ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer
ORIGINAL: deaddeer
BUT if more hunters stopped shooting a buck just for the sake of it being a buck, then everyone would feel they had a chance at a decent deer, and they wouldn't need to resort to shooting the 1st thing that walked by.
Due To AR we stopped shooting small buck in PA in 2002. The result was only 9,400 additional hunters harvested a 2.5+ buck in 2003 ,while 61 K hunters failed to harvest a buck. So a whole lot of buck hunters were unsuccessful ,just so 1% of the buck hunters could harvest a buck that was 1 year older. Also, remember not all of the 9,400 additional 2.5 buck were 8 + pts. The number of 2.5+ 8 pts harvested only increased by a little over 4K. So while many were bragging about all the big bucks they were seeing, that was not reflected in the statewide harvest data.
So in your words, it's all about the kill....there are seasons I don't harvest a buck, usually by choice to allow 1.5 year olds to grow.....I don't suffer physically or mentally because I didn't get my precious buck.....it didn't make me a bad hunter.....why is it so important for people to have to kill a buck every year to enjoy the hunts etc....?
No, those weren't deadeers words.... those are your words. Biiiiig difference.
Dead deer was merely pointing out that by having ALL hunters pass on a buck by AR restrictions, it only led to 9400 additional 2.5's. He never said anything about anyone having to kill anything.
....and he very accurately rebutted yur post "BUT if more hunters stopped shooting a buck just for the sake of it being a buck, then everyone would feel they had a chance at a decent deer" by pointing out that NO if ALL hunters do just pass on small bucks then NOT EVERYONE would feel they have a " chance at a decent deer". Only 9400 additional would actually take a 2.5 out of 800,000 deer hunters.
...and that comes at the cost of sending 61,000 home with none.
everyone can decide for themselves wheter that is worth it.
We are like Fox News. We report - you decide!