I don't mind mentored hunting with kids, I just hate it when we have to stop and change their diapers when we have a turkey coming in.

I just got an E-mail from the PGC correcting their press release from the other day about the adult mentored permit..
 
There is no price difference.. it cost $20.70... same as regular license...
 
REALLY .....
 
this BOC is silly as a goose.....
 
let's try paying $2.70 for a fishing permit that is not needed and is FREE ......  let's see how that goes ...  Brockway True Value... has sold a grand total of ZERO !!!!!!!

Dr. Trout I doubt there are too many seniors out there that had to abide by AR their whole life .. most of us grew up hunting bucks with the same regs as juniors have now...

What I meant was older hunters have been able to shoot any buck most of their hunting lives. They have had plenty of time to shoot 3 points. If we are committed to ARs, kids and active military should be the only ones exempt.

 It's not really a matter of agreeing with any group or supporting them.. I think it should be used as a tool to keep the number of "scrub" bucks down in the poorer "GENE POOL" areas.

High fenced ranches can't eliminate undesirable genes from their pool. It is about impossible to high grade within a free ranging herd the size of PA.

S-10
 DPMS__If we are committed to AR's NOBODY should be exempt. There are other proven successful ways if you want to help the youngsters or servicemen.

True. With that said, the few shot by youngsters and active duty will most likely not compromise the goals of the program. The more it is watered down, the more the goals are compromised. Of that occurs, might as well eliminate AR.

wayne c
 You are currently a supporter of ar correct? If so, is it only because you believe currently some science based "goals" are being met, or do you also support it because you believe it improves the satisfaction of yourself, and/or others? In your opinion, should we hunters even have a say in the matter one way or the other in your opinion if it is not a biological issue either way?  

I am a supporter. To answer your question, I currently support it for various reasons from both the science and hunter support arenas.

If ARs are not meeting goals, we are left with supporting it from purely a social perspective which is not a angle I feel should carry the most weight. Science is much easier to defend against attacks from those that wish to harm our sport.

All for the active Military folks having a  shot at whatever in any State.
They tried it with free golf on the local course and far too many were folks in various reserve and guard units who were not presently on active duty taking advantage.
With the Military regularly calling up those units and many of those having served or looking at active its a real boondoggle trying to make it right--personally still don't have the correct answer.
Folks were coming in with an ID - some were home on leave but most were weekenders. ID is the same for all.
 Got noticed when someone complained a guy he worked with golfed free. When looking into it the violators of the spirit of the rule far outnumbered to actual active folks. 
 

Read closer. I answered it directly. I support Ar. I support it from both the science and social perspective but if the science isn't there, I would not support it from purely a social perspective. 

DPMS--what is the present scientific reason for AR. As I recall the original reason was proven wrong.

S-10
DPMS--what is the present scientific reason for AR. As I recall the original reason was proven wrong.

The primary goal of APRs was to increase the
number of adult bucks (2.5 years of age or older)
in the population. By doing so, benefits of a more natural breeding ecology, an older buck age structure, and
greater hunter satisfaction might be realized. To achieve this goal, APRs needed to protect most yearling bucks
(1.5 years of age) from harvest. This required two different APRs: a 4-points-to-an-antler restriction in western
Pennsylvania and a 3-points-to-an-antler over the rest of the state (excluding junior hunters).

wayne c
Ok thanks.   
 

 
We are editing over each others posts. I added this to the above in case you missed it;
 
When you say I wouldn't support it if it were not "deemed necessary" is not a accurate assessment of my position.  I am not sure anything about AR is "necessary" but there are benefits to it from a science standpoint. If that makes sense? 

To-May-toe, To-MUH-toe,   that's fine dpms.   Although I don't fault you for pointing that out about "needed" to avoid confusion,  you understood despite the imperfect term used, especially since when I asked the question I stated it differently.   The main thing is, I think we both understand each other.  
 
No problem.   Even though we agree on supporting ar, we disagree completely on why.
 
According to our conversation what can be derived of the differences in our stances it look like you support it despite it lessening your-and/or others you know- satisfaction (hence your not supporting it if science was a nonissue), yet you do support ar because you believe there are science based advantages to it being in place.
 
Fair enough?
 
Which is basically the exact opposite of why I support it.
 
In my case, I support it because I feel it increases my satisfaction, as well as  some level of majority, or so it would seem according to pretty much all polls Ive ever seen, and just general discussion etc.   I however feel there are few to no scientific benefits with its implementation in Pa, as pgcs own data has shown no improvements to timing of breeding, percentages of adult does bred or anything else they originally thought might be an issue.   The numbers were basically completely flat ever since the beginning of ar, and is evidence there wasn't really anything wrong with these things to begin with.  Having said that, I don't feel, obviously, that it causes any biological "harm".  
 
Ar was the carrot, I feel that was pretty obvious.   Some don't like it because of the perceived deceit factor.   I don't like that facet of it,  but I don't mind all that much actually taking the carrot.   I like carrots, and I had no choice in the beginning but to take the carrot.   Now, I somewhat like the carrot.  But carrot or no carrot, we need to now scrape the rest of the plate into the dog dish.   I think one leaf of spinach was scraped from the plate.   Now on to the big pile of ....haggis in 2015.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

But what is the proven, documented, Scientific benefit to protecting those 1-1/2 yo bucks. We know the social benefit as I too like seeing more 2-1/2 yo as a percentage of the population, but as Wayne gave examples of, all the claimed scientific benefits have been proven to be hogwash.
 
As far as watering down the protections, allowing juniors and servicemen to shoot smaller bucks and removing brows, taken together  is proof there is no scientific benefit and they knew it from the beginning. AR was and still is a social decision to take our mind off the fact they were reducing all deer numbers. In fact, of all the reasons "given" for reducing the deer herd all, or nearly all, have been proven or admitted to being wrong.

Some might argue in the affirmative. LOL.   Regardless, we never killed all the older bucks and many states do quite well with no antler restrictions. Ohio is one good example. Also, approx 80% of all small birds, rabbits and most other small game are killed or die in their first year and yet they continue to populate.
 
There is no difference in the genes of a 1-1/2 yo buck and that same buck at 5-1/2. It is much preferred at a 5-1/2 yo by the hunter but that has nothing to do with science. What we have done is simply allow a larger percentage of existing 1-1/2yo bucks to grow one more year so they will have a larger rack in hopes the hunters will be focused on that rather than the fact the whole deer herd is being reduced.
 
In actual numbers there are not a lot more older bucks than before AR/HR. It's just the percentage of existing bucks that are older that is greater.

Stop it. Logic has no place in discussing the deer program.

I don't believe that natural selection is applicable in the case of AR because humans are the ones doing the "selection", not mother nature.  However, I do believe that social hierarchy is somewhat important even though biologists are divided on how significant it really is, mainly due to the fact that there is no way to quantify its impact on herd health.  Along those same lines, AR has certainly helped to restore a more natural age class distribution, especially with bucks.  There was nothing natural about killing such a high percentage of bucks before their second birthday.
 
I personally don't believe that social hierarchy and restoring a natural age class distribution are terribly important, but their are biologists out there who do.  For me, I like AR because the deer population has a higher percentage of bucks in the 2.5+ class than ever in recent history, which IMO leads to more enjoyable hunting.