PDA

View Full Version : Our 3 pt. rule is NOT enough



goatranch
November 23rd, 2009, 04:15 PM
The 3 pt. rule has been in effect for quite a few years now for us in Zone 1 & 2 and I think it has helped but is it THE answer? I think AGFC needs to do more to prevent a large 2-3 year old buck loss. Give those 2 & 3 YO's time to grow. Every buck I have shot for the last 6 years would have been VERY nice deer with in another year. BUT if I pass on them you never see them again that season and most likely you will go with out filling tags.

What in your honest opinion IS the answer for Arkansas to get better bucks??

hunt4meat
November 23rd, 2009, 05:57 PM
I will say this, but I will come back and contradict myself in a minute. I kinda like the 4X4 slot they are using on some of the WMA's. It allows to remove the inferior deer (spikes and forked horns) and let those with potential another year or 2.

Now to contradict myself. I hunt for meat, I do not hunt for horns. I like the taste of deer meat, and every deer I kill is a trophy, buck or doe. I am not saying with a cdeer or 2 in the freezer I will nt turn to hunt bigger deer, but I want meat in the freezer before I do anything. There is nothing I hate more than having to let a deer walk when I have nothing in the freezer.

bigdoglanyards
November 23rd, 2009, 11:01 PM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO

hunt4meat
November 24th, 2009, 09:32 AM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO

And 95% of the hunting population in AR would be calling for the directors head (and maybe yours for suggesting that).

AR_Headhunter
November 24th, 2009, 10:41 AM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO

Thats a start. The 3 point rule is really not doing much IMHO. In my area most 1 1/2 old deer have 3 points per side so they are legal. There are several things that can be done to improve our age structure as well as overall herd balance. Take gun season out of the rut is 1 of the best things we could do. We also need to shorten gun season in most of our northern counties.

The biggest problem we have here in Arkansas with that is most hunters see QDM as trophy deer management & fight it tooth & nail. Until we get together as a group and actually pressure the AGFC to do the proper thing in regards to our deer herd then we are just beating our heads against the wall. If we truly want to protect 1 1/2 year old deer then lets move to a 4 point rule but we also need the flexability to remove inferior deer from the herd as well.

We have the genetics to produce huge deer but so many think that if we manage our herd properly & bring it to it's true potential then they will loose out to the big money interest who are only after trophy deer. They might be right to a point but here in Arkansas we have approx. 4.5 million acres of public land. Thats a huge % of land for the size of state we are. Thats land that can never be leased up by the big $ trophy hunters are willing to dish out the cash.

We also have other things to battle on that front as well. One of our biggest issues is illegal deer dog hunters. In many area's people who try to manage the herds are targeted by dog runners who will surround their property & kill everything that crosses the borders. How can anyone truly manage the herd when this happens. The AGFC officers will tell you "Unless we see them release the dogs then there is nothing we can do". Well in my area the private landowners have grown tired of the BS & simply shoot every deer dog on site. It's a sad state of affairs when responsible hunters have to go to that length to protect their private property from poachers & outlaws because the "law" will not back them up!

Also we have the poaching problem to deal with. Around here poaching is a common practice that is bragged about at the local stores, restaurants, etc.. The local country store in Deer Ar. is like a meeting grounds & command central for poachers in Newton county. Of course the local officers know this but what can they really do. They do not have the personnel to devote a officer to sit in 1 little country store & listen to all the conversations about poaching & illegal activity that go on in there & do you really think any judge would go to the extreme to let them bug the place over poaching? I do not think so.

We have many problems in Arkansas when it comes to proper management of our deer herd but IMHO the biggest problem is 1 of what I call a poachers mentality. Until we do something about that then those of us who really care about the herd have a long up hill battle ahead of us.

swampboss
November 24th, 2009, 10:52 AM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO

I too think this would work and I would be in favor of it but, think it would never fly. The three point rule has worked to some degree. It is much better than a " rack spread rule " , this is very difficult to field judge.
I think shutting down the check stations is a big mistake Now the outlaws will always have "one tag left" They never should have started the computer or phone check systems. This is the honor system- it never works.
If you want big bucks you will have to be in a large lease ,1000+ acres with a big buck policy of some type or pay to hunt with some outfitter out of state.

goatranch
November 24th, 2009, 11:28 AM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO

I do not think you would reduce the population near enough if you did.

goatranch
November 24th, 2009, 11:29 AM
I too think this would work and I would be in favor of it but, think it would never fly. The three point rule has worked to some degree. It is much better than a " rack spread rule " , this is very difficult to field judge.
I think shutting down the check stations is a big mistake Now the outlaws will always have "one tag left" They never should have started the computer or phone check systems. This is the honor system- it never works.
If you want big bucks you will have to be in a large lease ,1000+ acres with a big buck policy of some type or pay to hunt with some outfitter out of state.

The closing of check stations IS a big mistake. Internet checking is great but the phone check sucks! Mandatory deer checking at check stations and much stiffer fines if not checked.

fishmannyj
November 24th, 2009, 11:29 AM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO

I wud be all for it! But insurance companies will never have it...they are the ones that pad the right pockets to keep the deer numbers and claims down.If it wasnt for them I doubt we would even have doe tags! The three point rule hasnt helped enough to give the deer any more age but it was a start. Its all politics when it comes to the decision makers!

goatranch
November 24th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Headhunter is right. Poaching IS a big problem and very prevalent in AR and in the south.

I believe also that AGFC is too politically motivated to "do the right thing" Big money wins out in every area of life.

We should report game violations EVERYTIME we see them. Go to AGFC meetings if possible. Voice our concerns.

AR_Headhunter
November 24th, 2009, 12:29 PM
I do not think you would reduce the population near enough if you did.

Reducing the deer population has nothing to do with when the season takes place my friend. The only thing you would reduce by moving the season later is the amount of bucks killed due to breeding activity.

goatranch
November 24th, 2009, 12:49 PM
Reducing the deer population has nothing to do with when the season takes place my friend. The only thing you would reduce by moving the season later is the amount of bucks killed due to breeding activity.

Thats what I meant.

bowhunter9
November 24th, 2009, 08:23 PM
take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! Imo

i second that motion!!!!!!!

jna329
November 25th, 2009, 01:04 PM
shorten gun season and make gun season either during pre or post rut not in november. do away with christmas gun hunt. this might help with buck growth. also make all gun hunting tags only. you go to store and buy a buck tag. additional money made to help fight poachers. several states use the tag method for deer.

then create stiffer penalties for poachers and a better reward system for those that turn them in. give land owners the ability to protect there property from poachers with more forceful methods without fear of prosecution. devote more manpower to controlling poaching. The economy sux and this would create jobs and could be funded by an increase in license fees and fines for poaching. I know some are saying no increase in fees but i would pay an extra 1-5 dollars for a yearly hunting license if the poaching went down and we had better management of deer in the state(just mho).

reinstate the check in stations and enforce them better.

last but not least - i think allowing hunters to take inferior bucks out of the herd would go a long way towards helping buck growth and overall herd health. Older bucks with poor genetics and health should not be allowed to stay in gene pool.

these are a few things that i feel would help. I have lots more ideas.

goatranch
November 25th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Why did they do away with check stations? To save money??

bowhunter_va_28
November 25th, 2009, 01:30 PM
Headhunter is right. Poaching IS a big problem and very prevalent in AR and in the south.
....
We should report game violations EVERYTIME we see them. Go to AGFC meetings if possible. Voice our concerns.

Exactly. As true hunters it is up to us to police ourselves. Reporting game violations is a very important part of OUR jobs. You reduce the number of illegal deer taken, the number of poachers out there and let others know poaching isn't tolerated. You can't rely on someone else. I don't expect the police to be aware of every crime and I don't expect the game wardens/conservation officers to be aware of every poachers actions.

Trophy hunters and meat hunters can coexist, without a 3pt rule. But you have to reduce the number of poachers. They are the ones stealing from us all.

whitewolf1
November 25th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Gun season is WAY too long, period, 6 freakin weeks where I hunt most of the time. The three point rule has worked but there is a limit to how much good a static AR program help. Properties that are well managed have age as a target not horn size.

More emphasis on habitat management on the WMA's and Federal lands would be as or more beneficial imo.

Cull bucks will not ever happen because you cant qualify or quantify what is or is not a cull and who can and can't make a correct determination of what is truly a cull, esp on public ground.

Poaching is a big problem but one that cant ever be completely over come. So the question has to be asked, do you see more gains from using resources($) to better enhance habitat and acquire more property or use it trying to eradicate poaching? I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle but imo should be significantly more weighted towards property and habitat.

mlo32
December 1st, 2009, 08:09 PM
anyone ever hear the phrase you are what you eat? I know over half the bucks that are killed around my home are 2.5 and younger but you still have to have the nutrition for them when they reach maturity and i dont think alot of places in arkansas will have it no matter what you plant or what you cull. the deer get their nutrients from the ground in the plants they eat. but i do agree they need age on them.

swampboss
December 2nd, 2009, 02:03 AM
anyone ever hear the phrase you are what you eat? I know over half the bucks that are killed around my home are 2.5 and younger but you still have to have the nutrition for them when they reach maturity and i dont think alot of places in arkansas will have it no matter what you plant or what you cull. the deer get their nutrients from the ground in the plants they eat. but i do agree they need age on them.

You are correct, without age you never know what is possible. You can feed them the best food possible and they will still have 1/2 their potential rack at 2.5 when most get shot.

AR_Headhunter
December 2nd, 2009, 09:23 AM
Guys there is a lot to be done but until more people like us start attending the meetings and pressuring the AGFC to do what needs to be done nothing will change. I have been thinking about starting a organization to do just that. We have the Arkansas Deer Hunters Assoc. but they are basically a joke IMHO. Don't get me wrong there are a lot of good guys in it with good ideas but they lack the organization & leadership to direct them to reach the goals needed. Plus I really think we need a group that focuses on more than just deer. We need a group to represent all hunters interest. A group which will lobby for better management of public lands for all game species & not just cater to special interest groups like is happening now for duck hunters. This is something that has been on my mind for a while now. Maybe it's time to get off my *** & actually try to get it done. I really think we have reached a time in Arkansas where enough people have became concerned about our wildlife & proper management that a group who represents all the law abiding sportsmen of the state might really make a impact. Any of you guys who would be interested in joining a effort in something like this either post up or shoot me a PM & we can discuss it openly or in private.

Either way it's those of us who care enough to actually get involved who are going to make a difference. Nothing worthwhile was ever done sitting on the sidelines watching everyone else & playing armchair quarterback. If we want to change how things are done we must actually get involved & organize. Each of us who have went to the meetings alone & voiced our opinions knows that the AGFC does not pay individuals much attention but as a organized group we have a stronger voice.

I could write on this all day but lets here what the rest of you have to say.

Jack

jna329
December 2nd, 2009, 03:18 PM
Jack-
I would like to see an organization like that. It sounds like a good idea. It also sounds like a lot of time and work -so I think we need to get as many folks involved as possible. You definitely have my support. I will do what I can to help as well. Keep me posted on your ideas. -Jeff

emerson
December 2nd, 2009, 06:28 PM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO

like this idea,,would not hurt to shorten it even.

swampboss
December 2nd, 2009, 08:41 PM
I'm all in favor of better management and think they should go back to check stations. It brings mom and pop stores business and would keep more people honest. On the down side if we were able to see a huge improvement in quality with a lot more big bucks, lease prices would go through the roof and public land would be even more crowded
Have you seen what they get for a lease in ILL. ??

AR_Headhunter
December 3rd, 2009, 12:08 PM
I'm all in favor of better management and think they should go back to check stations. It brings mom and pop stores business and would keep more people honest. On the down side if we were able to see a huge improvement in quality with a lot more big bucks, lease prices would go through the roof and public land would be even more crowded
Have you seen what they get for a lease in ILL. ??

There are real expensive leases already here in Arkansas. In reality most public land in Arkansas is not that crowded. I can show you many places on public land where it is very rare to see other hunters. For this to be done & done right would take a lot of work but I for 1 think it would be worth it.

bigdoglanyards
December 4th, 2009, 08:15 PM
Jack, I am interested! I have tried to make several of the agfc open meetings on waterfowl, but have never gone to any others. I am not sure how much good it does for us to attend individually, but as a group.... Who knows what a larger voice might accomplish.

AR_Headhunter
December 5th, 2009, 12:36 AM
Guy's sorry I have not been around much but this is something I would like to see get going. I'm willing to put forth my best effort, time, & whatever else is needed to try & make a real difference to the outdoorsmen & wildlife of our state. I have this thread bookmarked & will keep tabs as possible. Work has finally turned around & I will be busy but like most of you the outdoors is my passion & I will make time for this. I will likely start another thread just for this subject as I have more time. The name I have thought of for something like this is Arkansas Wildlife Stewards. Guys if we do go into a joint effort to do this then it is my goal to represent hunters, fishermen, & others who enjoy the outdoors & show respect not only to the wildlife we all enjoy but also to persent a core value system of respect for each other as outdoorsmen while educating future sportsmen to the benifits of managing our wildlife for the benefit of all sportsmen.

If you guys are serious then lets get the ball rolling. Let me know of what you think of the name I suggested or think of a name you think would fit what we have in mind & suggest it. For those of you who are truly interested & have friends who would be a assett to us then tell them about this & lets get a ton of input. The best desisions are those based on a well rounded knowledge & if we are to make a go of this then we all need to be willing to bring up topics & have a civil discussion with useful input.

As I stated before I have put a ton of thought into this already. I want this to be a organization above reproach. If we move forward then it's my thoughts that the leadership of this should be people who have a passion for what we want to accomplish. They should also not be people with records of poaching or unethical behavior. If we want to gain respect among our peers & the AGFC then we must show that we are commited to our mission & hold ourselves & the membership accountable for illegal activities involving the wildlife of our state. We are primarily bow hunters on this site but if is my feeling that we can use our experience for the good of all outdoorsmen & that is what we would need to strive to do in order to gain the support needed to get the attention of the AGFC. If we want to really make a difference then we need the support of a large part of the sportsmen in this state to do it. If this is done properly & people get to know that there is a group out there that is very anti-poaching, pro landowner rights, pro wildlife management, & active in helping represent all the law abiding sportsmen of this state then we can really see a huge difference in our voices being heard with the AGFC.

Well I got to get to bed guys but I will check back in on this thread tomorrow. Lets here your thoughts on this.

Jack

jna329
December 5th, 2009, 08:00 PM
Guys if we do go into a joint effort to do this then it is my goal to represent hunters, fishermen, & others who enjoy the outdoors & show respect not only to the wildlife we all enjoy but also to persent a core value system of respect for each other as outdoorsmen while educating future sportsmen to the benifits of managing our wildlife for the benefit of all sportsmen.


Jack- I do feel that this is a great opportunity to present a united front on the behalf of dedicated sportsmen. I however think this goal will lead to contradictions, as well as some other issues that may take away from the focus of the group. I feel that trying to make the focus so broad will ultimately deter the message that we are trying to convey.

to persent a core value system of respect for each other as outdoorsmen while educating future sportsmen to the benifits of managing our wildlife for the benefit of all sportsmen.
this I feel must be a part of whatever we (or the group) focuses on. Without this we havent got a chance.

Example- "others who enjoy the outdoors" could be a bird watcher and may not want hunters in certain areas. Deer hunters may disagree with the flooding of areas for ducks. Fishermen may not want bird hunting within specific distances of certain waterways. ETC.

I love what you are proposing, but feel that we need to start with a group of "stewards" and see if we can get some of the deerhunting (especially bowhunting) issues addressed. Once you make a stand as a group then you have the ability to move forward and take on more tasks and objectives.

With respect for all- Jeff

Sorry to anyone that disagrees but I thought the thread was how to get bigger bucks and better deer for arkansans, as well as improving heard health and managing properties better. Although I agree that there should be a group to tackle all of the outdoor issues- My passion lies with bowhunting and archery (especially hunting whitetail and turkey). I would like to see a group that first tries to improve quality, quantity, health of the animals and stops poaching. that we bowhunt before tackling other areas. Dont get me wrong- I will give my support but I would like to see the efforts focused on this. There are several groups outthere that focus on the waterways, ducks, etc. As deerhunters - our voice isnt quite as loud and its time to change that.

AR_Headhunter
December 5th, 2009, 10:01 PM
Jack- I do feel that this is a great opportunity to present a united front on the behalf of dedicated sportsmen. I however think this goal will lead to contradictions, as well as some other issues that may take away from the focus of the group. I feel that trying to make the focus so broad will ultimately deter the message that we are trying to convey.
this I feel must be a part of whatever we (or the group) focuses on. Without this we havent got a chance.

Example- "others who enjoy the outdoors" could be a bird watcher and may not want hunters in certain areas. Deer hunters may disagree with the flooding of areas for ducks. Fishermen may not want bird hunting within specific distances of certain waterways. ETC.

I love what you are proposing, but feel that we need to start with a group of "stewards" and see if we can get some of the deerhunting (especially bowhunting) issues addressed. Once you make a stand as a group then you have the ability to move forward and take on more tasks and objectives.

With respect for all- Jeff

Sorry to anyone that disagrees but I thought the thread was how to get bigger bucks and better deer for arkansans, as well as improving heard health and managing properties better. Although I agree that there should be a group to tackle all of the outdoor issues- My passion lies with bowhunting and archery (especially hunting whitetail and turkey). I would like to see a group that first tries to improve quality, quantity, health of the animals and stops poaching. that we bowhunt before tackling other areas. Dont get me wrong- I will give my support but I would like to see the efforts focused on this. There are several groups outthere that focus on the waterways, ducks, etc. As deerhunters - our voice isnt quite as loud and its time to change that.

