for the same reasons as stated above. I am completely against antler restrictions. You are selecting for the superior genetics and leaving the inferior to go on and spread their genes
There's a lot of ways to restrict killing immature bucks, maybe antler restrictions isn't the way to go. Although for the most part it would yield an improvement. Maybe a 4 point on one side minimum would cover the imbreds produced as a result of the overwhelming buck/minimal doe harvest situation we're in now.
Improving deer quality needs to start with a simple adjustment. i.e. shoot a doe before shooting each buck This would help with our buck to doe ratio that's so far out of wack.
Improving deer quality needs to start with a simple adjustment. i.e. shoot a doe before shooting each buck This would help with our buck to doe ratio that's so far out of wack.
As much as a lot of you would fight an AR or say they don't work, look at history. Every state or area that has implimented one has seen changes for the better, some changes being drastic. Yes in an 8pt or better AR you would not get to kill a big 7pt. But that's just one deer, and no he isn't going to infect the gene pool. That buck will breed a few doe a year and her genes come into play in antler growth as well. So we protect a ton of good immature bucks at the cost of having the potential for a few not so desirable racked bucks.
What's the down side?
Plus like stated above, it doesn't have to be an 8pt AR. It could be 4pt on one side, then you could kill all the 7 points you want.
What's the down side?
Plus like stated above, it doesn't have to be an 8pt AR. It could be 4pt on one side, then you could kill all the 7 points you want.
If any of you have a better idea how to improve out deer quality then let's have it.
But don't shoot down a proven method and not come up with a solution of your own. I'm not dead set on ARs either but it seems to be the most simple method with the best results.
But don't shoot down a proven method and not come up with a solution of your own. I'm not dead set on ARs either but it seems to be the most simple method with the best results.
A solution for trophy hunters already exists. DMAP. I've seen first hand how well the DMAP program works. If trophies is what you are after, get a group together, get at least the min amount of land and participate in the DMAP program. I hunted for 5 years on a ranch that participated in the program and it worked great.
There is no need to impose sweeping unnecessary regulation changes that impact those who don't wish to participate.
There is no need to impose sweeping unnecessary regulation changes that impact those who don't wish to participate.
You shoot a 1 1/2 year old buck with 4 points on one side and genetically you have just taken that <1% that just might have made it to record size. I know that spikes can grow to be big bucks as well, but an 8 pt 1 1/2 old has huge potential. Antler restriction is proven to improve the age class of bucks being taken but it has also proven that the true Monarch's are being sacrificed at this expense. Look at the states that grow giant bucks......... No antler restrictions there, they have harvest restrictions and limited opprotunity. Antler restrictions were set up in states that have more hunters than we have. They were also set up primarily in states that do not have great nutrients to grow bigger deer faster. In Oklahoma it is not unheard of to come across a pope and young 3 year old buck.
I personally like what we have going here. We have a great deer heard. We have big bucks that are taken every year from this state and plenty of opportunity to take just a buck. It is a sleeper(not for long I am sure). We are not like Texas(thank gawd). Texas has some goofy a** regs, like a spike only season in some parts of the state. We aren't like Kansas either were your NR family would only be aloud to come visit and be a part of deer camp when they were lucky enough to draw a tag. Kansas was on track to stay a state that produces giants until a few years ago when they opened the gates on their NR tags (money will ruin anything given time).
I understand that the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence but sometimes it doesn't hurt to step back and evaluate just how good we have it here.
I personally like what we have going here. We have a great deer heard. We have big bucks that are taken every year from this state and plenty of opportunity to take just a buck. It is a sleeper(not for long I am sure). We are not like Texas(thank gawd). Texas has some goofy a** regs, like a spike only season in some parts of the state. We aren't like Kansas either were your NR family would only be aloud to come visit and be a part of deer camp when they were lucky enough to draw a tag. Kansas was on track to stay a state that produces giants until a few years ago when they opened the gates on their NR tags (money will ruin anything given time).
I understand that the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence but sometimes it doesn't hurt to step back and evaluate just how good we have it here.
Last edited:
How good we have it... That's just it, it's OK at best. But we have the potential to be very good if not great. Ya we have good bucks killed every year, but how many? A few? Do you know anyone in Oklahoma who hunts in Oklahoma who holds out for a 160" minimum? I hunt in kansas almost every year and know a lot of guys from there. Pretty much everyone holds out for big bucks and I'm not talking about Oklahoma big bucks. Most those guy kill one every year.
The funny part is, we share a boarder with them, our state is a lot like theirs as far as deer habitat. But our deer herd isn't half as good as theirs.
Why?
Why do you guys keep bringing up the small percentage stuff? That 1% deer! Ya he might have been a new world record for one person. What about the other 99%? So they don't become world records but they are major trophies for a lot more people. With no restrictions like we have now our 1.5 bucks are already getting slaughtered, they are the vast majority of our buck harvest. So how could it get worse?
