ORIGINAL: bluebird2
Those computer simulated studies you keep trying to hang your hat on have been very well discredited by a number of other studies that showed totally different results when real deer were studied instead of the make believe deer in your studies.
Maybe you should take a break and do a little research on the results from Miss. If you do you will find I am not citing the results from computer studies, I am citing the results from surveys of buck harvested across the entire state. The results show the average rack sizes of the buck decreased across the entire and if they could have accounted for the bucks that weren't AR legal and therefore not harvested, the resu;ts would be even more damning.
Nor is there anything, not one single shred of anything, that gives any indication that the antlers of the Pennsylvania bucks being adversely affected since the introduction of antler restrictions regardless of how much you wish there was. You keep saying that the bucks are being high graded and the antler are getting smaller but you are full of bologna because it just isn’t happening the way you say it is.
Are you claiming you know more about ARs than Dr. Rosenberry, who told me he did not know if the rack sizes of 2.5+ buck increased or decreased since ARs were implemented?
Here is what Miss. had to say about ARs and high grading and please note they are not talking about computer models.
MDWFP DEER COMMITTEE
Chad M.Dacus
Deer Program Coordinator
(601) 432-2177 •
[email protected]
William T.McKinley
Regional Deer Biologist
(601) 582-6111 •
[email protected]
Chris McDonald
Regional Deer Biologist
(601) 757-2313 •
[email protected]
Why not the 4-Point Law?
Research conducted by the MDWFP and Mississippi State University indicates the 4-point law has reduced
the antler size of harvested 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks across the state. Researchers and biologists believe the
4-point law allows the harvest of better quality yearling bucks, while protecting lesser quality spikes and 3-
point bucks. The result has been a decrease in antler size within age classes of older bucks. The combination
ofthe 4-point law, high hunting pressure, and lower reproduction has resulted in the over-harvest of bucks and
decreased antler size in deer herds across Mississippi.
To correct these problems, quality yearling bucks must be allowed to reach older age classes. Antler
restrictions that protect a high percentage of 1.5 year old bucks while limiting the high-grading of 2.5 year old
bucks are needed. This protection will prevent over-harvest of bucks and improve antler size as bucks get older.
These protected bucks will also improve skewed buck:doe ratios, resulting in a shorter breeding season. A
shorter breeding season will provide a more uniform fawn crop with regards to future body weights and antler
production.
Then we have this from Arkansas about their ARs.
The 3-point rule has now been in use for five years here in Arkansas. Are we on the verge of seeing antler size beginning to decrease?
Catherine Helm is one of the prime forces behind the annual Arkansas Big Buck Classic, one of the nation's largest deer shows. She is directly involved with the event's highly popular statewide big buck contest.
"When the 3-point rule first went into effect we saw an immediate and dramatic increase in antler size of the bucks entered in our contest," Helm stated. "But in the last couple of years that trend has leveled off and maybe even decreased a little bit."
Didn’t you also notice that in Mississippi and Arkansas they harvest their bucks before the peek of their breeding season. That means that not all of their bucks were getting to contribute to the gene pool and indeed many of their best bucks had been harvested before ever breeding even once. That is not the case in Pennsylvania, where our season occurs after the rut and all adult bucks including the best and the worst of the even those 1 ½ year old have already had the chance to contribute to the gene pool before they are available for harvest.
Furthermore, what measures of other possible contributing factors, such as other environmental factor influence, having on the antler development either before or after antler restrictions, did either of those state evaluate. If they didn’t evaluate the other possible influencing factors then they simply don’t know what caused any change in the antler development of their bucks.
To help illustrate that point I am going to post the antler development results collected by the Elk County volunteer wildlife survey teams for the past few years. From this you can see just how much the change in the previous fall mast and winter weather conditions can have on the antler development of the bucks from one year to another.
Year…………..% of bucks spikes…………….% of bucks antler legal
2002.…………….24.1 %………………………………51.7 %
2003.…………….26.7 %………………………………46.7 %
2004.…………….55.2 %………………………………27.6 %
2005.…………….42.9 %………………………………38.1 %
2006.…………….16.7 %………………………………66.7 %
2007.…………….24.1 %………………………………34.5 %
2008.…………….13.5 %………………………………64.9 %
Since those spikes are either all, or very nearly all, 1 ½ year old bucks people should be able to see that their antler development is very much affected by a whole host of factors other then their genetic potential. Thus, the simple fact is that the studies in Mississippi and Arkansas not only have correlation to reality in Pennsylvania and might not even have any reality to what really occurred as far as genetic influence in their own study area.
The simple fact is that the best genealogists and deer researchers in the Nation clear say that the affects of antler restrictions need more study but to date they find nothing that indicates any adverse affects to the genetics of wild deer populations where the harvest occurs after the peek of the breeding season as occurs in Pennsylvania.
Why don’t you just admit that you just can’t stand the fact that you and your group of family hunters can’t just shot the first deer you see with a piece of antler on his head and don’t really care about what is best for the long term management of the species as long as you get what most benefits you?
If the present management objectives weren’t based on what the deer provided as evidence that indicate to be best for the future of the species and their long term habitat then I assure you the professional managers would be leading the initiative for changes. But, those professionals are for presently just doing what is best for the long term benefit of the species instead of caving in to the demands of a few vocal hunters that have never known what they were talking and have done more damage to the deer herds, their habitat and the future of hunting then any other group of people, including the anti-hunters.
You have proven yourself to be a leading among those adversely affecting the future of hunting in this state and the nation. Congratulations.
R.S. Bodenhorn