I was not commenting on the managing of our deer, I was simply stating if they did away with them that would be fine with me, if they keep them that too would be fine.. but since most hunters like them I'll side with them and live with the ARs... even the 3 up in the 4 point areas .. okay with me... as I said I don't worry about antlers in the first place..

If the majority wanted the old way.. I'd side with them ... as I said it really does not matter to me ... In this case (ARs) I'll go along with the crowd...

I do enjoy seeing bigger deer running around here though and still hope to one day have one of them allow me a shot that I do not BLOW !!! ....

So are you saying that the PGC should manage the herd based on what the majority of deer hunters want

AGAIN NO ---

I'm simply saying that my feelings on ARs goes with the majority of hunters at this time...... we like them ... and can see they are doing what they were expected to do... course you don't see it that way...

now if you're asking

... do I think ARs are good for allowing a buck to reach an older age... YES of course


.. are they good for allowing a better age structure in the male deer population.. Yes of course


.. would I whine and complain if the PGC (for some reason) decided they needed to go back to the old way.. heck NO...

hope that answers your question...

Doc,
 
I asked this question elsewhere, but it was never answered.
 
How many of the average PA deer hunters, define that as the 70% that are gun hunters only, that currently support AR would shoot the first legal buck they saw if AR's were eliminated (you did say you would -- so would I) and how many would self-impose the current AR criteria (or even stricter)?
 
The reason I ask is if they support AR's, but won't voluntarily abide by them when the legal mandate is removed, they are not just hunters, they are hypocrits as well.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

So are you saying that the PGC should manage the herd based on what the majority of deer hunters want

AGAIN NO ---

I'm simply saying that my feelings on ARs goes with the majority of hunters at this time...... we like them ... and can see they are doing what they were expected to do... course you don't see it that way...

now if you're asking

... do I think ARs are good for allowing a buck to reach an older age... YES of course


.. are they good for allowing a better age structure in the male deer population.. Yes of course


.. would I whine and complain if the PGC (for some reason) decided they needed to go back to the old way.. heck NO...

hope that answers your question...

So are you saying you will go along with whatever the majority of the hunters want, or does that only apply to ARs?

I agree ARs improved the buck age structure and increased the percentage of 2.5+ buck. But that was supposed to increase breeding rates and productivity and reduce the breeding window and that didn't happen ,so ARs did not do what they were supposed to do.

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

so ARs did not do what they were supposed to do.

They did around here.

Ironhed

 
They increased the breeding rates from the already kennel-like 90% and shortened the breeding window?

Alrighty then.  Success!

I thought I actually asked it somewhere.
 
I think it was in the context of "How long do you think it will take the first ardent AR supporter to blast a non-current AR legal buck if AR's are rolled back?"
 
Or something like that.  My prediction was about 10 minutes.
 
Or it could have been in the context of "What percentage of ardent AR supports would harvest a non-current AR legal buck if AR's were rolled back instead of self-regulating to the current AR criteria?"
 
Or something like that.  My prediction was 80 - 90%.
 
So you are correct, it might not have been in the form of a Jeopardy question.
 
Also, however, there was no great fanfare of "you're dead wrong" either.

I feel most hunters support AR because they do realize it allows the bucks to live longer and thus get a little bigger ... which would allow them to shoot maybe the biggest deer of their life... they were NEVER trophy or big buck hunters they went out to shoot a legal buck and are currently enjoying the buck hunting seeing and many harvesting bigger bucks..

Now if the PGC were to decide we no longer need ARs most would go back to shooting that legal buck they were always after...

Call me a hypocrite if you want.. but I go out to shoot a legal deer.. if I was that hung up on having to shoot a buck to prove something to someone then I would go out to shoot any legal buck first.. whatever that would be as defined by the current law...

IMHO there were never that many Pa deer hunters targetting big bucks only before ARs... especially not public land hunters...those that did and let small ones pass would return to doing that -- that's their right to shoot what they want to shoot.. those of us who did not care about the size of the antlers would not impose any ARs on ourselves... it would be back to the if I let it pass the next guy will kill it.........

so yes == I THINK most (75-80%) would go back to the old way and not pass on smaller deer.. but I would not consider them hypocrites for doing what is legal to do.. they are deer hunters and most that I know want to kill a deer PERIOD....

If I support and respect the President of the USA even though I did not vote for him being hypocritical ????

If I didn't I'd say that was being UN-American ...

Yes and you will be the first to cry when he(president)gives your SS check to the illegal immigrants! You'll go along with it anyways cause it will be law right ?

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

If I support and respect the President of the USA even though I did not vote for him being hypocritical ????

If I didn't I'd say that was being UN-American ...

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: DarDys

Also, however, there was no great fanfare of "you're dead wrong" either.

Nope, because you're right. Most people would shoot whatever given the opportunity despite supporting AR.

So, is supporting AR by those folks hypocritical?

 
 
As usual, it depends. 
 
 
It depends on why they support AR.
 
If a guy supports AR in a four point area, then AR is removed and he shoots a huge 6 point, is he a hypocrite ?  I don't think so.   But where is the line drawn....

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: DarDys

Also, however, there was no great fanfare of "you're dead wrong" either.

