Maybe he did have a crystal ball and decided to leave while the getting was good or maybe he just knew all the lies he told would catch up with him.

Do you know the interesting thing about all those deer racks Alt was showing off When he was selling us on the benefits of AR/HR. They were all taken BEFORE AR/HR. Not bad for a bunch of starving stunted runts he claimed we had in Pennsylvania.

If they were all taken in the year 2000 they were the product of the previous DMP which Alt claimed was a total failure. Can you provide any data that shows the bucks harvested after 2000 were any bigger than the bucks harvested before 2000?

The data on the average rack sizes of our buck prior to ARs is provided in the 2001 AWR. The PGC is intentionally withholding the data on the rack sizes of buck harvested after ARs were implemented. Can you expalin why the PGC is hiding that data?

The PGC said they would do the research to determine the effects of implementing ARs. After 8 years of ARs the PGC stated they are not collecting the data necessary to determine the effects of ARs even though they survey thousands of buck every year. So are they refusing to collect the data or are they refusing to release the data?

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The PGC said they would do the research to determine the effects of implementing ARs. After 8 years of ARs the PGC stated they are not collecting the data necessary to determine the effects of ARs even though they survey thousands of buck every year. So are they refusing to collect the data or are they refusing to release the data?

 
Let's say they do have the data and it was collected the same way for both pre and post AR.   Let's say it shows a substantial difference between antler size..   What are you curious about ?  That AR is causing a drop in antler mass ?
 
I'd say the data would be bogus whether it showed bigger antlers pre or post AR.  I say bogus because there are too many other factors involved than just genes.   Unless they recorded food intake, age, and social stresses, it would make for a moot point.  And the only way to do that would be in a controlled environment.

The scientist would say "I need more funding so I can study it further". I would say that the better bucks have not grown any more bone as a result of fewer deer meaning the ones remaining have more good feed. The missing link from that study is how many more bucks making 140 do we have now than before and how many more would have made 140 if we would have just left things alone since the last years of the 90's and the beginning of the 2000's had been the best ever years in our history for big bucks. We will never know the answer to that one.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

I'd say the data would be bogus whether it showed bigger antlers pre or post AR.  I say bogus because there are too many other factors involved than just genes.   Unless they recorded food intake, age, and social stresses, it would make for a moot point.  And the only way to do that would be in a controlled environment.

The only thing that changed that would possibly have a negative effect on antler size is the harvest selection process that resulted from ARs. There are fewer deer competing for food, a better B/D ratio and a better buck age structure, all positives for a healthier herd and bigger racks. Therefore, if you compare the spread and mass of the 2.5+ buck with the same number of points , pre-AR compared to post AR you can determine the effects of ARs on antler size.

 
We've got an Armageddon!!  Did you just admit HR/AR is positive ?   LAUGH, LAUGH.
 
 
 
 
 
LAUGH !

Absolutely true.  You used the words There are... that means present or past, not future as you're claiming.  Did you make another mistake ?    You been off your anti-PGC deer management game lately. 
 
There are fewer deer competing for food, a better B/D ratio and a better buck age structure, all positives for a healthier herd and bigger racks.
 
 
^ Yup, stated by deerfly^ Yup, yup. 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Now all the PGC has t do is to produce the data that shows those changes produced 2.5+ buck with bigger racks. they won't do it because they know that high grading reduced rack sizes of our 2.5+ buck.

 
Do you have any data to back up the claim that the pgc has the data and won't release it because high grading is occuring ?  

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Now all the PGC has t do is to produce the data that shows those changes produced 2.5+ buck with bigger racks. they won't do it because they know that high grading reduced rack sizes of our 2.5+ buck.

 
You are full of bologna, there is not once shred of evidence that high grading is occurring. But there is evidence of more record book bucks since antler restrictions than ever before though.
 
I took the time to check the most up to date Pennsylvania record book buck entries over 140 inches.
 
Here is what I found.
 
