I realize that there are states with similarities but guess what? Some of them are anxiously watching for Pa's results
According to Webster--anxious (ly) adv. full of anxiety or worry due to apprehension or anticipation of danger or misfortune. Synonyms: concerned, disturbed, apprehensive, fearful, uneasy.
So according to you BT, they are apprehensively, fearfully, uneasily, etc. watching Pa, at last we agree.
BT, I'm sure they are watching Pa closely, they want to see if Alt can prove their most recent, and most comprehensive, findings wrong. I'm sure they are watching closely to see if Pa produces different results than most states are realising they get, in reality, from this type of program. I'm sure they do hope it succeeds in Pa, because up to this point, what was previously considered an unproven philosophy (AR), is being shown to produce troubling results in many places. Up to this point, the results are very mixed, with some troubling findings in the area of Antler Restrictions. So, I'm sure they are watching closely, and hoping for something positive to contradict what they have recently learned the truth of AR to be in some places: a failure.
There was volumes of information put forth at the most recent meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group, which consists of approximately 350 wildlife biologists and professional deer managers, that indicated AR's don't always do what is promised. Here is one example taken from that study group....
Looking back over the last six years, Mississippi pulled together the largest analysis of antler growth scenarios in their history...Mississippi analyzed antler growth before their 4-point rule on public and private land across their three main regions and then compared those figures to their current antler growth with the restrictions. On an average 2-1/2 year old bucks lost 5”-8” of antler length and 3-1/2 year olds lost 8”-12”. Needless to say, it will be very difficult for Mississippi to enter bucks into any record books. Dr. Demarais referred to their program as a matter of “hi-grading” their inferior deer.
Another interesting result of their (Dr. Demarais and MS State) analysis is the loss of bucks in their current harvests. Their present buck harvest of 2-1/2 year old deer and up including all age classes is actually lower than before their antler restrictions went into effect. They had hoped the young deer saved by antler restrictions would show up in subsequent harvest years. They have not. For a number of reasons such as poaching, car collisions and natural mortality, their total harvests are going down with antler restrictions. Furthermore, Mississippi proved a buck’s first set of horns is an indication of its future potential.
The Mississippi legislature has responded to this “genetic crisis” by allowing their wildlife department to sell “spike permits” to their hunters in areas where they believe it is necessary to correct this “genetic catastrophe”.
The fact is that there are plenty of respected professionals out there that have found AR's don't do what is promised. Do some research on why antler restrictions were discontinued in western states years ago after, in some cases, decades of trying them.
Here is another article stating it's still an unproven technique.
http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga....=262&txtPage=2
As I've said here before, AR can be a very good thing, when done in a controlled area. But done on a statewide level, in areas that experience moderate to heavy hunting pressure, recent data shows many problems and failures. Yes, they do work sometimes, but just as often, in fact, in situations similar to Pa, MORE often than not, they fail. You just can't seem to admit that there are to sides to this issue. Are you really that easily misled?