trying to compare the percentage of BB killed to the number of total legal bucks killed is about as silly as I have ever heard from you ... I still laugh at some of your attempts to prove your opinions..

Before you start laughing about what someone posts, you should really stop and think about why you are laughing. Every spring the does produce fawns that are roughly 50% M/F and that results in a preseason antlerless herd consisting of roughly 22% BB,22% female fawns and 56% adult doe. In order to determine the effects of the antlerless harvest you have to multiply the % of BB in the antlerless harvest times the total antlerless harvest to get the actual number of BB harvested. The more BB we harvest as antlerless the fewer that will survive to 1.5 and the fewer that will be protected by ARs. So , by increasing the percentage of the male harvest that are BB,we in turn reduce the number of buck that will be harvested as 1.5+ buck in the future.

The PGC is very good at only providing the data that serves their purpose of misleading and deceiving the hunters. That is why they represent the changes of deer density as "lamba" instead of using a percentage or the actual numerical value. It is also why the emphasize
that 50% of the bucks harvested are 2.5+ buck rather than saying we only harvested fewer than 3000 more 2.5+ buck in 2009 than in 2002, the first year of ARs..

Doc,
Easy, you change the definition of "protected deer" and you make guys use their buck tag on a BB. If the slobs choose to let them rot, then they are slobs and shouldn't be in our ranks and should lose their license and I won't give them as much as a "good bye."

Guys will, oh my gosh, have to slow down and take their time and actually identify their targets. Oh the horror! If they can't tell, then they don't shoot. The end result will be more BB's making it to 1.5, and since these guys will have to actually identify what they are shooting at, more fawn producing does and doe fawns will be taken out of the herd, giving you your net effect of HR. Won't likely be quite as high but, more guys will pass if they don't know and end up eventually killing a doe or doe fawn instead of that first baldy that walked by that had a 1 in 3 chance (in good habitat) of being a button buck.

Been hunting since I was 12, 35 now, killed pick-up trucks full of deer, yet, I haven't killed a button buck. It can be done.

PS - many of my doe kills were in the "hey day" before AR/HR and in Warren County and Crawford County.

PSS - I'd much rather see maybe 10 deer on first day with 2 or 3 or maybe more being bucks than seeing 30-40 throughout the day with all but maybe one antlerless deer and if you were lucky, that one buck was a spike.

Seeing 10 deer is quite the challenge for most people I talk to.  I have been blessed durring the era of AR but can not say the same for my young nephews who get quickly discouraged from not seeing deer. 
We need to keep AR and close doe hunting.
My father and I have not killed a doe in many years and wish more hunters would do the same.  Give the herd a break for a couple years and you will see results!

Guys will, oh my gosh, have to slow down and take their time and actually identify their targets. Oh the horror! If they can't tell, then they don't shoot. The end result will be more BB's making it to 1.5, and since these guys will have to actually identify what they are shooting at, more fawn producing does and doe fawns will be taken out of the herd, giving you your net effect of HR. Won't likely be quite as high but, more guys will pass if they don't know and end up eventually killing a doe or doe fawn instead of that first baldy that walked by that had a 1 in 3 chance (in good habitat) of being a button buck.

Have you considered the unintended consequences of protecting BB in a stable or decreasing herd. If hunters had to use their buck tag on BB, then most would pass on all fawns and small does that they couldn't be sure weren't BB. That means the antlerless harvest would be comprised mainly of mature doe and in 2009 we harvested 80,236 fawns, so instead of shooting BB ,we would have harvested approx. 80K additional adult doe. Those 80K adult doe would have produced around 1.5 fawns/ doe or 120K fawns. So protecting 44K BB in 2009 would have meant 120K fewer deer in 2010 and 60K fewer BB. Is that really what you want?

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The only way I can think of to explain this contradiction (One one side, we kill more does than bucks, so the ratio must be close but I see 30 baldies for every antlered deer), is that bucks must use habitat differently, or at different times than does.

