The "first buck of choice" option would basically result in the exact same outcome as removing ALL antler restrictions and stepping back to shooting any buck you choose.The only other question is like for say for instance why was the Gulf Costal Plain not include in the first buck of choice?
Yes I do agree it is a personal choice but like around the house there has been nothing but scrub bucks. There are a a few that has been taken but not all that many. I also know poachers account for a lot of decient bucks. I know everyone can't have it the way they want it and compromise have to be the order of bussiness. But what ever the rules I still plan on enjoying myself in the woods and do what I am asked. When the three point rule started it was doing good around here but in the last three years it seems to be a decline in this area can't speak for other places.
The "first buck of choice" option would basically result in the exact same outcome as removing ALL antler restrictions and stepping back to shooting any buck you choose.
Not a very wise choice to those that are trying to advance/improve the buck age structure or at least, hold it steady at the point it is now.
That move is only a personal choice that has no sound biological advantage. The majority of the harvested antlered bucks would be the yearlings...same as it was thirty years ago. That is not good.
If the rest of the state wants to deplete the age line of their bucks, that is their choice. I would hate for our area to follow suit, as we are just now realizing some advancement in the age of our bucks.
Now going with first buck a "4-on-one-side", second a "buck of choice"...I could live with.:wink:
Guess that is why about two out of three of the hand picked "advisers" no longer are participating...The deer plan is not going to please everyone. Some people would gripe even if they wrote the plan and the AGFC accepted it word for word.
He stands for two Buick limits, I do know that.. :wink: :biggrin:Don't compare me to others when you don't know where I stand.
I think you included this comment in your first post where you attempted to refute all my previous posts on this thread and "compared" me...kinda..turn about.Don't compare me to others when you don't know where I stand.
Now, would someone wish to discuss the actual issues of this thread.Some people would gripe even if they wrote the plan and the AGFC accepted it word for word.
Theres no way in hell a width requirement would work in south Arkansas. Just not enough time when a deer is walking between a fire lane in a pine thicket to figure out how wide he isI know it was suggested that a width requirement instead.
The "first buck of choice" option would basically result in the exact same outcome as removing ALL antler restrictions and stepping back to shooting any buck you choose.
Not a very wise choice to those that are trying to advance/improve the buck age structure or at least, hold it steady at the point it is now.
That move is only a personal choice that has no sound biological advantage. The majority of the harvested antlered bucks would be the yearlings...same as it was thirty years ago. That is not good.
If the rest of the state wants to deplete the age line of their bucks, that is their choice. I would hate for our area to follow suit, as we are just now realizing some advancement in the age of our bucks.
Now going with first buck a "4-on-one-side", second a "buck of choice"...I could live with.:wink:
Oh yea I forgot "they" say you can't do that.
Well said MB...:up:What they don't realize is the amount of hunters we had 20 yrs ago compared to today. It's not that the three point rule has hurt anything genetically it is the fact that some places are just over hunted. Make a 4 on one side rule and the harvest will go down (which is a good thing concerning bucks). The second buck of choice will hopefully put the culling in the more knowledgable hunters hands. This in return should result in smart choices being made concerning cull bucks. 99%of bucks people think are genitically challenged are just young deer or have some sort of injury in which they will recover from the following year.