Nope, because you're right. Most people would shoot whatever given the opportunity despite supporting AR.

So, is supporting AR by those folks hypocritical?

As usual, it depends. 


It depends on why they support AR.

If a guy supports AR in a four point area, then AR is removed and he shoots a huge 6 point, is he a hypocrite ?  I don't think so.   But where is the line drawn....

 
Okay.  I can see that.
 
What I was getting at more, instead of adding in hair-splitting scenarios, was a general idea.
 
I think that someone that supports the current AR criteria, for whatever reasons -- they believe it will change the breeding window, they believe it will provide bigger bucks, they believe it is too easy not to, they believe the sky is blue because of AR's -- it doesn't matter the reason really -- then does not continue to support the words they speak in support of AR's by their actions of harvesting a non-AR deer as soon as they are legally permitted to do so are -- 1) hypocritical, 2) talking out boths sides of their mouth, and 3) adhering to a "do as I say, not as I would do if I could" philosophy.
 
If they truely supported the current AR criteria and believe in it, then if AR's were rolled back, they would stick to the criteria.  If they don't, they truely did not believe in their support, but went along for some other reason.
 
As an example.  You practice C & R when trout fishing on the Little J.  You did this before it was law.  You truely supported your belief in C & R by your actions, even though it was not a legal requirement.  Your support is sincere.
 
However, there are those, if asked, would also support C & R on the Little J, but if it were recinded, would go right back to breaking necks, while you would continue with your C & R ways.  Their support of C & R was not sincere and they turned into hypocrits as soon as it was legally possible.  You stayed true to your support and yourself.
 
If 50%, 75%, 90% of the ardent AR supporters would not self regulate to current AR criteria if AR's were rolled back, then their current support is not true, but hollow.  And they are hypocrits for stating that they support something that they truely and clearly do not believe in.  In essesnce they are lying to themselves.
 
Knowing what I know about you, you would not be among them.  You would continue to self regulate, as would some others on this board that are AR supporters.  I admire that quality -- being able to stick to your philosophical and ideological stance, even when it is not legally mandated.  I also admire those that have the intestinal fortitude to say they don't support AR's and the only reason they follow AR's is because it is the law and as soon as it would be rolled back, they would revert to what they believe in.
 
Who is lying to themselves are those that say they support it words, but wouldn't in actions unless required to by law.

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: DarDys

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: DarDys

Also, however, there was no great fanfare of "you're dead wrong" either.

Nope, because you're right. Most people would shoot whatever given the opportunity despite supporting AR.

So, is supporting AR by those folks hypocritical?

As usual, it depends. 


It depends on why they support AR.

If a guy supports AR in a four point area, then AR is removed and he shoots a huge 6 point, is he a hypocrite ?  I don't think so.   But where is the line drawn....

Okay.  I can see that.

What I was getting at more, instead of adding in hair-splitting scenarios, was a general idea.

I think that someone that supports the current AR criteria, for whatever reasons -- they believe it will change the breeding window, they believe it will provide bigger bucks, they believe it is too easy not to, they believe the sky is blue because of AR's -- it doesn't matter the reason really -- then does not continue to support the words they speak in support of AR's by their actions of harvesting a non-AR deer as soon as they are legally permitted to do so are -- 1) hypocritical, 2) talking out boths sides of their mouth, and 3) adhering to a "do as I say, not as I would do if I could" philosophy.

If they truely supported the current AR criteria and believe in it, then if AR's were rolled back, they would stick to the criteria.  If they don't, they truely did not believe in their support, but went along for some other reason.

As an example.  You practice C & R when trout fishing on the Little J.  You did this before it was law.  You truely supported your belief in C & R by your actions, even though it was not a legal requirement.  Your support is sincere.

However, there are those, if asked, would also support C & R on the Little J, but if it were recinded, would go right back to breaking necks, while you would continue with your C & R ways.  Their support of C & R was not sincere and they turned into hypocrits as soon as it was legally possible.  You stayed true to your support and yourself.

If 50%, 75%, 90% of the ardent AR supporters would not self regulate to current AR criteria if AR's were rolled back, then their current support is not true, but hollow.  And they are hypocrits for stating that they support something that they truely and clearly do not believe in.  In essesnce they are lying to themselves.

Knowing what I know about you, you would not be among them.  You would continue to self regulate, as would some others on this board that are AR supporters.  I admire that quality -- being able to stick to your philosophical and ideological stance, even when it is not legally mandated.  I also admire those that have the intestinal fortitude to say they don't support AR's and the only reason they follow AR's is because it is the law and as soon as it would be rolled back, they would revert to what they believe in.

Who is lying to themselves are those that say they support it words, but wouldn't in actions unless required to by law.

I was splitting hairs because you asked it as a general question. I couldn't truthfully answer it with a yes. Number points doen't always define what someone wants to shoot. I've seen what I presume to be 1 year old 10 pts and 4 year old 6 pts.

Your scenerio only covers one reason why someone would support AR. No question that is the most common reason.

I never shot anything with less points than 8. That includes a decade of hunting before AR. Doesn't mean I wouldn't however. I'll take a big 5 or 6 point !