HuntingNet.com Forums - BUTTON BUCKS

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)

- Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)

- - BUTTON BUCKS (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/279062-button-bucks.html)

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

Quote:

ORIGINAL: 4evrhtn

Quote:

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Quote:

If there are few deer in your area why kill either? Let the buckgo to grow and the leave doe to reproduce. Just because you are able to get a doe tag doesn't mean it should be used in your area of a WMU where it is allocated

It appears you are saying that hunters should control deer management in PA,which means all the hunters that are complaining about not seeing deer shouldn't buy an antlerless license.

I am not saying don't buy an anterless tag rather I wish just the opposite. If you or anyone feels there are too few deer in a particular area of a wmu or the wmu as a wholethey would be wise tospend the $6 or $12and apply for the permit(s). Take them and throwthem away, you have just reduced the pressure on that particular wmu. I understand it is difficult due to the size of our wmu's to manage just one particular area of that wmu.Maybe someone else will just go out and kill off the antlerless deer in your area anyway butat least you are doing what you can in that area.Can anyone really justify reducing the herd any further in "most" areas of PA. There are a few places near urban development where the deer herds are in larger numbers per sq. mile but mainly because of the limited amount of acres which is suitable habitat. The deer numbers surrounding Harrisburg are not an accurate estimate of the whole wmu. So... yes, we as individuals need to micro-manage our own hunting areas. If you still need to have your deer meat then spend a couple dollars and go to a neighboring state to fill the freezer. It really isn't that expensive and to me the investment made in an out of state license is well worth it if I can help stabilize or rebuild the herd in my own backyard. Too many people in this country want the government to do all their thinking for them and then some would prefer to have the government and other agencies make their decisions for them. I guess then they can sit back and complain as things get worse yet do nothing on their own to better their situation. So if you kill a doe or yearling orthe firstbarely legal AR buck that you come across in an area which has a low population you are also responsible for the reduction in the herd and potential boone and crocket or pope and young buck not just the PAGC. I have noticed you point the blame toward the PAGC often. Yet, you never take responsibilty for the impact you have personally made. Just because the Game Commission warrants the large number of antlerless kills it doesn't make it right in every part of every wmu. You must use your own discretion. It is the only thing you really have a say in when it comes to PAGC policies.

That strategycanwork against you in the long term 4evrhtn. The PGC issues doe tags based on deer numbers and their goals of course but the other thing they do is monitor the success rates per tag in each WMU. So if a lotof hunters bought tags and didnt kill an antlerless deer, the succes rate would go down per tag and the PGC would simply issue more tags for that WMU.

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

Yep....no gain in playing cowboy because it wont work.
If you don't want to shoot antlerless, don't buy a tag.

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

Idisagree and this is why... In a state where the game commission estimates 40% of the hunters do not report their kills it is anything but a science as to why they do what they do.There are others who will argue your point as being just the opposite. If they report their kills then the Game commission is either- A. Satisfied with kill numbers and will continue on their courseor B. feels we need to kill more deer. The only time allocations drop is when there is a reduction in harvest. So your point that by not filling out a harvest card will inevitably lead to more allocations is proven to be opposite to what has been happening in terms of allocations. I agree with the other argument which goes against your's. If they are not meeting their quota what logical justification would they have to raise allocations? Common sense would imply that if the deer were there they would be getting shot. If they are not getting shot and their quota is not being met with the concurrent doe / buck season it would be a more realistic assumption or "guestimation" that the deer are not there in the abundance they thought when allocating antlerless tags.

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

Quote:

ORIGINAL: bawanajim

Quote:

ORIGINAL: germain

We stopped killing does in our area a few years back.Others take care of the doe kill.
But it really has a small impact because 99.9% of the land around us is open to hunting and like anywhere else in this state if most land is open to hunting you're gonna have few deer.

Really you can make a difference,dead dear will say I'm wrong but according to him every ones wrong.
At this time the block hand will come to play.
Take a piece of paper and put two slashes on the top.
Under them put two slashes each as for their fawns .
And the next year two more slashes shows that by killing two doe you did what to your herd?
The idea that if you don't shoot them some one else will is bunk. Let them go!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah we let them go alright and most still get whacked.But hey we save a few.
With the two weeks of snow cover this year they really made out because the area is thick and without snow the deer slip by.I watched a couple of stupid does wander down through sticking out like a sore thumb in the snow.They got whacked.Without that snow cover I wouldn't have never seen them and I doubt the others would have either.

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

Quote:

In a state where the game commission estimates 40% of the hunters do not report their kills it is anything but a science as to why they do what they do.

