J Pike, if 16% were saved, that' s a lot of bucks that will be 2.5yrs old next year. What' s so bad about that? Even if AR' s only save an average of 16% each year, that' s something, no? I don' t know if 16% is accurate, but I' ll take your word for it. I just don' t see what the problem is. PA' s capable of producing nice bucks if they have a chance to grow up, don' t you think all those addtiional 2.5 yr old bucks will make for great hunting next year? Just curious why you' re so dead set against it.
NJ, why no email? Curious who you are. Just one more point to make, I really don' t understand your premise that it' s " liberal" or " elitist" to raise the bar on what defines a legal buck. The state has been telling hunters for years what is a " legal" buck, they' ve been telling us for years when we can, and can' t hunt them, what we can use to hunt, and where we can hunt. Nothin new there. They' re just changing the definition of what' s legal, from 3" to 3pts. If they decide to lower the creel limit on trout, it' s a liberal conspiracy? If we' re to believe you guys here, it won' t even make much difference in the harvest after the first year, all those " saved" bucks will get shot anyway next year.
As for the great AR " experiment" , what' s the difference between that and what happened the last 100 years? There hasn' t been many studies to my knowledge that examined how shooting 3" bucks helped the herd, or killing 80-90% of yearling bucks has helped the herd? I believe Alt' s recent studies, as well as the ones he supposedly has coming soon are the first ones done in PA, how is an " experimental" antler restriction any worse, or even any likely to be worse, than the " old" regs? I don' t think there was much science behind the old PA philosophy of a spike buck was legal, but a doe was not. Nor any science saying why being able to see 50 does a day, and one buck, was good for the forest.

You say AR' s don' t work as a management strategy, I say they work at increasing the average buck age, the only thing they were designed to do, hell, maybe we' re both right. Maybe having the average age increase doesn' t do squat for the health of the rherd, I think we both agree that hasn' t been studied yet, or at leats proven one way or another. On one hand I don' t see how having more competition for breeding rights could possible not result in stronger genetics being passed along, from a biological standpoint, but on the other hand, we' ve been shooting the first buck to come by across the continent most of the century, and I haven' t seen any ill effects, as a matter of fact record deer are being taken more and more often. Who knows? I still feel that protecting yearling bucks, even a small number like 16%, will only result in more 2.5yr old deer, and to me that' s not such a horrific idea.

I think there' s a lot more things to be concerned about than this AR " experiment" . I' d be keeping a close eye on the good Dr and making sure he isn' t reducing the herd down to the levels well below the carrying capacity of the forest, putting business interests ahead of the hunters' , as has happened across the river. THAT' s what folks need to be watching for. If AR' s are only a carrot, and the hunters of PA take the bait, while the herd is lowered well below carrying capacity on most public lands, well, the PA Game commision is a lot more powerless than most here have claimed. In NJ, they didn' t need a carrot, they just shoved it down hunter' s throats, and believe me, there' s nothin hunters can do about it, they want 10 deer per square mile, they' re going to get 10 deer per square mile. Perhaps the ones who actually took the bait are those railing AGAINST AR' s, while they' re fighting for their right to shoot that spiker if they so choose, what' s going on behind their backs?