6pt, that is a nice dodge, but you haven't said anything to refute what I've presented. You asked where such policies have failed, I pointed it out to you. All I can offer for proof is the results from such policies where they have been implemented, if that's isn't enough, nothing will be. And I appreciate your humble attitude, but I am not trying to push my beliefs as facts, just trying to show you the results, empirical evidence if you will, of what has happened here, please don't be offended.

You might want to go back and read my post more carefully, I never said I believed, as a rule, AR's do not work. The way they are being sold in Pa, and have been used in NJ, they have a higher chance of failure than success.

The best I can do to 'prove' what I'm saying is offer you the results from such policies in heavily hunted area's, because that is what we are talking about: heavily hunted areas. This typical scenario is what ACTUALLY HAPPENS in the zones in NJ I mentioned.

-Hunters are forced to pass on deer with less than 3 points on one side. This artifically shifts the harvest to the healthier yearlings (6 and 8, in some cases 10 points racks at 1.5 yrs. old), and the 2.5 yr old deer. Of course those who said antler restriction will result in more 2.5 and older deer being harvested look like prophets, but it is due mostly to the fact that many in the 1.5 yr. old range cannot be taken. Therefore, a hunter who would normally be satisfied with a spike or 4 point is forced to wait on the yearling with an 8 point rack, or a 2.5 or older deer. Being forced to shoot a 2.5 yr old deer when normally a 1.5 would have been shot certainly will result in more 2.5 yr olds being taken.

So, point one is that when hunters are forced to shoot deer that are likely 2.5 years old or older, of course more of them will be taken, but this is not an indication that there are more mature deer in the herd. This artifical shift of the buck harvest has two results. First, it makes those who said AR's will result in more big bucks being taken look like they really know what they are talking about, and therefore generates a cult following. Second, with more of those hunters who would normally shoot a spike and be out of the woods, waiting on the older deer, and more of those older deer being taken, there are FEWER of the older age class deer in the herd. Had the weekend warrior been permitted to shoot a scrubby spike, that 2.5 year old 8 point that came down the trail 30 minutes behind him would likely have lived to be a 3.5 yr old 8 or 10 point. This results in the age class being set back a year, not advanced, because now that yearling spike that was protected has to make it through two more seasons to reach the same age that our 2.5 yr old 8 point would have reached next season.

Even though there were no mandated restriction for those 2.5 and older deer, the fact that smaller deer could be shot first acts as protection for them. When you remove that protection, and you make those 2.5 yr. olds THE targeted class, there will certainly be fewer of them carrying over to 3.5 yrs old. Now, of course, the second year of such a program, the number of 1.5 yr olds that were protected become 2.5 yr olds, and since the little guys are once again protected, even more 2.5 yr olds are taken the following year. Again, our prophetic leader looks invincible, but as happened the previous year, more hunters were forced to wait on bucks instead of shooting the first one that came by, and therefore more mature deer were removed from the herd. In heavily hunted regions, where most of the bucks are killed each year without AR, once AR's are implemented more of the mature deer are killed each year in the place of the little guy's. This resulting in fewer mature bucks in that herd (by mature I'm talking about 4.5 or older).

Just how often this happens actually depends on the hunting pressure in the region. In heavily hunted areas, I assure you that more 2.5 and older bucks are taken with AR in place than without them, and therefore there are actually less older deer in the woods. Please understand this is not just a theory, but what has actually happened in the areas I spoke about.

Now, where a landowner can control large expanses of land, and can limit the amount of hunters and hunting pressure, these types of AR work very well. In fact, to get them to really work well, most of the 2.5 are passed up as well. This is the tye of AR that works in the midwest, and on the eastern shore. These types of things produce big bucks, not leaving 1.5 yr. olds in the woods to make up the majority of the buck population.

Something else that has to be considered. Even though a spike is not always a spike, it has been proven (plenty of scientific research available on this one too) that genetics DO play a role in antler quality. After numerous years of leaving the most genetically inferior bucks in the herd, antler quality will be degraded. When you make the superior yearlings (6, 8 or 10 point racks) the target, as well as the older deer, you are leaving the less desirable bucks to continue the species and may dilute the gene pool. As I said, not every spike will always be a spike, we all know that. However, a buck that sports 8,9 or 10 points as a yearling has a much better chance of becoming a larger buck, and in most cases, nutrition and birth age being constant, is genetically superior to his brother spike. When you protect the genetically inferior bucks, and target the yearlings with better antler characteristics for harvest, how does this propogate a healthier herd?


.5-------1.5------2.5--------3.5--------4.5------5.5

Another thing to look at is just how much excessive antlerless harvest add to this problem. Imagine a time line (above), starting with button bucks. Extend it down the line in yearly increments. So you begin with .5 yr olds, then go to 1.5, then 2.5 and so on. When you shift the hunting pressure to the right side (2.5 and up) of the scale, and then add additonal pressure on the left side (button bucks)through antlerless harvests, not only do you eliminate more of the mature deer, but you also reduce the number of yearling bucks recruited in from the button buck population. So, each year you will have fewer yearlings that are being protected, and therefore fewer of the protected class passing onto the targeted class (2.5) The area's in bold repesent the segments of the buck population targeted by these policies. It isn't hard to see that AR's, as used in NJ and Pa, actually function to keep the buck population comprised of bucks 2.5 yrs old or less.

This is what has actually happened with these policies in place. I'm not guessing here (as Alt, the PGC and NJ F & W did), this is the result of the current policies in NJ. For several years(about 10) I have spent opening day of shotgun, and the first day of early M/L season going to check stations in NJ to speak with the biologists. I have also spoken with Alt's NJ counterpart, Andy Burnett, and picked his brain on the subject. The biologists at the checks stations take information on the age and health of the deer brought in. This is where I have gotten my information. Without check stations in Pa, how will you guys even know what the results of your policies are? My "guess", "belief" or "feeling" is that they don't really want to know.

Edited by - NJ_Bowhntr on 01/21/2003 10:22:16