RE: PA antler restriction
 

OK, deer fight with their feet and antlers not their chests and stomachs. A deer with a bigger rack will more often than not win the fight. Knife to a gun fight, ever heard the saying? It's about the weapon used not the muscle. Also, deer with the genetics to produce large racks almost always are larger in body.

So, instead of suggesting better management of land providing nutrition which currently IS NOT EQUAL to midwest states (despite you thinking the deer have enough food to grow to be impressive) we should start shooting more deer.

So many other options and you can't see them. I suggest this to you. Save some money and go someplace where there is a QDM system in place. Hunt there and see the benefits of an AR along with other practices which DON'T include shooting all the young deer before they get a chance to grow. It's this or continue to gripe about what you are not going to change.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

I am done for the day, It's someone else's turn.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

Do a little more reading and you will find out Dr. Kroll does not agree with you.
What law or regulation gives the PGC the authority to manage the habitat on DCNR land, Allegheny Nat'l Forest and private than whiich makes up the vast majority of the deer habitat in the state?
I fully understand the principles of QDM which include limiting the number of hunters and having like minded hunters who have a financial interest in producing big buck. It also includes managing the herd at a lot more than 8 DPSM where harvest rate is less than 2 buck /SM.

Have a nice evening.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

Simply ridiculous. Research has shown that when all other factors are equal, most 2.5 that were not AR legal their first year were likely later born fawns and won't catch upfor a few more years. How couldany rational person buy into your theory that the2.5 year olds that didntwere behind in growth and antler develpoment will somehow miraculously be " bigger in body size and more mature than the average 2.5 buck" If there were a discernable difference, then it would be exactly the opposite.

It appears that your practice of inundating us with numbers and your own interperetation of the "facts"has caught up with you and babbling posts like that one are a good example.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

BT, i have a cure for the AR problem. just get rid of the PGC and the antler restriction. yep, that will do it. by the way, does BT stand for bell twp? :)

RE: PA antler restriction
 

Thanks for pointing out what was an obvious typo. It should have read as follow, "but the 2.5+ buck that weren't AR legal will still be bigger in body size and more mature than the average 1.5 buck and therefore will do more breeding and pass on inferior genes for antler development."

While it is true some 1.5 spikes are due to being late born , it is also true that some are due to inferior genetics for the rate of antler development. If that wasn't the case all the 1.5 spikes would be AR legal buck at 2.5 years. However, since around 20% of our 2.5+ buck aren't AR legal ,they are obviously genetically inferior ,but will be protected and survive to become, dominant breeding, 3.5 buck.

Thanks for providing the opportunity for me to make that point.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

Bluebird,


"What law or regulation gives the PGC the authority to manage the habitat on DCNR land, Allegheny Nat'l Forest and private than whiich makes up the vast majority of the deer habitat in the state?"

Wow, that is the most optimisticI have heard you be so far. To think the game commission is limited in their abilities to provide better habitat implies you believe they are doing all they can. I am not expecting them to do anything with the DCNR because they have done very little on the state land that surrounds where I live. If they clear cut and planted trees (like oak for example) the habitat will yield more food and forage so that the maximum carrying capacity will allow for more doe and buck. This can be done in area without increasing deer/vehicle collisions and creating other related concerns. They have food and cover plots on the top of the mountain and this is what is planted.... blueberry bushes (which would be great cover for grouse if they would stock them) and 3 apple trees. I was up there 3 times in the last 2 weeks training my shorthair and most of the blueberries are falling off the bushes and there is nothing there to eat them.

Understand This.... The only timbering being done (in my area) is selective timbering for maximum profit. Why do you think they are so concerned with damaged trees from stands? A nail in timber greatly reduces the profit they receive from the lumber yards. If someone wanted to put the screws to the PAGC, they could buy 10 lbsof nails and drive 4 into every big old treethey find.It's all about $, not about wildlife management. If it were I'd see evidence of this received $ going back into habitat. A forest fire benefits the habitat more than game commission has.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

They may not be doing all they can, but they are doing enough that the MSY carrying capacity on SGL is already much higher than on DCNR forest land. Therefore, since the PGC is managing the herd at the same basic level over the entire WMU,with the exception of DMAP areas, improving the habitat on SGLs would not result in more deer, unless the PGC found a way to mange the herd on SGLs at higher densities than on the surrounding DCNR and private land.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

I agree to an extent. Unfortunately the PAGC is the one that seems to be more unwillling to work with other agencies and clubs and if they do it seems it's always the other agency or organization that has to make the compromise.
How do you feel about my suggestion of being able to choose the officials appointed to positions within the commission? I know it is unlikely to happen but, we should have survey cards to fill out at the time of license purchase, similar to the migratory survey.Also, I beieve we should have check in stations or something other than the mail-in card. They estimate 40% of the hunters do notreturn their harvest cards, that leaves alot of room for error.By having check in stations at places like sporting good stores and taxidermy shops the small business economy will benefit. The hunters would more likely purchase goods like ammo, drinks, snacks, apparrel, etc. at these locations helping those who support hunting. And every 3 years we get to to elect those who are supposed to be representing hunters, game and the best interests of both. And those who are in positions such as executive director can only hold their position for a limited number of years. This way the structure of the commission changes as the management needs change. There would always be new insight rather than having the same mindset continuing on a downward spiral. Also there needs to be an annual audit so we who pay their wages can see how our $ is being spent.

RE: PA antler restriction
 

I am not sure the average hunter would know enough about the applicants to make an informed choice , but then again it could hardly be any worse than the current system which is based on politics. I do like the idea of shorter terms and more turnover.

I also promoted the idea mandatory surveys when purchasing a license. While the data couldn't be used for managing the herd during that current license year, it would serve as a very good cross check of their harvest estimates. It would also give all hunters a chance to voice their opinions on the current deer management plan.