O/T AntlerPoint Restriction Hearing

[Swampdonkey]

There's plenty of BIG deer in the southern part of the state.  I hunt in and around Clough where there are many deer 200+ and some 250+.
Biggest NH deer I ever saw I was 10yrs old,  33 years ago.  It probably was taken illegally and story was it dressed out just over 300# If memory serves me correctly it was 312#.(Not on the record books).
Head was on the wall of a taxidermist barn my dad used for his first bear.(Rumor has it the Taxidermist moved out west, or was chased out west).
(COs, it was 33 years ago, I was 10 years old, but I know what I saw and heard.  I have no idea who the taxidermist was or where they'd be now.)
What I remember at that age is all the grown men in the room could not hug this mount around the neck and touch their fingers, and it had 2 Oak Trees for a rack.
This deer was said to have be taken out of Weare, NH.  I've also seen plenty of big deer come out of Auburn, NH and other southern/seacoast communities.
That's why singling out one northern community becuase the state thinks people are going to drive 4 hours for bigger deer is a farse..

NB

There are definatly big deer around the state. I have seen two 150 class deer taken right in WMU M in the past few years. One my Uncle shot scored 153 or 157 cant remember which. Sefinatly big deer throughout the state. If I remember correctly the state record ML buck is also from WMU M.

[duck doctor]

Tony no worries about calling my bear a cub. He aged at 1.5 years old and is the best bear I have ever ate.

There are some huge deer down your way. I have a friend that I grew up with that has taken 3 deer over 200 with the biggest being 229 and is the current state record typical archery at 171 I believe. All 3 bucks were taken in zone K.

[newfound]

Side note (I don't want to hijack the thread)

DD,

how would you and the community feel about opening up trout fishing in the Pittsburg area to fall fishing on lakes/rivers/streams to help the local economy?
Open Oct. / 1/2 Nov. to fishing.  I would allow hunting parties to do dual vacations..  Hunt early morn. late afternoon and fish mid day.  Or stay longer if they connect with a Deer/Bear/Moose and fish the remainder of their stay..

Alaska guides advertise multi sport vacation packages.  Combo fish/hunt!

Just a thought.. I wanted to put it out there.

NB

[duck doctor]

Right now there are multiple season open at the same time for hunting/fishing combos.  When I book moose hunts, I offer upland hunts to successful hunters for the remainder of their trip. Some take advantage while others have packed up and headed home.

What ever could be done without negatively effecting wildlife populations to increase the hunters/economy during hunting season would be great!

[Worm Dangler]

Side note (I don't want to hijack the thread)

DD,

how would you and the community feel about opening up trout fishing in the Pittsburg area to fall fishing on lakes/rivers/streams to help the local economy?
Open Oct. / 1/2 Nov. to fishing.  I would allow hunting parties to do dual vacations..  Hunt early morn. late afternoon and fish mid day.  Or stay longer if they connect with a Deer/Bear/Moose and fish the remainder of their stay..

Alaska guides advertise multi sport vacation packages.  Combo fish/hunt!

Just a thought.. I wanted to put it out there.

NB

Noo!  Those fish are pressured enough up there.  I know most of the town is a stocked put and take system, but the lakes still hold some wild fish that need the break in my opinion.  I think that they need the relief in the fall especailly for spawning purposes. 

I really enjoy going up to my house in September.  I get to bow hunt and fly fish in the same day!  This is one of my favorite times of the year.  It's a short window but offers some great folliage as well as enjoying your two most favorite thing to do.  There are a few spots that I bow hunt that are right along the river; I remember last year I took my fly rod with me to my stand on the morning hunt and on the way out I took a few casts 

I agree that the economy needs to be sustained in Pittsburg and could use some increased revenue.  However, I'm still young and I guess you could call me greedy because I already think there are too many people in the woods or on the water.  Maybe I just need to get into some more narley land...huge country up thar!

Actually leaving work now to go.  I have to pick up 30doz smelt for the local bait shop up there o my way up because he guy didn't come though on smelt.  Have a good one guys.

[6wheels]

I'm siding with "bass for me" on this one. I like eating venison. Vermont has been doing the antler restriction thing for about 5 years now and the first year they did it was the last year I hunted there. New Hampshire has herd management plans in place and while I don't always agree on the reasoning for the decisions they make - they are able to regulate hunting days to maintain herd goals. Let's not confuse herd management with managing a herd for trophy bucks. Two different things. There are always trophy deer out there and antler restrictions are not going to make them dumb enough to walk right up to you. If you want to see more trophy deer then work harder for it. Just my two cents.