Actually Jeff I totally agree with you. I am already a member of the deer advisor groups for Arkansas. I feel that we could gain a lot of support from other hunters who are feed up with issues of poaching, trespassing, illegal dog hunting, & other irresponsible behavior. I feel if we could focus on getting a handle on those activities & focus on the benefits to private property owners of managing the herd then we could get a number of people supporting this. if you want to Jeff send me a PM with your # & I'll give you a call & we can discuss this in real time instead of on the board.

bigdoglanyards
December 5th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Guys, I am all for what ever direction this thing takes. Anything we can do is better than nothing! I would be comfortable working on this in any capacity needed. I believe our deer regulations need all the help they can get. That being said I want to bring up another point. In my opinion we need to find a way to keep our state wildlife officials held accountable for all of their decisions. Weather it is season dates, bag limits or any other decisions that they make, I feel like the people need to have more of a voice. Whitetails are actually my 2nd passion, my 1st is waterfowl. I have been involved in the waterfowl industry in several ways and currently pro staff for several national companies. I have seen how little input we the people have in the decisions that are made by our game and fish officials. We really have no voice. This has to change! We have to have a larger voice in the decisions made for our state…

AR_Headhunter
December 5th, 2009, 10:10 PM
I have seen how little input we the people have in the decisions that are made by our game and fish officials. We really have no voice. This has to change! We have to have a larger voice in the decisions made for our state…

Thats what needs to change. For example they closed fall turkey season but left spring season open. If they really want to help the turkey population close the season period until we have a huntable population for both seasons.

neo71665
December 5th, 2009, 10:13 PM
They need to do a buck only and doe only gun season. Down here we have way to many does compared to bucks. Everybody seems to be horn hunters anyways. That would give me enough time to tag out before the idiots looking for horns get in the woods and ruin the hunting for us that only hunt for meat.

For the 3 point only rule I guess I'm the only one that is seeing more and more trash bucks in the woods that need to be cleaned out but you legally can't. I've had a 3 point buck that has been on my land for a few years now and his offspring are becoming pretty apparent.

riverrat09
December 5th, 2009, 10:15 PM
BUT if I pass on them you never see them again that season and most likely you will go with out filling tags.

I feel that part of the problem is people being concernd about filling their tags. I've shot a few good deer and i have also passed deer up and not shot a deer for two years in a row. Its tough to let a deer walk, but its a chance you gotta take and hope it pays of.

riverrat09
December 5th, 2009, 10:18 PM
hunt4meat
I will say this, but I will come back and contradict myself in a minute. I kinda like the 4X4 slot they are using on some of the WMA's. It allows to remove the inferior deer (spikes and forked horns) and let those with potential another year or 2.

My dad used to raise deer and a couple of the biggest ones he ever had started out as either spikes or fork horns. So the yearling rack doesn''t necessarily tell how big the deer will be.

bigdoglanyards
December 5th, 2009, 10:22 PM
The buck to doe ratio is another big problem. You have to remember that the agfc is a government entity, meaning low funding. They can not be everywhere all the time, so the herd surveys are limited. If you dont complain about your area to the agfc chances are they will never do one there.

Jack, we do need to talk some time...

AR_Headhunter
December 5th, 2009, 10:27 PM
The buck to doe ratio is another big problem. You have to remember that the agfc is a government entity, meaning low funding. They can not be everywhere all the time, so the herd surveys are limited. If you dont complain about your area to the agfc chances are they will never do one there.

Jack, we do need to talk some time...

Answer your PM's buddy.

bigdoglanyards
December 5th, 2009, 10:30 PM
I feel that part of the problem is people being concernd about filling their tags. I've shot a few good deer and i have also passed deer up and not shot a deer for two years in a row. Its tough to let a deer walk, but its a chance you gotta take and hope it pays of.

You really cant fault guys for just filling their tags, they may really need the meat! I hunt for food first, in doing so I choose most times to fill my first 2 tags with does and then take a buck. That is not to say that I dont want to some day take a 170" buck, just that I chose not to "horn hunt" Most of the time when I kill a buck it is more a target of opportunity...

AR_Headhunter
December 5th, 2009, 10:44 PM
You really cant fault guys for just filling their tags, they may really need the meat! I hunt for food first, in doing so I choose most times to fill my first 2 tags with does and then take a buck. That is not to say that I dont want to some day take a 170" buck, just that I chose not to "horn hunt" Most of the time when I kill a buck it is more a target of opportunity...

I do not fault anyone for filling tags. It's the illegal activities that chap my backside. If it's legal & you want to shoot it by all means have at it but there are way to many tags filled every year in Arkansas by people who did not shoot the animal they are checking.

swampboss
December 5th, 2009, 11:12 PM
I do not fault anyone for filling tags. It's the illegal activities that chap my backside. If it's legal & you want to shoot it by all means have at it but there are way to many tags filled every year in Arkansas by people who did not shoot the animal they are checking.

AR,
I would like to start a list of things IMO think should be changed.
1) bring back check stations. ( no phone or computer )
2) more done on poaching , Zero tolerance for road and night hunters
others add from here

AR_Headhunter
December 5th, 2009, 11:18 PM
AR,
I would like to start a list of things IMO think should be changed.
1) bring back check stations. ( no phone or computer )
2) more done on poaching , Zero tolerance for road and night hunters
others add from here

I think if your caught poaching it should be a mandatory 1 year loss of licence. If your caught spotlighting or roadhunting then mandatory 3 year loss of license. This points system we have is a joke. Lets make it harsher on violators to the point that it's just not worth it to poachers. Also if you report a poacher that the AGFC can prosecute then you should get a free hunting & fishing license for the next year plus the reward. If things are going to change then we have to do more than what is currently being done.

neo71665
December 6th, 2009, 12:52 AM
Honestly do you think the guys out there poaching are really gonna be stopped if you take their licence?

I personally love the online check, means I don't have to load the thing up and drive 40+ minutes (round trip) after I kill a deer then have to skin it out at night. Don't have to worry if the processer i use is gonna be able to stay open later so I can drive there to drop it off.

knighten
December 6th, 2009, 02:22 AM
I think if your caught poaching you should lose your hunting right for life,spotlighting or whatever no excuse for it.I hate a guy that kills a good deer with a spotlight & i sit all season and never get the option.i can see if a guy shot a forked horn and really thought it was a 3 point.As long as he was legally hunting.We have to get tough on poaching.I will be glad to support you just let me know when & where. Knighten

knighten
December 6th, 2009, 02:33 AM
Another thing is the G&F should post all people found guilty in a court of law of wildlife crimes on there website so the public can see.Maybe that way we can can keep a better eye on the poachers.:mad:

bigdoglanyards
December 6th, 2009, 11:20 AM
Another thing is the G&F should post all people found guilty in a court of law of wildlife crimes on there website so the public can see.Maybe that way we can can keep a better eye on the poachers.:mad:

I like this idea!

swampboss
December 6th, 2009, 12:44 PM
Honestly do you think the guys out there poaching are really gonna be stopped if you take their licence?

I personally love the online check, means I don't have to load the thing up and drive 40+ minutes (round trip) after I kill a deer then have to skin it out at night. Don't have to worry if the processer i use is gonna be able to stay open later so I can drive there to drop it off.

I agree it is most certainly convenient to phone them or go online, but it is not like you have to go every day?? They need to make any store that sells bread and milk be able to be a check station and not make all of them also sell license. That is the problem for smaller stores they don't want the license machine. I think they have to pay for it.??
I think they need to take the drivers license , vehicle, and guns because they do most of the poaching from public roads. This would knock their *#$% in the dirt.

AR_Headhunter
December 6th, 2009, 08:08 PM
I think if your caught poaching it should be a mandatory 1 year loss of licence. If your caught spotlighting or roadhunting then mandatory 3 year loss of license. This points system we have is a joke. Lets make it harsher on violators to the point that it's just not worth it to poachers. Also if you report a poacher that the AGFC can prosecute then you should get a free hunting & fishing license for the next year plus the reward. If things are going to change then we have to do more than what is currently being done.


Another thing is the G&F should post all people found guilty in a court of law of wildlife crimes on there website so the public can see.Maybe that way we can can keep a better eye on the poachers.:mad:



I think they need to take the drivers license , vehicle, and guns because they do most of the poaching from public roads. This would knock their *#$% in the dirt.

Those are the kind of things I'm talking about. Public humiliation is a big deturent plus taking everything involved in a act of poaching would go a long way.

Boudreaux
December 7th, 2009, 02:04 AM
Reducing the deer population has nothing to do with when the season takes place my friend. The only thing you would reduce by moving the season later is the amount of bucks killed due to breeding activity.

If you move the season out of the rut you will reduce the deer movement thus reducing deer sightings by hunter, which means what?
less deer killed. More deer killed means a reduce of deer population.

AR_Headhunter
December 7th, 2009, 11:35 PM
If you move the season out of the rut you will reduce the deer movement thus reducing deer sightings by hunter, which means what?
less deer killed. More deer killed means a reduce of deer population.

Last time I checked deer determined when they move. We are looking at ways to improve our deer herd, improve age structure, improve overall herd health & deter poaching. The dates of season have nothing to do with the amount of deer killed if we keep the season the same overall length. What moving gun season out of the rut would do is improve the number of mature bucks that make it through to the next year resulting in better bucks. You might find quite a few people who would object to moving the gun season out of the rut but you will find very few who would object to the chance to take better bucks.

Lets look at this from another view point. It's said meat hunters & trophy hunters can't coexist. I say thats a BS arguement. We can not only coexist we can benefit each other. A true meat hunter does not care if he is eating a buck or a doe so why not let people who are only out for meat help us balance the herd by taking does. Most of us who are trophy hunters as myself do not take all the deer we can because we are trying to help manage the herd. I personally get a great amount of satisfaction just getting in position & knowing I can take a deer almost at will. Hunting is about a lot more than just the kill. It's about helping each other & helping the wildlife while enjoying something that many of us are passionate about. If we can work together & find common ground then it's a win win for everyone. I know of places that are basically begging people to come shoot does to help them manage the herd & improve the herd balance. My point here is lets make hunting better for all of us by showing a little cooperation. After all I hear people gripe about this & that but very few are willing to actually step up to the plate & offer a solution or try to work to solve issues. If we will stand together on a united front then we can make things better for the deer herd & in turn for us people who love to hunt those animals.

So lets either step up to the plate & try to make things better or shut up & get out of the way for those who are at least trying. I know that may seem harsh but for real here. Lets not let those few sarcastic few stand in the way of doing whats right not only for us but for the future of this sport we love.
Jack

Boudreaux
December 8th, 2009, 09:37 PM
The dates of season have nothing to do with the amount of deer killed if we keep the season the same overall length.

Jack,
All I can say is open mouth and insert foot.
You are telling me with that statement that, If we have the same numbers of days of gun season in July that we will kill the same number of deer?
No sir, you ARE wrong there.
Boswell

AR_Headhunter
December 8th, 2009, 09:54 PM
Jack,
All I can say is open mouth and insert foot.
You are telling me with that statement that, If we have the same numbers of days of gun season in July that we will kill the same number of deer?
No sir, you ARE wrong there.
Boswell

Since when was deer season taking place in July a option? If your going to join the discussion then please add something positive.

Boudreaux
December 8th, 2009, 11:08 PM
Jack,
Just becuase I am pointing out a flaw in your thought does not mean that I am not adding something positive. I am, by pointing this out I am showing that by moving the unbelieveably long gun season out of the rut will reduce the number of deer that are seen by the same number of hunters. This will cause a DECREASE in deer harvest.
This is one of a very many options that could be done to improve the deer harvest. As a Fish and Wildlife major this is a highly discussed topic.
Boswell

AR_Headhunter
December 8th, 2009, 11:11 PM
Jack,
Just becuase I am pointing out a flaw in your thought does not mean that I am not adding something positive. I am, by pointing this out I am showing that by moving the unbelieveably long gun season out of the rut will reduce the number of deer that are seen by the same number of hunters. This will cause a DECREASE in deer harvest.
This is one of a very many options that could be done to improve the deer harvest. As a Fish and Wildlife major this is a highly discussed topic.
Boswell

Boswell does the AGFC want to deer harvest #'s lowered? I was under the impression from the AGFC personnel that I have spoken with that they want to maintain harvest numbers.

Jack

Boudreaux
December 8th, 2009, 11:36 PM
Jack,
Yes, they do, and so do you. We are looking for lower harvest of the young age class bucks. Is that not what we are complaning about? By moving season out of the rut, we will lower the harvest of the only legal deer that can be harvest in the rut (deer meeting the 3-point rule). With the season moved out of the rut, less bucks will be "on their feet" thus less deer being killed. Am I saying this will GREATLY improve the 3-point rule, NO WAY. There needs to be another antler restriction applyed, weither that is a width restriction or a mainbeam restriction.
Boswell

AR_Headhunter
December 8th, 2009, 11:51 PM
Boswell
I totally agree with you that there needs to be more antler restrictions. The current 3 point rule only protects a small number of 1 1/2 year old deer. We need to increase the age structure of our bucks while taking more does to bring our herd into balance. As I told Brad Miller, The doe days are a very good thing but we need to look at that every year & not overkill the herd. In my area the does out # the bucks about 6 to 1. That is not a well balanced herd & it needs to be corrected. We have a great deer population & need to maintain it while bringing the buck to doe ratio's back to where they need to be. There are a number of ways to do this & I am open to any & all suggestions about how to achieve a healthier more balanced herd. As you can likely tell this is something I am very passionate about.

Jack

bigdoglanyards
December 9th, 2009, 12:52 AM
With the season moved out of the rut, less bucks will be "on their feet" thus less deer being killed.

I beg to differ with you on this one. (and this is just my opinion) Take that same legnth gun season and put it after the rut so that you are hunting later in the year. During this time of the year you will have just as much day time movement if not more due to shorter days and colder temps. I am not sure it would work, like I said, just my opinion...

Boudreaux
December 9th, 2009, 01:27 PM
Bigdoglanyards,
I think that it might if you were in a more northern state, Where the temps get colder and due to snow and weather would cause the deer to go to standing crop fields. Being here in arkansas some times its in the 50s after season. I don't think that this would be a major factor in causing deer to move have to move in the daylight.
But besides moving the 3-point rule to a 4-point rule, I feel that they need to add a width restriction or a main beam length restriction.
Boswell

jna329
December 9th, 2009, 01:43 PM
Jack - got your message. I will be calling as soon as I have time to talk for a while.

These are my suggestions. 1- Change dates of gun seasons. Possibly shorten them. 2- go back to check stations. 3- Issue 2 deer tags with license. One buck and one doe. You may purchase another doe tag after you have filled them both. (Regardless of whether you use gun or bow.) Once that is filled then you can purchase a buck tag This will allow more funds to help promote better management and fight the poachers. Also allowing hunters to harvest 4 deer throughout the state. You must have a check in id # in order to buy next tag. 4- I know a lot of you will disagree, but I think the youth should stay as it is this year. It will help promote our sport. The only thing is I think that once they kill one deer then they are subject to statewide rules. 5-agfc needs to have more meetings throughout the year, regarding deer hunting, in various areas making it easier for us to attend. some of us cant attend if we have to drive 3-4 hours. These meetings will give more people opportunities to make proposals and keep up with rule changes. 6- we as bowhunters need to become more united as a whole so that we can implement some of these changes. Whether we all join and take part in existing groups, such as arkansas bowhunters assoc. or we start a new group as suggested previously.

Its time to make changes. Whether you agree with the proposed changes or not. Something has to change or our sport may not survive. Arguing amongst each other will not solve these issues. We have enough problems with poachers and anti-hunting groups.

I have a lot more suggestions - unfortunately I dont have much time these days to act upon these things. I will however do what I can - when I can. I am a passionate bowhunter and believe that there is a lot of you that feel the same way. Lets unite and attempt to make a difference.

Thanks Jeff

bigdoglanyards
December 9th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Bigdoglanyards,
I think that it might if you were in a more northern state, Where the temps get colder and due to snow and weather would cause the deer to go to standing crop fields. Being here in arkansas some times its in the 50s after season. I don't think that this would be a major factor in causing deer to move have to move in the daylight.
But besides moving the 3-point rule to a 4-point rule, I feel that they need to add a width restriction or a main beam length restriction.
Boswell

Tell me more about how you think this would work? I agree with the 4 point rule, but width restrictions or main beam length? How many of your average guys are going to be able to accurately judge this? I am not trying to be critical of anyones ideas, just wondering. Thanks!
Bo

Also nice to see more people getting involved in this conversation!

AR_Headhunter
December 9th, 2009, 06:58 PM
Guys we have some very good suggestions here. I think a 4 point rule would be widely supported by those of us who actually care about the deer herd & proper management of it.

I am already a member of the deer program advisor group for the AGFC so I get a little more information than the general public. I am very disappointed in a recent e-mail I received from the AGFC stating,
"Currently at our public meetings we usually have more staff than public. We would like to try something new for our general hunting regulations public meeting in January.

We will have only one meeting in Little Rock on Tuesday, Jan. 5, 7-9 p.m."

