Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Regional Forums > Northeast
 Confusion about ARs >

Confusion about ARs

Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

Confusion about ARs

Old 12-11-2006, 12:07 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. PA
Posts: 135
Default Confusion about ARs

In reading post after post discussing ARs, it seems to me that some people are confused about what ARs actually are and how they work.

It been my observation that posts that start as discussions concerning whether or not ARs work, end up as posts about how the PGC is mismanaging the deer herd. And the implementation of ARs somehow ends up becoming part of this mismanagement.

‘Some’ people seem to associate the decline in deer numbers directly with the antler restrictions. When in reality, ARs alone would do nothing but increase the number of deer in the woods. I feel this misconception is due mainly to the fact that the same time the PGC implemented the antler restrictions they also changed the Doe season from lasting only 3 days, to being open for 2 weeks. It is my thoughts that ‘some’ people have not realized that ARs and the over harvesting of Doe are 2 separate entities (or at least should be). And should be discussed and implemented as such.

I feel there has been a multitude of reasons that the deer population in PA has seen a major decrease in the last few years. But heavy harvesting of the Does has defiantly played large role. And I agree with most that something needs to be changed.

I personally would like to see the Antler Restrictions stay as they are. And I would like to see the PGC close doe season for 2 years (with small areas of high deer densities offering doe tags with very tight regulations). However, I realize that this would create too much uproar to ever happen. And in the end it would not work because, some people would not follow those regulations. But in reality I would like to see the PGC cut the number of Doe tags in half and offer no bonus tags, while also changing the length back to 3 days. If this was done for a couple years, the deer herd should recover, at that point I would suggest raising the Doe permits back to a sustainable rate, while continuing the 3 day season.

In my opinion the PGC need to change the harvest of Doe. Otherwise hunting will continue to loose popularity, at the same time reducing the PGC funding. And this will continue until change is forced.

I know that many of you will not agree with my thoughts, and that’s fine. I’d like to hear yours, because the better educated we are as a group on how we feel, the stronger and more likely we are to cause change that we can all benefit from.
Sport 2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 12:46 PM
  #2  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

If I remember correctly, sport, we discussed this before with you proposing to suspend the doe season for two years. I don't think you have any idea of the impact that would have as far as an instant massive, overpopulation. If that were to occur along with a severe winter, the die-off would be catastrophic. What about the vehicle encounters? landowner impacts and farm damage? Think of a new plan.
livbucks is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 01:00 PM
  #3  
 
goyard74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 160
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

I see good and bad points too what u just wrote.
goyard74 is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 01:35 PM
  #4  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. PA
Posts: 135
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

ORIGINAL: livbucks

If I remember correctly, sport, we discussed this before with you proposing to suspend the doe season for two years. I don't think you have any idea of the impact that would have as far as an instant massive, overpopulation. If that were to occur along with a severe winter, the die-off would be catastrophic. What about the vehicle encounters? landowner impacts and farm damage? Think of a new plan.
Yes, I did mension this before. and I am fully aware of the fact that harvesting virtually no doe would lead to a dramatic increase in deer population. However,if done only for 2 years I do not agree that it would be an instant overpopulation.
But I do agree that the 2 yrs of no doe harvest will not happen. As I mensioned above I think that thePGC should vastly cut the number of doe tag sales, and return to a 3 day season for doe.
From my hunting experiences I am seeing virtually no deer or deer sign in many areas that supported good populations just 5 years ago. I do agree that in some areas there are still healthy deer populations. but these areas are becoming fewer and farther between. As this happens more and more guys will find these local hot spots and before you know it these areas will be huring as well. My family owns a fair amount of property and we allow people to hunt on it. but as the deer population shrinks, so wil most landowners willingness to let you hunt on thier land.
Sport 2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 02:07 PM
  #5  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. PA
Posts: 135
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

As for Car accidents and winter starvation - I don't think that the deer population would jump enough in 2 years majorly affect these concerns.

Land owner damage - As I mensions areas with high concentrations of deer could be managed with highly regulated doe tags.
Sport 2 is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 03:01 PM
  #6  
Typical Buck
 
lost horn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pa.
Posts: 554
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

AR's is working as planned, the hunters was promised some big bucks if they slaughtered the doe, a few hunters are getting a fewnice bucks but most hunters dont even see a buck of any size.
Before AR's about 10% of hunters killed a buck I wonder what the % is now ???
lost horn is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 04:29 PM
  #7  
Giant Nontypical
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

Losthorn, you are correct in guessing that the buck succes rate is downsubstantially. Everything in quotes is direct from the PGC website:

"2001 total harvest of 486,014 (203,247 antlered deer)"

"2001 license sales were 1,047,820" so the bucksuccess rate was about 20%

"The 2005-06 antlerless harvest was 233,890 "
"The 2005-06 antlered deer harvest was 120,500"

"2005 license sales were 964,158" so the buck success rate was about 12%

There's no dispute that less hunters are harvesting bucks due to both AR and HR but here's theupside to that

"As a direct result of the three-point and four-point antler restrictions, almost 50 percent of harvested antlered deer were 2.5 years old or older this past season, compared to only 20 percent being that old prior to antler restrictions"
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 04:58 PM
  #8  
Boone & Crockett
 
Rob/PA Bowyer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Hughesville, PA USA
Posts: 18,322
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

ORIGINAL: Sport 2

As for Car accidents and winter starvation - I don't think that the deer population would jump enough in 2 years majorly affect these concerns.
Are you serious?

