Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game do point restrictions work?

I know alot of states have put point restrictions on whats a legal animal to harvest. Have you guys seen any improvement in the quality or numbers of game afected by the Min. point ruls in your area? My hunting partners and I have seen an improvement in the elk herds around the area we hunt in south western WA. I haven't seen any changes in deer hunting becus of point restrictions.

Jamie

In Southern Oregon, the Tioga unit for elk has had a 3 point or better rule for elk. I grew up in that area and know that there are TONS of branch bulls down there. But once a bull grows out of a spike he usually has a raghorn 3 point or more set of horns. Spike only areas are where a debate lies. Since most spikes hang with the cows and calves, they are more easy to find. In areas where there are a lot of clearcuts, you can bet they won't make it the next level. Spike only hunting seems to be working well in some eastern Oregon units.

I'm not sure for deer. My grandpa told me back in the 60's or 70's (can't recall the time frame he told me), he hunted either Steens or Hart Mtn and there was a four point or better restriction. While hunting they would come across several large bucks that were left to rot because they were less than the required point restriction. The end result was a severely diminished class of older class bucks which resulted in the younger bucks doing the breeding. It took years to recover and some would say it still has'nt.

They definitely work on elk. However on deer, a lot of sesaons are in the full rut. This puts a lot pf ressure on the older bucks . Western states that have tried it have almost all abandoned it. They were grasping at straws for ways to increase the deer herds. Once CO bit the bullet and went to all draw on deer, a lot more mature bucks are being taken, and the heard is increasing. Meanwhile PA is just in the infant stages of thier point restriction and that state has a lot of " Don't shoot does " mentality. Only time will tell there

We have both,draw and point.The Swedes did it for moose,we fellowed for spike moose,and it has worked for increasing herds.The problem comes in counting brow-tines for moose of points for elk,some are counted on the ground.

Even though I don't live in PA they have a 2 year old point restriction in many areas. I mean its all over PA but some areas are 3 point to one side and some are 4 point on one side. I live in NJ <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" /> but I hunt in PA for the rifle season most years. BUt on other boards on the net a lot of people seem to see an inprovement in the quality of bucks in most areas. There are those that say no but from what I see a lot or more are pleased than are not pleased.

Brian

I agree with Saddlesore. They've worked well on elk here and much better now that in most units ALL seasons are point restricted. Used to be that some seasons were and others weren't. There's been a nice improvement over the past few years.

CO implemented it right, while WA screwed it up (at least for a while). When I lived there, the 3 point restriction was such that 1" spurs off the base of a spike counted. A-holes would kill every spike they could when they caught a herd out in a clearcut and then inspect them to see if any were legal, leaving any (most) that weren't.

I suspect that is the problem with deer antler restrictions too. It is too difficult for the average Joe to judge a deer quickly and many get shot "accidentally" and left.

Time will tell! Here in Missouri we will see our first season ever with some kind or restriction on bucks. Personally I think it is a mistake to have point restrictions. In my area there are alot of deer that are geneticly inferior. By that I mean 4,5, and 6yr old deer that are only big six pointers or less. If you have a 3yr old ten point and a 6yr old six point, both working the same does, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the 6yr old six point is the dominate deer and will be the one do do the lions share of breeding. Now in Missouri as well as other places the six point is off limits because he does not have four points on a side. He is simply left to pass his bad genetics along. Remember the three year old ten point, he is fair game and will probably be taken before his prime and before he can pass on his superior genetics.

In my state the Dept of fish and game held several meetings around the state as well as holding votes at various places in order to give the public a chance to voice an opinion in deer management. In the end the way the majority of folks voted is the direction our beloved DOW headed. Seems to me advice from there very own biologists would carry more clout than opinions of folk that make their living in most everything but wildlife biology. It seems my DOW is more worried about how many tags they sell rather than the actuall balance and health of the deer herd.

So if you ask me point restrictions are not the key to bigger bucks or a better buck to doe ratio. Incedently, I voted at all the online polls and even went as far as to writing letters to the DOW. My opinion, and no I do not make my living as a wildlife biologist, is to move the regular rifle season out of the rut and to force folks to take a doe before taking a buck. Each and every situation is different but I can tell you in my state, point restrictions will end up doing more harm than good. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

X-VERMINATOR

Where I hunt in Texas we don't have points rules perse. I've seen yearlings with 10 pts. We try go by age/maturity. It works. If you used 8pts as a minimum you might shoot all your great deer as 1.5-2.5 year olds and not shoot inferior deer. my $.02, capt david <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Point restrictions seem to work famously for elk in western states. They seem to be about the worst idea going for mule deer. Arizona tried it, and it failed miserably. So Colorado decided they could do it better, with equally disastrous results. That didn't deter Wyoming, however, and they've been failing at it too.

