Three on Top Discussion

Since this might be on the way, might as well start discussing it now.  From another thread it was stated that PA is considering going to “three on top” statewide for antler restrictions.  Brow tines will no longer be a factor.
Let me start this discussion with a simple disclaimer – I personally don’t care one way or the other.  It really makes no difference to me.  I just want to get some dialogue going.  So I probably have more questions to promote thought that I do opinions on the subject.
I guess the obvious first question would be – WHY?
It could be because it would make the state consistent from one end to the other on antler restrictions, but is that really needed? 
Turkey seasons, pheasant seasons, doe seasons, and their associated rules are different from one WMU to another, so why is it important to have antler restrictions consistent statewide when almost nothing else is?
It could be that it will make law enforcement easier. 
I thought that was accomplished by defining WMU’s not by habitat or actual wildlife, but by major landmarks such as highways and rivers so as to have well defined borders.  So does it make law enforcement easier?
It could be to allow more young bucks to survive and further adjust the buck to doe ratio to some undefined magical number. 
But that would be working with science, possibly flawed science, but science nonetheless and as the BOC vote this month showed, science doesn’t have a whole lot to do with the actions of the BOC.  So is it science?
It could be to grow more of those elusive “big” bucks that didn’t materialize out of the previous antler restrictions.  But will it?
Or will saving bucks that don’t have “three on top” only cause genetics to further reduce the number of shootable bucks available to hunters.  Here are three actual cases concerning how many “three on top” bucks have been taken in three different areas that I have personal knowledge of. 
Right out of the gate, I will freely admit that some of the information that I present was from before antler restrictions, so the results could be influenced by hunters taking the first legal buck that they could and thereby not waiting to see how many “three on top” were available to them for harvest.
I hunt in southern to mid Clearfield County – 2E.  I have hunted there for 37 seasons.  My brother, before his death (he died from Lyme disease he got hunting in Saskatchewan) hunted there 42 years.  My father, before doctors told him he couldn’t hunt any longer due to health reasons hunted there 66 years.  That is a total of 145 seasons.  Throw in the guests we have taken over the years, the 7 years my wife has hunted and the total seasons hunted there equals over 150 – let’s call it 175 to have a nice round number.  We have been very successful over those years in killing bucks with typically two of the three and more often than not three of three of us getting one up until the antler restriction years.
Now it is impossible to recall them all, but since 8 points are typically a big deal for us, we probably don’t miss remembering too many.  Seven points, which would be legal under “three on top” are probably not as easily remembered.  Of those 175 (and probably more) seasons, we have killed to the best of my recollection 11 eight points, 4 seven points, and 0 six points that had no brow tines.  That would be a total of 15 “three on top” out of 175 seasons or 1 about every 11.6 seasons. 
Just for argument’s sake, let’s say my memory is getting really bad and I missed half of the bucks that we killed that would be legal under “three on top.”  That translates into one per every 5.8 seasons.  Since my memory isn’t that bad, let’s just call it one every 6 years.  Is that enough of a success rate to keep the 16 – 22 year olds in the hunting fold?  What about the over 60 crowd?
As I stated before, a lot of these were before antler restrictions and there may have been a boat load of “three on top” bucks that we didn’t harvest because we took the first legal buck that we saw.  But I doubt it.  In the 7 seasons (or 6 or 8 depending on who is counting and when they define it started) of antler restrictions, we have hunted, between my Dad, my brother, my wife, and myself, we have hunted a total of 18 seasons and the results are one buck that would have qualified for “three on top.”  Since that was the only buck killed, the argument of there were others that could have been harvested but weren’t is removed.  Does the “three on top” look good now?
Closer to home, across the road and behind the house actually, my neighbor and his nephews plus my wife’s uncle and his four sons hunt.  The total area is about 400 – 600 acres that is starting to border suburbia in central Blair County.  It is agrarian in nature, but has woods throughout.  It is even private ground.  All of these hunters are farm guys and are outside in the fields or the woods as much as anybody.  Most hunt everyday of the gun season.  While I don’t really know how many years they all have hunted, let’s just look at the antler restriction years.  The total number of hunters is 8.  Using the same 7 years of antler restriction years – we are in a 3-point area – the total number of bucks that they killed that would qualify for “three on top” is exactly ZERO in 56 seasons.  In fact, the number of bucks that they have killed during the less restrictive 3-point rule is one.  Think they are going to love making it even more difficult to find a legal buck to harvest?
The third area is a state game land that borders Cambria, Blair, and Bedford counties.  My old fishing buddy has hunted there for the same number of years that I have hunted in Clearfield County – 37.  His Dad, who hunted last year at the age of 80, has hunted that area for 65 years.  I would deem them on par with your average PA gun hunter.  Of the combined 102 seasons, they have killed one buck that would qualify for “three on top” and that was a 10 point shot in 1967.  Since antler restrictions they have killed ZERO bucks, so none would qualify under the proposed rules.  How many more years is my buddy's Dad going to buy a license?
And why is it that there haven’t been more in all three cases?
Because, they aren’t there.
We have collected over a 100 sets of antlers from the area I hunt.  There are four distinct gene pools.  One is real nice – high, wide, and heavy; one is high, narrow and thin; one has the one side (I never recall which) broke off right after the G2 and the other side broken off before the G-2; and the last has one side broken off before the G2 and the other at the head.  Under today’s 3-point rule for that area, 50% of those bucks are always legal, 12.5% are sometimes legal with 12.5% sometimes not legal, and 25% are never legal.  If the “three on top” rule goes into effect, 50% will be always legal and 50% will never be legal -- at the beginning.
While that will save a lot of bucks, it will quickly skew the population toward the not legal population as more and more of those bucks are saved and breed.  At some point, the legal bucks will be in a vast minority.  What good does having not legal bucks in the majority do?
As for the area across the street, I run my dogs there on just about an every other day basis, if not more often, for between 3 – 5 miles per trip.  We sit outside on the patio most evenings when the weather permits from Spring through Fall and watch the fields across the way.  In the 12 years that I have been living here I have seen exactly four different bucks that would qualify for “three on top.”  One would tend to think that just by chance with the pure amount of time I spend in the area that I would see more just by happenstance.  Couple that with the complete lack of success that the relatives and neighbors have had and it says they just aren’t here.  There are deer and there are bucks, just not “three on top” qualifiers.  Is changing the antler restrictions going to make them suddenly appear?
With regard to the game lands where my buddy hunts, he also hunts squirrels there and I hunt grouse there on occasion.  We also fish mountain streams in that area.  Except for the 1967 10-point that his Dad harvested, he  and his Dad have seen no bucks, ever, there that would qualify for “three on top.”  Where are they going to come from?
Now before the “they are lazy, they don’t put in enough time, they need to hunt other seasons beside gun season,” stuff starts, keep in mind that all the hunters described here are probably higher on the skill and ability scale than the average PA deer hunter.  So how well is the average PA deer hunter, who buys the bulk (70%) of the licenses going to do with the new rule?
So it comes back to the question of – WHY?