[Swampdonkey]

Let's not confuse herd management with managing a herd for trophy bucks. Two different things. There are always trophy deer out there and antler restrictions are not going to make them dumb enough to walk right up to you. If you want to see more trophy deer then work harder for it. Just my two cents.

Exactly!

[duck doctor]

If you want to see more trophy deer then work harder for it. Just my two cents.

I agree 100% however, don't mess with just one part of the state.

[carpzilla]

I want to shoot one two ax handles wide with stove pipes coming  out of his head. If I was a laid off mill worker in Berlin, and needed to put some meat on the table this antler thing is not gonna work. I am for bigger deer, but we do not have the agricultural food base to support the populations or herds of big deer. I think the state needs to drop the 6,000 m tags and let the deer build back up down here. Way to much hunting pressure in zone M and the herd has been dropped way down. We will never have overwhelming deer #'s that's just the way it is. Still big deer out there if you wait long enough.

[BearBait]

The state cant drop the 6k zone m permits.  They need every penny they can rake in, they already walk the line of "broke".  I dont believe the states primary  intention is to manage the herds at all.  They first make sure they pull as much money as they can, then worry about the herd management.  I realize that a bank roll is necessary to fund operations and that balance is not only hard to achieve but also the objective is"blurry".  I spend more time in the woods than the average hunter and the numbers I see dont match the stories from F$G or with all due respect, most hunters.  I'd like to know where the herd numbers come from.

I hunt for the food.  I dont care if the deer is a big racked buck or a not.  There are some big rack running around and if you want them, hunt for them!  I get real tired of watching hunters running through the woods pushing deer all over the place, and then complaining they never see anything.
Or the famous six gun salute and I missed crap, only to find the ponched deer in the woods a few days later.  I think if more hunters would  sit themselves down and do a some time in the wood when its not hunting season, they might be surprised by what "is" in the woods.

Just some thoughts....

[Swampdonkey]

Whats the problem with the M tags?

[Thumber]

2010 Deer Harvest Report

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/Hunting_PDFs/Wildlife_Harvest_2010.pdf

[Jiffy Man]

I think the state needs to drop the 6,000 m tags and let the deer build back up down here. Way to much hunting pressure in zone M and the herd has been dropped way down.

They did drop it down. Dropped it last year to 4000 and hunters could purchase two of them. I still think it is too much. I always have. Waaay too many hunters in unit M now.

From F&G website:
"The special Unit M antlerless-only permits have been issued by Fish and Game since 1997 in an effort to stabilize the size of the deer herd in southeastern New Hampshire and minimize deer-human conflicts such as vehicle collisions and destructive browsing of ornamental plants. High deer densities and development make potential deer-human conflicts of greater concern in this region."

uhh...really? Ornamental plants?

[_FLAG_]

The state cant drop the 6k zone m permits.  They need every penny they can rake in, they already walk the line of "broke".  I dont believe the states primary  intention is to manage the herds at all.  They first make sure they pull as much money as they can, then worry about the herd management.  I realize that a bank roll is necessary to fund operations and that balance is not only hard to achieve but also the objective is"blurry".  I spend more time in the woods than the average hunter and the numbers I see dont match the stories from F$G or with all due respect, most hunters.  I'd like to know where the herd numbers come from.

I hunt for the food.  I dont care if the deer is a big racked buck or a not.  There are some big rack running around and if you want them, hunt for them!  I get real tired of watching hunters running through the woods pushing deer all over the place, and then complaining they never see anything.
Or the famous six gun salute and I missed crap, only to find the ponched deer in the woods a few days later.  I think if more hunters would  sit themselves down and do a some time in the wood when its not hunting season, they might be surprised by what "is" in the woods.

Just some thoughts....

Could not have said it better!!!

[Cub]

bump

[vermonner]

We started this in Vermont 5 years ago now and the results are minimal increases in numbers, body weight and rack size.  We are not Iowa.  Never will be.  I have spent some time in The Great North Woods and it has the same limiting factor as Vermont.  Suboptimal whitetail deer habitat.  Mature forests are great.  For the timber industry.  All the deer management initiatives in the world will offer no benefit until there is suitable habitat to support an increase in herd size.  Go back to Gausse and biology 101. While that particular experiment is about competition, it occurs in a habitat.  We want to manage for results not biology and all that will ever amount to is frustration.  The roof is the last thing to go on a house, not the first.