I find this very upsetting because this will leave a large number of our sportsmen without a voice at this meeting. This 1 meeting in Little Rock will severly limit the amount of people who can attend and actually voice their opinions on what the AGFC is proposing. This is something that every sportsman in the state needs to be aware of & show the AGFC the displeasure of not having our voices heard. Email, call, write or do whatever you can to let the AGFC know that we as sportsmen want our voices heard & we actually want our concerns adressed instead of simply discarded.

Jeff
You have some very good suggestions & make some very valid points. I agree that we need to join a effort to unite our sportsmen or support a existing organization. I was a member of the Arkansas Bohunters Assoc. for many years but I withdrew my membership 2 years ago & will not rejoin. I found out the hard way that the ABA will not take on the hard issues facing the bowhunters of this state & if I am a member of & support a organization then I want that organization to be willing to take on the issues that concern the membership. The ABA in my opinion needs to be undergo a major overhaul to be a organization that I will support. They would need to take on a role of actually adressing issues that concern bow hunters & take a active role in trying to accomplish goals. Until they do that I can no longer in good faith support the ABA. That is why I am looking at starting a new organization that will actively engage in the conerns & needs of bowhunters & anyone else who is interested in managing our deer herd to benifit the sportsmen of this state.

Boswell
I understand your opinion of "I think that it might if you were in a more northern state, Where the temps get colder and due to snow and weather would cause the deer to go to standing crop fields. Being here in arkansas some times its in the 50s after season. I don't think that this would be a major factor in causing deer to move have to move in the daylight.".

You are wrong there though. I can show you several places in Arkansas where deer focus on crop fields & the remaining food sources late in the year. Once the mast crop is depleated & food sourses become scarce in the woods the deer must rely on food sources such as crop fields, pasture land, etc.. That is what would make moving the gun season to a later date just as producive in the terms of harvest as a earlier season. Those of us who really hunt during the late season know that we see much more deer movement overall than earlier during the season. As food sources are depleated it forces deer to move in order to feed. The more depleated the food sourses become the more deer will move in a effort to find sufficiant food. You can argue the logic of this all day long but trust me it is a fact.

I am not trying to belittle your opinion at all my friend but there is no doubt that we could start rifle season on thanksgiving day, let it end on Jan. 3'rd & it would still let hunters see a little rutting activity but it would drasticly lower the number of bucks killed due to breeding activity. There will still be a lot of does that are not breed during the primary rut who come in a second time in December due to our buck/doe ratio being out of whack. This would allow rifle hunters to hunt the secondary rut which in my opinion can be as good as the primary rut. Many hunters now have never seen the secondary rut because their season ends with rifle season. Trust me though. Those of us who hunt after rifle season knows there is a very distinct secondary rut. IMO it can be better than the primary rut because the numbers of available does is reduced which in turn increases buck activity. Many of us who hunt after rifle season have witnessed this & know it as fact. In actuality it is a great benifit to the bowhunter who is willing to devote time to hunting this period because deer movement goes way up due to the lack of hunters in the woods. I guess I just gave up one of my secrets there but thats ok. I want to benefit others with my knowledge of the outdoors.

Bo
Your absolutely correct about the average hunter not accurately judging main beam leangth or spread. This would be the biggest negative to Boswell's suggestion. Don't get me wrong that works very well on well managed leases where the membership takes the time to become knowledgeable about how to judge spreads & main beam lengths but I do not believe that is a viable option for the hunting public at large. In a perect world we could all make accurate measurements of those things but as we all know the current situation is far from perfect. If not then we would not be having this discussion.

Boudreaux
December 9th, 2009, 09:23 PM
Guys,
I agree I do see deer in the fields later in the year. But I still do not see the bucks.
If moving it back isn't going to help, move it up and move the muzzle loader back.

As for the width, as long as it is noticably outside the deers ears, not 12 in or 15 inch, because not all deer are the same. As long as the antlers are NOTICABLY out side its ears. Some may say that is hard to judge, but then again so it a 1 inch tine at 50 yards.

Boswell

AR_Headhunter
December 9th, 2009, 10:48 PM
Boswell
Why in the world would you recommend moving gun season up? I'm trying to see the logic your using here but it eludes me.

By the way if your going to see mature bucks in fields then you would need 1 of 2 things. 1 a low pressure hunting area or 2 a spotlight. Anyone who is a seasoned hunter knows to find mature bucks you do not hunt fiels edges. At least not on 95% of the land in Arkansas.

I have a question Boswell. How old are you? The reason I ask is because you said you are a Fish and Wildlife major. Your knowledge of Arkansas wildlife seems to be more from what your taught in school and not actual time in the field.....

AR_Headhunter
December 9th, 2009, 10:56 PM
Boswell
Let me also ask, what is your goal as a hunter. I ask this to get a better understanding of you.Do you consider yourself a trophy hunter, meat hunter, or somewhere in between? The general opinion of everyone seems to be that moving the gun seaason back out of the rut would greatly benefit our bucks age structure. If you do not agree with this please explain why.

Boudreaux
December 10th, 2009, 12:05 AM
Jack,
The way to improve buck age structure would be to reduce the harvest of bucks that are below the 3.5 year range. There are many ways to do this.
With the three point rule doing nothing but killing of the very best genetic bucks that the state has. You need to move the season to reduce the harvest of deer, Why when trying to get older bucks do you hunt bucks when they are most expose. With keeping the three point and moving the season up, you will reduce the number of bucks that are seen thus harvested which will alow bucks to grow to a older class. The more immature bucks killed the lower the age class will be.

To take a quote from you jack "I can show you several places in Arkansas where deer focus on crop fields & the remaining food sources late in the year. Once the mast crop is depleated & food sourses become scarce in the woods the deer must rely on food sources such as crop fields, pasture land, etc.. "
I was just responding to your statement about cropfields and pasture land when seeing bucks. Which you said you could show me places where deer could be found focusing in late season.

I agree moving the season back would help, read my post about 10 posts ago.

As for my age I am 22

You may think I am basing all knowlage on my schooling, yes and no, I have conducted more research projects and papers on this subject then anything. I have read more studys and articles from states that have successful antler restrictions. So most of my knowlage is from that as well as the failure of the antler restrictions in arkansas and in no way am I a AGFC person or support them. So my point of view has come from this and a combination of other restrictions that states have applyed.

Boswell

AR_Headhunter
December 10th, 2009, 12:32 AM
Boswell
I to have done a ton of reseach on antler restrictions. I have also been involved in discussions with the people who make recomendations for antler restrictions on our NWR's. Here is a interesting fact. The age structure of our bucks on NWR lands here in Arkansas is much better than the age structure on almost any WMA in the state despite the fact that there are no antler restrictions on NWR's. Fotunately the administration of our NWR's know a lot more about herd health & age structure than does our AGFC. The key to that is because of the very limited gun hunting on NWR's. If we truely want to do whats right for our herd then we should follow a example of what works & I would say the system that most of our NWR's is using is working very well! The reason you will never see that model used by the AGFC is because of politics. As long as politics are involved in the AGFC then we will never grow to our true potential in regards to our deer herd.

I agree with you to a large extent. Antler restrictions only work for so long then all we are doing is killing out the very best bucks which we need passing on their genetics. The 3 point rule has ran it's course in Arkansas but several organizations in the state will fight tooth & nail to keep it in place. Try suggesting to the Arkansas Bowhunters Assoc or the Arkansas Deer hunters Alliance that we need stricter antler restrictions. You will find out very quickly that you will have a huge fight on your hands. Try getting the ADHA to propose a shorter or later gun season & it's the same story.

This is why I feel we need a new orgaization in Arkansas that is actually willing to do whats best for the herd. All I hear from the current organizations is "We will not back anything which reduces hunter opportunity". Sometimes to do whats best for the herd we need to make tough choices & IMHO that time is now. We can continue to have a very long gun season with the current APR's & will not see a noticable difference in age structure or herd balance or we can do whats best for the herd. If we as hunters were to unite & do what needs to be done to reach our potential then in 3 years we could see a huge improvement in the quality of deer hunting in this state. I've been hunting since I was a child & I would gladly sacrifice 3 years to see the potential that we have developed. Until we do more than just talk about this and take action though we are not making a difference at all. Just my honest opinion.

Boudreaux
December 10th, 2009, 01:12 AM
Jack,
As for the NWR's. As of 2 years ago they had a 4x4 slot, do you feel that this has not helped to improve their age structure?

If it was up to me, I would impose a 4 point rule, with a width or main beam length, but every 5th year or so (an't fidgured out how many years would be best) allow for any buck to be harvested. This will allow the inferior deer that may never make the 4 point rule AND a width or main beam restriction to be remove from the herd. I have yet to find any study done on a season like that, but i feel that it would help.

Boswell

swampboss
December 10th, 2009, 09:47 AM
One thing Big none of you have mentioned is " Neighbor Management Communication " The first time I heard about this as a way to bigger bucks was in a magazine article. It is ofter over looked because neighboring hunting clubs / landowners don't always get along, but you can still let them know your side of the purple paint is doing its part to not shoot the "little basket racks". Some will say great we shoot anything that moves. but over time most get tired of not seeing decent bucks and will do some of the same. Kill does when you need meat and encourage others to let the 2-3 year old bucks walk.
If you all hunt Nat. forest , of course this does not work so well . But Communication is one of the keys to the problem.

AR_Headhunter
December 10th, 2009, 10:23 AM
Boswell
Thats was my point about the NWR's. They implemented antler restrictions long enough to increase the age structure of the bucks within the herd then dropped the antler restrictions which has spread the harvest of bucks fairly evenly across the population. The biggest factor in them being able to continue without antler restrictions is the fact of the very limited gun season. Your only 22 so I doubt you have a lot of knowledge about everything that transpired in zone 4. Back in the early 90's zone 4 had the best balanced herd in the state. Gun season had been closed for a number of years & during the early 90's there was only a 2 day slug gun hunt. Back then you got to see some very nice bucks on their feet & roaming during the rut & basically the same activity you see on well managed property on various TV hunts. Then the AGFC started increasing the number of days of gun hunting & the herd up there has taken a beating. It is once again very out of balance in zone 4 & the overall deer numbers are way down from the early 90's when the herd was almost in perfect condition up there.

The AGFC provides the annual deer report & the information contained within it is a joke as far as buck to doe ratio's. I do not know how they come up with such fabricated numbers but anyone who has spent a good amount of time in the outdoors knows our herd is out of balance statewide with the exception on some well managed leases & some well managed pockets of private property. If they truely wanted to balance our herd then we need to go to a 1 buck limit for a couple years or to earn a buck like Jeff suggested for your second buck.I believe the 1 buck limit for 2 years would greatly help to even out the buck/doe ratio. If we went to a 1 buck limit I also believe we should implement a 4X4 slot rule. As you stated above that would allow inferior bucks to be removed from the herd while protecting a number of bucks to see another year. It is very easy to do deer surveys & get a accurate feel of the buck to doe ratio's using spotlight count. However this would require many of our AGFC officials & employees to get out from behind the desk and actually spend time in the field. I would like to see a program where private property owners could request a spotlight count of their property in which they could ride along with AGFC personnel & verify the #'s aquired during the survey. This would create accountability for the AGFC though & would not be very likely to happen. It would make it very difficult for the AGFC to post numbers on buck to doe ratio's that are not accurate & create a better working relationship between the public & the AGFC.

Most of us who have dealt with the AGFC know that they do not want to have to take accountablity for their actions. They want to be able to make the rules & for us to follow without questioning their authority. Well I would like to see that changed. We have commissioners which are all apointed by various governors due to their political connections. I do not know how we could change that but it is something that needs to be changed. We need people in those positions who are well educated about the wildlife & passionate about doing whats best for it. I am not just talking about people who have a college degree in wildlife biology either. There are many well educated people like myself across the state who would make fine commissioners. A college degree is great but without time in the field actually getting a first hand knowledge of actual conditions it is nothing more than a piece of paper. I know guys who barely finished high school but when it comes to anything outdoors are better informed than about anyone at the AGFC. We do not need people who are more concerned with building nature centers than the health of our wildlife. I would love to know the total cost for these nature centers they felt were so needed. I feel that money would have been much better spent in enforcement. Every time you turn around they are complaining about how short handed they are in enforcement but want to build nature centers. Just FYI for the AFGC. There are nature centers already all across the state. They are called Wildlife Management Area's. Imagine what a huge difference all that money could have made to our current WMA's in the form of road improvement, food plots, increased enforcement, etc.. The WMA's were already bought & paid for but the people of Arkansas. We own them but due to AGFC management they are for a large part in need of real managemet of the wildlife & resources contained within.

I would love the opportunity to manage any of our WMA's for the benefit of our sportsmen for a few years. I can promise you one thing. In 5 years that WMA would be a sought after place to hunt for a large number of hunters who would love to experience what can be attained with proper management of public property.

Here is another thing to think about. Why is it that on well managed public ground like our NWR's there is a short gun season but for the state we have a very long gun season. The reason is simple. The AGFC does not want to reach the potential we have here in Arkansas for our deer herd. This is a true shame for several reasons. A properly managed deer herd would benefit enjoyment for all deer hunters. It would also boost revenue to businesses that benefit from hunting based revenue. It would also benefit private property owners who would benefit from increased lease rates. You will find many who will object to that but would you rather pay $500 for a yearly lease with mediocre hunting or $1000 for a yearly lease with great hunting opportunites? I know many who would gladly double their lease rates if they knew for sure that they could increase the average buck size to a 130" deer. I know of leases right now that have never taken a 130" deer on the property. That is because the members of that lease do not care about management. They shoot everything which is legal according to the AGFC. There will always be those with this mindset & there is nothing anyone can do to change that but for the rest of us we can change it. To do it though we must unite & devote some time & resources to reaching our objective.

whitewolf1
December 10th, 2009, 12:28 PM
The biggest issues for increasing the quality of the bucks and herd overall are nutrition and age, imo. Antler restrictions such as the 3 point rule only provide a starting point, it is not a solution and neither would be a 4 pt rule or beam length or spread requirements. Keeping in mind that this discussion is focused on management of public land, one first has to recognize that most hunters are not that good at field judging a deer either by antler score or age.

So how best to manage for increasing age and quality in a public environment? IMO, a significant change in habitat management(select timber harvest, control burns, etc), food plotting(year round rotation of warm and cool season plantings), and season structure(shorten MG season, take MG out of the rut, establish rut zones based on fawning data to structure seasons around, change tag structure to one buck and one doe with an option to buy additional doe tags and one additional buck tag, establish defined harvest min. and max. numbers for WMA's for optimal carry capacity where late season bonus tags would be made available to ensure min. numbers are met with regards to doe harvest, use a basic AR program for 4 years of 4pts on one side and either 15 inch inside spread or 18 inch main beam in conjunction with a cull buck program that would require qualification of the hunter to judge horns and age of bucks in photos and actual racks from deer of known ages).

bigdoglanyards
December 10th, 2009, 09:10 PM
Let me throw this one out there. Any one think that it would make a difference if they instated a doe first rule for mg season? I know alot of private leases use this tactic as a way to help control ratio. It is not an answer to the buck problem but imo it would help the over population of doe...

Nocked
December 10th, 2009, 09:45 PM
Let me throw this one out there. Any one think that it would make a difference if they instated a doe first rule for mg season? I know alot of private leases use this tactic as a way to help control ratio. It is not an answer to the buck problem but imo it would help the over population of doe...

In my area 12 we can look outside most every night and see as many as 30 deer here on our property.
We may see two bucks in these groups.
In the past few years we had to draw for a doe tag. This year a doe was allowed to be taken the first two days of MG and ML.
Our buck ratio is so out of ballance.


bigdoglanyards I am all for one buck tag.
In Zone 12 my home I would like to see 1 Buck after we fill our doe tags.
Myself along with others I hunt with don't understand AGFCs reasoning in setting tag quotas for our area, Instead of allowing more does to be taken they set a 3 deer limit for zone 12 two Bucks and a doe on certain dates.

There was some talk about horn size restrictions, A 15" spread is a big deer for on our hunt lease.
I was lucky to get one 18" during bow season and have only seen one other buck that would fit the 15" or larger this season.

jna329
December 11th, 2009, 12:29 AM
You have some very good suggestions & make some very valid points. I agree that we need to join a effort to unite our sportsmen or support a existing organization. I was a member of the Arkansas Bohunters Assoc. for many years but I withdrew my membership 2 years ago & will not rejoin. I found out the hard way that the ABA will not take on the hard issues facing the bowhunters of this state & if I am a member of & support a organization then I want that organization to be willing to take on the issues that concern the membership. The ABA in my opinion needs to be undergo a major overhaul to be a organization that I will support. They would need to take on a role of actually adressing issues that concern bow hunters & take a active role in trying to accomplish goals. Until they do that I can no longer in good faith support the ABA. That is why I am looking at starting a new organization that will actively engage in the conerns & needs of bowhunters & anyone else who is interested in managing our deer herd to benifit the sportsmen of this state

This is part of my point. If we cant orchestrate some change then we will be subject to groups such as ABA that dont have interest in our issues. The overhaul of such groups comes down to membership. The problem is there just isnt enough active participants to support the changes that need to be made. The aba is just an example. there are others groups that have the same issue. They mean well but tend to stray from the primary objectives do to lack of participants, political agendas, economics, and arrogance.