Time period…………..# of entries…………..Average inches
Pre 1910………………….5…………………….152.05
1910-19…………………..6…………………….148.33
1920-24………………….20……………………149.69
1925-29………………….43……………………151.79
1930-34………………….64……………………152.92
1935-39………………….57……………………151.05
1940-44………………….98……………………154.48
1945-49…………………114…………………...153.98
1950-54………………….75……………………150.50
1955-59………………….84……………………150.04
1960-64………………….58……………………150.77
1965-69…………………116…………………...148.27
1970-74………………….63……………………148.40
1975-79………………….69……………………149.31
1980-84………………….89……………………148.49
1985-89…………………160…………………...151.14
1990-94…………………159……………………149.07
1995-99…………………139……………………151.78
2000-04…………………167……………………153.75
2005-09…………………205……………………151.90
 
Average number of inches for all entries………...151.20
 
Since there are typically additional bucks being entered for five to ten years after they are harvested I am also certain we will see even more bucks entered to create an even wider spread in the years since antler restrictions.
 
You can also see that the bucks were larger in the thirties and forties when the northern tier habitat was at its peek and how the size of the bucks declined as the food grew out of the reach of the deer.
 
I have also included the over all average record book entry scored in inches and how each time period compares to that average.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Now all the PGC has t do is to produce the data that shows those changes produced 2.5+ buck with bigger racks. they won't do it because they know that high grading reduced rack sizes of our 2.5+ buck.

 
You said that then said "How could I possibly have the data that the PGC wasn't collecting? "
 
If they are not collecting the data how do they know that we have high graded our bucks?

ORIGINAL: RSB

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Now all the PGC has t do is to produce the data that shows those changes produced 2.5+ buck with bigger racks. they won't do it because they know that high grading reduced rack sizes of our 2.5+ buck.

You are full of bologna, there is not once shred of evidence that high grading is occurring. But there is evidence of more record book bucks since antler restrictions than ever before though.
 
I took the time to check the most up to date Pennsylvania record book buck entries over 140 inches.
 
Here is what I found.
 
Time period…………..# of entries…………..Average inches
Pre 1910………………….5…………………….152.05
1910-19…………………..6…………………….148.33
1920-24………………….20……………………149.69
1925-29………………….43……………………151.79
1930-34………………….64……………………152.92
1935-39………………….57……………………151.05
1940-44………………….98……………………154.48
1945-49…………………114…………………...153.98
1950-54………………….75……………………150.50
1955-59………………….84……………………150.04
1960-64………………….58……………………150.77
1965-69…………………116…………………...148.27
1970-74………………….63……………………148.40
1975-79………………….69……………………149.31
1980-84………………….89……………………148.49
1985-89…………………160…………………...151.14
1990-94…………………159……………………149.07
1995-99…………………139……………………151.78
2000-04…………………167……………………153.75
2005-09…………………205……………………151.90
 
Average number of inches for all entries………...151.20
 
Since there are typically additional bucks being entered for five to ten years after they are harvested I am also certain we will see even more bucks entered to create an even wider spread in the years since antler restrictions.
 
You can also see that the bucks were larger in the thirties and forties when the northern tier habitat was at its peek and how the size of the bucks declined as the food grew out of the reach of the deer.
 
I have also included the over all average record book entry scored in inches and how each time period compares to that average.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

 
According to your information, which I thank you for, by the way, there are 1,791 entries over about 100 years.  That begs a few questions -- 1) How many bucks were harvested over that same period of time 5 million, 7 million, 10 million?; 2) what percentage of the bucks harvested made the record book, or more correctly, how mnay hundredthes or thousandths of one percent made the record book?; and 3) for the rest of the folks that did not make the record books, does anyone really think they give a rat's behind how big the bucks are vs. whether they harvest  one or not?
 
If hunters were killing 80% or more of the available buck population, it says here that they really didn't care how big they were.  that probably hasn't changed.  As an experiement, go back to the old anterl rules and see how many hunters hold off and only take bucks that are AR qualified.  I would wager it is only the hunters that did the same pre-AR.

   What you stated had nothing to do with genetic potential and that is what the theory of high grading is based upon. 

The effects of high grading was documented in Miss. after just 5 years of APRs. Therefore , the decrease in rack sizes was not due to a change in the gene pool. Instead, it was due to the effects of harvesting the best buck in each age class while allowing the smaller buck to advance to the next age class. The question then becomes will the selection process of APRs eventually result in a change in the gene pool and that question remains to be answered by future research.

While I agree that may be true, there is still no reason why the PGC isn't collecting the data to document the effects of ARs. Miss. waited 12 years before they changed to a spread restriction. How long will the PGC wait if they don't have the data on which to base a decision?