I'm not a mule deer biologist, just a big fan. But my observation is that focussing all the predation on one or two age classes (older bucks) just results in more of them being killed before the main rut, in late November/early December. Lots of people who would shoot a forky or three-point for the meat are forced to shoot a bigger buck if they want meat. (Wyoming has gotten completely goofy in some units -- point restrictions, but no doe hunts... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/help.gif" alt="" />)

I suspect it's a bad idea for whitetails, too -- for several reasons mentioned.

Wa regs. say in a 3pt. bull area a 3pt. has to have 2 of the points on the upper half of the main beam, and a point must be at least one inch from main beam to tip of point.
What do you guys think of spike only units? I've never hunted spike only. The elk units on the other side of the state are spike only but I dont know anyone from there .

Jamie

Utah had a "3 point or better" restriction on deer for several years, but no longer does so. I think the general concensus and the reason they stopped was because people were shooting first and asking questions later, meaning there were several "illegal" bucks shot and left to rot.



As far as elk go, most of the non-draw areas are "spike only", and the elk herds are booming. It does get pretty frustrating to let the big ones pass, but dems da rules.

Here in Wy the 4pts or better thing for mule deer hasn't helped. Seems to me that putting a limited quota or shutting the season down would be a better way of increasing deer numbers.
When ever they have come out with the spikes excluded areas that don't seem to help the number of branch antlered bulls the next year.

I wasnt aware that areas still existed in Wy that had point restrictions. I know where we hunt deer used to be a five point or bigger area. My Dad and Grandad tell me though, during those years the deer population was twice what it is now. Of course a big part of the major decline was the year Wyoming decided to put out extra doe tags and lifted the point rules due to over population. Deer were big time killed then one of the hardest winters in many years hit that winter and had a HUGE winter kill. Wyomings herds were a thing of the past. We quit hunting deer for nearly 8 years till we felt we were seeing enough deer to feel right about hunting them again. The last 3-4 years I have seen a steady increase in the deer populations and that is even during some severe drought years. I strongly beleive The WY G&F have done a very good job the lat 6-7 years on bringing the deer heards to where they need to be.

Now as I stated according to my Dad and Grandad the deer population was thriving during the point limit times and some of there racks they have prove it. I know in alot of other places they didnt work but where we hunt it sure did and i would not oppose to them bringing it back, but what they are doing now is working very well. They have a short any deer hunt then a buck only hunt that follows. I see no reason to make a change.

Now for the Elk and Moose populations, thats a different story, they have been declining huge the last few years. According to the wildlife biologist in the area we hunt, 2 things are to blaim. Obviously the drought and then a pack of 16 (now 19) wolves that are running in the area. I dont think any kind of point system will cure that problem.

Sort of like asking if length limits work on fish. The general consensus seems to be that 12" minimums are great for producing 11.9" fish. Many lakes now have "slot" limits, meaning that fish between x and y must be released. Allegedly this allows people to keep trophies and also fill the freezer while protecting the prolific breeders (mid-sized fish in their prime). I tend to follow a similar mentality fishing or hunting and it seems to work well. Fill the freezer with does or inferior bucks and leave everything else to mature.

On public land, management becomes a more difficult issue. perhaps the answer is more classes of tags, e.g., doe or cow, small male, and trophy. Unfortunately, in hunting we don't have the luxury of releasing animals that don't fit our tag. This means people will make mistakes. Some slobs will even counts points or determine sex on the ground, as someone else implied. I doubt the combined effects of these "mistakes" would nullify the benefits of good management, but it's possible.

Someone suggested that the state authorities should listen to science more than their constituents, which is worth discussing. Science, ostensibly, will tell you how to get from A to B, but it won't help you choose the right B. Do you want to maximize game density or game quality? Science will help you acheive either, but it won't help you choose between. This is where science and management need direction from an external source--constituents or perhaps maximizing license/permit revenue.

The Kansas Dept of Wildlife and Parks historically followed a "game density" ethic in managing deer. They were good at it--too good. Deer-vehicle accidents were increasing dramatically and the non-hunters in the state were raising such a stink that the legislature was threatening to get involved if the Dept didn't solve the problem. The Dept responded by increasing hunting pressure on does through cheap, easy to obtain doe tags. At one time, a person could take 6 deer (4 had to be does) if they obtained all tags that were available. Accidents are down, and the general public is more-or-less satisfied with the results. In the last few years, doe tags are less plentiful than before, particularly in some units. Anyway, the point is that it isn't all about science and that science does not make value judgements (quality vs quantity). Some input from constituents, also known as customers, is important.

I agree that input from the public is important, but science is at least as important. I view natural resource management as a 3-legged stool, with one being environment/ecology/science, one being economics, and one being public desires. Without a proper balance of the three the management won't be as successfull as possible.

