RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Please don't act like a baby NJ, you were the one who volunteered that you could provide facts supporting ARs don't work.

You never did.

I say again, with the number of biologists across our country studying the whitetail, I would of thought you could find one study supporting your statement.

You shouldn't claim to have something you don't.

I guess insulting me and calling me names is proof that ARs don't work?

Now you'll run and cry because you opened your mouth, someone challenged what you said, and you couldn't back it up? Probably a good idea, you know what they say..."Put up or shut up!".

I don't know about the brick wall, but even a third grader, a six year old, and an autistic child know the difference between a "fact", and BS.
One of them smells funny. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>






&quot;In heaven, even the fish have antlers&quot;

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

HMMM.... I can feel the love in this room<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Can't help but point out that this is the way liberals, democrats and antihunters end their arguements when the facts hit em between the eyes. They cry &quot;Your like talking to a brick wall, I'm leaving&quot;

Congrats, 6ptsika, For having the patience and intelligence to get this far.

Member of NRA, BASS, Buckmasters and Life member of UBP.........Kill a big doe, Let the little bucks grow

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

I just figured I’d revisit this topic since Deer and Deer Hunting has a feature article on it. :)

NJ_Bowhntr (1/17/03):
eddie (1/17/03)
NJ_Bowhntr (1/19/03):
6ptsika(1/20/03):
NJ_Bowhntr(1/20/03):
6ptsika(1/20/03):
The last line of this quoted section tells me you already had you mind made up, which means no amount of evidence I put in my posts would be accepted by you.

6ptsika(1/21/03):
6ptsika(1/22/03):

Basically, I told you where you could find it, but you were either too lazy to look it up, or are afraid to know the truth.

6ptsika(1/21/03):
Good, then you should check out the studies from the western states, or pick up the September 1998 issue of Deer and Deer Hunting, or the June 2003 issue of the same magazine. Lots of Biologists said AR’s don’t work, it’s all there for the reading. Here are some quotes from Charles Alsheimer from June of 2003.

“Some biologists believe that overharvesting bucks leads to unhealthy herds. Although some scientists suggest (emphasis added) negative sociobiological effects when bucks are overharvested, there is no published scientific data to prove such claims”.
and
“The jury is still out on whether antler restrictions are a biologically sound management tool”.
Charles Alsheimer, June 2003 Deer and Deer Hunting.

Also:
“The primary argument for antler restrictions is they let more yearling bucks survive to the next age class. In short, it makes for good biology when older bucks comprise a larger portion of the whitetail population. However, mere survival isn’t necessarily a good thing. In heavily hunted herds, the smallest antlered yearlings might end up doing most of the breeding, and hunting for older bucks—mainly 2 ½ year-olds becomes more intense. This is especially true in states with large hunting populations”.
Charles Alsheimer, June 2003 Deer and Deer Hunting

And:
“Ken Mayer examined results from these western experiments in the September 1998 issue of D&DH. Hunters often view antler point restrictions as a solution to declining herds and maintaining big bucks. But such restrictions have no effect on deer herd sizes and hurt production and maintenance of mature bucks. The common method required hunters to shoot bucks with at least 3 points on one side. The theory behind the 3-point rule is that more immature spike bucks and forkhorns would reach maturity and become trophies. While the theory seems logical, it’s reality has been a disappointment everywhere it has been used. In 1992, biologists across the West were surveyed and asked if antler restrictions were effective. With the exception of Colorado, Washington and Wyoming, the answer was a resounding “no”.”

Ken Mayer on the results of studies conducted over decades of antler restrictions in Western States, as quoted by Charles Alsheimer in June 2003 D&DH.



There’s plenty more there sika, check out the new issue of Deer and Deer Hunting. Charles Alsheimer, an admitted fan of QDM and AR' s, talks more about the studies and results from western states that I referenced. He admits that the jury is still out on AR’s, and it' s an unproven management strategy, again referencing those studies. It is a very balanced article, which is all I was trying to achieve with my posts here. As a matter of fact, if you read the entire thread, I was making the same points as Mr. Alsheimer, so I guess you could direct all of your comments at him as well.

Pick up the magazine and read it for yourself. Then go and look up those studies from the western states. Maybe you' ll learn something. I never said AR' s never work, and in fact stated I practice them where I hunt and like the idea, but you seem convinced they always work. You' re wrong. There are two sides to everything, and you have to learn to take the bad with the good. AR' s can work very well, but they don' t work in all situations. The facts ARE there, you just have to have an open mind to see them.

