|
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
We have been over the reason for the statewide decline time and again. The facts are obviously either to complicated for you to grasp or more likely they just don’t fit your twisted and misguided agenda. If a significant number of the bucks saved by ARs aren't being lost to non-hunting mortality, why hasn't the percentage of 3.5 and 4.5+ buck increased significantly? Are there now tens of thousands of 5.5+ buck out there that no one can kill? Why did the number and size at the buck measuring session decrease? |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
2.5 yr old buck 4-7 times harder to kill than 1.5., 3.5 and up, it starts going off the charts. older they get harder to kill legally. Isn't rocket science. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: R.S.B. We have been over the reason for the statewide decline time and again. The facts are obviously either to complicated for you to grasp or more likely they just don’t fit your twisted and misguided agenda. Once this law suit is a thing of the past I suspect more of the data showing just how far off base you are can be made available. Since you and the rest of Uninformed Silly People tend to twist things so much the Agency has to be pretty careful about what gets posted until your law suit is resolved. Until that time we will just have to work from published reports available on the web site. But, you even misunderstand and misrepresent them very frequently, just as you are doing right now concerning adult buck non hunting mortality. R.S. Bodenhorn  http://www.openrecordspa.org/  |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
That may be true, but non hunting mortality (winter kills & coyote kills) is almost always fawns, so not shooting 1 1/2 year old bucks will not increase adult (over 1 1/2 years) mortality much. Only a small percentage of non-hunting mortality is due to winter kill and predation. The vast majority of non-hunting mortality comes from road kills, other accidents, poaching, crop damage and disease. A lot of adult deer died from the recent EHD outbreak last year. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: Cornelius08 "We have been over the reason for the statewide decline time and again." You've made unsubstantiated claims TIME AND AGAIN and little else. The results show declines as compared by pgc in the annual reports table. Unless you believe them to be complete idiots, the data was intended to be compared to previous years of it wouldnt have been presented in the manner in which it was. ------------------------ As for "more and bigger bucks as we'd been promised, its a big joke. Ive been regularly underwhelmed by the number of quality buck posted in the paper this year, and today is no exception. Seems Pgc is making their usual excuses. Seems prior to the season we were gonna have a BIG-BUCK free for all if you'd believe pgcs prediction for the coming year. The ehd hit area was supposed to be fabulous, thee place to be because according to pgc not many shot deer there and ehd deaths were insignificant.(although those of us whod seen the rotting corpses and single digit deer density afterwards in many areas knew better)[:'(] And the entire state benefited because of tons of bucks saved by rain on the first day... What Im seeing in the paper doesnt support those rediculous claims and the local wco has apparently taken notice because he is now making excuses as well. Excerpt from the article by Rod Shoener: GREENE DEER HERD STILL ON THE REBOUND Western Greene County Wildlife Conservation Officer Rod Burns said there were some trophy bucks roaming the county this year, but not as many as some hunters might have believed. He blames that on a "terrible" mast crop. Deer that would normally feed in the woods were forced into open fields to find nourishment. Many of those deer were productsof anter restrictions and sported some really impressive racks...(Ha ha ha[8D])....BUT they were not just the tip of the iceberg as many might have believed. In some cases that was the bulk of the population for the entire area! HA HA HA. The only reason some might have thought there'd be more is if they made the big mistake and listened to pgc ever since last season! (LOL)More and bigger bucks. What a joke! I loved the preseason headlines of hunter should have the best season for big bucks in 50 years etc. Has been high expectations and promises every year from pgc, yet the yield never comes. The scoring sessions were a joke. The bucks pictured in the papers usually dont even have as many big bucks as we did in the past, and the lies are more sickening to hear by the year. How brain dead are you that you can’t understand that the southwest corner of the state having a 91% reduction in the number of doe they were sampling, over that period of time, would have a profound affect on the statewide breeding and reproductive rate data? That isn’t an excuse, but it is a fact, and if you aren't bright enough to understand the affect it has then that doesn't speak well for your level of logic or common sense. You have provided nothing, not one blessed thing, that supports your opinions other then perhaps that you haven’t been able to kill a buck while many other still are. Further more, there is not one shred of harvest evidence that supports your opinion of a reduction in the deer population in your area, other then what occurred from the affects of EHD. And, incidentally since it seems you aren’t bright enough to figure it out the Game Commission can’t control the occurrence of EHD. Now, if you thought the Game Commission ever promised everyone or even anyone a big buck you must have been some form of screwball to start with. I don’t know of anyone else that believed they were being promised a big buck. Many hunters certainly are harvesting the best bucks of their lives though, as evidenced by the increased support for antler restrictions since their inception. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
How brain dead are you that you can’t understand that the southwest corner of the state having a 91% reduction in the number of doe they were sampling, over that period of time, would have a profound affect on the statewide breeding and reproductive rate data? You said the decline in sample size occurred before breeding rates started to decline , so you effectively eliminated the change in sample size and location as the reason for the declining breeding rates. Here is what you said. eems that you either don’t know when the shift in data occurred or when the use of 3 year averages began or more likely that you were just hoping no one would catch you in yet another con-job. The use of three years averages just started while the major shift in sample locations occurred between 2001 and 2003. That was well before the use of the three year averages you used in your post. Breeding rates declined from 2004 to 2007. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
