Actually a lot of the data from the PGC is surprisingly accurate and honest. If the data was manipulated as many claim, the data would show that the plan was a dazzling success ,instead of showing that it has failed to produce the predicted results. An example is the fact that the PGC has failed to report any data from their annual buck surveys since ARs were implemented. If the data showed a significant increase in the size of our 2.5+ buck, that data would be making headlines.

Sorry guys but this has to be addressed. Hope it's not considered another blow to the dead horse

All recent research has proven that antler inferiority is statistically insignificant before age 4.5. The science behind this is simplee and sound. Bucks with smaller antlers are typically late born fawns and it can take up to 4.5 years before a late born buck fawn catches up and the bucks true potential shows up.


BTW Bluebird, has your hunting group stopped shooting every button buck they see or did you just stop posting about it ?

That is absolutely not true and there is no study proved that to be the case. The studies you are referring to show that the average spike will catch up with the average y buck by 4.5. The studies say nothing about the truely inferior 1.5 spike that may still be a spike as a 2.5 or 3.5 buck.

Now we just shoot every third BB we see in order to insure the adequate regeneration of commercially valuable timber..

You two are a riot! You both express good pointsamongst your bickering and I enjoy reading the back and forth insults. Thanks for the entertainment, I am enjoying it.

AR's simply delay the inevitable (a dead basket rack) by a season or 2. The only long term solution(s) to growing bigger deer is shorter seasons and limited buck kill numbers. The third thing would be self control for people who have the opportunity hunt land with restricted hunter numbers.