As for the buck size restriction debate that keeps taking control of this thread - my thoughts. Main beam length or rack width will not work as a whole in many places. The only place that can truly work is a private-highly managed large property. In a state like ours there is just too many guys that just want a buck. Doesnt matter the size. I think a restriction on antlers will work. The 3 pt. rule was good in theory but extremely flawed in that it allows for lots of 2-3 yr.old deer to be harvested. I think a 4x4 rule may work for awhile with youths able to shoot the first deer of season without restriction. It allows for older deer and still gives the ability to take out some younger and inferior bucks. Run the 4x4 rule for 3-5 yrs. then have a draw for a specific amount of buck tags for no restriction. Then run the 4x4 again for another 3-5 yrs. I dont think we will get much backing for a 4x4 rule statewide but I would settle with a 3x3 rule. At least it would be another step in the right direction. I have seen a lot of 4 and 5 point 2yr old deer that have been killed. 3 pts on oneside doesnt do much. Ideally we need to have "everyone" agree to learn how to age a deer and only take mature bucks. We also need to take does and get ratios closer. I have several suggestions for this but dont have time to voice them all.

We also need to be looking at areas that have good plans in place and try to push for systems like that here. I know several have mentioned other states and I agree that other states seem to have a better plan. You know why? They have more input and decision making from the actual hunters. This is the goal. Lets make it happen. If nothing else just voice your opinion locally to your local game and fish reps. call , write , and attend meetings if possible. Lets make our voices heard and if we can do it-we will organize a group as Jack (headhunter)has suggested. I am in full support of just dont know where to start.

I will be calling Jack just dont seem to have time during decent hours.

AR_Headhunter
December 11th, 2009, 01:04 PM
Ok guys,
I have went through this thread & found suggestions, & some are just good points. If you would read through here, look at these & lets see where we stand. If we are going to be a group then I think we need to know exactly where we stand.

Your concerns:
From neo:
They need to do a buck only and doe only gun season. Down here we have way to many does compared to bucks. Everybody seems to be horn hunters anyways. That would give me enough time to tag out before the idiots looking for horns get in the woods and ruin the hunting for us that only hunt for meat.

swampboss:
You are correct, without age you never know what is possible. You can feed them the best food possible and they will still have 1/2 their potential rack at 2.5 when most get shot.
list of things IMO think should be changed.
1) bring back check stations. ( no phone or computer )
2) more done on poaching , Zero tolerance for road and night hunters
others add from here
One thing Big none of you have mentioned is " Neighbor Management Communication "

bowhunter 28 va:
Trophy hunters and meat hunters can coexist, without a 3pt rule. But you have to reduce the number of poachers. They are the ones stealing from us all.

BO AKA BDL:
Take gun season out of the rut..
In my opinion we need to find a way to keep our state wildlife officials held accountable for all of their decisions.
I feel like the people need to have more of a voice.
I am not sure how much good it does for us to attend individually, but as a group.... Who knows what a larger voice might accomplish.
Let me throw this one out there. Any one think that it would make a difference if they instated a doe first rule for mg season? I know alot of private leases use this tactic as a way to help control ratio. It is not an answer to the buck problem but imo it would help the over population of doe...

Jeff AKA jna:
Reinstate the check in stations and enforce them better. Put a scannable code on your hunting license that can be scanned at any stores bar code scanner for ease of checking. For home computer checking this would allow you to log your license # & kill information.
More emphasis on habitat management on the WMA's and Federal lands.
Create stiffer penalties for poachers and a better reward system for those that turn them in. give land owners the ability to protect there property from poachers with more forceful methods without fear of prosecution. Devote more manpower to controlling poaching.

present a core value system of respect for each other as outdoorsmen while educating future sportsmen to the benefits of managing our wildlife for the benefit of all sportsmen.

This I feel must be a part of whatever we (or the group) focuses on. Without this we have not got a chance.
Example- "others who enjoy the outdoors" could be a bird watcher and may not want hunters in certain areas. Deer hunters may disagree with the flooding of areas for ducks. Fishermen may not want bird hunting within specific distances of certain waterways. ETC.
I love what you are proposing, but feel that we need to start with a group of "stewards" and see if we can get some of the deerhunting (especially bowhunting) issues addressed. Once you make a stand as a group then you have the ability to move forward and take on more tasks and objectives.

Jeff
That is my objective. I personally feel that can make huge strides over time with a effort like this. We should focus on our deer herd right now in my opinion but there are also other area's that need out attention. For instance, to me the turkey situation has gotten seriously out of control. Most know when you manage property for about any wildlife then other species then other species flourish as well. I've done a ton of research reading over the years about various studies. I also think most of us know that what the AGFC is doing right now in regards to managing our wildlife is just the basics. Actually the game regulations in place give poachers ability to manage our herd just about as they see fit. The problem lies in that. There are to many loopholes etc. in the system like it is. I believe we need much better enforcement of current G&F regulations as well as more enforcement officers. While we are at it I also would like to our game laws enforced but prosecuters, judges, etc.. There are a few judges across the state that do not enforce our G&F laws with the respect they deserve. It is past time for that to change. Long as John Q. Public keeps the attitude of "well it was only a deer" then it will be a long battle. It seems as though most of the people I know now days are wanting something better than what we have now. If all of us with similar mindset get together then we have a much better chance of being listened to. I've already spoken to the Asst. Director & he said they would sit down work with us as a group. You know guys & I understand them there. It's hard to give each individual a chance to be heard but if there are 20 of us this year & they will give us time then what if we have 200 a year from now who have a united voice. We have control over where this "thought" goes. This is all starting with deer hunting issues & thats where I think we should stay focused but we should also let others know how us improving habitat benefits all wildlife.

riverrat:
I've shot a few good deer and i have also passed deer up and not shot a deer for two years in a row. Its tough to let a deer walk, but its a chance you gotta take and hope it pays of.
My dad used to raise deer and a couple of the biggest ones he ever had started out as either spikes or fork horns. So the yearling rack doesn't necessarily tell how big the deer will be.

Knighten
Another thing is the G&F should post all people found guilty in a court of law of wildlife crimes on there website so the public can see.Maybe that way we can can keep a better eye on the poachers

Boswell
The way to improve buck age structure would be to reduce the harvest of bucks that are below the 3.5 year range. There are many ways to do this.
With the three point rule doing nothing but killing of the very best genetic bucks that the state has. You need to move the season to reduce the harvest of deer, Why when trying to get older bucks do you hunt bucks when they are most expose.

Whitewolf
So how best to manage for increasing age and quality in a public environment? IMO, a significant change in habitat management(select timber harvest, control burns, etc), food plotting(year round rotation of warm and cool season plantings), and season structure(shorten MG season, take MG out of the rut, establish rut zones based on fawning data to structure seasons around, change tag structure to one buck and one doe with an option to buy additional doe tags and one additional buck tag, establish defined harvest min. and max. numbers for WMA's for optimal carry capacity where late season bonus tags would be made available to ensure min. numbers are met with regards to doe harvest, use a basic AR program for 4 years of 4pts on one side and either 15 inch inside spread or 18 inch main beam in conjunction with a cull buck program that would require qualification of the hunter to judge horns and age of bucks in photos and actual racks from deer of known ages).


Here are the deer season dates & limit system that I would suggest. We all know the deer population is not the same so for the total bag limit you would have to hunt different zones & comply with the bag limit for the zone as well as our state wide bag limit.
Deer season dates & bag limits
Limit of 5 deer by all methods combined including bonus tags. State wide 4 point rule.
Bow season dates
Oct 1'st state wide through the last day of Febuary.
Bag limit: 3 does 1 buck state wide Earnable 2'nd buck tag if you've filled all your tags for $10. Revenue from this buck tag must be used for management of deer habitat or enforcement.

Muzzle loader
The last 9 days of October
Bag limit: 2 deer limit, 2 does or 1 of either sex but doe before your buck rule (you must have at least 1 doe harvested with archery or ML equipment prior to harvesting a buck.

Modern gun
November
Starting Thanksgiving day & running through the second Sunday in Dec. Limit of 3 deer 2 does & 1 buck. 1 Doe must be harvested prior to buck harvest with any legal weapon before you can harvest a buck.

Special late season MG & ML loading equipment quota hunt
Starting Jan 1'st & running 2 weeks or until kill quota is meet for various area's. During this hunt your allowed a bonus doe (for ML & MG hunters) & a additional buck tag may be bought for $10 after you fill your bonus doe tag. Revenue from this buck tag must be used for management of deer habitat or enforcement.

Now I understand that we have various deer populations in various regions & thats the reason for the late season hunt. If we do a quota hunt then it's something where we can control the overall harvest numbers. Bow hunters take a very limited number of deer from Jan 1'st through Feb. 1'st now so estimating the approx. bow harvest for this period is easily done.
As of the harvest numbers today there have been 143,954 deer killed total in the state. There have been 55959 of those that were does. That means that 61% of the total kills are bucks. We need to reverse this trend until we have a 3 doe to 1 buck ratio state wide.

For that season to work we need to get a handle on poaching.

Here are things that If we do start a organization need to be in the mission statement. IMO

Represent responsible sportsmen providing input for the better wildlife management for the benefit of Arkansas Game animals & sportsmen.

Represent a core value system of respect for each other as outdoorsmen while educating future sportsmen to the benefits of managing our wildlife for the benefit of all sportsmen.

Commit time in service to wildlife, utilizing and donating specialized skills and abilities motivated by concern for the well-being of sportsmen & wildlife.

whitewolf1
December 11th, 2009, 03:48 PM
I hunt further south and would prefer not to have MG occur during your stated time, thus my recommendation of rut based zoning. I would prefer to see a 2 week season prior to the rut and a 2 week post rut but before your recommended quota period. For my area, it would look something like Nov 1 - Nov 15 and Dec 15 - Dec 31 and push back the quota hunt to start Jan 10th.

Good starting point for dicussion though!!

goatranch
December 11th, 2009, 04:04 PM
Headhunter...sounds like a plan ...how do we get organized?

AR_Headhunter
December 11th, 2009, 05:57 PM
Whitewolf
Those dates were only meant as a starting point. I just threw together what I thought would be good season dates for my area. I would like to see a quick thought from each of you on your idea's. Working together we can do something. We all live in different area's & the deer herd needs special attn in specific spots. I did not put in all the zone limits because I don't know the exact needs of each area. I do feel that a vast part of Northern Arkansas needs a 1 buck limit & 3 total limit for a few years to really see a nice difference. I think most of zone's 1,1A, 2, 3 4, 4B, 5, 6, 6A, 8 & 8a should be 3 deer zones with a 1 buck limit. Once poaching is controlled in those zones then we might could have a 4 deer limit.

AR_Headhunter
December 11th, 2009, 09:04 PM
Found this is another thread & it sounds like to could be a great rule for the AGFC to use in slowing down road hunting & poaching.


From the NYS ENCON Law:

"1. No person while in or on a motor vehicle, as defined in section
11-0931 of this chapter, shall take wildlife other than migratory game
birds, or use any lights on any such vehicle for such purpose."

" No firearm except a pistol or revolver shall be carried or
possessed in or on a motor vehicle unless it is unloaded in both the
chamber and the magazine, except that a loaded firearm which may be
legally used for taking migratory game birds may be carried or possessed
in a motorboat while being legally used in hunting migratory game birds,
and no person except a law enforcement officer in the performance of his
official duties shall, while in or on a motor vehicle, use a jacklight,
spotlight or other artificial light upon lands inhabited by deer if he
is in possession or is accompanied by a person who is in possession, at
the time of such use, of a longbow, crossbow or a firearm of any kind
except a pistol or revolver, unless such longbow is unstrung or such
firearm is taken down or securely fastened in a case or locked in the
trunk of the vehicle. For purposes of this subdivision, motor vehicle
shall mean every vehicle or other device operated by any power other
than muscle power, and which shall include but not be limited to
automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, tractors, trailers and motorboats,
snowmobiles and snowtravelers, whether operated on or off public
highways. Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision, the
department may issue a permit to any person who is non-ambulatory,
except with the use of a mechanized aid, to possess a loaded firearm in
or on a motor vehicle as defined in this section, subject to such
restrictions as the department may deem necessary in the interest of
public safety, and for a fee of five dollars. Nothing in this section
permits the possession of a pistol or a revolver contrary to the penal
law."

swampboss
December 11th, 2009, 11:27 PM
Guys,
I think this is a good start and a good way to come up with a plan to present to AGFC. I like the idea of having to earn the second buck tag by killing a doe. This could backfire if too many bb.s are killed. They would have to make it a doe not just antlerless This would make people use a lot more caution killing their doe.
Now come up with a way to take cull bucks ( 3+ yr old 4-6 pt bucks ) We don't want these passing on the bad genes. Cull weekend?? at the end of gun season.
How about a management award if you kill one mature buck and 3 does. Kind of like the triple trophy award.

AR_Headhunter
December 12th, 2009, 08:50 AM
Swampboss
I do not know if you realized the way I wrote those regulations it would require you to kill at least 1 doe before killing a buck with any method. If you mistakenly shot a button buck first then I do not believe there should be a penalty or fine but that would disqualify you from shooting another buck until you had taken 3 does total. If you did shoot a antlered buck first though there would be a penalty & fine. The way I figure it. We could go with a 5 deer limit structured the way I suggested. First you would have to kill 1 doe to earn your buck. Then you would have to take 2 more does to earn your second buck tag. If someone messed up & shot a button buck then they would have to kill 3 does before taking a second buck. I believe if you shot a second button buck then you would be subject to a $100 dollar fine but no points against you. Anyone can shoot a button buck in error but to shoot 2 should be discouraged. Thats not a big enough fine to really hurt people but it would encourage people to be more sure of what they are taking out of the herd. You will find some that will object to a 5 deer limit but if we get a handle on poaching then our deer herd could easily support it. I also feel with the bag limit structured as I suggested that we could bring our herd into balance within just a few years & then make recommendations on a different bag limit structure if needed.

I really like your idea of a cull weekend on the last weekend of gun season. However you would still have to be qualified to take a cull buck by taking at least 1 doe prior to your buck.

Your suggestion of a management award is great in my opinion. Thats something that I think could really help to promote our idea of better management.

whitewolf1
December 12th, 2009, 10:46 AM
Only way I can see to implement a cull program on public land would be thru a qualification program geared around field judging deer that are of known ages to the instructors. A series of say 50 field images to be judged on age and score and another 10 ten racks judged by score. Require 70% correct to pass. In field application, there would have to be a mechanism in place to account for field judging errors which will occur, cant fine a guy for judging error the first time it happens. Limit cull program participants to a certain number per county or zone and establish an annual rotation. Mandatory extraction of jawbones to be submitted to the AGFC biologist.

A cull program could certainly have benefits imo, but would be very tricky to implement. It is hard enough to put in place on private ground much less on public ground.

AR_Headhunter
December 12th, 2009, 10:57 AM
Only way I can see to implement a cull program on public land would be thru a qualification program geared around field judging deer that are of known ages to the instructors. A series of say 50 field images to be judged on age and score and another 10 ten racks judged by score. Require 70% correct to pass. In field application, there would have to be a mechanism in place to account for field judging errors which will occur, cant fine a guy for judging error the first time it happens. Limit cull program participants to a certain number per county or zone and establish an annual rotation. Mandatory extraction of jawbones to be submitted to the AGFC biologist.

A cull program could certainly have benefits imo, but would be very tricky to implement. It is hard enough to put in place on private ground much less on public ground.

Your right about it being hard to implement. I would suggest that if it were done then you would need to qualify as you stated to take a "cull" buck off public lands. Private property owners & lease holders would need a similar but little different regulation based on qualifying land amounts & permits based on hunters for that land. I would suggest that cull buck permits be very limited and only given out to private land owners & lease holders on a bi-annual basis.

A cull buck program would be the most difficult part of all of this to implement. JMHO

AR_Headhunter
December 12th, 2009, 11:21 AM
I have been thinking about a "cull buck" program. This might be the solution to our problem with it. Let the cull program take place during the early muzzle loader season. That would keep culls from passing on those gene's during the rut & take them out of the herd early.

jna329
December 12th, 2009, 11:41 AM
We are still missing a vital part of the plan and possibly part of the answer for the cull bucks. The youth need to have the ability to kill the first deer of the year without regard for antlers. After they take the first deer - then they are subject to our rules. It should not matter what they kill - the first one each year can be any deer. The future of our sport lies with the youth and without getting them involved we may lose a lot of interest in our cause. I feel that this could allow some of the cull bucks to be taken and bring new hunters into the sport without restricting them so strongly.

Other than that it sounds like we are on the right track to getting this accomplished. The only thing that I disagree with Jack is - I dont think we should have the opportunity to take 5. I think 4 would be good. 2doe and 1 buck with the option to purchase another buck tag after the first tags are filled. But both ways will be better than what we have.

jna329
December 12th, 2009, 12:01 PM
Something else that I was thinking about on the "cull program". If we implement a good management program(takes time)then the number of cull bucks will drop and and the number of cull bucks breeding will drop. If you successfully get more mature bucks in the woods ;with proper doe to buck ratios, then the mature bucks will do more breeding and not allow as many culls to breed. The cull bucks will always be around but their ability to pass on their genetics will decline if we allow more mature (genetically dominant) deer to walk. Example - Let the 2 1/2 yr.old 8pt. live and breed so that the 2 1/2 yr old 5 pt doesnt get the opportunity to breed those does.

In theory it makes since. IT will not be a success without getting a successful ratio and better management. All of the concerns about our deer management kinda go hand in hand. If you work on one area you are ultimately affecting other areas.

