Can anyone tell me how to access the Pa. Big Game Records. Either they eliminated it as part of the records purge on the PGC site or my lack of computer skills is showing as I can no longer find them. Thanks

Thanks Silver--I thought it was odd they would purge them but got tired of looking after awhile.

I dont think AR was an attempt to produce record book bucks. One might conclude that having more older deer in the herd would lead to more record book deer but record book deer are extremely rare either way.

"I dont think AR was an attempt to produce record book bucks. One might conclude that having more older deer in the herd would lead to more record book deer but record book deer are extremely rare either way."

I agree very rare either way. But shouldve been a sliver less rare. If the extreme"promises" that were made had come to fruition, we wouldve had more effect than has occurred to the top of the record books. How can more and bigger bucks, double the "8 points" etc. not lead to more record book buck?

Besides, Gary wasnt promising more trillium & hobblebush he was selling us on this:

"You have to remember that our requirements are much lower for the Pa record book that B&C 140vs 170 or P%Y 115vs 125. Your statement is correct for PY/BC but not so much for our book IMO."

Good point s10. That also carries over to our top end. 160 class bucks are in the top 10 all time. Great buck, but all time top 10 is pathetic. See how many 160 and larger...much larger... bucks are taken EVERY SINGLE YEAR right next door in Ohio. Hardly as if our "plan" needed to produce a 180 or 190" buck just to crack the top 10 typ..

ORIGINAL: S-10

You have to remember that our requirements are much lower for the Pa record book that B&C 140vs 170 or P%Y 115vs 125. Your statement is correct for PY/BC but not so much for our book IMO. They still have to be very nice bucks however. One thing our records have shown over the years is that archery is the way to for your best chance. We owe the folks that got us the extra two weeks of archery a vote of thanks.

 
Yep.. pa records are much lower than P & Y.
 
So.. let's look at P & Y considering I have the 25 recording period (2005-2006) in front of me.   I'd love to get my hands on the newest version.  The one I have was given to everyone that attended the 2007 P & Y convention.   This book has 1989 - 2006 per state.   Considering our buck harvest as continued to drop, you'd think entries would as well.
 
This is all-time as of 2006.
 
Typical             # of entries
 
1989 - 90            24
1991 - 92            43
1993 - 94            53
1995 - 96            89
1997 - 98            102
1999 - 00            91
2001 - 02            117
2003 - 04            162
2005 - 06            167
 
 
 
Non-Typical
 
1989 - 90            1
1991 - 92            1
1993 - 94            1
1995 - 96            2
1997 - 98            3
1999 - 00            3
2001 - 02            10
2003 - 04            10
2005 - 06            9
 
Do you see a pattern ?
 
During this entry period, 158 bucks were entered from PA.   Ohio had 278.   Kansas had 194.  Maryland had 38.  Ny 81.  NJ 42.   Illinois 548.
 
For this period.
 
5 PA typical bucks entered that scored over 160 were from 2002 - 2006.   None before 2002.
8 PA non-typical bucks entered that scored over 160 were from 2002 - 2006.  None before 2002.
 
Of these 13 above, 2 were from Allegheny.
 
 
Sorry to put a dent in your fun.
 
 
Include your address if you want the book.

The listing is bit confusing apparently....

2000/2001, 2002/2003, 2004/2005 etc.

These measuring session apparently take place every other year?? Or are they in 2 year groupings? I also dont see the year of harvest given, only the year(or two year set) of the scoring session it was measured??

Not very impressive considering 2000 through 2002 we had very high herd size and corresponding buck harvests, and evern a bit since that the herd still was larger than it is now...

"Do you see a pattern ?"

Yes, i see an increase in entries right along with the herd size, a near steady increase since way back in 1993. After 2002, 03 or so, entries were most likely being made from deer taken year or two before when we had record buck harvests. Aside from that,not really.

Might also wanna check where those bad boys are being killed. lmao. The huge majority on about 2 or 3 units out of the entire state. Urban units where the plan has had little to no effect. Same as it always was....Allegheny county and surrounding area most likely by far the lions share.

"Damm--I've been trying to find that photo to post on here for a couple of years to counter a particular fellow who always said Alt never made any claims of trophy size bucks."

lmao. Im not even gonna venture a guess as to who that may be. LMAO!

" A picture sure is worth a thousand words. Nice going Wayne."

Yeah, that pic is an all time classic that'll never be forgotten by this generation, thats for sure. I hadnt seen it for awhile and then someone posted it on another board a year ago. I had to snatch it up for posterity. lmao. All one need do is post it and the argument is won. It brings to mind every lie this plan was based on since day one that didnt come true. Heck even most of the "pgc supporters" on other boards Ive seen debate these issues have a pretty low opinion of the bear doctor and the role he played.

The failed program might not have been all about more and bigger bucks, but it didnt increase the breeding rates the timing or anything else either! lol.

Im thinking the boc is pandering for a fee increase with these very modest (as far as the big picture goes)most recent changes, but if the environmentalists who ive seen in recent articles complaining about the boc trying to do away with the program are right... then i guess that will mean the boc had finally had enough of that brand of science? Another year or two will tell the tale. In next couple years, things will either be changed a bit more for the good, or they'll be tweaked back to "staying the course". If it becomes clear thats NOT the case, Then and only then will I support a fee increase.

Yer wrong about yer above ASSumption wayne.


I've always laughed at the folks that desperately believed AR would produce trophy bucks. If one actually stopped and thought about its purpose, you'd know what it was intended to do. Believing what the salesman said, just shows your gullibility. But its something for you to talk about.

You have a book that says one thing, The PGC has a book that says just the opposite. NOW WHAT[;) You always say you believe in the PGC Sleep on that one

The pgc book doesn't say the opposite. 6 of the top 10 archery bucks are from 2002 on. And that is compared to decades of previous bucks. Look at that % wise. It's staggering.


What your eyes see in the woods clearly doesn't represent what is happening statewide. It certainly does't represent what is happening here. You're the one that stated you won't travel further than 15 minutes from your house to hunt.

Caught me with a reply quick didnt ya Kype? couldnt even log out! lol.

Youre changing the argument. In 2002 no bucks had yet been saved by ar!! Reread my initial post. Seems someone wants to change the guidelines? lol.

2002 was also a very high buck harvest year! Given both of the above, why would we point to that in any way whatsoever as being indicative of what we have today? lol.

I think its being more than "generous" to be including years from 2003, 04 etc. because even they had higher deer densities than today. But 2003 was the first year actually hunting a buck herd where bucks were saved previously with ar.

And the results? Very very little effect to the top tens. And the very few entries were mainly from sras. Those are facts in the Pa data whether you like it or not.

The p&y numbers arent dramatically different when you consider all that id posed in an earlier post of being the year of measurement and not year of kill.

"If one actually stopped and thought about its purpose, you'd know what it was intended to do."

Only problem with that argument is that it lacks logic. Because none of the "intended" things came about either. lmao. Perhaps you should read the annual reports. Breeding rates didnt increase, breeding timing didnt improve nor did much of anything else. Thats because as many already knew (except lil' Gary & Rosenberry apparently) there was nothing wrong with any of it to begin with.

As for the good doctor, if more held him in such high regard as you apparently do, he might not have had to wear a bullet proof vest & have body guards when attending meetings. lmao.

Thats it for me tomight chief. Have a fine evening..

ORIGINAL: S-10

This is what you posted QUOTE: 8 PA non-typical bucks entered that scored over 160 were from 2002 - 2006. None before 2002.

The PGC record book shows 8 of the top 10 non-typical bucks were killed BEFORE 2002 and ALL were OVER 185. G- Nite

One is P & Y and one is PGC. Can you recognize that ? I can. And won't refute it.

You are really gasping to make a point s-10. AR isn't supposed to protect 160" to get to 185."

ORIGINAL: wayne c

 In 2002 no bucks had yet been saved by ar!!

 
Considering AR was implemented in 2002, bucks were most certainly "saved" in 2002.