That is definitely a very significant part of the answer. I spend 28 years driving all over NE PA and I saw at least 20 antlerless for every buck I saw. This year,where I live and hunt, I haven't seen a buck since Sept but I saw the same group of 6 antlerless quite a few times along with a few singles. Personal observations can be very misleading

I would agree that you cant base everything on personal observation, but I've hunted for 33 years in (what is now) 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2F. It's always the same. The antlerless deer I see always far outnumber the antlered. In four full days of dark to dark hunting this rifle season, I've seen 16 deer (on a side note, that used to be how many I saw by 9AM on the first day, back in the old days). Only one of them was a buck, and it wasn't legal. That ratio is around normal for my observations.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Guys will, oh my gosh, have to slow down and take their time and actually identify their targets. Oh the horror! If they can't tell, then they don't shoot. The end result will be more BB's making it to 1.5, and since these guys will have to actually identify what they are shooting at, more fawn producing does and doe fawns will be taken out of the herd, giving you your net effect of HR. Won't likely be quite as high but, more guys will pass if they don't know and end up eventually killing a doe or doe fawn instead of that first baldy that walked by that had a 1 in 3 chance (in good habitat) of being a button buck.

Have you considered the unintended consequences of protecting BB in a stable or decreasing herd. If hunters had to use their buck tag on BB, then most would pass on all fawns and small does that they couldn't be sure weren't BB. That means the antlerless harvest would be comprised mainly of mature doe and in 2009 we harvested 80,236 fawns, so instead of shooting BB ,we would have harvested approx. 80K additional adult doe. Those 80K adult doe would have produced around 1.5 fawns/ doe or 120K fawns. So protecting 44K BB in 2009 would have meant 120K fewer deer in 2010 and 60K fewer BB. Is that really what you want?

 
YES.

Well, your figures assume a 100% success rate for guys passing up BB and taking only a mature doe.  Since we know that won't even be close to being correct (won't be 100% successful and many doe fawns will be killed in lieu of mature doe), your numbers are meaningless.  Run your numbers with a 50-60% success rate and with 50% of those being doe fawns and see where the numbers land.  That will probably be more realistic.  You can tweak your imaginary numbers any way you like to make them come out any way you like.  I won't play that game though.
 
Net real world effect would be a substantial increase in 1.5 yr old buck the following year.  More buck sightings = happier hunters. 

If shooting a BB is going to cost a hunter his buck tag he will pass on all small doe

In your perfect mathematical world, yes that would be true. 

You do realize that he is talking about PA hunters here, right?

Ironhed

I know of 2 this season alone within a mile of my home... the guys took the deer and will probably try "get away with it" ... one was the 4 point we knew was showing up in the field,, thick mass and a 20+ inch spread, one of the hunters in the neighboring camp saw it but his daughter could not get a shot.. it went about 200 yards and another guy (from who knows where)shot it.... BUMMER

that made two 4 pointers shot by adult hunters...

and another hunter found two spikes that were laying dead over at Clear Creek..

so that's 4 .. I would imagine there are ALOT of "protected bucks" shot and left in the woods...

especially with fewer hunters in the woods to "catch" or "turn" the shooter in.....

I heard of guys finding dead deer around here after the first day of rifle season every year as long as I can remember...

Are PA hunters passing on 1.5 buck that aren't AR legal? Are they passing on 2.5+ buck that aren't AR legal? What percentage of our buck that aren't AR legal, are harvested illegally?

Yes and yes.
How in the hell do I know?

Ironhed

And if Eyes was successful in protecting BB, you could add over 300K fawns to the number of deer that were off limits to hunters.

Some do some don't. Is the youth mentor program a recipe for taking deer unlawfully ?

ORIGINAL: streamerfisher1

how about the pics in my local paper 1 five point shot by a seven year old also a spike shot by an eight year old with his dads 30-06 at that and every year there is pics of kids 7,8,and nine shooting these small bucks how many of these kids really shoot these deer.