You admitted that the change in sample distribution occurred before the decline in breeding rates , so it is you that found the facts to complex for you to understand and as a result you admitted you were wrong. I did not, thought that is undoubtedly the spin you would like to attach to it. What I said was the biggest decline in the sample size in the southwestern part of the state occurred between 2001 and 2003, which was before to after antler restrictions. That decline in southwest data has continued every year until perhaps last year, for which I haven’t yet seen the data. If a significant number of the bucks saved by ARs aren't being lost to non-hunting mortality, why hasn't the percentage of 3.5 and 4.5+ buck increased significantly? First off how do you know there hasn’t been an increase in 3.5 and 4.5 year old bucks? I happen to believe the number of older bucks has increased even though the antler restrictions are designed to increase the ages beyond 2 ½ years old. If there aren’t more bucks 3 ½ and older it only because we harvest the majority of our bucks at 2 ½ now instead of when they are 1 ½ years old. Are there now tens of thousands of 5.5+ buck out there that no one can kill? I doubt it but that was never part of the management objective in the first place. Pennsylvania has too many hunters to have many bucks reaching that age but evidence suggests the number of older bucks has increased. Why did the number and size at the buck measuring session decrease? I don’t know. Do you? I suspect that last year’s measuring session being the first time hunters had to pre-register to have their buck measured prevented some from getting their buck in for measuring. I didn’t feel like tallying all of the book entries for the guns season because of the number but I did go through all of the archery bucks and categorize them into ten year periods to determine the average entries per year. The fact still remains that at least the archery hunters have entered more bucks in recent years so I suspect the gun hunters have as well. Here are the archery results, in average harvest per year, that made the record book. Time period…………………….number of book entries Pre 1960.……………………………..0.4 1960-1969.…………………………..2.5 1970-1979.…………………………..3.5 1980-1989.………………………….18.4 1990-1999.………………………….33.4 Since 2000.………………………….38.5 That indicates that in all probability hunters are entering more book bucks since antler restrictions then ever before. R.S Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: yano ORIGINAL: R.S.B. We have been over the reason for the statewide decline time and again. The facts are obviously either to complicated for you to grasp or more likely they just don’t fit your twisted and misguided agenda. Once this law suit is a thing of the past I suspect more of the data showing just how far off base you are can be made available. Since you and the rest of Uninformed Silly People tend to twist things so much the Agency has to be pretty careful about what gets posted until your law suit is resolved. Until that time we will just have to work from published reports available on the web site. But, you even misunderstand and misrepresent them very frequently, just as you are doing right now concerning adult buck non hunting mortality. R.S. Bodenhorn http://www.openrecordspa.org/ Yep, so now all you and the rest of Uninformed Silly People need to do is convince Mr. Mutchler to make those records and raw data available to you. Most records I suspect will be available as most have been in the past. But, I doubt that will extend to a lot of the raw data available within the Government achieves unless the person requesting has a legitimate reason for needing it. R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
I did not, thought that is undoubtedly the spin you would like to attach to it. What I said was the biggest decline in the sample size in the southwestern part of the state occurred between 2001 and 2003, which was before to after antler restrictions. That decline in southwest data has continued every year until perhaps last year, for which I haven’t yet seen the data. I don’t know. Do you? I suspect that last year’s measuring session being the first time hunters had to pre-register to have their buck measured prevented some from getting their buck in for measuring. George block wrote that both the numbered measure and size decreased. the average rack measured was 10" smaller than in 2000. Of course the numbers in the books increased from 2000-2007, we had a record number of deer during that period. |
RE: Pa Antler Restrictions
ORIGINAL: bluebird2 How brain dead are you that you can’t understand that the southwest corner of the state having a 91% reduction in the number of doe they were sampling, over that period of time, would have a profound affect on the statewide breeding and reproductive rate data? You said the decline in sample size occurred before breeding rates started to decline , so you effectively eliminated the change in sample size and location as the reason for the declining breeding rates. Here is what you said. eems that you either don’t know when the shift in data occurred or when the use of 3 year averages began or more likely that you were just hoping no one would catch you in yet another con-job. The use of three years averages just started while the major shift in sample locations occurred between 2001 and 2003. That was well before the use of the three year averages you used in your post. Breeding rates declined from 2004 to 2007. Statewide they might have. The sample size from the Southwest and Southeast areas of the state, where the traditionally highest breeding and reproductive rates have always occurred, continued to decline during that time as well. The might have comes from the fact we also have to deal with reality that the entire state’s decline in sample size makes the coefficient of variation less reliable. That really means that there really might not even be a reduction in the breeding rates or reproductive rates anyplace other then on paper. It is just too soon to draw any definitive conclusions from the present statewide data. The WMU specific data, as used for management direction, is still providing the needed direction though since it is based on using three years of data averages. R.S. Bodenhorn |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:07 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.