Well, I can' t argue with that. I think spread would be a great metric, it' s used in DE with no complaints, at least none I' m aware of. I would say I doubt all those 2.5yr old bucks will get shot, they' re a year smarter, remember. And radio collar studies show the older a buck gets, the fewer of them out of a given number will get killed by hunters. Even on heavily hunted property, most studies show that at a certain age, depending on what part of the country, the least of a buck' s worries is hunters. DE hunters had no problem with spread being used, but you would know better than I how difficult that would be to institute in PA.

Wow, did this thread come back from the dead!

NJB and J Pike,

Neither of you has presented proof that AR as it' s being used in PA won' t work. Nor can I call it a complete success either. As I see it the only facts that can be claimed here are that Dr Alt said this is a work in progress that will work eventually because it will be reshaped as we go. AR is only part of the picture. Killing off more does till we' re in better balance is only part of the picture. New deer management units are only part of the picture. An unprecedented fawn mortality study and an unprecedented buck survival/ migration study are only part of the picture. Even if you had proof that AR' s don' t work (and you havent produced it yet) You cant possibly say that it won' t work here because it hasnt been tried HERE IN PA with all the other strategies concurrently being implemented HERE IN PA.

What I can say is a fact is that Dr Alt has started a comprehensive program based on good science that . Good science, by it' s nature, includes a good dose of trail and error if the results are not alredy known.

His stated goals include

A herd balanced properly with the habitat.
A herd balanced properly in terms of age distribution.
A herd balanced properly in terms of buck/ doe ratio.
A herd that provides better opportunities for all hunters (that may not necessarily benefit you or I as individuals)
Scientifically managing for the resource first to help prevent animal rights wacko court attacks on our sport.

He has stated many times that this may take awhile.

Record doe harvest.... Alt said we needed it and most hunters agreed...we got it.

Save some bucks to grow a year older. Again, most hunters agreed and it would appear that the numbers have grown on that side. Maybe you' re right on this Pike, we saved a bunch but maybe we didn' t save enough, but how would you fix that? Betcha old GA has some ideas.

New DMU' s... a vast majority agreed we needed em... we got em.... are they perfect? Probably not, but, we dont know cause we aint tried em yet!


PS J Pike
I personally would like an antler spread AR better myself but then we' ll get a big whine about someone having to pass a buck with incredible mass and lots of long tines with a tall narrow rack. The point is that no restriction is perfect, but that doesn' t mean that none is better.

BT, somehow I missed your reply here, but you' re right, technically, because the EXACT way AR' s are proposed in Pa has likely never been copied, so there is nothing to referrence as a comparable study. If you remember what this thread was about (or go back and read it), I was only trying to balance the discussion on antler restrictions. I was subsequently trounced for pointing out that it has not worked everywhere, called a liar and told I was making up things. You and 6ptsika told me I had no scientific backing, and your side had all the science. In fact, according to someone, there were hundreds of studies proving it works, and no studies proving it doesn' t. Seems like that claim was excatly opposite of what was true. Since then, it seems more and more biologists have released published reports to support what I and many others have been saying. In fact, the latest issue of Deer and Deer Hunting ( August 2003) has another article where Bob Zaiglin, a professional deer biologist from Texas, reports on the meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group where they admit that even though the idea is gaining popularity, there is no proof that it works.

They go on to talk about the problem of " high grading" bucks. When I brought this up as an example of what has caused the failure of these policies in my area of NJ, the crap really hit the fan with 6ptsika. Basically, he said I was out to lunch, and all the studies proved I was wrong. Well, seems like he had it just backwards. The Deer Study Group named above consists of over 350 professional deer biologists and managers who admit there is no proof antler restrictions work to improve the age structure or herd health, and are currently examining the problem of high grading, among other concerns. According to the Mississippi contingent of biologists and managers, implementing the 4 point rule in 1995 has NOT increased the number older bucks in the herd (it' s on pg. 88). This is the same as our results here in NJ, and some places have actually seen FEWER older bucks.

Interestingly, all the managers agree that AR' s are gaining popularity, even though they are not proven to work, and in some case, proven NOT to work. So, what they are saying (they being the 350 professional biologists and deer managers from the Southeast Deer Study Group) is that even though there is no proof that AR' s work to improve the age structure, or health of the deer herd, and even though studies from programs that have been implemented for 8 to 10 years prove that AR' s do NOT work to improve the age structure or health of the deer herd, hunters are still embracing it (antler restrictions) like a magic pill. So I guess it' s not just Pa hunters who were easily duped. This was the entire point of my post (if this sounds like an " I told you so" , it is. Sorry, but after the thrashing I took by a few here, I couldn' t resist ). Besides, I was told by you I had no facts to support my claim, and challenged by others to provided them, so here they are.

I never said the idea can' t work, or will never work, and in fact admitted I' m a fan. I was just trying to inject a little reality into the discussion. 6ptsika seemed to take it personal, and he had all the defenders, not me.

Like I said before, if Dr. Alt didn' t tell you of all the uncertainy and potential problems with ' his' management strategy, then he didn' t tell you the truth. Like a used car salesman that forgets to tell you the transmission is about to fall out of that nice looking car you just bought, he conveniently neglected to tell the whole story.

I hope it works for you guy' s in Pa, but it has not worked in New Jersey. Our antler restriction experiment has been a terrible failure. It was sold to us with the same premise as what you were told in Pa, and the tremendous doe kill was attached with the promise of big bucks in the future. It doesn' t always work that way. What we have now after many years in the same type of program Pa just started is far fewer deer, fewer bucks, and fewer big bucks.

The problem with overbrowsing and habitat destruction in NJ is one of hunter access. The same is true for the few places in Pa where I have seen that type of damage. No amount of antler restrictions and increased doe harvests will solve that unless hunters can get to the deer. However at the same time, these policies devastate the herds on lands that are huntable, and heavily hunted. That' s why they failed here, and why I raised caution about what you can expect there. The problem of access, and the huge differences that can be encountered in deer herds only a few miles apart, is one of the major reasons I didn' t like Pa' s program. It should be a regional experiment, not statewide. Target the areas that need this type of drastic herd reduction. Hunters across the entire state should not be denied their choice of game for a program that has not been proven to do what it claims.