So why is it that important for you to kill a deer with bigger antlers?? Is it a macho thing or does it somehow make you feel like a superior hunter? Why should the people who simply like to put some venison in the freezer be made to feel like second class hunters?

I think most folks would agree or disagree depending on their personal definition of a real hunter. It would take some effort to decide draw the line between the two but I'll give my example of the hunter who either needs to change or move on.....

The hunter who needs to change or move on IMHO is the guy who dusts off his orange and his rifle sometime on thanksgiving week. Maybe he stops by the range and takes a shot or two if he has time or maybe not. He puts adecent amountof time into gatheringup the beer, whiskey and grub for camp and heads up sometime over the weekend before. Maybe he takes a walk in the woods on Sunday "scoutin" or maybe the card game and the beerskeep him occupied and he'll just go up on the same ridge where he's gone for years. He'll get up and get into the woods with his flashlight a half hour before first light. Hell alternate between cursing all the other flashlightand at the same time, realizing he needs those guys to "get em movin"

Around 9 or 10 AM when the shooting gets into a lull he starts to get discouraged and wonders if he should have picked another spot. By noon he's either in the local tavern or on his way home yapping about a lack of deer, too many hunters, the weather, etc etc etc.

Now don't misunderstand, I doubt that more than a few, if any, of the guys on here fall into this stereotype. the fact that we're here shows a bit more involvement than that. The point is that the guy I just described is everywhere in our great state and I personally believe that while many of those who complain may not fit this description, most that do fit this description areamong the loudestof thecomplainers.

ARs have done nothing to improve hunting in my area of 5C and have definitely not worked as predicted. Alt sold ARs on the basis of an improved age structure ,promoting dominant breeding, which would improve the gene pool and produce bigger buck. Now DR. Rosenberry says the theory of dominant breeding is flawed and small bucks will continue to do their share of the breeding which will offset the potential negative impact on the gene pool due to ARs. The PGC keeps changing their story to suit their agenda at any given moment and one never knows what to believe.

So ,it appears ARs were implemented solely to get more hunters to shoot more doe,which in turn reduced the buck harvest by 47% and resulted in fewer 2.5+ buck harvested than in 2002.

well said.

Personally my own observations have been nothing but overwhelmingly positiveregarding the increased numbers of bucks that are bigger and older.

What that means is the herd has not been reduced significantly in the area where you hunt. That certainly is not the case in the areas where they harvest less than 2 buck PSM.

I've stated before in previous posts that I felt the AR's were working. Butcher shop reports, along with those from local taxidermists and pictures in local newspapers bear it out well. I can't ever remember racks like we have been seeing lately in these numbers just a few years ago. Oh, certainly there was the occasional big bruiser around back then, but not like now.
It's nice to be able to hang a big set of horns in your den or over the fireplace, but the taking of any deer is a matter of pride for some. Horns are nice to look at, but make awfully thin soup for the table.
Let's try not to look down our noses at the hunter who is more than happy to harvest a nice fat doe for the freezer. It can be just as much of a trophy to him as your 20" 10 pt. is to you. A lot of these "meat hunters" are folks who have learned life the hard way.....raised in small coal mining towns and considered deer season as a way to help feed the family. Their train of thought goes on.... Were and are they now still "Sportsmen"?? Sure they are...Just look at things a little different, maybe...

I hunt in a VERY high pressure area and before AR we almost never saw a 2 1/2 yr old buck. Now that has become the norm for a shooter where I hunt, and I see a few every year.

I think I meant "Real" hunters to be guys that hunt the woods for a deer and really try to understand and become part of the whole sport. Not the dust off the orange and take out the rifle over Thanksgiving guys.

I have shot plenty of small deer and for how much meat I get that is usually more than enough for me.

So why aren't more hunters seeing the results you claim you are seeing? Remember we harvested more 2.5+ buck in 2002 than we did in 2007, so were you seeing a lot of 2.5+ buck in 2002?

We harvested more in 2002 because in the overall state there were a lot more deer. The quantity was higher and the total kill was higher. Some ares, private farms are not affected by any of this. The real problem is the diversity of our state. Up north I hunted a few years back for a long weekend and all I saw were spikes. I bet I saw 10 spikes in a few days of hunting. The local camps had spike bucks hanging all over. With AR they can survive. It just makes sense to me.


I can't speak for everywhere, but I think AR is the only reason a buck survives where I hunt. Fawns are often left to live, spikes are protected and then they get a nice rack in their 3rd year.