AR_Headhunter
December 12th, 2009, 01:46 PM
We are still missing a vital part of the plan and possibly part of the answer for the cull bucks. The youth need to have the ability to kill the first deer of the year without regard for antlers. After they take the first deer - then they are subject to our rules. It should not matter what they kill - the first one each year can be any deer. The future of our sport lies with the youth and without getting them involved we may lose a lot of interest in our cause. I feel that this could allow some of the cull bucks to be taken and bring new hunters into the sport without restricting them so strongly.

Other than that it sounds like we are on the right track to getting this accomplished. The only thing that I disagree with Jack is - I dont think we should have the opportunity to take 5. I think 4 would be good. 2doe and 1 buck with the option to purchase another buck tag after the first tags are filled. But both ways will be better than what we have.

I totally agree with you on letting kids benefit from a cull program. My reasoning behind suggesting a limit of 5 is because of over population in some zones. Most of the northern part of the state should have a 3 deer limit with 2 does & 1 buck being the limit. Matter of fact IMO that would apply for Zones 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 4B, 5, 5A, 5B, 6, 6A, 7, 8, 8A, 10, 11 & 16A. The 5 deer zones would be 9, 12, 13, 14,15, 16, & 17.

It can be done with a limit of 4 or 5 deer overall but I believe we would gain a lot more support if we went with the 5 deer limit as a reward for controlling poaching. Most people now believe or know that the poaching numbers likely are above 20% of the legal kill numbers.

I do totally agree with you that the bonus buck tag should be a $10 tag with that $ going directly to benefit the deer management program & not used for other purposes.

whitewolf1
December 12th, 2009, 04:46 PM
I am going to strongly disagree with you guys on the youth and cull issue. They should not under any circumstance be put together. Let me clarify though that I am very much in favor of a kids not having a restriction on the first deer of the year and that harvest would not significantly impact any management plan. That said though, very few grown hunters relative ot the total number of hunters can consistently pick out what should be a cull.

jna, not to pick on you specifically, but you gave a perfect example. Neither the 2y/o 8pt or the 2y/o 5pt should be taken as a cull. The whole principle of a cull program is to remove genetically deficient bucks from the breeding pool and that cannot be consistently done taking deer less than 4y/o imo.

I agree that any cull program should have a private lands and a public lands destinction. The private lands program would have the benefit of consistent trail cam surveys and monitoring that would assist hunters and biologist in targeting specific bucks as culls.

shoeminator
December 12th, 2009, 05:01 PM
You guys sound like us in the state of Pennsylvania, same 3 point rule and hasn't done much for us. They shoot too many doe with bonus tags and all and the buck in the record books aren't beating the ones when we had alot of deer 40 years ago. Insurance and natural gas have our deer heard in poor shape.

AR_Headhunter
December 12th, 2009, 06:39 PM
I am going to strongly disagree with you guys on the youth and cull issue. They should not under any circumstance be put together. Let me clarify though that I am very much in favor of a kids not having a restriction on the first deer of the year and that harvest would not significantly impact any management plan. That said though, very few grown hunters relative ot the total number of hunters can consistently pick out what should be a cull.

jna, not to pick on you specifically, but you gave a perfect example. Neither the 2y/o 8pt or the 2y/o 5pt should be taken as a cull. The whole principle of a cull program is to remove genetically deficient bucks from the breeding pool and that cannot be consistently done taking deer less than 4y/o imo.

I agree that any cull program should have a private lands and a public lands destinction. The private lands program would have the benefit of consistent trail cam surveys and monitoring that would assist hunters and biologist in targeting specific bucks as culls.

I agree with you on certain points whitewolf but also agree with Jeff to a degree. As you say on private lands trail cam pictures could pre-qualify a deer to be taken on a cull program. I like Jeff's idea of using youth hunters to take out those bucks but I do not want to see a youth limited to a cull. A kid 15 & under in my book should have the option to take any deer that they so choose for their first deer of the year. After they shoot their first deer of any year then IMO they must follow the same rules as the rest of us unless they are taking a "cull" buck on private lands. I would not even mind seeing a extra tag just for a cull buck for kids. I would not even be in objection of the cull program to focus on any said cull bucks during the early muzzle loader season as pre-qualifying culls. Thats when you really want those bucks out. Before they breed. IF your going to promote a cull buck program then you want itbeneficial to those practicing management of a herd. Everyone talks about promoting hunting etc.. How many of you guys like me across this state belong to lease's, have private lands, etc. that would let a kid come in during the early muzzle loader season of youth hunt or would take a kid for a hunt? Especially with a "bonus tag"? So like I said I do not believe there should be a special restriction on a youth hunters first deer of the year was & if they used that for a qualifying buck then it's a free tag. Those of us who are adults realize that sometimes you have to sacrifice to achieve. Therefore as adult hunters we would not qualify for a "Bonus tag". Therefore you would have to take a doe before a cull & then 2 does before a 2'nd bonus buck tag could be bought.

[QUOTE=jna329;1056376303][B]Something else that I was thinking about on the "cull program". If we implement a good management program(takes time)then the number of cull bucks will drop and and the number of cull bucks breeding will drop. If you successfully get more mature bucks in the woods ;with proper doe to buck ratios, then the mature bucks will do more breeding and not allow as many culls to breed. The cull bucks will always be around but their ability to pass on their genetics will decline if we allow more mature (genetically dominant) deer to walk. Example - Let the 2 1/2 yr.old 8pt. live and breed so that the 2 1/2 yr old 5 pt doesnt get the opportunity to breed those does.

In theory it makes since. IT will not be a success without getting a successful ratio and better management. All of the concerns about our deer management kinda go hand in hand. If you work on one area you are ultimately affecting other areas.[B][QUOTE]

Now I also agree with Jeff
The fact is most of the time that your supirior bucks will do the majority of your breeding in a well managed herd. I do not see any 2 1/2 year old as being a cull buck. Most of the time as I know of the subject a buck will see his biggest increase in headgear at 3 1/2 to 4 1/2. As it stands right now, we have populations of a 10 to 1 doe to buck ratio in many places across Arkansas. There are places at 7:1 or in really good area's 5:1. If your area is at 4:1 or less then you are truly blessed. That is a management nightmare for our herd. Seriously! Of the average fawning rate goes doe have about a 53/47 % of doe to buck fawns. That means that every year we start off with a fresh almost 50/50 of new fawns hitting the ground. I honestly think we can see about a 20-30% higher number of bucks making it from year to year if we structured the season properly. In 5 years we could see hunting in Arkansas that the guys from Ohio would right home about. Is this possible? Of course it is. At this point is simply putting together a large enough % of people who think like us & willing to make the right choices to make it happen. I would like to reap the rewards of hunting Arkansas with overal deer numbers about where are now & a 3:1 ratio. Most of you guys would love to see that as well because we could go with much less restrictions once our herd is balanced & truly healthy.


As I say that I know in my head that people will post date cam pictures & cheat any way they can to qualify a buck as a cull buck. This is something that honestly I do not think you could ever police. But just for the sake of arguement. Thats how I see it.

bigdoglanyards
December 12th, 2009, 10:08 PM
If you were to bring back the check stations I think that you could do some thing with the culling of "poor genetics" bucks. What if you awarded bow or ml hunters who took verified (per check stations) cull bucks in the month of october (regardless of doe kills) a bonus buck tag. This tag could only be used after the doe restrictions were met. In order for this to work all check stations would have to be "trained" on what constitutes a "cull buck". A program such as this would promote the removal of culls before the rutt. It would also allow "meat hunters" the opportunity to gain an extra tag. "Culls" would have to be defined in the agfc books for all to understand exactly what it was they were to be looking for. I personaly dont belive an sort of qualifing certificaion would work well, imo most would just not take the time to do it.

AR_Headhunter
December 12th, 2009, 10:11 PM
If you were to bring back the check stations I think that you could do some thing with the culling of "poor genetics" bucks. What if you awarded bow or ml hunters who took verified (per check stations) cull bucks in the month of october (regardless of doe kills) a bonus buck tag. This tag could only be used after the doe restrictions were met. In order for this to work all check stations would have to be "trained" on what constitutes a "cull buck". A program such as this would promote the removal of culls before the rutt. It would also allow "meat hunters" the opportunity to gain an extra tag. "Culls" would have to be defined in the agfc books for all to understand exactly what it was they were to be looking for. I personaly dont belive an sort of qualifing certificaion would work well, imo most would just not take the time to do it.

& thats why that would not work. Sorry buddy but it's the truth & both of us know it.

whitewolf1
December 13th, 2009, 03:13 PM
For anyone who thinks ideas like this are pie in the sky and it just wont work in Arkansas, there is a club in this state that has been intesely managing thier herd for several years now and the last number I heard was that last season and this season to date they have taken 13 bucks over 150".

Because so much of this state consist of giant tracts of timber, it is unlikely that we would ever be regarded like states such as Kansas, Iowa and Ohio but there is no question that we are cappable of consistently producing deer better than 140" over the entire state and some areas could significantly surpass that number.

AR_Headhunter
December 13th, 2009, 09:13 PM
I know of places like that in Arkansas to, whitewolf. I also believe we can consistently produce deer better than 140".

swampboss
December 13th, 2009, 11:48 PM
I know of places like that in Arkansas to, whitewolf. I also believe we can consistently produce deer better than 140".

I like this as a goal, but on public land with no food plots or protein feeds what percent of 5-7 yr. old bucks do you think will reach or exceed 140" ? I'm not a deer biologist, but from what I have seen it would only be about 10 -15 % in zone 12 ( where I do most of my hunting ) and that might be high.
I think our goal needs to be the chance for more mature bucks to reach their potential no matter the score from 110" to 200 " , along with a better buck to doe ratio. These two things are what we all seem to want.

AR_Headhunter
December 14th, 2009, 01:22 AM
Swampboss
I do not know the exact part of zone 12 that your in but there are serveral places down there that regularly produce 140" deer now. There are a select few hunting clubs that I know of who have been intensly managing for a few years & getting those results. I happened to grow up right off the side of Henry Gray / Hurricane Lake WMA. I know what can see off public land in Arkansas. More Arkansas public land will consistantly produce 120" 3 year old bucks now without any nutrition program but nature than what people would believe if those deer could live to see 3 1/2. At 3 1/2 many of those deer would break 130". It all depends on the area but all WMA's across Arkansas would greatly benefit with better management.

As far as food plots on public ground go, I would like to see 2 plantings a year in designated food plot area's. I would also like to see a program by the AGFC to implement donated plot seed by hunters & groups for specific WMA's. That way a group of guys from around any WMA's could donate plot seed that would directly benefit specific WMA's that they hunt. Of course I understand that some WMA"s will not get as much donated as others but if this idea caught on then we could have 100% of the available food plot area'a planted twice a year. Look at it this way. if 1/3 of the people who are thinking like we are bought a bag of quality plot mix when it goes on clearance then can you imagine how many food plots on public land would or could have a premium mix of forage.

The buck / doe ratio is the key to this in my mind. Just for arguements sake lets say we had 500,00 deer in Arkansas. I would like to see a 2/1 & 3/1 doe to buck ratio as a goal for statewide. If we got to that point you would be amazed what a difference it would make in the average Joe's hunt. How would each of you around the state like to see about the same deer herd we have now with 2 to 3 times the bucks & a average deer on it's feet of 3 1/2? I bet not near so many folks would be leaving Arkansas to deer hunt.

jna329
December 14th, 2009, 10:23 AM
I am going to strongly disagree with you guys on the youth and cull issue. They should not under any circumstance be put together. Let me clarify though that I am very much in favor of a kids not having a restriction on the first deer of the year and that harvest would not significantly impact any management plan. That said though, very few grown hunters relative ot the total number of hunters can consistently pick out what should be a cull.

jna, not to pick on you specifically, but you gave a perfect example. Neither the 2y/o 8pt or the 2y/o 5pt should be taken as a cull. The whole principle of a cull program is to remove genetically deficient bucks from the breeding pool and that cannot be consistently done taking deer less than 4y/o imo.

I agree that any cull program should have a private lands and a public lands destinction. The private lands program would have the benefit of consistent trail cam surveys and monitoring that would assist hunters and biologist in targeting specific bucks as culls.

I agree with you - I am not saying that should be the cull program. I am saying that it should be a part of it. I realize that age and genetics should be what the cull program is based on and that it is difficult to determine in the field. At the same time I know that if you give a child the opportunity to take a deer they will take one with antlers if they can. They wont let them walk and in turn it will take a small percentage of the culls out of the herd. That combined with other management practices will help the herd.

I do understand that it also opens the door to killing of young deer with good genetics, but that is why the youth should be allowed 1 with no restriction-on a short term basis. Then when the animal is taken it will be up to us to educate them on the age and importance of taking a mature animal. The youth have to start somewhere and if you restrict them the same as us they will not go.

jna329
December 14th, 2009, 10:50 AM
For anyone who thinks ideas like this are pie in the sky and it just wont work in Arkansas, there is a club in this state that has been intesely managing thier herd for several years now and the last number I heard was that last season and this season to date they have taken 13 bucks over 150".

Because so much of this state consist of giant tracts of timber, it is unlikely that we would ever be regarded like states such as Kansas, Iowa and Ohio but there is no question that we are cappable of consistently producing deer better than 140" over the entire state and some areas could significantly surpass that number.

This is the issue with our state and is what we want to change. Arkansas has the potential to grow great deer. I, and others, want to see these deer throughout the state not just on "Private members only areas". Most of the clubs like this cost a too much even if you can get invited to be a member. I can purchase a tag in other states and drive there 4 less than what I can get in one of these clubs and then I dont have to deal with the whining and crying from club members and the bs that goes with that.
The issue is I dont want to be in a "Club" and I dont want to spend my money and time traveling to other states. I want a statewide program. It can work. We just have to figure out how to get organized and make the agfc take notice and implement "OUR" suggested changes.
On a side note- I and the guys that I hunt with do make every effort to only shoot mature bucks and manage the properties that we hunt. We have managed a great piece of land for 6 years and starting to see excellent deer and then the land owner gave the hunting rights to others. But, Thats a whole different story.

bigdoglanyards
December 14th, 2009, 09:24 PM
Again!?!?

whitewolf1
December 15th, 2009, 11:53 AM
Again!?!?


Wonder what he did this time?

swampboss
December 16th, 2009, 12:10 AM
It may have been the thread they pulled about dog hunting in VA. It was getting ugly.

Cheetahwheelie
December 16th, 2009, 10:04 PM
What are Arkansas hunters expecting? I'm happy with the way the deer have gotten bigger in the state over the past several years. Better management is the key. Food plots done the RIGHT way are a huge key. Arkansas soil, throughout most of the state isn't the best for growing big bucks. It can however, be made into better soil, but it takes time and money. Texas has a good program that I would like to see Ark. adopt for a few years and see how it works. The Texas rule is..."at least 1 unbranched antler or an iside spread of 13" or greater. The spread doesn't apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler."

Cheetahwheelie
December 16th, 2009, 10:12 PM
Take gun season out of the rut and you will get better and bigger bucks! IMO


And 95% of the hunting population in AR would be calling for the directors head (and maybe yours for suggesting that).

Agreed.

Cheetahwheelie
December 16th, 2009, 10:19 PM
Why did they do away with check stations? To save money??

Great point. That was the dumbest thing the AGFC has EVER done. All that means, is that if you can get your deer home, you've crossed the finish line with a freebie that doesn't count against your tag. Very stupid rule. We need the check stations back next year. I can't wait to see what our deer numbers are after the end of the season.

swampboss
December 16th, 2009, 11:10 PM
IMO the two main problems that need to be dealt with is the buck to doe ratio
and bring the check stations back. The part of zone 12 had improved to about 3 to 1 but after this season I think it it back to more like 5or6 to 1
Fix these two and we will see bigger bucks.

Cheetahwheelie
December 17th, 2009, 12:03 AM
IMO the two main problems that need to be dealt with is the buck to doe ratio
and bring the check stations back. The part of zone 12 had improved to about 3 to 1 but after this season I think it it back to more like 5or6 to 1
Fix these two and we will see bigger bucks.

I hunt in zone 12 also. I actually saw more bucks than does while hunting. Now, if we're talking just seeing deer period(side of the road, out in fields, etc.), then I saw 4 or 5 times as many does than bucks. I do tend to think the buck to doe ration in south ark is way out of whack. There's just not enough food to go around to grow bigger bucks when the does are eating it all up.

jna329
December 17th, 2009, 10:42 AM
What are Arkansas hunters expecting? I'm happy with the way the deer have gotten bigger in the state over the past several years. Better management is the key. Food plots done the RIGHT way are a huge key. Arkansas soil, throughout most of the state isn't the best for growing big bucks. It can however, be made into better soil, but it takes time and money. Texas has a good program that I would like to see Ark. adopt for a few years and see how it works. The Texas rule is..."at least 1 unbranched antler or an iside spread of 13" or greater. The spread doesn't apply to any buck that has an unbranched antler."

We are expecting to come up with a valid list of changes to be implemented in the next few years in order to make the state deer heard healthier and allow the deer to mature. If your happy with the way things have changed and dont want anymore change, that is fine and it is your opinion. I do think that you will be in the minority. I also see where that is not the case - as you continued to agree with changes that need to be made. Food plots, soil maintenance, and strict management program is a start but there are other areas that have to be considered. We dont want to adversely effect other areas of wildlife.

I am glad to see more of us getting involved in this thread. We can make a difference. This is a great way to compile a list of changes. We need to get these organized and start working towards presenting them to agfc.

bigdoglanyards
December 17th, 2009, 10:57 AM
I have spent some time re-reading some of this thread. One item that I believe is going to be the hardest to address is the over all nutrition. Changing habitat and doing food plots cost money. Money that our government is not going to pony up in these economic times. A lot of the things we are talking about are fairly low to no cost to implement, and imo are the things that we should be focusing on for our short term goals.

