Fewer hunters, much fewer hunters

I am not at all surprised at that since AR supporters have demonstrated they know very little about the negative effects of ARs and don't understand the basic principles of deer management.

The lessened harvest wasnt due to lower hunter numbers. The success rate percentage also fell. From around 20% down to about 12. If less hunters harvested less buck proportionately, the number of bucks carried over should have risen and the success rate would have risen, not declined.

There are still more than enough hunters to kill the huge lion share of our legal bucks.

i like AR because i am seeing nicer bucks,when i do see one.

only change i would like to see is it should be AR for all of us as too much illegal things are happening.

Sorry, But it is an undeniable fact that there are fewer hunters. What that results in is up for debate.

This is what George Block had to say about the recent scoring session.
Could it that the rack sizes of 2.5+ buck are decreasing instead of increasing?

The ramblings of asmall town nobody columnist who uses the ridiculously anti hunting slanted Newseek article as one his sources can hardly be called credible.

The fact is there is no evidence that average antler sizeshave changed atall within any age class. We merely have a higher percentage of 2.5 and older bucks making up the herd and the harvest.

Do you have the results from the latest scoring session and the one in 2000? If not you have no facts to back up your claim that there is no evidence regarding a decrease in rack sizes.

Spread is a bad deal for seveal reasons. First and formost if a guy shot a buck that was under the determined "legal" limit he is likely to let it lay and continue to hunt. 2nd you could have a buck that scores in the 130" that has a relativly small spread. Keep the current AR's that are in place now cause they work and limit the DOE KILL

There are less deer. We could throttle back on the doe tags some at this point in many WMUs, but ARs must stay.