As of right now we have, big numbers, messed up sex ratio and a horrible age structure. That doesn't sound like "having it good" does it? Unless u just like seeing deer. The reason states like Iowa, Illinois, Ohio and Kansas don't need ARs is cause they already have good deer hunting. In those states No one in their right mind would shoot a small young buck especially in a one buck limit like kansas cause the odds of killing a good mature buck is pretty good and your not waisting a tag. Those states also have strict Non resident hunting for the most part, Kansas is draw in only and expensive, Iowa is draw only and u can only draw a buck tag every 3 years. The other thing most those states have in common is that rifle isn't in the rut. Or they don't have a rifle season at all! Is that what u want?
I sound like I'm pushing for trophy management, but I'm actually against TDM. I just want to see and healthy herd with proper age and sex ratios. With that will come better bucks so it's a win win for everybody. Like I said earlier I'm not totally for ARs but in order to get what this state needs we will all have to sacrifice some how. So if we must sacrifice what are we willing to give up? AR? No Guns in Rut? No rifle period? One buck limit? Earn a buck? Drastic non resident changes, high priced tags, draw only, limited tags?
Most of you guys would linch me if I got to set the regs up the way I would like to see them.
The funny part is, we share a boarder with them, our state is a lot like theirs as far as deer habitat. But our deer herd isn't half as good as theirs.
Why?
Why do you guys keep bringing up the small percentage stuff? That 1% deer! Ya he might have been a new world record for one person. What about the other 99%? So they don't become world records but they are major trophies for a lot more people. With no restrictions like we have now our 1.5 bucks are already getting slaughtered, they are the vast majority of our buck harvest. So how could it get worse?
As of right now we have, big numbers, messed up sex ratio and a horrible age structure. That doesn't sound like "having it good" does it? Unless u just like seeing deer. The reason states like Iowa, Illinois, Ohio and Kansas don't need ARs is cause they already have good deer hunting. In those states No one in their right mind would shoot a small young buck especially in a one buck limit like kansas cause the odds of killing a good mature buck is pretty good and your not waisting a tag. Those states also have strict Non resident hunting for the most part, Kansas is draw in only and expensive, Iowa is draw only and u can only draw a buck tag every 3 years. The other thing most those states have in common is that rifle isn't in the rut. Or they don't have a rifle season at all! Is that what u want?
I sound like I'm pushing for trophy management, but I'm actually against TDM. I just want to see and healthy herd with proper age and sex ratios. With that will come better bucks so it's a win win for everybody. Like I said earlier I'm not totally for ARs but in order to get what this state needs we will all have to sacrifice some how. So if we must sacrifice what are we willing to give up? AR? No Guns in Rut? No rifle period? One buck limit? Earn a buck? Drastic non resident changes, high priced tags, draw only, limited tags?
Most of you guys would linch me if I got to set the regs up the way I would like to see them.
Holding out for 160's and shooting them annually is two different things. I personally know a good number of guys that won't pull the trigger on a 150" buck with their rifle in OK, myself included. We tend to surround ourselves with those that are like ourselves and then feel like that circle is the representation of the majority. You will never see me say that I like a long rifle season in the middle of the rut. Nor will you see me argue against lowering the Buck limit. I will argue that we have a healthy deer herd though and will also argue that our sex ratio is not that far off of Kansas's overall ratio. Have you ever seen Kansas publish their sex ratio?? Nope, that's because it is way out of whack too. They just limit their buck harvest to allow the bucks they have to get bigger. Trust me, they have just as big a problem with their hunters not killing does as well. Just because Oklahoma allows you to take 2 bucks, doesn't mean you have to.
Arguing that culling out that 1% is not good is very valid because it is already a very small percent that makes it to that 5 year status and older(even in trophy managed states), so why would you want to take out the best genetics with antler restrictions. Antler restrictions would be a fail in this state as well as any other nutrient rich state.
Arguing that culling out that 1% is not good is very valid because it is already a very small percent that makes it to that 5 year status and older(even in trophy managed states), so why would you want to take out the best genetics with antler restrictions. Antler restrictions would be a fail in this state as well as any other nutrient rich state.
^^^^^^This
I'm all for limiting antlered harvest, draw only antlered tags, etc, but the wildlife department's revenue would take a huge hit.
I've never seen a published Kansas buck to doe ratio, mother nature provides us with a 1:1. (we've really f'd that up) I remember reading some time back that Oklahoma's ratio is around 30:1. It's simply an indication of what needs to be addressed.
I've got an idea;
doe tags - free with purhcase of license
buck draw tag - $20 (or whatever it is now)
buck tag over the counter - $200+
I've never seen a published Kansas buck to doe ratio, mother nature provides us with a 1:1. (we've really f'd that up) I remember reading some time back that Oklahoma's ratio is around 30:1. It's simply an indication of what needs to be addressed.
I've got an idea;
doe tags - free with purhcase of license
buck draw tag - $20 (or whatever it is now)
buck tag over the counter - $200+
