Back to Blog
Spike buck7/9/2023 ![]() So before judging anyone, step back, and put their idea of a shooter buck into perspective Others would call it a great buck to harvest. We do, however, want hunters to understand the potential pros and cons of such implementation.Some whitetail hunters would call this a cull buck. However, biologically sound techniques could be implemented without doing any harm if that’s what hunters want. An effort to survey New Hampshire deer hunters in 2010 is partly designed to determine which method of reducing buck harvest is supported by the most hunters when we are compelled to employ BASM methods by the objectives in our plan, as well as to survey hunter’s opinions as to whether or not we should implement buck age structure management in areas that do not exceed the 50% yearling buck threshold of the management plan.įrom a biological perspective, buck age structure management is not necessary in any WMU except WMU-A at this time. With strong support of hunters, BASM could be implemented in other areas. While the deer management plan calls for the department to address the buck age structure issue when objective 2-1 is not being met, the plan does not limit the department to only addressing the buck age structure in those cases. As a result, we do not support the use of a 2-point APR in New Hampshire, and removed the 2-point APR in WMU-A for the 2010 season.Īlthough New Hampshire currently has a good buck age structure in most of the state, with strong hunter support, buck age structure management could be implemented wherever desired. The department has serious concerns over the negative aspects of a 2-point APR, particularly concerns over “high-grading” the future buck population by selectively harvesting yearlings with the biggest antlers leaving “spike-horns” to become future breeders. In 2006, it was apparent that WMU-A was not meeting this objective and buck age structure management (BASM) methods including shortened seasons and a 2-point minimum antler point restriction (APR) were implemented to help address this concern. As a result, objective 2-1 of the plan states that the department will "manage regional deer populations to ensure that yearling males don’t exceed 50% of the adult population." When we are confident that this objective is not being met, the department will propose rule changes in an effort to adjust the buck age structure to meet that management objective. In spite of New Hampshire’s past history of maintaining a good buck age structure without the need for special regulations, when the deer management plan was revised in 2005, it was recognized that maintaining a high percentage of 2.5+ aged bucks in the population and harvest should be a priority. In addition to having a relatively low percentage harvest of bucks at age 1.5, New Hampshire has among the highest percentage of bucks aged 3.5 or older, without special regulations except in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) A.īuck age structure management (BASM) is necessary in WMU-A The following table gives recent buck harvest age structure data from several Northeastern states. Most of New Hampshire currently has a very good buck age structure ![]() In contrast, many states have had 60% or more (and in the worst cases, for example areas in Pennsylvania a decade ago, approached 90%) of the antlered buck harvest composed of yearlings. A buck age structure where less than 50% of antlered bucks are yearlings is considered very good. During the past 5 years (2005-2009), the yearling percentage has been up slightly from the long-term average - 46.6% of antlered bucks have been yearlings. Statewide since 1987, an average of 44.8% of the antlered buck harvest has been yearlings (age 1.5), and 55.2% of antlered bucks have been 2.5 years old or older. New Hampshire has had a long history of maintaining older age bucks in the population and the harvest. Links to Other Independent Sources of Background Information Some Realistic Expectations in New Hampshire Methods for Regulating Buck Age Structure ![]() General Buck Age Structure Management Considerations
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |