PGC contradicts AR reasoning

Still not too many dolts that don't support AR.  HR, well, that is another subject all together.
 
Only reason AR was enacted was to get more 1.5 year olds into the 2.5 year old age class.  Applying it to PA's hunting situation is in no way, shape or form "trophy hunting" by any stretch of the imagination. 

ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz

Still not too many dolts that don't support AR.  HR, well, that is another subject all together.

Only reason AR was enacted was to get more 1.5 year olds into the 2.5 year old age class.  Applying it to PA's hunting situation is in no way, shape or form "trophy hunting" by any stretch of the imagination. 

 
I must be a dolt then.
 
I don't support AR. 
 
I see absolutely no need for it. 
 
Antlers don't make the deer, antlers make the deer legal.
 
Who I might suggest are the real dolts are those that thought AR was anything other than the sizzle that sold the steak of HR.  AR's total design was to make harvesting a buck difficult, for the average PA hunter (the 70% of license buyers that only get to hunt 3 days or less). to the point that those that are not chef's, connessoirs of antler soup, or can spend the majority of as many seasons as possible hunting, would achive their freezer filling by harvesting the first legal deer they were able to.  By doing so, HR was accelerated to the pace that its goals were achieved before most hunters were able to get onto that "other subject."

Well said, both of you Dar & Deer.  Do you think they will abandon AR since it is a failure based on what they proposed? ...or hang onto it as a means of selling all the doe tags they can print?  I say the latter, it is like a tax, once created it never goes away.  I think in the near future, they will sell buck tags at a premium price. 
 
Can you imagine how different deer hunting in PA would be if we got to vote on our leadership?

If they abandon AR, I will jump off a bridge.
 
Who here liked seeing 25 does 3 spikes and a forkhorn every year on the first day? NOT ME.
 
You would think with some of the trail camera bucks shown o here, more people would be on board. Iunderstand your woes with H/R.  I really do.  But leave the A/R alone, PLEASE!! It also spreads awareness to the masses that deer CAN/WILL get bigger if they are let live.  If you don't have 400+ acres to manage, than this is the only realistic way.  If you want meat, shoot a doe.  And if there aren't any deer where you hunt, then don't shoot a doe.  Let them all live for a couple of years.  Go squirrel hunting if you want to get out and hunt.  And go half with a neighbor on a local beef if you want meat.

HR was what reduced the number of late born fawns, and concentrated the rut. And productivity (depending on how you define it) is probably the same as it ever was and if it is lower now, that is likely due to higher predation now.

HR may have reduced the number of late born fawns but it didn't reduce the breeding window or produce a more concentrated rut. The simple fact is that neither HR or ARs had any effect on the breeding ecology,breeding rates ,the breeding window or productivity of adult does.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

HR was what reduced the number of late born fawns, and concentrated the rut. And productivity (depending on how you define it) is probably the same as it ever was and if it is lower now, that is likely due to higher predation now.

HR may have reduced the number of late born fawns but it didn't reduce the breeding window or produce a more concentrated rut. The simple fact is that neither HR or ARs had any effect on the breeding ecology,breeding rates ,the breeding window or productivity of adult does.

Beautiful day outside. Still raining there ?

This is straight out of the 2009-2018 DEER PLAN from page 51-52 and should put to rest the reason for the AR part of AR/HR--------To meet management objectives, the Game Commission employed a new strategy by providing new opportunities for hunters to harvest older antlered males while seeing fewer deer. It was hoped this new approach would improve hunter tolerance for reduced deer populations and permit the game commission to meet it's deer management objectives.

So--AR met none of the originally claimed goals, it didn't meet the real reason for implementing it and there is growing indications it is leading to long term reduction in antler mass in this state and others. What's the PGC going to do??? Try this for size--- Since one of USP's demands is go back to any buck and there is talk of some kind of settlement of the suit the PGC will agree to that item and let the USP take the heat. They(PGC) don't care about AR, They have got all the mileage they could get out of it, they have achieved HR on all public land which was the real goal, they won't have to defend the long term effects of AR and they won't have to deal with the upset hunters because it's all the USP's fault.

"Beautiful day outside. Still raining there ?"
 
Its pouring a final term paper here, unfortunately.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

HR was what reduced the number of late born fawns, and concentrated the rut. And productivity (depending on how you define it) is probably the same as it ever was and if it is lower now, that is likely due to higher predation now.

HR may have reduced the number of late born fawns but it didn't reduce the breeding window or produce a more concentrated rut. The simple fact is that neither HR or ARs had any effect on the breeding ecology,breeding rates ,the breeding window or productivity of adult does.

Ignoring personal observation, simple logic indicates that the rut should be more concentrated and intense now than it was before AR/HR. Now there are more bucks and fewer does. How could the rut NOT be more concentrated? AR?HR couldn't affect productivity rates or breeding window as these are determined by does body chemistry and evvironmental factors.

I thought HR was sold as a way to allow an increase in forest regeneration and AR was sold as an effort to have more mature bucks in the population. Maybe I misunderstood it.

Now we can argue whether or not those goals were met (personally I doubt it- especially the regeneration part).

ORIGINAL: tull66

ORIGINAL: S-10

This is straight out of the 2009-2018 DEER PLAN from page 51-52 and should put to rest the reason for the AR part of AR/HR--------To meet management objectives, the Game Commission employed a new strategy by providing new opportunities for hunters to harvest older antlered males while seeing fewer deer. It was hoped this new approach would improve hunter tolerance for reduced deer populations and permit the game commission to meet it's deer management objectives.

Well that sure answers this:

 Do you think they will abandon AR since it is a failure based on what they proposed? ...or hang onto it as a means of selling all the doe tags they can print? 

And confirms this:

I say the latter, it is like a tax, once created it never goes away. 

ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz
Still not too many dolts that don't support AR

My my, you sure brought the dolts out of the woodwork with that misguided statement!

 
I always knew how to stir the pot...I make a mean stew.  Things were a little slow on the board lately anyhow, don't ya think?
 
 

This was the beginning and the stated reasoning------On April 9 the Pennsylvania Game Commissioners approved a limited version of the proposed antler restrictions for this fall, with four categories. In 10 western farming counties with good deer habitat, all bucks must have 4 points on one side. In special regulations areas that include the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia counties, plus four counties in the populated southeastern part of the state, bucks must have one antler of 3 inches or more, or one antler with at least 2 points. In all other counties hunters must take a buck with at least 3 points on one side.

One of the complaints about antler restrictions in Arkansas and Mississippi was that junior hunters were limited in shooting a buck. Pennsylvania solved that problem by allowing all junior license holders to harvest a buck using the old antler restrictions of one 3-inch antler or one antler with at least 2 points. Even so, the antler restriction rule did not come easy; there was plenty of opposition. A recent study done by Pennsylvania State University showed that 57 percent of resident deer hunters supported antler restrictions. With less than unanimous hunter support, and a commissioners split vote -- with four in favor of antler restrictions and three opposed -- everyone will be watching the results of next fall's hunt quite closely.
Deer Management Supervisor Dr. Gary Alt noted that his goal with antler restrictions is to "improve our deer breeding ecology and increase the number and size of bucks in the herd." The antler restriction is expected to protect 85,000 small bucks. To make room for these deer, Pennsylvania has implemented several strategies to increase doe harvests, with a harvest goal of 1,029,350.

ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz

Pork,
But I paid for those tax rocks, darn it! 

Any links to the article so those of us that are interested can read it?

PS - Alt rocks! 

 
 
 
how much public land do you hunt on average?
 
 

Wayne,
Actually a pretty good post and I agree with just about all of it.  HR did go too far in some areas and I won't argue that fact.  But, even in those areas, where there's a will, there's a way...it may take much more work than the typical hunter was used to but, you can make your own success, even on public land. 
 
psu, during a typical archery season, I may hunt on publicly accessible land 15-20% of the time.  This is "institutionally owned and unposted land" that anyone can access here in 2B.  The other times, I am hunting on private land that is either unposted or posted.  I have permission to all those spots and my best spot is unposted, unpatrolled by the owner and the neighbors and pretty much anyone that finds it and chooses to hunt it can access it without getting in trouble. 
I don't take rifle season seriously at all as I don't get enjoyment out of it anymore.  I will definitely get back into that season once my kids are old enough to be mentored.  They'll both be getting bows of some sort for christmas this year, though.  I did "scout" out a bunch of public land in Cambria county by the inlaws this year just tooling around with the kids in the woods and there were plenty of deer there.  Lots of sightings and lots of sign, esp. buck sign. 
 
As discussed before on the other thread answering S-10, there are some public land areas up in Warren county that still hold huntable populations but access is not easy by any stretch of the imagination.  Me, I'll continue to do what I need to in order to make my experience enjoyable.  My go to area will soon be too crowded since the new owner doesn't care about it other than for gas wells or a big payment from a developer so when things get too bad, I'll work on landowner relations on another piece or two of property and do chores, cut wood, help with hay in the summer (like I did with the previous owner) to secure new places to hunt.  That can be accomplished no matter what part of the state you are in and the more rural you are, the easier it should be. 

ORIGINAL: deerfly

How could the rut NOT be more concentrated? AR?HR couldn't affect productivity rates or breeding window as these are determined by does body chemistry and evvironmental factors.

You answered your own question. The length of the rut is not determined by the B/D ratio or the buck age structure as you stated in the second sentence ,even though you didn't realize it.

This fall there was no evidence of any rutting activity in my area of 5C. Even the local farmer commented that he didn't see any chasing while harvesting corn.

When the buck doe ratio is skewtered towards does, then the rut would have to be prolonged because there are so many does, the bucks cant breed them all during their first cycle. Some would come back into heat 28 days later again. With a more 1-1 ratio, the rut would be more concentrated because there would be a buck for every doe and they'd all get bred around the same time.

Personal rut observation: I saw some seeking, but no chasing. I saw one or two small bucks traveling about during daylight. All of that was about what I normally see. I saw fewer rubs than usual but I saw probably 3-4 times as many scrapes as usual. There were scrapes all over the place and I'm not sure why there were so many more. Those are my personal observations and I dont read much into that. I think the timing of the rut fell later than usual this year, to the point where the majority of it was after archery ended. That doesn't happen every year. Again, this is just my observation; dont read a lot into it.

good post wayne... exactly why i said "Both" to HR, some areas were grossly overpopulated and needed it.  other areas though didnt have the population to begin with and now the numbers are dwindling