Colorado just went througha years input from the public for the next 5 years season structure. After all was said and done and all the input and scientifc studies were interjected, you can read thier final report and it is obvious the final decisions were based on finances. The same was true of the last 5 year season structure.
The outfitters come in and cry how thier business would be ruined, small towns cry about how thier main source of income would be diminished during hunting season, and accountants from the DOW cry about how the non game funding , etc would have to be curtailed. In the end, they win, the wildlife and common Joe huinter loses.

As an example, the last 5 year study showed that hunters wanted more time between each elk season. Biologist agreed that the elk would be better served by the structure that allowed 1 week or so between each season. It ended up, that not only was time between season not added, but an extra season was added to cut that time down even more. This was pressed by the outfiters, so tehy could get one more hunt in per year. So now , the comomn hunter who juts has weekend to hunt, only gets one week end in about any elk season except archery and muzzle loader season. The outfitters ahve mostly 5 day season and they hardly ever booked a hunt for longe than that anyhow.

Could that imbalance of science, money, and public wants be a reason that CO is having a tough time getting their elk herds to objective size? Just wondering.

Though I'm for lots of game animals, I think hunter's must be sensible about it as well. Too many of anything is bad and in the end may result in something a person doesn't want, ie a huge winter die-off, disease, or the introduction of wolves to get the job done. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

The numbers were coming down some, but then stabilized when they raised nonresident license fees. Then they cut the cow tags to $250, but usually nonresidents don't want to shoot cows . So the last three years they have been offering more than one elk tag, with at least one of them being a cow.

But no matter how many tags you issue, weather plays a big role in it. The last two seasons usaully gives a you a 50-50 chance of being snowed out, or the elk have moved dwonto private land. The 1st two seasons, usually it's too hot and the elk are holed up in the thick timer, but there is always chance of snow then also.

Here is another example. In the past, they have been known to add a special season later in the year if the kill doesn't look like it was big enough. The catch here is that even if you had an unfilled tag, that was no good, you had to buy another tag, with no discount inprice. Seems if they really wanted to kill the elk and get the herd numbers down, they would offer the season to anyone that had an unfilled tag and sell to those who did not have tags. They do offer youth opprotunities in soome of these seasons where the youngster has not filled his tag and he can continue to hunt.

Although Colorado boast the biggest elk herd in North America, and they say they are over herd size objective, what they are not saying is that in any one place there are many more elk. What is happening is that as the herd increases in size, elk are moving into areas not previously inhabited by elk, inthe near past. A lot of that area is private now,and inaccesible to hunters. So they pay crop damge money to the rancher who does not alow hunting on his property unless it's a trespass fee. They also give the rancher private landowner tags over and above this that he can again sell for what ever the market wil bare. They stopped giving out list and draws for crop damage hunts and turned them over rto the local WCO who distributes them to the rancher, and Joe -Blow cannot find out who has them.I'm not knocking the ranher, he'snot in it fro our pleasure, and good for himto be able to make soem extra bucks any way he can. But I am torqued off that the DOW will pay him crop damge money, that comes from hunter's license fees, and he can still charge you to hunt on his land. I figure if they giv ehimthe money, he should be made to allow a limited numbe rof hunters onhis land to hunt with no fee. If he doesn't ,then he doesn't qualify for crop damage money.
This doesn't have damn thing to do with point restrictions, but sheds light on the DOW though processes , or lack of them.

South east Oregon abandoned point restrictions (4 pt only) on deer about 12 years ago. In the units where that happened we see about the same number of bucks now and more larger animals. When the unit was 4 point only, one of course saw 4 points in camps, but they were typically 2.5 year olds with little stature. There also seemed to be a fair amount of shoot them all and do the point counting after they were on the ground. Lots of abandoned carcasses found. The local folks, because they have extended opportunity, know the country, and feel that the state or mother nature owed them one, seemed to be the preponderance of violators. Non-residents with their greater commitment to extended time, travel, and equipment (none of which they would like to have seized) were rare violators. Since point restrictions were dropped, most hunters appear to be simply after a deer, will hammer the first thing they see, and be happily headed home by Sunday afternoon of the first weekend. The wise old boys are a little harder to shake out, live a few more years, and develop some real stature now. Many states find point restrictions appealing, because they are not forced to be the bad boy by limiting tag or hunter numbers (= more income). In that situation, one's failure to score has not been limited by the state, but by the hunter's expertise or willingness to put in the time. Limiting hunter numbers is a hard pill to swallow and does not typically get much support from the locals that have hunted there generations. Personally, be it deer, elk, or whatever, I favor limiting tag or hunter numbers to restrict harvest. It makes the hunt a better experience if one does not find others around every corner, folks can seek the class of animal they are happy with, and some of the critters will make it to a ripe old age. Fortunately, I am blessed with the resources to seek some out of state opportunities, so I do get to go after something every year. I have a lot of Oregon deer, elk, and pronghorn points saved up, and when a trophy opportunity does show up, I'll expend them for what I deem to be a quality hunt.