Some
hunters love them, others hate them,
but you can rest assured all have an opinion of them – we’re talking about
mandatory antler restrictions.
Antler
restrictions do not equal “Quality Deer Management.” Rather, antler
restrictions are a strategy to protect a specific age class (generally
1½-year-old bucks) or classes of bucks, and protecting young bucks is only one
of several important features of Quality Deer Management. Many antler
restrictions have been employed including point, spread, and beam-length
requirements as well as Boone & Crockett score. All restrictions have
advantages and disadvantages. In general, QDMA prefers the voluntary passing of
yearling bucks to mandatory antler regulations. However, we recognize that
antler restrictions may be justified in some situations to achieve specific
deer management objectives. Regarding our position on specific antler
restriction proposals, QDMA examines each on a case-by-case basis and applies a
three-part test.
First, is the restriction biologically sound? This means the proposed restriction will
protect the majority of yearling bucks while allowing the majority of bucks 2½
years old and older to be eligible for harvest. This is always the goal of
state-mandated restrictions, though voluntary antler restrictions on private
lands may seek to protect some older age classes as well. In either case, the
antler restriction criteria must be based on data collected from the affected deer
population to ensure the right bucks are protected.
Second, is it supported by the majority of affected hunters and
landowners? Agencies considering
an antler restriction should conduct surveys to determine support levels before
enacting the restriction.
Finally, will it be objectively monitored to determine success
or failure? Without monitoring,
there is no way to know if the restriction should be altered to improve success
or possibly removed altogether if it doesn’t work or is no longer needed.
Many
restrictions fail one or more of these criteria. The QDMA has supported some
antler restrictions, opposed others, and taken a neutral stance on still
others. In the long term, QDMA is optimistic that enough hunters will
voluntarily pass young bucks that antler restrictions will become unnecessary
and even cumbersome to more sophisticated management.
Antler Restrictions around North America
How common are mandatory antler restrictions? To find out, we surveyed all state and provincial wildlife agencies that manage white-tailed deer in 2011 and learned that 22 states and zero Canadian provinces implemented antler restrictions. Click on the image in the Gallery below to see the full-size map of the states. To see more details about the types of restrictions in each state, see page 13 of the 2012 Whitetail Report. The restrictions were statewide for at least one buck in the bag limit for eight of these states, and the type varied among number of antler points, antler spread, length of main beam, or a combination of these. Point restrictions were the most commonly used technique (15 of 22 states), followed by combination restrictions using antler spread and main beam length or antler spread and antler points (four states), and antler spread restrictions (three states).
How common are mandatory antler restrictions? To find out, we surveyed all state and provincial wildlife agencies that manage white-tailed deer in 2011 and learned that 22 states and zero Canadian provinces implemented antler restrictions. Click on the image in the Gallery below to see the full-size map of the states. To see more details about the types of restrictions in each state, see page 13 of the 2012 Whitetail Report. The restrictions were statewide for at least one buck in the bag limit for eight of these states, and the type varied among number of antler points, antler spread, length of main beam, or a combination of these. Point restrictions were the most commonly used technique (15 of 22 states), followed by combination restrictions using antler spread and main beam length or antler spread and antler points (four states), and antler spread restrictions (three states).
Overall,
these findings were very similar to what states used in 2008, when we
previously surveyed agencies on this topic. New Hampshire was the only state
with antler restrictions in 2008 that did not use them in 2011. The New
Hampshire Fish and Game Department employed an antler point restriction in one
of 18 wildlife management units from 2007 to 2009 and discontinued its use in
2010. Michigan was the only state to discontinue statewide restrictions from
2008 to 2011. Michigan still employs antler point restrictions; they are just
not used statewide. California is the only new state to list antler point
restrictions in 2011.
Regarding
type, the number of states using point, spread and combination restrictions in
2011 were identical to 2008. Regionally, antler restrictions were most common
in the Southeast (eight of 11 states), followed by the Northeast (seven of 13
states), Midwest (five of 13 states), and Canada (zero of eight provinces).
It’s important to note that most Western states did not provide the requested
information so they were omitted from this analysis. Antler restrictions have a
longer history in the Southeast than other regions. This partly explains their
increased use in this region and the type of restrictions employed. Combination
restrictions are more intensive and provide managers more flexibility to meet
management objectives but are a little more challenging for hunters first
exposed to them. All four states using combination restrictions were in the
Southeast.
Regardless
of strategy used to protect yearling bucks, QDMA recommends that state and provincial
wildlife agencies conduct extensive education and outreach programs to inform
hunters about the benefits of protecting yearling bucks and to garner their
support for sound deer management programs. The key to implementing an
effective strategy is to devise it from local data and then educate local
sportsmen and women on the benefits.
QDMA and Maryland State Chapter QDMA prefer
the voluntary passing of yearling bucks to mandatory antler regulations.
However, we recognize that antler restrictions may be justified in some
situations to achieve specific deer management objectives. This would apply to
region A where the politics of deer management has had effects for many years.
This was evident at a meeting of western sportsman in Frederick County a few
Sundays ago when a leader of a group with a raised voice said to Paul Pedito, “When
are you going to fix the lack of deer in western counties?” while at the same time
arguing over a hunting license increase of $24.00 (the cost of 2 McDonald’s
adult meals), when this increase would pay for much needed deer and habitat
studies. The same groups that will not support Antler Restriction’s even when the
harvest numbers of yearling bucks averages 70% with bag limits limited to 1
buck and 1 antlerless (less on public land). As some of these groups flex their
political muscle, maybe it’s time to ask, what will the cost and impact be to
our future hunting and its heritage?
Remember it’s NOT QDM
when YEARLING BUCKS ARE NOT PROTECTED FROM HARVEST!
Article content from QDMA National & Opinions
related to Maryland by E.W. Grimes, Director of the Maryland State Chapter QDMA
