in whitetail herds, and in a relatively short period of time. At least in this example, it appears that the three primary objectives of this antler restriction — increased antlerless harvest, decreased button buck harvest, and increased harvest of older bucks — are being achieved. The increased antlerless harvest has apparently reduced deer density, which provides obvious benefits to landowners and agricultural producers. The decreased button buck harvest demonstrates that hunter education and commitment to a QDM-type program are determining factors to hunter selectivity. The increased number of older bucks has resulted in a more balanced adult sex ratio and an increased number of older, larger-antlered bucks available for harvest. The increased presence of older bucks also increases the intensity of rutting activities and provides opportunities for hunters to incorporate rattling and calling techniques into their hunting strategies.

Despite the obvious success of this initiative, a recent survey by the MIDNR revealed that landowner and hunter support for continuation of the restriction is still below 66 percent. It remains unclear if the MIDNR will continue the restriction beyond the 2003 hunting season, the end of the initial 5-year period. Regardless, the results of this study reveal that the combination of proper doe harvest and protection of yearling bucks can produce positive outcomes for deer herds, deer habitats, and deer hunters.

[bearpaw]

Whether or not APR's work is dependent on what your goals are!

Our goal in Units 117 and 121 are first to decrease buck harvest, and to allow yearling bucks to become older bucks while at the same time providing hunting opportunity to the public. In regards to these goals I beleive APR will work in these units to help recover the deer herd.

In 5 years it is likely that APR will be determined not necessary or that it is wise to discontinue its use for the same reasons that I used to be opposed APR, it may be unwise to leave it in place permanently as there is strong evidence that it can cause a degration of trophy quality over time.

[bearpaw]

full story included below in pdf....

Antler Regulation Effects on White-tailed Deer on Mississippi Public Hunting Areas

Stephen Demarais, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Bronson K. Strickland, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries,
Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762
Larry E. Castle, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks, 1505 Eastover Drive, Jackson, MS 39221-6374

Abstract: Antler restrictions, intended to protect younger, male white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) from harvest and increase harvest of older bucks, are prevalent
throughout the Southeast. Mississippi’s statewide regulation, initiated in 1995,
protects bucks with less than four antler points. We quantified the regulation’s effects
on age composition, harvest rate, and antler size by analyzing harvest data collected
prior to (1991–1994) and after (1997–2001) the regulation was initiated on 22 public
areas encompassing 240,000 ha. Relative composition of harvest shifted (P<0.001)
from 59% 1.5-year males prior to the regulation to 83% 2.5- and ≥ 3.5-year males 3–8
years later, primarily due to a reduction in harvest of 1.5-year males. Harvest rate of
2.5-year males did not change and there was only a small increase (P<0.05) in harvest
of ≥3.5-year males. Total harvest decreased (P< 0.01) from 3.1 to 1.8 males per 405
ha. Antler size within age classes generally declined during the post-regulation period
across the range of soil resource regions. Antler restrictions should be considered a
short-term solution to age-structure problems because of the potential negative biological
effects. Long-term solutions should focus on teaching hunters benefits of an older
male age structure.