The 4-point restriction

[Col]

Hi all,

I've a degree in wildlife management. One principle, proven time and again, is when you selectively harvest a specific size-class nature responds to INCREASE the number of reproductively fit individuals outside of that size class.

Here's what this means for Missouri's deer herd: after a period of harvesting selectively in accordance with the four-point restriction, you'll start seeing more mature 3-pointers & forkhorns. The number of harvestable bucks will, in fact & over time, decrease.

I understand the idea behind the rule; to increase harvest of does & yearlings, while at the same time attempting to decrease the harvest of immature bucks and enhance the herd by leaving more & 'higher-scoring' deer in the woods. But that's just it, it's an idea and it runs counter to what has been proven by a century or more of wildlife management studies.

I'm a meat-hunter, so it doesn't affect my take very much. But I am concerned the restriction isn't in the interests of wildlife management maintaining the herd, or improving its quality. The result to be anticipated is that smaller deer (bucks), more does, & an increase in scraggly 6-pointers will result.

To increase the number of desirable animals, similar to the slot-limits for fish, you restrict the take of trophies; i.e. over a certain number of points may not be taken, instead of under. This leaves the big ones to breed instead of leaving the smaller ones to pass-on their genetic material.

As I said, I'm a meat-hunter. I have neither the time nor inclination to hunt horns. But, I am dreadfully concerned the result of the four-point experiment will backfire on account of proven principles and simple logic.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Scott Hesterly]

Point taken, I am not a fan of the 4 point rule either. I would be more in favor of what WI does, earn a buck tag.

Scott

[Rick Wakeman]

Col..I am :confused

I thought the MDC put the four-point restriction into play to allow the younger bucks to mature into trophy bucks. I would think that the MDC would of had all the facts in before putting in such a restriction. So..what is the reasoning behind this rule?

I am a bowhunter; I liked the fact, before the four-point restriction, that I could take any deer that was a legal deer. I bowhunt, that means that my impact on the herd is very low. I don't like the restriction because I put a lot of time into my hunts and when the opportunity arrives, I should make the decision whether to kill that deer or not.

The earn a buck system is fine for managed hunts. Everywhere else the bowhunter can buy multiple doe tags and still kill a buck. I like that.

[FiremanBrad]

Col,

I just got my new newsletter from the Pope and Young Club, and there is an article in it about this very topic. I haven't read it yet, but have read other articles like it. I do believe there will be some "high grading", in certain areas. I do believe, personally, that the hunter should be the one to decide what he/she wants to kill, not some ruling set forth. IMO, it's all about the $, that other trophy states enjoy, and maybe Mo wants a little piece of that pie??? Maybe not.....even the best of Meat Hunters will shoot a trophy buck if given the chance!!!

Good topic!!!

IMO, the "earn a buck" could not be implimented state wide....but maybe in "units". You would have to have an ample supply of does, to earn a buck!!! I personally have had the last 2-3 yrs, but the 5-6 yrs prior, no, I didn't!!!

If you want bigger bucks, move the main death count OUT of the rut, into December!!!!

[Sanderlin3]

I listened to our state deer biologist (Lonnie Hanson I think) explain why we have the 4pt rule. Do you all remember the "town hall" type meetings that the MDC held all over the state a few years ago??? Missouri deer hunters want bigger bucks,, period.. A majority agreed with the 4pt rule and this was made policy. I really don't care as long as we keep a heathly deer herd in Missouri. Sure I will try to get a big buck killed if possible, but any legal deer is good enough. As of the 2008 bowseason the 4pt rule has "cost" me seven bucks that I had to let walk. Every one of these bucks were at slam dunk range. I had a lot of fun watching them but two of those bucks were shooters that I would have been proud to have killed. 4pt rule saved thier lives. All I say to myself walking out in the dark after I have one of these "4pt bucks" is that, "they will be bigger next year"... LOL

[woodsman]

We've had the 4 pt restriction up here in the north-west from the beginning and it's effects have been very negative, in my opinion.

You don't need a degree to know that... you get exactly what you protect.
We've got the ugliest herd of freak bucks you've ever seen and they're breeding juvenile does. We're killing the bucks (4 pt and bigger) that become the trophy bucks

During opening weekend of firearms season I normally see 10-15 bucks per 1 doe and it's not uncommon for none of them to be legal. Many are 3 years or older and appear to probably never be legal.

I never thought I'd ever see the day when the bowhunters outnumber the firearms hunters but it's happened here.. Bowhunters having fist-fights on public land.. it's getting pretty ugly.

woodsman

[Col]

From the horse:
The Conservation Department decided to try antler restrictions for two reasons. One was to encourage hunters to shoot more does. This could help the agency control deer numbers in areas where they rise above target levels.

The four-point rule also was designed to allow more bucks to reach ages of 3 years or older. This would produce a deer population with a more normal age and sex distribution.

The traditional hunter bias toward shooting bucks, rather than does, creates a population with a disproportionate number of does and young bucks. Requiring hunters to pass up deer with no more than three points on a side allows more bucks to live to maturity. A population with more mature bucks has more large-antlered deer. For many hunters, the opportunity to take buck with big antlers is an important part of a high-quality hunting experience.
http://www.mdc.mo.gov/cgi-bin/news/news_search.cgi?item=1209746003,38396,

If you read the article, it was supported chiefly by firearms hunters. No mention of archery. As for the state biologist's position, having worked for the state I can say with some confidence that it may not in fact be the biologist's true position, and instead be the one that's most politically favorable. I also tend to find that a majority of hunters aren't game managers, or even farmers; any farmer knows you save the good stock for breeding and eat the others. The 4-point rule runs counter to that.

As I stated, I understand their reasoning, but it isn't supported in principle. To put bigger deer in the woods, you have to leave bigger deer in the woods. That would mean restricting, for a time, the taking of mature deer having more than four points on a side. This would cull the inferior deer, bolstering the genetic potential of the herd to produce larger/higher-scoring deer.

To do this would take some small re-vamping of existing rules and significant oversight. Let hunters take more than one buck if they're under a certain size-class, and adding a 'trophy-fine' for example, creating a 4+ point-only season -after- the rut and eliminating a late does-only season, or having an early bucks-only season for immatures/inferiors are a few things that could be considered. For adequate oversight, bucks would likely need to be tagged in-person to prevent skirting the rule via telecheck & betting the odds you wouldn't get caught, and the odds are in your favor. This would quickly bolster the genetic stock of the herd and remove the need for a point restriction in a short time (say 5-10yrs). Leaving immature/inferior deer, as is the current practice,will not.

Anyway, time will tell. I hope to be proven wrong, but if I am, I'll want a refund on my education. ;)