6ptsika(1/21/03):
It seems you are at odds with many of the leading whitetail biologists in the country on this one. They admit there is no scientific proof that AR’s work to do what you say, and they add it’s “unproven whether antler restrictions are a biologically sound management tool”, and “there’s no published scientific data to prove such claims”. Maybe you have more knowledge and information than all the wildlife biologist in the country.

BTBowhunter(1/22/03)
BT, if you accredited the intelligence to 6ptsika by his posts, you may want to hit the books yourself. Like I said, the facts ARE out there. It’s just some of you guy’s are so brainwashed that you can’t accept that, even though AR’s can work, they don’t always work, and have been proven to fail.

6ptsika(1/21/03):
Consider your eyes opened, isn’t great to see the light! :D

Have a happy Easter.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Oh, one more thing for the guy' s in Pa. If Gary Alt didn' t ell you what can and has gone wrong with antler restrictions and excessive doe harvests in other area' s, then he hasn' t told you the truth about these management philosophies. It' s exactly like a used car salesman telling you everything great about the car, but not telling you what' s wrong with it. After you buy it, you stuck with it.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Not bad nj, only three months for a reply.

I think we could wrap this up quick if we go all the way back to where I said " So do you have any data, once again, showing where ARs failed to increase the average age of male deer in a certain herd? Or are we going to talk about something else again?"

Looks like we' re on to something else again..

I get D&DH too nj, and nowhere in it does it say AR' s failed to increase the average age of bucks. NOWHERE.
What biologists consider a " failure" could have to do with low populations, poor harvest, lack of hunter participation, lack of " record breakers" , poor fawn survival, etc. I don' t doubt Ar' s would fail to help those situations, as a matter of fact, it may serve to worsen some of them. But in every case cited, the average age of bucks increased.

Did I miss anything in there about the average age of bucks decreasing in areas with Ar' s? What page was that on?

If you want to talk about overall management strategies, I' m sure there are folks here who' ll accomodate ya, but I' ve said over, and over, and over again that I haven' t seen one shred of proof that Ar' s fail to increase the average age of the buck population. Did you get the special issue or something?

As seen in NJ, AR' s in conjunction with half arsed management decisions can ruin a herd, probably because AR' s can only serve to increase the average age class of bucks, nothing more, nothing less.

3 months, 6 months, I don' t think you' ll ever show a case of AR' s failing to increase the average age class of bucks, the ONLY think they are capable of accomplishing.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Happy Easter to you, and a page number really would be nice, one where it' s stated that AR' s have been proven to NOT increase the average age of the buck herd. Seriously, I haven' t read the whole mag, so I very well may have missed it, like I said, I' m always learning.
If you can show me that, I' ll acknowledge you have given the first study presented here, and we can debate that evidence with the thousands of other studies where AR' s DID increase the average age of bucks. Can' t wait.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

AR is failing in PA. at producing more buck' s, In the 3-pt to a side area which is the majority of the state, But I knew it the minute I found out what the new AR Guide lines were going to be for my area which is York Co, I knew there was No way that our current AR. would save more than 20% of our 1.5 year old buck' s, But DR. Alt knew this as well but didnt care as long as he got the herd reduction he wanted and needed. And it is also failing at the main reason of why AR. was implemented, and that is to improve the herd in PA. Breeding Ecology, in order to improve a herd' s breeding ecology we need to create at the very least a 3rd age class of bucks and with our watered down version of AR. we only protected 16% of our total buck population ( not including the amount of buck' s that were left to rot in the wood' s or tagged as 5pt' s. instaed of a 3 or 4pt.) with many counties being much less than 16%, so we didnt even create a second age class of bucks. Another negative is that we protected our genticly inferior buck' s and targeted are geneticly gifted 1.5 year old buck' s as well as our 2.5 year old bucks. Now did AR. fail over all? No. it did not, why? because the reason DR. Alt implemented AR. was to use as a golden carrot. remember during DR. Alt' s first year of seminar' s he told us that we didnt need AR. that we could get the buck to do ratio where we need it by just passing on more BB.' s , but even if this happened(which it didnt) any time you try to reduce your herd by 50% the amount of buck' s harvested as antlerless deer is going to increase, Now we harvested 70,000 additional antlerless deer this past year, on average 20-25% of antlerless harvest is made up buck' s so the amount of BB' s and other buck' s harvested due to Herd reduction basicly canceld out every buck that was saved to AR. It was not until his second year of seminar' s that he offered AR. as the golden carrot to win over the heart' s and mind' s of the hunter' s and it worked. DR. Alt doesnt care if AR. last' s as long as he get' s the hunter' s to reduce the herd by 50%. Unfortunaley we have 1 million huner' s in PA. and even with AR. we will harvest 80% of the available buck herd each and every year, so 80% of the 1.5 year old buck' s that are still alive going into next hunting season will be toast. So in order for AR. to work in PA. will need to proctect nearly every 1.5 year old buck and use spread not number of point' s as a guide line. So if you support AR. Like myself, please start pushing for a higher AR. guideline. Pike

