RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

New restrictions on antlers work in Pennsylvania


DR. DAVE SAMUEL

Last fall, Pennsylvania deer hunters had to follow new restrictions on harvesting bucks.

In forested areas, they could only shoot bucks that had one antler with three or more points. In agricultural regions, the bucks had to have one antler with four or more points.

Getting this rule established was not easy. Dr. Gary Alt, the deer program coordinator, gave more than 100 talks statewide, explaining the rule' s purpose.

Penns Woods are similar to West Virginia woods. Deer have caused a great deal of environmental damage. More does need to be harvested, but getting hunters to harvest more does is not easy.

The incentive hunters were given to harvest does was the chance to harvest bigger bucks. The idea was to get the 1 1/2-year-old bucks into older age classes before they were harvested.

(Prior to this year, bucks harvested in Pennsylvania were 80-90 percent yearlings, similar to what we see in West Virginia.)

Many Pennsylvania hunters (57 percent) supported antler restrictions, but others felt there would be a lot of yearling bucks left dead in the woods.

So, the big question is, how did it go up there? The answer is that it went extremely well. Public hearings have been unusually quiet. Why? Because no hunters are showing up. Evidently, the original controversy is gone, or at the very least, greatly reduced.

Pennsylvania is backing up this new deer management program with research. A number of yearling bucks were radio-collared, to see if they survived the deer season, and to see whether they were illegally shot and left in the woods.

Final tabulations are not in, but I recently discovered that most of the bucks were not shot. That means most of the yearling bucks will be hunted as 2 1/2-year-olds this fall. How neat is that?

Pennsylvania is going to tag many more bucks for the second year, but it appears that hunters obeyed the law.

And did this carrot get more does killed? You bet. More than 300,000. When you realize that every doe eats (and thus, takes the place of) what a buck eats, and that we have far more does than needed to sustain herds, it makes great sense to harvest more does and get more quality bucks.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Yes, that' s me NJ, but I' m not sure who you are, send me an email. We can discuss this over a beer, unless you call me a liberal again. [:@][:-][>:]

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Mhogan, DR. Dave stated You know this a lie to aid his pupil, Game Commision Gary . Pike

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

It makes more sense to think someone is wrong when they say something you don' t agree with. Lieing is intentionally telling untruths in order to mislead. Is that what you really believe Dr. Samuals is doing? It is also safer to accuse someone of being wrong as oppossed to being a liar. We don' t need to be that aggressive in our discussions.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Mhogan,

I don' t think Dr. Samuels is lying, but unfortunately, I think he may have just hurt his credibility, either that, or he has defined the success of antler restrictions so low, that a number of things could have accomplished this acclaimed " success" . I still stand by the presumption that it will take several years for this type of policy to show results anywhere, and up until his statement, so did every biologist I have ever heard speak about AR' s. Lets be real, a couple of days of really bad weather could have dropped the buck kill by 20 percent, and a few extra doe tags raise the antlerless kill. That would have nothing to do with antler restrictions. To me, it seems like he (Dr. Samuels) jumped a little too soon to claim success, and that makes it look like they either are trying to now, or will in the future, fudge the numbers to ' prove' the success. There was no need to for someone of his stature to come out and claim success when, preceding this statement by him, every biologist in the country acknowledged that it takes several seasons to see actual results with antler restrictions.

It diminished his standing, and exposed an effort that seems almost desperate to claim success in Pa for antler restrictions.

Like I said, a few days of bad weather could have achieved the same results (of reduced buck kill). His claim is just about a silly as those who claimed that the antler restrictions were working last season because they were already seeing bigger bucks----before it had even begun!

To say they had a positive start would have been one thing, to claim success, well, that was very premature. What happens this upcoming season when the buck kill approaches the 2001 numbers, as it most likely will? Then do we claim failure?

Like I posted somehwere else, his claim is like claiming victory in the first lap of a 500 lap race. Unless you' re Jeff Gordon, you can' t do that. :D:D;)

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

True enough. But I think he did it to counter all of the antis claims that it is a failure already. Neither can be said to be true at this early stage. But I think you can say we are moving in the right direction and isn' t that what he was really saying? Allowing some bucks to mature was done and we reduced the herd as they wanted.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

Mark, DR. Samual and DR. Alt both knew before this season started what the result' s were going to be!! Just like myself and many other' s. Before my friend' s and I started passing up smaller buck' s we shot the first buck we saw, and out of 105, 1.5 year olds buck' s that we harvested since the early 1980' s only 23% would not have been legal under our current AR Guidelines. So if I knew what the out come was going to be and my friend' s knew what the out come was going to be, DR. Dave who is one of the leading Biologist' s in the country and his pupil DR. Alt knew what the outcome was going to be!!! And as you know we only saved an additional 16% of our buck' s in the majority of the state that has a 3pt. to a side AR. Pike