S-10,
 
That is the type of discussion I was hoping for.  The action would make sense to you in your area and not in the areas I described.

S-10 is probably right for most of the four point WMUs. Some people have been seeing the same six point for a number of years in their areas. One would think that, eventually, many of the bucks in that area would sport six point-no brow tine racks, as hunters continued to shoot the 4 to a side bucks and that six lives year after year. I personally think that could happen but at a much slower rate than many hunters think. In the three point areas, it seems like it will lower the buck kill even more. I cant see this as being very popular with the guys that hunt in those places. I do think that your group not harvesting many "legal" bucks is not necessarily an indication that there are none in the area. But, your year round observation of the fields across the street is more telling. By watching from a distance, you are not interfering with the lives of the deer at all. If there were any big bucks nearby surely you would have seen them. On the other hand, you run dogs over there. Maybe you've run the bigger bucks off. Possibly the more experienced deer are mostly inclined to leave the area if dogs are a constant threat. If the deer are getting disturbed by dogs, it seems unlikely that they can distinguish your dogs (domestic animals out for excercise and training) from feral dogs (looking to make a meal of the deer). Certainly, there are fewer (probably by an exponential number) deer that are 2.5 years or older than there are younger ones. So, buck hunting would seem to get harder for those in the current three point areas.

Three on top would pass the test 98 times out of a 100 where I hunt. If I had to choose, and this is based on hunter talk, I'd like to see the 3 pt areas stay the same and 4 pt areas go to 3 on top.

3 on top in current 4pt areas, 2 on top in current 3 pt areas......

Have they shown that they will give much higher weight to the social factors?? Or are they just maneuvering for a fee increase? Given the very miniscule changes which amount to basically no change in most units... Im not seeing them exactly go out of their way on the social issues.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

Have they shown that they will give much higher weight to the social factors?? Or are they just maneuvering for a fee increase? Given the very miniscule changes which amount to basically no change in most units... Im not seeing them exactly go out of their way on the social issues.

 
The tide is turning that way and I believe that the commissioners are smart enough to know that a fee increase will not be coming any time soon. 

"I believe that the commissioners are smart enough to know that a fee increase will not be coming any time soon."
 
Why wouldnt they think it was coming soon IF they indeed were taking social issues into account and "fixing" whats broken?  Because thats the only reason why they werent getting the fee increase in the first place. 
 
The more significant "tweaks" have come in some of the more vocal legislators districts.   Guess thats just a coincidence?
 

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

Honestly, I really don't have an opinion on this one. Either way would be fine with me. 

Ironhed

 
Hey, I said that first.

My only issue with 3 on top is that my favorite type of hunting is doing drives and shooting them at a dead run. It is hard to identify exactly how many points they have that way, especially 3 on top.

I might have to let alot of legal bucks pass by because I won't be 100% sure they are legit. The increased scrutiny this requires might result in an even lower buck harvest, which will anger some of you. In theory though, in a year or two, there should be more big bucks, but only time will prove that.

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

Honestly, I really don't have an opinion on this one. Either way would be fine with me. 

Ironhed

Hey, I said that first.

You're right...I just used less text. lol

Ironhed

 
Touche'