Again just so everyone understands, these things are for the most part opinion and we are posting them for discussion...

whitewolf1
December 17th, 2009, 03:17 PM
I have spent some time re-reading some of this thread. One item that I believe is going to be the hardest to address is the over all nutrition. Changing habitat and doing food plots cost money. Money that our government is not going to pony up in these economic times. A lot of the things we are talking about are fairly low to no cost to implement, and imo are the things that we should be focusing on for our short term goals.

Again just so everyone understands, these things are for the most part opinion and we are posting them for discussion...


You change the habitat by managing the property better...sequenced and scheduled select timber harvest will improve the habitat AND create revenue for food plot or planting programs. It might not be enough revenue but that is what the sales tax is for or should have been. I think the AGFC has built quite enough nature centers to last for a good long while. Select burns also are a big help to the habitat. Hardwood re-forestation programs would also be a good longer term project. Wish we could kill every freakin pine tree in the state.

bigdoglanyards
December 17th, 2009, 06:38 PM
You change the habitat by managing the property better...sequenced and scheduled select timber harvest will improve the habitat AND create revenue for food plot or planting programs. It might not be enough revenue but that is what the sales tax is for or should have been. I think the AGFC has built quite enough nature centers to last for a good long while. Select burns also are a big help to the habitat. Hardwood re-forestation programs would also be a good longer term project. Wish we could kill every freakin pine tree in the state.

Good points

neo71665
December 17th, 2009, 07:41 PM
I hunt in zone 12 also. I actually saw more bucks than does while hunting. Now, if we're talking just seeing deer period(side of the road, out in fields, etc.), then I saw 4 or 5 times as many does than bucks. I do tend to think the buck to doe ration in south ark is way out of whack. There's just not enough food to go around to grow bigger bucks when the does are eating it all up.


I agree 100%, the reason why for the last few years I've been letting bucks walk and shoot nothing but does. We have 80 acres and plant about 20 of it just for the deer. In the last 2 years alone the bucks have seemed to get a bit bigger but we still have way too many does and cull bucks running around that you can't do much else for.


Wish we could kill every freakin pine tree in the state.

I couldn't agree more

Cheetahwheelie
December 17th, 2009, 09:13 PM
You change the habitat by managing the property better... I think the AGFC has built quite enough nature centers to last for a good long while... Hardwood re-forestation programs would also be a good longer term project. Wish we could kill every freakin pine tree in the state.

Amen brother! I hate pine trees.

AR_Headhunter
December 21st, 2009, 08:53 AM
Well guys I'm back. Good points being broiught up here. Guys we can sit here & discuss this stiff all day but unless we put together a group & organize then we are still just single voices when talking to the AGFC. If we really want to get something done then we need to unite & have a unified voice.

It sounds like mosty of us are on the same page as far as what we would like to see .

AR_Headhunter
December 21st, 2009, 10:51 AM
Wonder what he did this time?

I got the little vacation window that said I was guilty of a personal attack but I would like to see where that was.

Anyways guys, most of you know me well enough to understand that you will get intelligent, informed honest replies from me on a host of issues. There are apparently special rules for special people & I'm lucky enough to be one of those special people. :zip:

If I tell you to bring inteligence or intellect to a debate then it's because you have likely said something so outlandish that it actually impedes progress on a issue. That or your agruing a dead point a beating a dead horse.

Most of you know me well enough to know I am not going to sugar coat things just for your internet feelings. I hope this does not offend any of you but I'm sure you guys can deal with that.

BTW guys I am about to send a honest PM to a mod & if I get another "vacation", my e-mail is ar_headhunter67@yahoo.com.

whitewolf1
December 21st, 2009, 11:11 AM
I'd like to see what everyone would propose for the area they primarily hunt and the reasons behind those ideas, something more specific than the "general ideas for the state" we have been discussing. In other words, if you could write the rules for your primary zone, what would they look like.

AR_Headhunter
December 21st, 2009, 07:27 PM
I'd like to see what everyone would propose for the area they primarily hunt and the reasons behind those ideas, something more specific than the "general ideas for the state" we have been discussing. In other words, if you could write the rules for your primary zone, what would they look like.

Bow season dates
Oct 1'st state wide through the last day of Febuary.
Bag limit: 3 does 1 buck. Earnable 2'nd buck tag if you've filled all your tags for $10. Revenue from this buck tag must be used for management of deer habitat or enforcement.

Muzzle loader
The last 9 days of October
Limit of 2 deer, 2 doe or 1 doe then 1 buck.

Modern gun
November
Starting Dec. 1'st though Cristmas day. Limit of 2 deer, 2 doe or 1 doe then 1 buck.

1 Doe must be harvested prior to buck harvest with any legal weapon before you can harvest a buck.

Total bag limit using all methods of 5 deer. Limit must not contain more than 2 legal bucks or more than 4 doe. Second buck only to be taken after all doe tags are filled.

Special late season MG & ML loading equipment quota hunt
Starting Jan 1'st & running 2 weeks or until kill quota is meet. During this hunt your allowed 1 bonus doe (for ML & MG hunters) & a additional buck tag may be bought for $10 after you fill your bonus doe tag. Revenue from this buck tag must be used for management of deer habitat or enforcement.

The reason behind it is simply because I believe thats what is needed to bring the my local herd into check as far as buck to doe ratio's & overall herd health. Those bag limits would only apply if we could get poaching in check. If not then I would make it a 4 deer limit with only 1 buck meeting a 4 point per side rule allowed. In any case I think we would benefit from the earn a buck program where I live.

bigdoglanyards
December 21st, 2009, 10:58 PM
Welcome back Jack! We will have to get together some time after the holidays and hash some of these things out. Any one else?

AR_Headhunter
December 22nd, 2009, 08:41 AM
Welcome back Jack! We will have to get together some time after the holidays and hash some of these things out. Any one else?

Thanks man. I would like to have a sit down with several of you guys after the holidays. I'm thinking about doing a get together out on my farm. It would be a pretty central location for us to all meet at & discuss ideas face to face.

jna329
December 22nd, 2009, 07:39 PM
Jack- glad ur back. The sit down sounds like a wonderful idea. Maybe bring bows and do some backyard shooting or something. We need to get this done soon or at least get some ideas on paper as the date of the open to public meeting is the 5th of January and I would like to see some of our ideas presented to the agfc. I tried to call you and couldnt catch you. I then got busy with work. I have your email and will be contacting you soon. Let me know when you want to try to have the sit down. I will try to make it. Thanks Jeff

jna329
December 22nd, 2009, 07:52 PM
I like the earn a buck program and love the idea of buying the tags. I would like to see a statewide 4x4. Jacks post of season dates seems adequate, but I still would like to see a 15 and under youth season or special guidelines concerning the youth.

I have given my suggestion many times that I believe the youth should be allowed to harvest their first deer of each year without antler restrictions. Once that deer is harvested (buck or doe) then they are subject to statewide regulations. Their deer will count towards bag limit but can be any deer.

We have a lot of work to do and need to get all suggestions on paper, sorted out and begin getting these suggestions submitted.

swampboss
December 22nd, 2009, 09:42 PM
Bow season dates
Oct 1'st state wide through the last day of Febuary.
Bag limit: 3 does 1 buck. Earnable 2'nd buck tag if you've filled all your tags for $10. Revenue from this buck tag must be used for management of deer habitat or enforcement.

Muzzle loader
The last 9 days of October
Limit of 2 deer, 2 doe or 1 doe then 1 buck.

Modern gun
November
Starting Dec. 1'st though Cristmas day. Limit of 2 deer, 2 doe or 1 doe then 1 buck.

1 Doe must be harvested prior to buck harvest with any legal weapon before you can harvest a buck.

Total bag limit using all methods of 5 deer. Limit must not contain more than 2 legal bucks or more than 4 doe. Second buck only to be taken after all doe tags are filled.

Special late season MG & ML loading equipment quota hunt
Starting Jan 1'st & running 2 weeks or until kill quota is meet. During this hunt your allowed 1 bonus doe (for ML & MG hunters) & a additional buck tag may be bought for $10 after you fill your bonus doe tag. Revenue from this buck tag must be used for management of deer habitat or enforcement.

The reason behind it is simply because I believe thats what is needed to bring the my local herd into check as far as buck to doe ratio's & overall herd health. Those bag limits would only apply if we could get poaching in check. If not then I would make it a 4 deer limit with only 1 buck meeting a 4 point per side rule allowed. In any case I think we would benefit from the earn a buck program where I live.

I think this would be a great way to bring the ratio to where it needs to be, but this will never fly with most hunters or agfc. This is just too extreme to jump to this right away. I think it would be better received if the first deer can be buck or doe. Then the next deer would have to be a doe to earn the 2nd buck tag. Once hunters across the board see the progress it would be time to move up to something similar to the way you have it laid out. There some other states that have some form of "earn a buck " program. Might need feed back on how they got it started.

AR_Headhunter
December 22nd, 2009, 10:04 PM
I think this would be a great way to bring the ratio to where it needs to be, but this will never fly with most hunters or agfc. This is just too extreme to jump to this right away. I think it would be better received if the first deer can be buck or doe. Then the next deer would have to be a doe to earn the 2nd buck tag. Once hunters across the board see the progress it would be time to move up to something similar to the way you have it laid out. There some other states that have some form of "earn a buck " program. Might need feed back on how they got it started.

I agree that it might not go over to well but it's the fastest way to success in fixing what needs fixed. As of right now 60% of the deer that have been checked are bucks. Thats in a herd thats already out of balance. We need those numbers reversed & 60% of our harvest to be does until our herd is balanced. I never claimed my ideas would be popular but you have to admit that I am using sound principles in my suggestions.

AR_Headhunter
December 28th, 2009, 10:17 AM
I have been asked by several of you for a hard copy of changes to suggest for deer season. Here are the things that concern me most.

#1 We need a 1 buck limit for all of zone 6 which also will include zones 505 (Ozark National Forest WMA), zone 520 (Piney Creeks WMA), & zone 540 (Rainey WMA). I am also going to propose that gun season start 1 week later so that it will not be right in the prime rutting period.
#2 I am also going to propose that Zone 6 be added as a no dog zone because the vast majority of zone 6 is WMA's that are already closed to deer dogs. I have educated myself on what the reasons were that the AGFC referenced in closing other area's to dogs & I am prepared to give a good debate using the reasons that the AGFC has already used in closing area's to dogs. Here in Zone 6 we have a huge loophole in the deer dog laws. Zone 6 is technically open to deer dogs but the vast majority of land inside zone 6 is WMA's that are closed to deer dogs. Everything north of the southern boundry of the Ozark National Forest is closed to deer dogs. We either need the zones restructured to reflect those closed area's or simply close the small part of zone 6 that is open to deer dogs. Either way this is a problem that needs to be addressed by the AGFC.

We all have very specific needs to properly manage the deer herd across various area's of the state. I do not know where all you guys are from but take the time to really consider what we need to do for your specific area. I would encourage you to follow my lead in gaining the knowledge to reference the past rulings of the AGFC & use those to your advantage. That & organization are what we need to get the AGFC to consider proposed changes. We can go to meetings & voice our individual opinions all day long but unless we show a educated, organized voice then we all know they do not really pay us much attention.

bigdoglanyards
December 30th, 2009, 09:41 AM
Jack- glad ur back. The sit down sounds like a wonderful idea. Maybe bring bows and do some backyard shooting or something. We need to get this done soon or at least get some ideas on paper as the date of the open to public meeting is the 5th of January and I would like to see some of our ideas presented to the agfc. I tried to call you and couldnt catch you. I then got busy with work. I have your email and will be contacting you soon. Let me know when you want to try to have the sit down. I will try to make it. Thanks Jeff

Anyone going to try to make this meeting? I will go if I can work it out schedule wise. That is on a tues. and my wife has something scheduled that evening...

whitewolf1
December 30th, 2009, 11:12 AM
I cant, will be out of town.

AR_Headhunter
December 30th, 2009, 12:26 PM
The meetings will be held 7-9 p.m. on Jan. 5 at the following locations:

Little Rock
AGFC Central Office
2 Natural Resources Drive

Jonesboro
Forrest L. Wood Crowley’s Ridge Nature Center
600 East Lawson Road

Pine Bluff
Gov. Mike Huckabee Delta Rivers Nature Center
1400 Black Dog Road

Camden
Camden Fairview High School Auditorium
1750 Cash Road

Fort Smith
Janet Huckabee Arkansas River Valley Nature Center
8300 Wells Lake Road

Following the public meetings, there will be a TV show Thursday, Jan. 7, from 7-8 p.m. on . Steve “Wild Man” Wilson will host the show, which will feature several AGFC biologists and wildlife experts. Sportsmen and women will be able to call a toll-free hotline with questions and comments that will be answered or discussed during the show.

I do not have the e-mail address for e-mailing comments but you can get it from the AGFC. If you cannot make the meetings then at least voice your concerns through e-mail.

By the way are any of you guys good with power point? If I could get all my stuff on power point then I could really get points across better. It's just something about letting people see things with their own eyes.

whitewolf1
December 31st, 2009, 11:38 AM
Since I cant make the meetings, I think I will give a call to a DMAP biologist I know.

squirrelshooter
January 17th, 2010, 12:43 AM
I have just found ArcheryTalk and this forum, so I am coming to this discussion a little bit late. As background, I hunt private ground in zone 4 on Crowley's Ridge. I have hunted the same property for years, and actually have history in the same location. That being said, where I hunt is about the only place that I deer hunt, so my observations may or may not apply to where you hunt.

Observation # 1: The 3 point rule has not impacted the deer herd in my area in a positive way. Until the three point rule was enacted, I could count the number of "cull" or "scrub" deer on one hand and have fingers to spare. Now I see several every season. They are continuing to breed and screwing up the gene pool in my local herd. In a nutshell, before the 3 point rule, most bucks had over 3 points per side, but after the rule was enacted, not as high a percentage did.

Observation # 2: Poaching is a problem here, as it is everywhere. While poaching is probably never going to go away, providing more gun hunting opportunities to us might help reduce it. We only have two days of shotgun only modern gun, no muzzleloader season, and a 3 day Christmas hunt.

Observation # 3: AG&FC is totally unresponsive to the individual citizen. I have sent numerous suggestions for change, and even asked a couple of repeated questions, by snail mail letter. I no longer bother, because I never even received a form letter saying "thank you for your interest", much less an answer to my questions.

If you are curious as to what my questions are, they were a question regarding the zone boundaries of zone 4, why shotguns with slugs are the only allowed modern gun in our area when the rest of the state can utilize rifles, and why we have such an extremely limited gun season in my zone.

Observation # 4: I have not seen many changes that AG&FC have implemented that have impacted me, my hunting area, or my hunting opportunities in a positive way.

I harbor a hope, that someday this will all change, but I am not holding my breath.

bigdoglanyards
January 17th, 2010, 01:19 AM
If we dont continue to "harbor a hope" things will never change! Dont ever quit especially when it comes to something that you belive in. That being said, welcome to the conversation. I belive that the people involved in this thred are serious and will make a difference.

AR_Headhunter
January 17th, 2010, 09:12 AM
squirrelshooter
I do not know your age so I do not know how long you've been hunting. If you were hunting during the early 90's then I'm sure you remember how good things were in zone 4 during that time. Back in the early 90's we had such a well balanced herd in zone 4. I used to make several trips a year up there during the early 90's. Back then it was nothing to see 2 mature bucks a day. I've seen some of my best deer up there during those times. Then the AGFC started making gun season longer & longer & the herd is not in as good of a shape now as it was back then. It's not even close. In zone 4 the deer herd has been over killed. To many bucks have been killed which has really messed up the herd balance. I do not ever know if we will see it as good as it once was in zone 4 but the potential is there. The thing about zone 4 is that the vast majority of it is crop land with small wood lots scattered here & there. Most of the wood lots are along creeks, ditches, swamp area's, etc which are not suitable for farming & are usually quite small when compared to the vast fields up there. Being on Crowley's Ridge you are in some of the best deer country in our state as far as genetics & potential go. You also are likely to have more timber than area's that surround the ridge.

As for your Observation # 1, I agree with you here. What the 3 point has done is high grade out our bucks with the best genetics. I would love to see a 4 point rule because many of our 1 1/2 year old deer have 3 points on 1 side. Matter of fact most of our best bucks genetically have 3 points at 1 1/2 years old therefore we are killing out best bucks early & not giving them the chance to grow.

Now your Observation # 2, I disagree with & I'll tel you why. Poachers are thieves. You can make any law you want & they will still do whatever they see fit. I live in a area with a month long gun hunt & with some common sense restructuring you would not believe the quality of bucks my area could produce. I personally would love to see my hunting area go shotgun only & be for the season to be shortened to two weeks. If they would take the high powered rifles out you would see great bucks being killed in my area. Do not get me wrong there are some great deer killed up here every year now but by taking high powered rifles out we could easily increase our age structure to where it needs to be.

Observation # 3 I totally agree with. Thats why we are looking at organizing. IMHO unless we organize then we are just beating our heads on the wall. Every one of us knows the AGFC is not going to listen to us as individuals.

Observation # 4, We are all in that same boat & feel a lot like you do. Thats why we need to do something that will result in a positive change.