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

J Pike, if 16% were saved, that' s a lot of bucks that will be 2.5yrs old next year. What' s so bad about that? Even if AR' s only save an average of 16% each year, that' s something, no? I don' t know if 16% is accurate, but I' ll take your word for it. I just don' t see what the problem is. PA' s capable of producing nice bucks if they have a chance to grow up, don' t you think all those addtiional 2.5 yr old bucks will make for great hunting next year? Just curious why you' re so dead set against it.
NJ, why no email? Curious who you are. Just one more point to make, I really don' t understand your premise that it' s " liberal" or " elitist" to raise the bar on what defines a legal buck. The state has been telling hunters for years what is a " legal" buck, they' ve been telling us for years when we can, and can' t hunt them, what we can use to hunt, and where we can hunt. Nothin new there. They' re just changing the definition of what' s legal, from 3" to 3pts. If they decide to lower the creel limit on trout, it' s a liberal conspiracy? If we' re to believe you guys here, it won' t even make much difference in the harvest after the first year, all those " saved" bucks will get shot anyway next year.
As for the great AR " experiment" , what' s the difference between that and what happened the last 100 years? There hasn' t been many studies to my knowledge that examined how shooting 3" bucks helped the herd, or killing 80-90% of yearling bucks has helped the herd? I believe Alt' s recent studies, as well as the ones he supposedly has coming soon are the first ones done in PA, how is an " experimental" antler restriction any worse, or even any likely to be worse, than the " old" regs? I don' t think there was much science behind the old PA philosophy of a spike buck was legal, but a doe was not. Nor any science saying why being able to see 50 does a day, and one buck, was good for the forest.

You say AR' s don' t work as a management strategy, I say they work at increasing the average buck age, the only thing they were designed to do, hell, maybe we' re both right. Maybe having the average age increase doesn' t do squat for the health of the rherd, I think we both agree that hasn' t been studied yet, or at leats proven one way or another. On one hand I don' t see how having more competition for breeding rights could possible not result in stronger genetics being passed along, from a biological standpoint, but on the other hand, we' ve been shooting the first buck to come by across the continent most of the century, and I haven' t seen any ill effects, as a matter of fact record deer are being taken more and more often. Who knows? I still feel that protecting yearling bucks, even a small number like 16%, will only result in more 2.5yr old deer, and to me that' s not such a horrific idea.

I think there' s a lot more things to be concerned about than this AR " experiment" . I' d be keeping a close eye on the good Dr and making sure he isn' t reducing the herd down to the levels well below the carrying capacity of the forest, putting business interests ahead of the hunters' , as has happened across the river. THAT' s what folks need to be watching for. If AR' s are only a carrot, and the hunters of PA take the bait, while the herd is lowered well below carrying capacity on most public lands, well, the PA Game commision is a lot more powerless than most here have claimed. In NJ, they didn' t need a carrot, they just shoved it down hunter' s throats, and believe me, there' s nothin hunters can do about it, they want 10 deer per square mile, they' re going to get 10 deer per square mile. Perhaps the ones who actually took the bait are those railing AGAINST AR' s, while they' re fighting for their right to shoot that spiker if they so choose, what' s going on behind their backs?

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

J Pike, what' s so bad about 16% of the bucks living to be 2.5yr olds? Is this so horrible?

NJ, what' s " liberal" or " elitist" about raising the minimum legal buck size from 3" to 3pts? The state has been telling us for years what is legal, and what isn' t. As well as when,where, and how we can hunt. It was sportsmen who set these agencies up, and instituted bag limits and size requirements, I doubt those fellas were liberals. A bit of a stretch you made there.

As for the great AR " experiment" , what' s the difference from what' s been done the last 100 years? Where are all the studies showing how great it is for the herd to shoot 80-90% of the yearling bucks? Where' s the studies showing how beneficial it is to have an unbalanced sex ratio, or 50 deer per square mile? I think the studies Alt is doing are the first ones of their kind in the state. Up until now, kill every buck you can above 3" , and save the does. Until there' s hard data, they' re both " theories" , and I don' t see how one is more likely to be harmful than the other?

I think there' s more important things to worry about than AR' s, perhaps the ones who took the carrot are those AGAINST Ar' s, maybe while they' re fighting tooth and nail for their " right" to shoot a spiker if they so choose, what' s going on behind their back? Will PA wind up with 10 deer per square mile in prime public habitat, like some areas of NJ? I' d be keeping a close eye on the Dr, but certainly not due to saving a few yearling bucks.

RE: PGC Releases Preliminary Figures
 

6pt. yes it is horrible. Why? I have wanted AR. in the worst way since i was 16 years old, and finally at the age of 32 we finally got it. Now I want to do whatever it takes to keep AR. and by only saving an additional 16% of our buck' s, and creating a few more 2.5 year old buck' s AR. is not going to last. See DR. Alt stated we needed AR. to improve the breeding ecology of our herd and many of our hunter' s put a side their want' s for the betterment of the herd. Now what need' s to be done to improve our breeding ecology? No, it' s not done by bringing the buck to doe ratio closer together, especially since we had a 1 : 2.1 buck to doe ratio before the start of the 2002 season, It' s done by creating a 3rd and 4th age class of buck' s, a mature buck can easily breed 6 doe' s in the wild, so having a close buck to doe ratio isnt important. Now by only saving an additional 16% of our buck' s we didnt even create a 2nd age class, and having a few more 2.5 year old buck' s with in a herd does nothing to improve a herd' s breeding ecology, all it does is let a few more buck' s reach the age of 2.5 year' s of age, and with a state that has a million hunter' s an additonal 40,000 2.5 year old buck' s does nothing, because once they reach 2.5 year' s of age they will be toast. In order for AR. to be permitted by hunter' s to continue, they will want to see an improvement in our breeding ecology and for that to happen we will have to save each and every 1.5 year old buck and use spread not # of point' s. Pike