It's a fallacy that game commissions need a high reporting rate to get accurate estimates of the total kill. If you know what the rate of reporting is, you can quite easily calculate the actual kill from the reported kill. The report rate can be determined statistically in a pretty striaght forward way. Sample the meat processing locations, check stations etc.and collect license numbers of what are obviously known kills. Then link those numbers with those that actually filed kill reports. Now you know what percentage of hunters are actually reporting. With proper sampling, high confidence levels can be achieved with relatively low error tolerance even with very low reporting rates. It's actually quite scientific.

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

You can believe that if you want. In Pa, we have by far the least accurate method for reporting kills. Fill out a card andsend it out in the mail (if you feel like it). Let's say by a miracle 100% of hunters report their kills next year... do you believe for a second the Game commission would stick with that number???? And would it show a mirrored result from the previous years or would it be lower? They want to show a higher percentage of killsto downplaytheir flawed mgmnt program. It doesn't matter what happens they will always say there are more deer than what there are and they will always claim higher success rates to combat license sales decreases. Scientific, huh? You can't apply science to man's greed. There is no way of accuratelyestimating the number of deer taken illegally nor deer taken in varied habitats across the state where hunting pressures vary. you can't say Number Y equals total deer reported and then multiply Y by .40 = Z and the add Y + Z = total deer killed. You are overestimating the PAGC's work ethic, they don't go through all the work you described. I know almost all the butchers in my area and if the WCO's come around it might be once a season. How does that give an accurate estimate of anything???

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

Quote:

ORIGINAL: 4evrhtn

You can believe that if you want. In Pa, we have by far the least accurate method for reporting kills. Fill out a card andsend it out in the mail (if you feel like it). Let's say by a miracle 100% of hunters report their kills next year... do you believe for a second the Game commission would stick with that number???? And would it show a mirrored result from the previous years or would it be lower? They want to show a higher percentage of killsto downplaytheir flawed mgmnt program. It doesn't matter what happens they will always say there are more deer than what there are and they will always claim higher success rates to combat license sales decreases. Scientific, huh? You can't apply science to man's greed. There is no way of accuratelyestimating the number of deer taken illegally nor deer taken in varied habitats across the state where hunting pressures vary. you can't say Number Y equals total deer reported and then multiply Y by .40 = Z and the add Y + Z = total deer killed. You are overestimating the PAGC's work ethic, they don't go through all the work you described. I know almost all the butchers in my area and if the WCO's come around it might be once a season. How does that give an accurate estimate of anything???

Actually, it is that easy to come up with an accurate calculated reporting rate. Statistics is actually a rather simple science.

For example, the TV networks can accurately call an election with just a few percentage points of the votes actually in. Is it exact? Never. But it'salways very darn close. Close enough that it's withi a few percentage points. No deer harvest reporting method is ever going to be perfect and I'd rather see a phone in or internet reporting system. Check stations are only slightly moreaccurtaebut they require far more money and manpower than the slight improvement in accuracy would warrant.

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

You really have no idea what you're talking about,The PGC checks about 30000+ deer each year.they then crosscheck them with the report cards and it gives them a reporting rate.they can then calculate how many deer were killed.It's as accurate as any method and more accurate than most.What do you think would be more accurate,check stations?How do you know how many hunters actually check in their deer?Seriously,if you're too lazy to send in a self-addressed post card,why would you drive out of your way to check a deer in?Those state that have check stations have no way of knowing what their reporting rate is.Therefore,their method is no more accurate.Besides,who's lying?Everyone is complaining that the herd keeps decreasing and guess what?the antl;ered harvest has shown a steady decrease.Where's the deception in that?

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

Quote:

Besides,who's lying?Everyone is complaining that the herd keeps decreasing and guess what?the antl;ered harvest has shown a steady decrease.Where's the deception in tha

Sylvan , BTB and Doug are correct. The harvest data is the one set of stats that make sense and routinely contradict what the PGC says about the plan. remember the PGC claimed the buck harvest would return to normal but the harvest data showed that didn't happen just like they showed ARs did not double the number of 2.5+ buck or 8 pts. The harvest stats also show we are still reducing the herd ,even though the PGC claims they are keeping the herd stable.

The harvest data isn't the problem, what they do with the data is the problem.

Doug, what warehouse a were you talking about?

RE: BUTTON BUCKS

bb,from 1972-1989 Weused to live in that westgate housing development that was on rt 6 about 7 miles west of Tunkhannock.I'd say it was a mile past where rt 6 and trt 87 came together.It used to be all farms around there and then about 10 years or so ago,a huge warehouse was erected and all that hunting land gone forever.If you stay on rt 6 and head toward Meshoppen,it will be on your left.