You stated, "If you are curious as to what my questions are, they were a question regarding the zone boundaries of zone 4, why shotguns with slugs are the only allowed modern gun in our area when the rest of the state can utilize rifles, and why we have such an extremely limited gun season in my zone.". I know where your coming from there buddy but believe it or not that rule is a blessing for zone 4. With the way zone 4 is mainly fields with small woodlot scattered across it the deer population could almost be wiped out with a single rifle season up there. I know of a couple groups of hunters who could & would sweep the forest by using human drives up there. So I would not complain about the shot gun only rule to much if it were me but thats JMO.
Jack

By the way welcome to the discussion & we are glad to have you here! Tell your friends & get more people involved buddy. We are wanting to make things better for all deer hunters. Not just a select few.

squirrelshooter
January 17th, 2010, 10:17 AM
Thanks for the welcome!

I was not trying to throw gasoline on a fire, I was afraid that I may have last night. But it appears if you guys use a little more logic than on many forums that I visit. I will try to answer the questions asked of me.

I live in Harrisburg specifically and hunt east of Lake Poinsett on the same 200 acres that I have hunted since I was a kid. I am now 40.

While I primarily bow hunt deer, because we have such small chance of hunting with any sort of firearm, I also like to gun hunt. Some of my past concerns have been more opportunity with firearms. While I would like a longer gun season, I do not want 6 weeks! I would like to see AG&FC try a muzzleloader hunt for a weekend, or give us two weekends for gun, or my personal favorite - give us 4 days in a row. When everybody troops to the woods on the same weekend, give up patterning deer!

What really chaps my rear, is that zone 4A I think it is (I don't have a zone map in front of me) has two weekends to gun hunt. It appears to me that the intent is to give the zone sectioned on Crowley's Ridge an extra opportunity to gun hunt, because the population can stand the limited extra pressure. Hwy 163 has been the usual eastern boundary for the "ridge" zones because it generally runs along the edge of Crowley's Ridge. However, before getting to Harrisburg, it veers to the west, and cuts out thousands of acres around Harrisburg from this "ridge" zone. Guess where my property lies!
To aggravate this, the Turkey zone typically cuts out across the "bottoms" to the east to include this ground as well as some bottomland acreage. This additional acreage in the bottoms has almost no turkey, yet it is included in the zone, but the deer, which actually do exist, are not included. I realize that this may be hard to follow by reading, and not by looking at the appropriate maps. But the problem is, this does not affect many people, but it does bother myself and some friends.

That being said, I am happy to get on board, but after years of hitting your head against a brick wall, I received nothing but bruises, and quit caring. I am happy to see others concerned as I have been, and will gladly get on the band wagon so to speak. I think part of the problem, is the state is sometime trying to change the state deer situation as a whole, and some places do not need change in the area that they propose. But when a specific area needs to see some change, not enough people are involved and nothing happens!

What are some things that you might like to see that have not been addressed yet! I would like to see our trespassing laws strengthened. This is a huge problem for me as I hunt ground that I own. At least every other gun season I am speding part of my extremely limited hunting time, running off a trespasser.

AR_Headhunter
January 17th, 2010, 08:01 PM
SS
Good to have you aboard. I'm to tired tonight to type much of a reply but I would be willing to hear and consider any ideas you have. I do not know exactly where your property is but there are some great deer over on Crowley's Ridge. I look forward to youing join our discussion.
Jack

AR_Headhunter
January 18th, 2010, 02:40 PM
Thanks for the welcome!

I was not trying to throw gasoline on a fire, I was afraid that I may have last night. But it appears if you guys use a little more logic than on many forums that I visit. I will try to answer the questions asked of me.

We all seem to be pretty decent guys with a common goal of increased health & age structure of our deer herd for the enjoyment of all ethical hunters. To me the term ethical here means us guys who abide by the law. As for people who do not think logically. Well they tend not to post on these subjects.

I live in Harrisburg specifically and hunt east of Lake Poinsett on the same 200 acres that I have hunted since I was a kid. I am now 40. While I primarily bow hunt deer, because we have such small chance of hunting with any sort of firearm, I also like to gun hunt. Some of my past concerns have been more opportunity with firearms. While I would like a longer gun season, I do not want 6 weeks! I would like to see AG&FC try a muzzleloader hunt for a weekend, or give us two weekends for gun, or my personal favorite - give us 4 days in a row. When everybody troops to the woods on the same weekend, give up patterning deer!

What really chaps my rear, is that zone 4A I think it is (I don't have a zone map in front of me) has two weekends to gun hunt. It appears to me that the intent is to give the zone sectioned on Crowley's Ridge an extra opportunity to gun hunt, because the population can stand the limited extra pressure. Hwy 163 has been the usual eastern boundary for the "ridge" zones because it generally runs along the edge of Crowley's Ridge. However, before getting to Harrisburg, it veers to the west, and cuts out thousands of acres around Harrisburg from this "ridge" zone. Guess where my property lies!
To aggravate this, the Turkey zone typically cuts out across the "bottoms" to the east to include this ground as well as some bottomland acreage. This additional acreage in the bottoms has almost no turkey, yet it is included in the zone, but the deer, which actually do exist, are not included. I realize that this may be hard to follow by reading, and not by looking at the appropriate maps. But the problem is, this does not affect many people, but it does bother myself and some friends.

I looked over that area you referred to. You got to love technology lol. Google earth is your friend when checking out new area's. I can totally see your point here. Thats part of my issue with the AGFC. Like why are we having a spring turkey hunt when we apparently do not have enough birds for a fall archery hunt? I understood their to be less birds taken with archery than any other weapon. There would be a lot more turkeys in my area if outlaws would quit popping them late season (no season for firearms!) with rifles! We could also do tons in my area if the 1 buck limit & the no deer dog area was actually enforced! There is so much to talk about & it takes forever on these boards but it beat nothing. At least we are fixing to try to make a difference.

That being said, I am happy to get on board, but after years of hitting your head against a brick wall, I received nothing but bruises, and quit caring. I am happy to see others concerned as I have been, and will gladly get on the band wagon so to speak. I think part of the problem, is the state is sometime trying to change the state deer situation as a whole, and some places do not need change in the area that they propose. But when a specific area needs to see some change, not enough people are involved and nothing happens!

See above. We are going to try to fix that. I've got several ideas as to how to do it.

What are some things that you might like to see that have not been addressed yet! I would like to see our trespassing laws strengthened. This is a huge problem for me as I hunt ground that I own. At least every other gun season I am spending part of my extremely limited hunting time, running off a trespasser.

If you've read many of my post then you pretty much know where I stand. I am for private property owners! Me, You, Bo, Jeff, no one likes to have their hunt or any time outdoors on their property infringed on by people who do not belong there! I would like to see much stiffer laws regarding that & much better enforcement because without enforcement you can make all the laws you want but it will not do any good. Like I said before there is much to discuss but we will get it done.

As a matter of fact we need to get a list of core principles & goals listed. I'll give a couple & you guys add things to it that you want to see.

1. I want to maintain a good working relationship with the AGFC where we can address issues & actually have those issues taken seriously. At the same time I do not want to bother with the trivial matters. I want to help address issues that matter.

2. I would like to see a program with the AGFC that works with hunters to better maintain food plot area's on public lands on a county by county basis. This is something I believe could be huge for all people who hunt public property plus all the adjacent land owners.

3. I want to see trespassing associated with hunting/fishing carry a stiffer penalty. 2'nd offense loss of hunting & fishing licenses for 1 year. 3'rd offense loss of outdoors licenses for 3 years hunting/fishing. It's one thing if someone is lost etc. but there is no excuse for what many do today. Until the penalty actually means something then we are just slapping their hands & they will be back next week.

jna329
January 18th, 2010, 03:48 PM
Thanks for the welcome!

I was not trying to throw gasoline on a fire, I was afraid that I may have last night. But it appears if you guys use a little more logic than on many forums that I visit. I will try to answer the questions asked of me.

I live in Harrisburg specifically and hunt east of Lake Poinsett on the same 200 acres that I have hunted since I was a kid. I am now 40.

While I primarily bow hunt deer, because we have such small chance of hunting with any sort of firearm, I also like to gun hunt. Some of my past concerns have been more opportunity with firearms. While I would like a longer gun season, I do not want 6 weeks! I would like to see AG&FC try a muzzleloader hunt for a weekend, or give us two weekends for gun, or my personal favorite - give us 4 days in a row. When everybody troops to the woods on the same weekend, give up patterning deer!

What really chaps my rear, is that zone 4A I think it is (I don't have a zone map in front of me) has two weekends to gun hunt. It appears to me that the intent is to give the zone sectioned on Crowley's Ridge an extra opportunity to gun hunt, because the population can stand the limited extra pressure. Hwy 163 has been the usual eastern boundary for the "ridge" zones because it generally runs along the edge of Crowley's Ridge. However, before getting to Harrisburg, it veers to the west, and cuts out thousands of acres around Harrisburg from this "ridge" zone. Guess where my property lies!
To aggravate this, the Turkey zone typically cuts out across the "bottoms" to the east to include this ground as well as some bottomland acreage. This additional acreage in the bottoms has almost no turkey, yet it is included in the zone, but the deer, which actually do exist, are not included. I realize that this may be hard to follow by reading, and not by looking at the appropriate maps. But the problem is, this does not affect many people, but it does bother myself and some friends.

That being said, I am happy to get on board, but after years of hitting your head against a brick wall, I received nothing but bruises, and quit caring. I am happy to see others concerned as I have been, and will gladly get on the band wagon so to speak. I think part of the problem, is the state is sometime trying to change the state deer situation as a whole, and some places do not need change in the area that they propose. But when a specific area needs to see some change, not enough people are involved and nothing happens!

What are some things that you might like to see that have not been addressed yet! I would like to see our trespassing laws strengthened. This is a huge problem for me as I hunt ground that I own. At least every other gun season I am speding part of my extremely limited hunting time, running off a trespasser.
throw all the gas you want we can take it.:smile: Dont get too discouraged and quit careing. You have to keep fighting. You are correct in the statement that some places dont need change. The problem is - if we want change at al we have to focus on a overall view. You suggest changes of just your area, but agfc is not as concerned with one view. If we present a united front and push for a portion of what you want we may be able to make a difference not only for you but for all of us.




If you've read many of my post then you pretty much know where I stand. I am for private property owners! Me, You, Bo, Jeff, no one likes to have their hunt or any time outdoors on their property infringed on by people who do not belong there! I would like to see much stiffer laws regarding that & much better enforcement because without enforcement you can make all the laws you want but it will not do any good. Like I said before there is much to discuss but we will get it done.

As a matter of fact we need to get a list of core principles & goals listed. I'll give a couple & you guys add things to it that you want to see.

1. I want to maintain a good working relationship with the AGFC where we can address issues & actually have those issues taken seriously. At the same time I do not want to bother with the trivial matters. I want to help address issues that matter.

2. I would like to see a program with the AGFC that works with hunters to better maintain food plot area's on public lands on a county by county basis. This is something I believe could be huge for all people who hunt public property plus all the adjacent land owners.

3. I want to see trespassing associated with hunting/fishing carry a stiffer penalty. 2'nd offense loss of hunting & fishing licenses for 1 year. 3'rd offense loss of outdoors licenses for 3 years hunting/fishing. It's one thing if someone is lost etc. but there is no excuse for what many do today. Until the penalty actually means something then we are just slapping their hands & they will be back next week.

1. agree. sometimes we all get consumed with trivial matters that only effect us. we have to stop this and focus on the bigger picture.
2.Agree. the problem is the agfc is going to talk about cost and probably wont want to base it on county by county. I think that a zone by zone basis is probably more realistic for now. I also feel that the improved nutritional benefits would be a huge step towards improving overall herd health for all the animals not just the deer.
3. Strongly agree that there should be change. the issue is that anyone can say "well im lost". If caught on land with an animal it should be poaching and trespassing. If you have a property less than 100 acres and someone is on it, then they should not be allowed to use the lost excuse. the fines should be enforced and the penalty should be severe. They are stealing our time, land and our rights.
WE also need to focus on stopping the poachers. I know several of my neighbors that continue to shoot deer with rifle(from roads, at night, out of rifle season, etc.) yet I cant get anyone to do anything because "if you have no definitive proof then we cant afford the time or resources to do much about it. Go tell them you know what they are doing and that you would appreciate it if they would stop." This was a direct quote from a agfc rep on the phone. Wish I would have had the mind to keep my wits and get the name of said rep. I just got pissed off and hung up.

AR_Headhunter
January 18th, 2010, 04:00 PM
Jeff we all get frustrated when nothing is done. I really think we need a law which affixes a civil penalty for poaching like Iowa has.

jna329
January 18th, 2010, 04:12 PM
Jeff we all get frustrated when nothing is done. I really think we need a law which affixes a civil penalty for poaching like Iowa has.

would definitely be a start!!!

AR_Headhunter
January 19th, 2010, 07:14 AM
I was thinking of something & decided to share with my local friends on here. If your looking for DIY on public land, bow hunt only for turkey but also the chance for wild hogs then give me a shout. I promised a friend of mine that I would help him out with the hog population & I have not had the chance to kill them so I am going to do all you guys a favor. I'm going to share this spot. There are turkeys in the area which means you can turkey hunt early in the morning & transition into hog/turkey hunting mid morning & the remainder or the day. Prime time for the turkeys in this area are from first light for about 30 minutes - 1Hour after daylight then again about 1PM. I know of several turkey hunters in this area who pass hogs every year because they do not want to mess with them. So if you would be interested in the info of where this is at then hit me up. I believe telling you guys now will allow for plenty of scouting time & I figure this are can hold a additional 5-7 hunters. I will only be giving this info out for to about 7 people total. All I ask is hunt the area responsibly, if you see a illegal activity then report it, & kill every hog you can during your hunt. I do not agree with it but the manager for this area says you can leave hogs lay. Well you know some of the details so if it sounds interesting then let me know via PM. I will not post the info publicly. I will also keep posted the # of people looking at going. So like if one of you guys know a buddy that you regularly hunt with & he is going to go with you it will count for 2, etc..

This post will also be PM'ed to a few of you guys.:D

fishmannyj
January 19th, 2010, 12:24 PM
:icon_salut: Awesome AR! Wud like to go on a Archery hog hunt but dont want to take up a spot. Never know when I can travel to far and have the funds. Great of you for sharing on here!

jna329
January 19th, 2010, 03:11 PM
Jack - I have pm'd you on the hunt. Thanks Jeff

AR_Headhunter
January 19th, 2010, 04:37 PM
Gotcha Jeff. Pm's returned. I'll get everything together the next day or 2.

AR_Headhunter
January 19th, 2010, 06:07 PM
:icon_salut: Awesome AR! Wud like to go on a Archery hog hunt but dont want to take up a spot. Never know when I can travel to far and have the funds. Great of you for sharing on here!

Just hooking up a few fellow Arkansans because I appreciate you guys. I'll likely not get to go but nothing wrong with paying it forward. ;)

AR_Headhunter
January 20th, 2010, 09:41 AM
Looking at 4 people so far for hog hunting.....

AR_Headhunter
January 21st, 2010, 06:40 PM
It's looking like you guys jumped on that offer! Well all the info is out to everyone & so all the spots are now full for the hunt. I'll let everyone know if any cancel. Hope all you guys have a great time & enjoy yourselves. For motel or camping spots just shoot me a pm.

AR_Headhunter
February 4th, 2010, 12:08 AM
Guys I just spent 3 hours making a post on us organizing & due to a AT glitch it didn't post. I'm to tired to do it again tonight but tomorrow I will start a new thread for those of us who are serious about organizing a group to represent our interest.
Jack

Dodgeman67
February 4th, 2010, 12:36 AM
Jack, not sure who you are, but I think I have talked to you before.

I haven't heard anything from the Arkansas Deer Hunters Association, I have heard some good things the Arkansas Deer Hunters Alliance has done since it started just 6 years ago.

You should get involved with one of these groups instead of going through all the trouble of getting incorporated, talking to lawyers to do this, setting up a bank account, and on and on like these two groups have already set up.



But to change gears I live and hunt in zone 4 and we never needed the 3 point rule, as you pointed out our deer herd was fine and didn't need messed with. I also agree the 3 point rule has high graded our deer and we have more cull buck breading does than we have ever had, and a 4 point rule would just increase the problem.

Down south I would agree the 3 point rule has helped, but don't blanket the start with one rule when we didn't need it in this area to start with.


Oh I'm one of those deer advisory guys as well. More wasted money by the commission in my opinion. Reason I say that is they is the information we came up with the commission didn't listen to.

As you very well know the commission is the 7 commissioners and they make the rules plain and simple, they don't have to answer to anyone and they do what they want. Prime example is this past fall turkey season both archery and gun being closed two weeks before the season opened and the biologist were constantly telling the commissioners the fall season had no impact on the turkey population. They don't listen to their own biologist, do you think they will listen to anyone else? I don't think so.

Oh yea, I went to the Jan. 5 general regulation meeting in Jonesboro and there were over 100 hunters at that meeting.

Yall have a good day.

AR_Headhunter
February 4th, 2010, 01:00 AM
Jack, not sure who you are, but I think I have talked to you before.

I haven't heard anything from the Arkansas Deer Hunters Association, I have heard some good things the Arkansas Deer Hunters Alliance has done since it started just 6 years ago.

You should get involved with one of these groups instead of going through all the trouble of getting incorporated, talking to lawyers to do this, setting up a bank account, and on and on like these two groups have already set up.