Just a view from a Connecticut guy who started chasing deer with family in PA 48 years ago and hasnt hunted there in  40 years. Hunted about all the Northern states many times so have  experience for  comparisons. I have taken many deer including  more than my share of bucks-not a brag ,just fortunate enough to have the time and an agreeable wife.
I started in East Mauchunk ( now Jim Thorpe)  with family.  Saw many deer each day. Then Hunted by Dads home in  Sugar Grove in Warren Co for years and if we didnt see 15 to 20 a day it meant there was a blizzard or an earthquake.
  That was the best hunting I ever had for seeing numbers of Deer and I was  young with little experience. Remember that back then they talked about deer being over populated.
  Times change and deer populations vary without human intervention but Pa is large with climactic and environmental differences, it is alarming to read generally poor results statewide.
Your liberal doe harvest system is clearly a factor. There is no sense  to have antler restrictions with a large number of BB being removed each year. It is about impossible to restrict this "antlerles" system - one would have a VERY difficult time seeing buttons or those other 2 things prior to a shot.
  Either / or   tags would seem to be the answer. If  hunters had 2 tags, one doe only and one classified as any deer, some of the problem would be diminished. Your hunting population has reduced  by about 25%  and the deer  have gone down even more.
  It must be remembered that some  guys only get out a day or two a year @ have very little experience- so everyone isnt going to fill both tags- nor even want to. I leave many doe tags just to buck hunt
  It would be interesting to know the per sq. mile population  compared to 40 years ago. Most states that still have significant farming like PA have had increases over this  period, even with liberal hunting seasons so to some degree you have to wonder if the doe tags are the whole reason for the decrease.
  In  areas it may be proper for herd restoration to restrict licenses to just the one either deer tag or to a buck only till the herd comes back.
  Sorry this was so long but I hate to hear things have changed so much for you guys. Hope things change.

ORIGINAL: tmiller

Wayne good posts but, to add to it. I don't want to see them do away with AR's either, just modified a little. If the pgc did away with AR's could you imagine what that might do to the herd. Possibly a lot less deer. Very good posts and I agree.

From pictures im seeing posted AR has helped the north....or is it less hunters and deer make it longer...many hunters sold there northern camps...
as far as southwest i dont see any better maybe worse....the typical 17"..8 points are few and far between....

Is it AR???
Wouldnt these big bucks been taken starting 2004..05..or 06...
i say less active hunters and more sanctuaires is why bucks are now being taken from 170 to 200"...

If it was AR...which most have practiced for years before ALT why is it 10 years down the road it is just starting to work....
jmo...

AR----love 'em....glad they finally implemented in the SRA's after not having them the first few years.  Though, biologically, they don't make sense for the SRA's, they sure make for a lot more 2.5 yr old bucks.  But then again, the habitat in 2B is in great shape (other than the county parks) even with all the high deer numbers.  The only reason a large kill is warranted in 2B is for the societal demands due to lyme's disease, gardens and landscaping damage and most importantly, deer/vehicle collisions. 
 
Deerfly...nowhere did I say that BB were "protected".  They should be treated as a buck and tagged with a buck tag if they happen to be shot.  If guys take the chance to shoot an antlerless deer with only an antlerless tag in their possession and they accidentally kill a BB, then they pay a small "fee" and also forfeit their antlerless tag (just one if they have multiples). 
 
If guys can't tell it is a BB then they shouldn't shoot it.  Plain and simple.  Of course my view is biased as 95% of my hunting is with bow in hand (even during rifle season) so I am forced to identify and shoot at closer targets.  No reason rifle hunters can't be more careful about their targets though and even with high antlerless allocations (which have been reduced, by the way), more antlerless deer will survive so the herd will most likely increase slightly, which is what everyone wants, right?????? 
 
After this winter though, not so sure what is going to happen to the herd in the northern tier snow belts.  After this weekend's upcoming storm and another round of massive lake effect that is predicted, some areas will have 5 to 6 feet of snow, or more.