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Sika, here is my original statement, and yours and eddies responses that started this off. It' s pretty clear that I did answer your request for " information that proves AR' s have failed" to " justify my statement" , as you demanded.
Everything that came after that was just your nitpicking at every little aspect of what I typed to justify your denial sika, and somehow convince yourself you' re right.

There it is again, one more time. You asked for it, I provided it, and so did Charles Alsheimer and Deer and Deer Hunting and Ken Mayer, and all the biologists here interviewed for the September 1998 article. Everything you have posted since those first few replies shows without a doubt that you certainly aren' t approaching this with an open mind, but with a serious case of denial.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Oh, by the way Sika, do you have a relative named Luke? I think I have met you before.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

BTBowhunter (1/22/03):
BT, I wanted to pick this up for a minute too, because it underscores one of the main reasons I oppose Pa state-wide mandatory antler restrictions. I don' t know how I missed it the first time because politics is one of my passions.

To begin with, I left the thread because Sika (and you, by extension through your comments) were acting like liberals and refusing to acknowledge the facts when presented with them, there was no sense in continuing. None of you have put forth any facts to support your claims here, and in fact, we know that antler restrictions have not been proven to be a sound management theory, and there are no published studies to prove the claim they are. At least, according to Charles Alsheimer and D & DH , as of June of 2003. The first thing we all have to come to grips with is that these are just theories. Personally, I think they are a good idea, I am selective in what I shoot, and am on a lease out of state that has very strict requirements.

However, that being said, in the blending of hunting, wildlife management and politics that you' ve cited here, QDM and AR' s are, by definition, very liberal theories (if you don' t know the definition of Liberals and Conservatives, look it up). And your' e arguments for them (AR' s) fall in line with the Liberal Philosophies of gun control and anti-hunting: that being the removal of freedoms.

One of the most compelling arguments against gun control is simply--no one is telling those opposed to owning guns they have to own one, so what gives them the right to tell the rest of us we can' t own a gun?Same goes for hunting--no one is forcing animal rights activists to hunt, so who are they to force us to stop?

They do it because they see the rest of us from above, they look down and say, we elitists know a better way and you less than knowledgable peons should abide by what we know is right. It stems from a point of view in which they (Liberals) feel they are superior, and they know what is best for us, and the hell with freedom of choice, they know just how we should live.

Antler restrictions are no different. No one is telling you or I BT (or any other big buck hunter), that we have to shoot a spike or forkhorn. So who made us God, what compells us to think we should be able to tell everyone else in Pa they have to adopt out hunting selectivity? What gives us the right to force our trophy hunting mentality onto the rest of the hunters in Pa?

The answer is nothing gives us that right. It' s well known that these policies are just theories. As for the health of the herd issue, well, that is easily dismissed, and here is how. Pa implemented these restrictions statewide. Yet we know that the health of the herd is not in bad shape statewide. There are no doubt area' s that need some help, and forests have been negatively impacted by excessive deer numbers. So what is wrong with targeting these experimental policies to those areas, and leaving other areas for hunters who wish to have a choice?

If it really was for the ' health of the herd' , it would have been targeted to where the herd is unhealthy, not to healthy herds. The fact that it wasn' t tells me one of two things. Either the State did not yet have the data to establish where this should be done, so they just made it statewide, or it' s not really for the " health of the herd" . If the state did not have the data, then they were not ready to undertake these initatives to begin with. If they do have the data that identifies the areas where the herd is unhealthy, but still didn' t apply these regs to only the unhealthy areas, then what is the reason for it being a statewide mandate?

That is what brings me back to the Liberal philosphy, and the fact that this is being done by a segment who wants to remove the freedoms of some hunters, to satisfy the trophy aspirations of others. Lets be honest about it, it is not now, and never was, " for the health of the herd" , at least not statewide.