[Cub]

Did this get shot down?

[james]

Did this get shot down?

CONTACT:
      Kent Gustafson: 603-271-2461
      Mark Ellingwood : 603-271-2461
      April 28, 2011

Fish and Game Withdraws Proposed 3-Point Antler Restriction in WMU-A

CONCORD, N.H. -- The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department has withdrawn its proposal to establish a 3-point antler restriction in Wildlife Management Unit A in northern New Hampshire, choosing instead to monitor the herd and revisit management options for 2012.

Public advocacy for the broad application of antler point restrictions in New Hampshire at 2010 winter/spring deer hearings prompted Fish and Game to form a Buck Age-Structure Management (BASM) Working Group in the summer of 2010.  The Working Group, consisting of deer hunters, Commissioners and Fish and Game staff, was tasked with putting together an unbiased survey to solicit deer hunter opinions on the issue of Buck Age-Structure Management. 

The survey was initiated last fall, and results indicated that there was substantial support for the use of antler point restrictions when age imbalances in antlered buck age classes were detected, but there was also significant opposition to any application of BASMproposals.  Support for management action was particularly strong from hunters who identified WMU-A as their primary deer hunting area.  Fish and Game data indicate that Unit A has a history of such imbalances, and, based on survey results, Fish and Game proposed the institution of a 3-point restriction in the unit to enhance the recruitment of yearling bucks into older age classes.   

Public hearings on the antler point restriction proposal occurred on April 7 (Concord) and April 8 (Pittsburg).  There was solid support for the proposal at the Concord hearing and significant opposition to the proposal in Pittsburg. 

At the April 20 Commission meeting, Fish and Game staff recommended that the Commission withdraw the proposal.  Staff indicated that they recognized the controversial nature of the proposal and that given the level of opposition in the North Country, it was not essential to move forward at this point in time; population recovery following several severe winters was a greater priority. Staff further advised that they would continue to monitor the situation in WMU-A and other units in New Hampshire and that they would be looking at all the options for re-balancing buck age-structure before making deer season recommendations for the 2012 hunting season.  The Commission discussed the issue at length before voting to withdraw the proposal with a 5 to 3 vote.

Additional background:

A N.H. deer management plan objective calls for maintaining a balanced buck age-structure in which at least 50% of antlered bucks are 2.5 years old or older. A higher proportion of older age bucks can have biological benefits and increase hunter satisfaction.


Prior to 2007, this objective had not been met in WMU-A for several years and for the 2007 season, a 2-point minimum antler point restriction (APR) and somewhat shortened seasons were implemented to reduce the kill of young bucks and the late season kill when deer can be particularly vulnerable due to deep snow* and yarding behavior. These measures were designed to allow more bucks to survive to older ages.


Beginning with the winter of 2007-08, severe winters led to overall declines in the deer population over the next several years and in addition, by 2009, concerns over the genetic consequences of the 2-point APR through the protection of the smallest antlered yearlings (i.e. "spike-horns") led to the removal of the 2-point APR for the 2010 season. The decrease in the deer population and reductions in either-sex hunting opportunities, along with the protection of about half of the yearling bucks under the 2-point APR, made evaluating the effectiveness of the 2-point APR difficult.


Public input during the process to remove the 2-point APR indicated a desire of many hunters to see APRs maintained in WMU-A, and a growing desire to have APRs implemented in other areas of the state.


In response to this interest, the Department provided an opportunity for 66,000 hunting license holders to participate in a survey to help better understand hunters’ preferences with regard to Buck Age-Structure Management and the management methods that might be employed to achieve it.


The survey indicated that a majority of hunters were in support of implementing some form of buck age-structure management when the deer plan objective was not being met, as had occurred in WMU-A, but there also was significant opposition.


The decision was made to propose a 3-point minimum APR in WMU-A as an option to continue to increase the proportion of older age bucks, based on the results of the survey. The 3-point APR would protect the vast majority of yearling bucks and would not have the potential genetic consequences of the 2-point APR.


The Commission voted to withdraw the proposal on April 20, 2011.

[Cub]

Thanks James..