Let's just take the 1,000,000 estimated deer pop in PA. Now let's pretend half is made up of breeding does, probably more but let's for this argument say half.

Now, 500,000 doe have 2 fawns, some have 3 or more, some have one, some none so on average lets say 2. So , 500,000 doe have 1,000,000 offspring, in one year you just doubled your population from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 deer. Now let's do it another year and you have 4,000,000 deer.

Now some of those numbers are a little outrages, perhaps not, but I think there is a point here, deer do 2 things, they eat, they breed. Eliminating doe season for just one year would have a huge affect on the herd in a negative way.
Rob/PA Bowyer is offline  
Old 12-11-2006, 05:55 PM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

I must sayI concur with you Rob.
Here's more.....The seasons are held in the fall for a real reason, and not because the GC doesn't want us sweatin' out there. We reduce the herd every year going into winter to allow more browse per animal to assist in the wintering survival. We call this the OW herd (overwintering). To allow a OW herd of 2 million or more would result in MASSIVE dieoffs among other things. In a hard winter, deer are driven into the low coniferous areas for shelter from deep snow, ice and so on. Can you imagine the nightmare we would experience with a herd of 3 to 4 times the size we have now? Any idea of the disease that would result from such an irresponsible act? I can tell you this: In an average winter, we would lose many more deer than the increase we were trying to achieve. Deer breed like rats. Sorry but true. We care a whole lot more for deer though and any conservationist with any brains would never let a thing like this happen. We have had hard winters in the distant past where we lost almost the entire herd and hunting was suspended for some time. Who is going to clean up the rotting mess in this state when 2 to 3 million deer are rotting come spring? If we were to foolishly goof with the carrying capacity to that extreme, old Ma' Nature would fix things eventually.
livbucks is offline  
Old 12-12-2006, 09:23 AM
  #10  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW. PA
Posts: 135
Default RE: Confusion about ARs

ORIGINAL: Rob/PA Bowyer

ORIGINAL: Sport 2

As for Car accidents and winter starvation - I don't think that the deer population would jump enough in 2 years majorly affect these concerns.
Are you serious?

Let's just take the 1,000,000 estimated deer pop in PA. Now let's pretend half is made up of breeding does, probably more but let's for this argument say half.

Now, 500,000 doe have 2 fawns, some have 3 or more, some have one, some none so on average lets say 2. So , 500,000 doe have 1,000,000 offspring, in one year you just doubled your population from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 deer. Now let's do it another year and you have 4,000,000 deer.

Now some of those numbers are a little outrages, perhaps not, but I think there is a point here, deer do 2 things, they eat, they breed. Eliminating doe season for just one year would have a huge affect on the herd in a negative way.
Rob,

I agree that the population would grow very quickly. But in your demonstration of numbers you did not account for predators, and you assumed that every fawn would be born as a doe (which we know does not happen) you assumed a starting heard population of 1,000,000. We’ll assume 500,000 doe, and 500,000 bucks. Now accounting for hunting season reduce the doe population by 200,000 (which I’m sure is low) and 100,000 bucks. We’ll also assume no winter kill (which is unrealistic).
That gives us 300,000 doe. If each of these doe have 2 fawns 50% of which survive to the next fall (due to natural causes) we end up with 300,000 yearling deer 50% of which would be bucks giving us 450,000 total doe. Repeat the process for the 2nd year would give us 675,000 total doe. Add to this the bucks (400,000 starting #) + (150,000 1st year) + (225,000 2nd year bucks) – (200,000 buck kill in 2 years) = 1,250,000 deer population at the end of 2 years. Using 46,055 square miles in PA this works out to roughly 27 deer per square mile (which I agree is very high). But then you take the average years harvest for hunting of 450,000 deer. The total population is reduced to 775,000 this equates to roughly 17 deer per square mile, and I would be hard pressed to believe that our environment cannot support that on an average. And from that point on with proper doe management the population could be maintained at proper levels.
But as I mentioned previously, I realize this idea will never happen. And I greatly appreciate your thoughts on it. We all have our own ideas that we think would help, and I’m sure the correct solution is a combination of all our ideas. We just need to work as a team to get the PGC to put together a management plan that will work for everyone.

Sport 2 is offline  

Quick Reply: Confusion about ARs


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.