But to change gears I live and hunt in zone 4 and we never needed the 3 point rule, as you pointed out our deer herd was fine and didn't need messed with. I also agree the 3 point rule has high graded our deer and we have more cull buck breading does than we have ever had, and a 4 point rule would just increase the problem.

Down south I would agree the 3 point rule has helped, but don't blanket the start with one rule when we didn't need it in this area to start with.


Oh I'm one of those deer advisory guys as well. More wasted money by the commission in my opinion. Reason I say that is they is the information we came up with the commission didn't listen to.

As you very well know the commission is the 7 commissioners and they make the rules plain and simple, they don't have to answer to anyone and they do what they want. Prime example is this past fall turkey season both archery and gun being closed two weeks before the season opened and the biologist were constantly telling the commissioners the fall season had no impact on the turkey population. They don't listen to their own biologist, do you think they will listen to anyone else? I don't think so.

Oh yea, I went to the Jan. 5 general regulation meeting in Jonesboro and there were over 100 hunters at that meeting.

Yall have a good day.

Hey Dodge good to see you again. Your name escapes me at the moment but we have talked before over on arkansashunting.net.

I agree with the ADHA on many issues but there are a couple things I cannot get past with them. #1 is the way people were treated by the fella who used to respond to perspective new members. Some smart *** yankee fella with a serious attitude problem. I might look up his name tomorrow but he goes by kid rescue. You'll know who he is. #2 the ADHA will not support anything that might reduce hunter opportunity. Unless they have change since I last spoke to people within the org.. That second one is a killer IMO. Sometimes to do whats best & needed you have to reduce hunter opportunity to make things better in the long haul & increase hunter opportunity. By the way I am Jack Moore if that helps you place me.

limbhanger25
February 9th, 2010, 05:15 PM
Just joined Archery Talk...found this thread this AM. My self and a couple of people here in the state have been discussing an organization just as this. We even are as far along as a mission statement. I haven't read all the posts in the thread....to much reading....but from what I can tell, you all have the same agenda as we do. Thing about the Arkansas Deer Herd is this....we have the same species of whitetail as Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. All of them produce bigger deer than we do. None of them have a 6 week gun hunt in the middle of the rut, or a 6 week gun season in gereral. I think the Game and Fish are scared of what a huge change in season would do to their funds.....but when you think about the long term it would increase out of state traffic when our herd becomes better in quality. Ther is no reason we shouldn't be in the top five states as far as deer quality goes.

bigdoglanyards
February 9th, 2010, 05:52 PM
Just joined Archery Talk...found this thread this AM. My self and a couple of people here in the state have been discussing an organization just as this. We even are as far along as a mission statement. I haven't read all the posts in the thread....to much reading....but from what I can tell, you all have the same agenda as we do. Thing about the Arkansas Deer Herd is this....we have the same species of whitetail as Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. All of them produce bigger deer than we do. None of them have a 6 week gun hunt in the middle of the rut, or a 6 week gun season in gereral. I think the Game and Fish are scared of what a huge change in season would do to their funds.....but when you think about the long term it would increase out of state traffic when our herd becomes better in quality. Ther is no reason we shouldn't be in the top five states as far as deer quality goes.

Amen!

AR_Headhunter
February 9th, 2010, 06:39 PM
Just joined Archery Talk...found this thread this AM. My self and a couple of people here in the state have been discussing an organization just as this. We even are as far along as a mission statement. I haven't read all the posts in the thread....to much reading....but from what I can tell, you all have the same agenda as we do. Thing about the Arkansas Deer Herd is this....we have the same species of whitetail as Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. All of them produce bigger deer than we do. None of them have a 6 week gun hunt in the middle of the rut, or a 6 week gun season in gereral. I think the Game and Fish are scared of what a huge change in season would do to their funds.....but when you think about the long term it would increase out of state traffic when our herd becomes better in quality. Ther is no reason we shouldn't be in the top five states as far as deer quality goes.

Glad you found us! If we all have similar idea's on this perhaps we could all merge & create a very strong group for our idea's. As for the AGFC funds. They know thier funding is not in danger because of the sales tax revenue they get plus the oil & gas royalties. Thats 1 reason they do not pay much attention to the people who actually care enough to voice their opinion on management. It's a true shame that they were more concerned about building nature centers than addressing issues with management of Arkansas wildlife for the enjoyment of Arkansas sportsmen. Thats simply my opinion though. Your very right about our deer quality. We have the genetics to produce huge deer all across the state. The nutrition of certain area's will limit them but overall we are blessed in genetics. Below are a couple exerts from articles about the potential & history of big deer in Arkansas.

http://www.arkansassportsmanmag.com/hunting/whitetail-deer-hunting/AR_0905_01/
Back in 1965, almost entirely thanks to the efforts of Dr. Rex Hancock of Stuttgart, the state's first B&C scorer, and a group of helpers known as the "posse," Arkansas, which had 47 deer listed in the club's record book, was ranked second only to Saskatchewan on the entire North American continent!

http://www.arkansassportsmanmag.com/hunting/whitetail-deer-hunting/AR_1109_01/index.html
There are 781 deer -- 638 typicals and 143 non-typicals -- listed in the ATC today. Those have been taken during the last 80 years, all the way back to the one killed by George Matthews in Chicot County in 1923.

Of that number, 131 are large enough for inclusion in the all-time B&C record book, which requires a minimum of 170 for typicals, 195 for non-typicals. Of that number, 70 are typicals and 51 non-typicals. For a variety of reasons, not all of them have been entered into the record book, but all have been scored by official B&C scorers.

Arkansas ranks 18th nationwide for B&C book deer production. But among Southern states, Arkansas ranks No. 2; Kentucky is No. 1.

That is all factual data related to our potential. At one time we were near the top in production of really great deer & I think we can be again. You will hear a lot of objections from some hunters who will fight a real effort to enhance management because they see what has happened in places like Illinois with lease prices. People have to understand though that in Arkansas we have around 4.5 million acres of public land That is a ton of public property for a state the size of Arkansas. Most Arkansans have a decent place to hunt on public land within a hour drive. There are many hunters nationwide who would love to be able to say that.

The thing is we are finally reaching a point in Arkansas where enough people want to see better quality deer in Arkansas that we can make a difference if we unite in the effort. It will take work & a lot of effort but it can be done. If we could make a major overhaul of the season structure though I believe we could see unbelievable results in 3 years. Tell your friends about us & invite them over. You'll find most of the guys here are very open to others idea's & input.
Jack

jna329
February 9th, 2010, 10:10 PM
Just joined Archery Talk...found this thread this AM. My self and a couple of people here in the state have been discussing an organization just as this. We even are as far along as a mission statement. I haven't read all the posts in the thread....to much reading....but from what I can tell, you all have the same agenda as we do. Thing about the Arkansas Deer Herd is this....we have the same species of whitetail as Kansas, Iowa, Missouri and Oklahoma. All of them produce bigger deer than we do. None of them have a 6 week gun hunt in the middle of the rut, or a 6 week gun season in gereral. I think the Game and Fish are scared of what a huge change in season would do to their funds.....but when you think about the long term it would increase out of state traffic when our herd becomes better in quality. Ther is no reason we shouldn't be in the top five states as far as deer quality goes.

Glad to have you with us! Sounds like we may be able to get something done inthe near future. I would love to read your mission statement if you dont mind posting it. I have posting something like a mission statement or goal agenda in the name poll thread. Take a look and see if we are on the same page. If so we need to get together on this. The more people the better. --Jeff

AR_Headhunter
February 9th, 2010, 10:42 PM
You know guys, I want to put something out there just as food for thought as well. There is no way everyone is going to agree on every issue. What I'm looking for here is the common ground. Things where we have a large percentage of people who can realize that we can make things better & that making things better overall is going to take some sacrifice. We will not agree on every issue but if we are willing to look at things from each others points of view & not just be critical it will go a long ways to furthering this cause. I'm a trophy hunter. I like taking nice deer but I am willing to help do whats best for the sport as a whole. I would ask each of you guys to do the same. Put the needs of our herd & Arkansas sportsmen first & look at more than just our personal wants. Just food for thought.
Jack

jna329
February 9th, 2010, 10:48 PM
You know guys, I want to put something out there just as food for thought as well. There is no way everyone is going to agree on every issue. What I'm looking for here is the common ground. Things where we have a large percentage of people who can realize that we can make things better & that making things better overall is going to take some sacrifice. We will not agree on every issue but if we are willing to look at things from each others points of view & not just be critical it will go a long ways to furthering this cause. I'm a trophy hunter. I like taking nice deer but I am willing to help do whats best for the sport as a whole. I would ask each of you guys to do the same. Put the needs of our herd & Arkansas sportsmen first & look at more than just our personal wants. Just food for thought.
Jack

I agree 100%! I hope that everyone does. That is what it will take to make a positive difference.

limbhanger25
February 10th, 2010, 01:13 AM
I say we go ahead with a meeting. No better time than the off season...we need to have a non-profit formed before the next game and fish public meeting in the fall. The more people who show up on our side the more they will listen. We would need to have our ducks in a row with the mission statement...factual info put together by the game and fish themselves so they can't disput...and either a member registry or signed petition by how ever many hunters we can all get on board. I vote for a meeting the last weekend of this month. I offer my home as a venue. I can name 30 that would attend with out even having to think.

Dodgeman67
February 10th, 2010, 01:20 AM
Jack, I can't believe you would say this.


There is no way everyone is going to agree on every issue.

Seems like you were told this by a group before but you didn't want to take that as an answer?

Are you by any chance a democrat?

Or is the saying the pot calling the kettle black?


Sorry, not trying to rain on your parade or anything but there is already a group in place to address many of the issues you have brought up.

No we aren't in favor of shooting dogs, but we do want our deer herd managed better.

Just sayin.

limbhanger25
February 10th, 2010, 01:24 AM
What group would that be?

carbon arrow
February 10th, 2010, 02:20 AM
I think the Game and Fish are scared of what a huge change in season would do to their funds.....but when you think about the long term it would increase out of state traffic when our herd becomes better in quality. Ther is no reason we shouldn't be in the top five states as far as deer quality goes.

Maybe I took it in the wrong context, but I am dead set against that idealology. I wouldn't even think about managing our herd in a way that might produce trophy bucks in hopes of attracting increased numbers of
Out Of State hunters to offset revenue monies.
Why would you want an increase of non residents to hunt OUR land.
I'm glad I have my own.............
Just my opinion.

TiredArkie
February 10th, 2010, 02:31 AM
I agree with carbon arrow on that. I don't wish to manage for trophy deer just a herd that's better balanced in the sex and age ratio's. The drawing more OOSer's will do nothing but drive the cost of hunting up for those of us that live here and could possibly price some hunters out of the game.

TiredArkie
February 10th, 2010, 02:36 AM
What group would that be?

Yeah, what group? I only know of two, one is for bowhunters only and I'm a member of it already and the other I started to join until I seen how some of it's members ganged up on people when they didn't agree with them.

AR_Headhunter
February 10th, 2010, 11:51 AM
Just to keep you guys up to date on whats going on with the suggested proposals for the 2010-2011 season from the AGFC.

Advisory Group Members,

Let me give you a brief update on the status of 2010-11 Hunting regulations. The AGFC presented 25 discussion topics at the January public meetings and on the AGFC website. We received many comments on the topics at the public meetings, and we also received approximately 1,000 comments for each of the 25 topics via the website survey. We are currently evaluating that information.

Using the information gained from the public involvement process and additional input from staff and federal partners, we will develop “Pre-proposals” that will be presented at the Commission meeting on February 17-18th. Pre-proposals will include some or all of 25 discussion topics (perhaps with modifications), and any other items generated during the January public commenting process. Another period of public commenting will be available for the Pre-proposals.

I will prepare the AGFC message board and send an email when the list of Pre-proposals is finalized

Thanks,
Brad

limbhanger25
February 10th, 2010, 10:55 PM
As far as the deer dog banning...I have to look at it like this...I am not a terrorist but because of them I can not carry over 6 oz of liquid on a plane. I'm not chapped about it because it is whats best for everyone. A few bad apples spoil the bunch. If banning deer dogs can help I am all for it. I would have to see proof that it would help before voting on it.
As per my comment on out of state hunters coming in.....that is just something you will have to deal with if you improve the quality of our deer. Deer hunters go to Kansas, Iowa, and Ill. because of their herd. If properly managed...They will cause no more damage or problems than our own residents. It is give and take.....improve the herd and you get press across the country and more people come....do I want that, no..... am I willing to take it to better the quality of animals we have in the State...absolutly. Bump the price of an out of state tag to $350-$450 like most of the Midwest and allow them to kill one buck and one doe. You raise more money in the long run for the state. More money means more habitat and better hunting. Just look at how much land has been purchased by the state since the implementation of the hunting license. It took money to buy it so we could hunt it. It also takes money to maintain it.

jna329
February 11th, 2010, 12:03 AM
QUOTE=Jister;1056985875]Limb, just a few points you didn't mention I would like to elaborate on.

#1, All of those states mentioned you have to apply for a tag to even hunt, because they had to place that in affect or they would have depleted their herd. I for one dont think tags would be a bad choice if it was set up correctly. I think it would cut down on the number of unchecked/poached game and give more accurate numbers. I also feel that it could generate more revenue.

#2 Illinois is not doing so well, if you look at their herd. They have a serious doe problem because guides have took most of all the good counties and no one out of state wants to shoot a doe. So you have a high number of acres that locals can't afford to hunt, and does have exploded. Talk to any local hunter and ask him how their hunting is? And you will get a ear full. First thing they tell you, is the state government takes their money to fund other stuff outside of hunting and they have laid off numerous DNR people, they don't have any biological checks any more, and there is serious problems. The almost had to close about 50 state parks because they had no money and that was after they took money from permit hunts. only a few have mentioned turning ark into a trophy state. There are always draw backs to ideas like that. The fact is if we managed our state properly we could have the potential to be a trophy state.

#3 One can't even start to compare Ark with those states thinking you can make Ark like one of those states. The habitat is not the same, and the food is not the same. If by chance you shorten our gun season, to the limits they do, you would have a few good years and then you would certainly see a over population. We have way more woods and deer than they do already. So shortening anything we have would be good to a level but then you would see problems. Its apples to oranges. Your correct - the habitat is not the same. No one is saying use the exact same methods as other states. Shortening the gun season can work if it is done correctly. It alone is not the answer but with a combination of other things such as land management, nutrition programs, and new regulations on age it could go along way towards making positive change for the future of the state.

#4 This problem is probably the worst out of all the things I mention, and that is the hunter mentality here is not the same. Where up there you can get hunters to pass up 140 class deer, down here you will do good to see a hunter pass up a 1 1/2 yo six pointer. So I don't know exactly how one can change that and not create a mass hanging of AGFC officials. The hunter mentality will have to change to match the rules and regulations. If we implement the right changes then it can benefit all. It wont be a smooth transition, but then again a lot of people hated the 3 pt rule when it went into effect. Now we know that it made a difference. Just not enough of a difference.

#5 This is another big factor, and that is protein in the soil. The delta is the only part of Ark that can compete with those states. the rest of the state, you will never see a significant amount of anlter mass derived from protein out of the ground. Even age placed on bucks in the Ozark region doesn't produced just a whole lot of mass, on majority of bucks. Look at the antler index within our regions and you will see a huge difference.[/QUOTE]The land in our state is an issue. That is why we need a program that promotes and encourages private land owners to work on improving the quality of there soil, and works hard on public land to provide supplemental feeding and food plots. By doing control burns and planting of food plots and restoration of public areas that have been neglected, we can improve the nutritional quality of the food source as well as providing alternative food sources. I know that if I can make a difference in the private land that I hunt, then the state can(with our help of course)make a difference in public land as well.

Changes are truly needed statewide. I dont think anyone can disagree. We will disagree on what changes will be best, but we have to start somewhere. Bickering and personal agendas will not help any of us. Lets work to benefit our future of the sport that we all love. Otherwise, we will always be at the mercy of those with the money and those that dont have our interests at heart.--Jeff

limbhanger25
February 11th, 2010, 12:10 AM
Great points Jister.....for the most part I agree...just a couple of spots I feel a little different about. Ill. may have less deer...I don't know...I have never hunted there...but Kansas, Iowa IMO blow us out of the water. In a 2 day sit this year in Kansas we saw 250+ deer. I think the reason they will pass on a 140 in those States is two reasons... (1) they are only allowed 1 buck per year...so they are selective...(2) they are accustomed to seeing big deer and are not freaked out when the first 3 yr old walks out.... I also differ in opinion about the mass in the Ozarks....We have family prop. in Huntsville and I have taken 2 mature deer up there with great mass....20+ inches and seen several more, I think the hard wood's up there make a great meal plan. Def agree with the hunter mentality but I think that would change over time...You would have to implement a program slowly...it may take 15 yr's to put it in place. I don't think we should shorten the season like they do but I do think a shorter season than what we have is in order and at least make the middle of the rut hunt a shotgun or Archery only hunt. I agree with the application process. That way you can control out of state numbers. I also think that funds generated by the game and fish should STAY in the state. Awesome points..thx:)

jna329
February 11th, 2010, 12:22 AM
It seems that this thread has been hijacked and I no longer have any desire to dig through the BS in order to have an intelligent conversation. I will move to another thread and ask those that truly want to make a difference to come to the goals thread. DO NOT BRING PERSONAL AGENDAS OR ANY RANTS, BASHING OR BS. Lets try to be civil and make a difference. I for one would like to do more than talk and in order to do that we need to make changes statewide.