But are they really that different? Wouldn't quality agricultural land in Lancaster county PA be basically as good as the habitat in Pike county Illinois? I believe this thread was started to show that the PGC is not factoring in quality ag land as being able to suport much higher DD than contigious forest land.
Fair question. I only have enough knowledge here to hit the high spots but with that qualifier, I'll do my best.It seems that the diference in mineral content and soil quality is a huge factor. The environment is far more fertilein Illinois. Crop yeilds are close to double per acre on average and the resulting quantity of high quality agricultural forage makes for a very well fed herd. I don't know much about the Lancaster area but I do know that I've heard of corn crops approaching 300 bushel per acre in the best parts of Illinois. Around where I live, 100 seems more like the norm
Yes, that seems to be the case. There has been a pronounced shift in deer hunting everywhere towards harvesting mature bucks. I think this was slowly becoming more prevalent in PA, even before the institution of the AR's. Our knowledge of deer behavior and hunting strategies has increased dramatically in the last two decades. Not to mention the phenomenal growth of bowhunting. Know that I am not opposed to the concept of AR's. I disagree with the method. It would be hard to argue that APR's are not protecting a significant portion of yearling bucks, butI have concerns for the long term effects as witnessed in several other states. After reading as much as I could about them, I still believe a spread restriction would be more effective, and possibly avoid some of the potential negatives inherent of a point based system. I'm afraid as more and more hunters toss in the towel in PA, and everywhere, that we will reach a point where those of us that remain will be left with the task of harvesting a large amount of deer/ hunter, or risk being replaced by another method.I strongly disagree with the extent of HR accomplished at the state level. There were places it just wasn't needed to that extent. I feel that the PGC is not going to intentionally allow the herd to increase significantly, but that it eventually will on it's own, due to lack of hunter participation. We already are seeing growing numbers of hunters unwilling to shoot does. When enough hunters give it up, the rest of us will have a daunting task ahead of us, to try and manage a herd with much less manpower than we had a decade or two ago, and then we will have real problems. One more reason the PGC needs to factor hunter satisfaction back into the equation. Lose enough hunters, and all of their "progress" will be for nothing anyway.
We agree on a lot of things here. I wholeheartedly agree that a spread restriction is a better method. I'm not sure it would have been the best way to start in a culture where almost every hunter described his buckalmost exclusivelyon point count for decades. It's how we were brought up. We were also brought up in a culture that somehow valued aharvested spike more than an adult doe. I would favor a shift to a spread restiction in a heartbeat. I'm also not completely satisfied with HR as it has been handled. I do beleive that much of the NC habitat has crashed and will take years to recover.The same scenario has played out in the ANF wher I have spentmany hunting hours over my lifetime.
If you havent read it yet, get your hands on a copy of the August issue of North American Whitetail and read Dr Kroll article on page 105. It puts a new and different perspective on the results of the AR studies in Mississippi. It points out some reasonableconcerns that could place doubt on the conclusionsfrom the study.
That being said,when HR was instituted, the PGC had a history of being very slow to adapt to any change. Caution is generally a good thing but the PGC really drew out any change to the status quo. Along came Gary Alt and his immediate sweeping changes. Most sounded good at the time but he also said that he wasn't sure they would work and we had to be willing to adapt. The sweeping changes were made, Gary Alt couldn't take the heat and ran for cover. I'm not a big Alt fan but he was the guy with the cojones to make rapid changes when something didnt work. At first, he seemed willing to admit AND correct mistkes. Remember theyear we had a last Saturday doe starter?Alt publicly declared it a disaster and it went away immediately. Now he's gone and it seems that we have a plan that definitely needs refining and the "stay the course" mentality has returned.
As for hunter satisfaction, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I don't see the dissatisfaction you seem to see. I admit that I live in an area that still has high deer populations but my camp is in 2F where the herd has been reduced. It is there that we see a remarkable improvement in body size, antler size and in the average number of fawns per doe as well as an improvement in the habitat. The browse line is much less detectable in many of my old haunts. Hunters I encounter in 2F all acknowledge that there's less deer but they seem content with the tradeoff.
I do NOT mourn the loss of the one day (now more like half day) nimrods from the big woods. A slightly smaller punkin army in the woods on "buck Monday" as many of us geezers still call it isn't a bad thing IMHO.
It is interesting to note though, that PA's decline in hunting license sales is squarely in line with national average acrossthe nation that includes all the states that arent experiencingsimilar changes to their deer herd.
As I first said in this post SS, we seem to have some common ground after all
