I know!!! I was just trying to make a point of why I dislike AR's!!! They say they want to save young bucks and then they say the 2nd buck has to be a spike, (hence my young "lookout")!!!

Doesn't have to be... it just can be.

The AR isnt our big problem, in fact several of us land owners are talking about having a self imposed ban on our properties of bucks for a year or 2. Our problem is by our counts and estimates we are at about 1 buck per 20 does if not 1:30. We really need more than 4 day thanksgiving weekend for doe season!!!

This

The reasoning behind ARs is unfortunately more about economics than they are biology.

The reasoning behind ARs is unfortunately more about economics than they are biology. I believe in a hunter being allowed to use their own judgement when harvesting an animal. If a hunter wants to harvest a 10-inch wide, 1.5-year old, basket rack for the meat, or even just for the experience in the case of our young hunters, then by all means they should be allowed to. To restrict an entire region of the state with this regulation under the guise of improving the age structure of the deer herd is absurd. Hunters are, for the most part, more management minded toward hunting these days than in the past which has far more of an effect on the deer herd than any regulation ever could. They cater more to the trophy-minded hunter and disregard many of the more tradional non-trophy hunters. I am all for managing a healthy deer herd but restricting the harvest of approximately 1/3 of the deer population is in my mind taking too much freedom out of the hunting experience for too many hunters.

I am glad to see that so many hunters attribute your hunting success to the implementation of the antler resrictions but would you really have manged the deer herd any differently in their absense? Would the effect of conflicting management practices of neighboring hunters who choose to shoot immature bucks have had that much effect on your own practices? If they do, which I see as highly unlikely, then which neigbor must represent the majority? So whose interest is the state acting in here? It is all good and well that so many laud the effects of the antler restrictions but those proponents do not represent the ethic nor the fundamentals of all hunters.

please explain?

Some select counties its not helping much... NE Tx seems to be the main concern but it has helped the majority of the counties under the restriction. In the since of having older bucks making it to see another year which IS going to lead to larger bucks since age is the main factor in that process. Do some counties need to be looked back over and have AR taken away? sure there are those that may need to have a change but it has done wonders for most. My counties use to not see a deer exist over 3yrs old and the processors would be loaded with young bucks every weekend. Now they are better than ever... and the hunters sure havnt changed their standards the law changed it for them.

Trophy deer hunting is a big money business that is no secret. The state is getting revenue from citations given to AR violators. Both of these things are economic.

A deer with 13" or greater spread does not have better survivability than one with 10" antlers and that is a fact. Allowing four deer to be shot rather than three does not help the health of the population. When the regs allowed three deer however, the restrictions on doe harvest were much stricter so it was only one buck per season for the vast majority of hunters. Explain to me how allowing four deer to be harvested as opposed to one is good for the overall deer population. The AR counties do not have a problem with overpopulation. The regulation is geared towards growing more big racked bucks and skewing the age structure towards the development of big racked bucks, plain and simple.

Having a herd with more large-racked trophy bucks does not equate to a biologically healthier herd at all. Biological health is directly related to habitat quality, climate, disease, sex ratio, fecundity, and population density. Of course only sex ratio and population density can be directly influenced by harvesting deer and fecundity can very indirectly be influenced (emhpasis on VERY). A herd with an age structure conducive to the development of larger racks does not improve all of these things in fact it creates imbalance in many cases.

I have a bit of an issue with the law changing the standards of hunters for them. A large number of hunters did not want nor need to have their standards changed by the law. I know I did not.

If by working wonders you mean resulting in more old, trophy class deer, then that is great if that was the goal you wanted to achieve. But not everyone has that goal.

Nothing to do with trophy class even though that is nice im perfectly fine with shooting a big old framy 6pnt that wouldn't score jack... its more of letting that deer see its time. letting such thing as a rut happen were old deer mark their territory, chase, fight like its ment to be... getting the whole experience of what a mature herd has to offer.

Would you pick a green tomato and eat it just because you can? Would you take a calf to market well before its reached its proper yield just to get that quick $... All just because you can? I agree not everyone has the same goals but the long term ones can offer so much more imo.

This is what's going on in east Texas!

Yeah its cuz of the big bad locals that your not seeing any deer...

The reasoning behind ARs is unfortunately more about economics than they are biology. I believe in a hunter being allowed to use their own judgement when harvesting an animal. If a hunter wants to harvest a 10-inch wide, 1.5-year old, basket rack for the meat, or even just for the experience in the case of our young hunters, then by all means they should be allowed to. To restrict an entire region of the state with this regulation under the guise of improving the age structure of the deer herd is absurd. Hunters are, for the most part, more management minded toward hunting these days than in the past which has far more of an effect on the deer herd than any regulation ever could. They cater more to the trophy-minded hunter and disregard many of the more tradional non-trophy hunters. I am all for managing a healthy deer herd but restricting the harvest of approximately 1/3 of the deer population is in my mind taking too much freedom out of the hunting experience for too many hunters.

I am glad to see that so many hunters attribute your hunting success to the implementation of the antler resrictions but would you really have manged the deer herd any differently in their absense? Would the effect of conflicting management practices of neighboring hunters who choose to shoot immature bucks have had that much effect on your own practices? If they do, which I see as highly unlikely, then which neigbor must represent the majority? So whose interest is the state acting in here? It is all good and well that so many laud the effects of the antler restrictions but those proponents do not represent the ethic nor the fundamentals of all hunters.

Update: Another monster 14 point buck killed yesterday by my neighbors dad on 60 acres between Tyler and Palestine. Will post pics Monday when I'm back in town from hunting.