"Unintended" consequences of antler restrictions....

[Outdoorsfool]

Our land is down with the sale of 200 acres a couple of years ago that was converted into property out of state. However, we are in conjunction with several neighbors and there are a couple of other landowners mixed in that do not hunt or allow hunting. Just rough calculations, the general area that we are trying to develop is over 1,000 or 1200 acres and that doesn't include some land owned by same folks across a creek....so I'll say at least 1,200 - 1,500 acres, maybe more. The general area this encompasses has some natural and manmade barriers, so while it's not highfenced area, there are some general barriers to deer disbursement/movement.

We have set aside several places on our property as refuge areas that border neighboring property which receives heavier pressure. Our land borders some that receives heavy pressure, no pressure (no hunting is allowed), minimal pressure (bow hunting only) and then one piece of land where it is bow only for big bucks. Due to decline in deer numbers overall (according to area landowners) we have agreed on a very limited or no doe kill for a 2-3 year period.

We aren't looking for a specific ratio. But we are sick of MDC's (and other hunters) pushing the shoot the does, let the bucks walk mentality that seem to have caused a reduction in deer numbers. We are going to let the deer numbers rebound, by taking no does for a few years. After that, we've agreed to make the kill more representative of the entire population and not focus on one particular sex, age, etc.. If we personally take 3 normal-sized deer for meat, we may end up with one doe, one 8 pointer and a couple of smaller ones. We are done buying into this BS that only does should be shot for meat so there are more bigger antlered deer for the trophy hunters. Any mgmt. plan that focuses the kill on one primary segment of the population is flawed as an overall herd mgmt. plan, IMO.

[Warmouth]

Good luck, that sounds like it could actually work out. You're lucky to have that much realestate to work with a management plan.

On a side note, I chat on another board with a deer manager in England, he gets paid to manage land, hunt, guide, and can sell the carcasses, so he has a very real interest in having the best results possible, it's his livelyhood and there is a lot of competition to get in that field of work.

He also recommends shooting age structure across the spectrum. You need "x" amount of fawns, does, young bucks, old bucks, to have a healthy ballanced herd on a set amount of acreage. So, when he goes to reduce a population, he's not just whacking does, he's trying to get sex ratios, and age ratios in a propper sustainable structure.

Not a lot of guys on this side of the world think that way, but not many of them earn their living by managing deer either.

[Tigerhaze]

I personally wouldn't mind seeing the management style that MDC used several years ago for the firearms season- specifically allowing one antlered deer (of any type) and one to two bonus deer depending on county. That seemed to work pretty well at the time for a large but balanced herd, before the advent of unlimited antlerless permits and the AR.

I am still trying to understand the AR restrictions- whatever you want to believe about the goals it still doesn't make sense to me. The AR are in the more ag-productive counties of northern and central MO and not in the south. However you would think that this should be reversed, since growth rates are faster in the ag areas and slower in the forests of the south. If MDC's goal (as they state) is to reduce harvest of does, then they should go back to the system of limiting the antlerless permits rather than implementing ARs. if their goal really is the growth of larger bucks, then why not focused on the south with lower growth rates?

Also, did anyone notice that they reversed the muzzleloader and antlerless firearm season? I'm guessing that change was to time the second rut to the muzzleloader hunters. I wouldn't be too happy if I were a late season bowhunter to have to compete with the muzzleloader hunters, but I guess the silver lining is that there will likely be less does taken overall because they will still be lying low from the general firearms season.

[RB]

ODF, I think your little group of neighbors in on to something. Also, your little co-op type plan for harvest makes a lot of sense.

[Outdoorsfool]

WM - after doing some reading and thinking, that management style just seems to make sense. Except for a herd reduction plan that is based on removing breeders, why would any type of HERD management advocate anything other than a killing of deer across the entire spectrum (age & gender)?

We may or may not make a huge impact in the overall population and/or herd in our area, but it certainly can't hurt. I think if everyone that has agreed to do this will stick with it then we will definitely see a difference. We certainly saw a difference when everyone was focused on whacking and stacking does...and not a difference for the better, so anything is better than what we were doing.

The whole AR thing just burns my ass because I fully believe it is done for one purpose only....to grow bigger antlered deer so MDC can reap the rewards in cash returns and because they gave in to certain pressures. Some of their early literature on AR even stated their intent was to grow larger antlered deer.

Oh yeah MDC and their plans!

[RB]

Oh yeah MDC and their plans!

ODF, don't forget MDC means MOSTLY DUMB CHIT

[Outdoorsfool]

You think it's bad now...just wait till Smitty starts his reign of terror at the MDC! (insert smiley hiding behind wall)