|
RE: 2008 Big Game records
ORIGINAL: Coalcracker ORIGINAL: the outsider The amount of hunters in support of antler restrictions in Pennsylvania is also increasing as can be seen in the following. Hunter support for antler restrictions: 2002.…………………57 % 2007.…………………63 % How many hunters were polled? 10%? 20%? 50%? Polled statistics are how accurate? Either way, this isn't an ovewhelming % of hunters that support AR's. And at this rate, it will take 25 more years to have 90% approval rate.  Wonder if I submitted a photo of my '06 archery buck and said that AR's suck, if they would still post the pic?:D Better yet. I should post an old pic of a basket rack five point and say I think the bucks are getting smaller. That would def not make the page!:D |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
Here is what the experts in Miss. had to say about the decrease in rack sizes in Miss. All harvest studies based on a free ranging herd lack scientific controls , but that is no reason to dismiss the results from this report. If we did that we would have to dismiss the results from all the harvest data and population estimates by the pGC.
We can’t prove that the 4-point antler restriction caused the decline in antler size within age classes because this study did not include scientific controls. But we can eliminate several other possible causes. The most obvious explanation is that antler size decreased because of declines in habitat quality and thus nutrition. If antler size decreased in response to lowered nutrition, we would expect other indicators to reflect similar decreases. But kidney-fat measurements and fetal rates of adult females on the study areas remained stable between pre-antler restriction and post-antler restriction periods. It appears unlikely a nutritional decline contributed to the reduction in average antler size of older bucks. We conclude the 4-point antler restriction has reduced average antler size of older bucks on numerous public hunting areas in Mississippi. We emphasize these results were from public hunting areas, and that’s where the conclusions are most applicable, but these problems could develop on private lands under similar manage- ment conditions. PA based our ARs on the results from Miss. computer models and penned deer studies and apparently those results were flawed because they failed to predict the decrease in rack sizes that occurred in Miss.. Therefore, it is quite likely that it failed to predict a reduction in rack sizes in PA due to high grading. Remember, if high grading occurred in Miss. where they protect 70% of their 1.5 buck, it is even more likely to occur in PA where our ARs only protect around 50% of our 1.5 buck and about 20% of our 2.5 buck. Hunter support for antler restrictions: 2002.…………………57 % 2007.…………………63 % I wonder how many of that 63% would still support ARs if they knew we harvested fewer 2.5+ buck than we did in 2002 ,before any 1.5 buck were saved by ARs. Or, that we only harvested 4 ,000 more 2.5 buck in 2007 than we did in 2001. Support for ARs is a lot more perception then reality. It was sold using smoke and mirrors and it continues based on smoke and mirrors, rather than being based on good, scientific deer mangement. |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
BTB claimed ARs do not contribute to the decrease in the buck harvest. Here is what the experts have to say about that subject.
To determine if bucks protected at 1⁄ 2 showed up later in the harvest as older bucks, we compared the number harvested per 1,000 acres on the 22 public areas. The number of 11⁄ 2 -year bucks harvested declined from 1.9 to 0.3 per 1,000 acres – which was the intent of the antler restriction. However, the harvest of 21⁄ 2 - and 31⁄ 2 - year bucks increased only slightly while total buck har- vest decreased from 3.1 to 1.8 bucks per 1,000 acres (see Figure 4-B). may occur in older bucks that decreased their susceptibil- ity to harvest. The bottom line is that protecting 11⁄ 2 -year bucks with a 4-point antler restriction on public hunting areas did not substantially increase the harvest of older- aged bucks in later years on these areas. |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
The very first line kind of BB's quote above of says it all about the Miss study....
We can’t prove that the 4-point antler restriction caused the decline in antler size within age classes because this study did not include scientific controls. Just another reason why the Miss study is meaningless to PA Oh and we can't forget that according to Bluejob, Dr Kroll (aka Dr Deer) simply doesnt understand the Miss study but Bluejob does!!! |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
BTW the Miss study was 4 points total not 4 per side which meant that far fewer 1.5 bucks were save Oh and we can't forget that according to Bluejob, Dr Kroll (aka Dr Deer) simply doesnt understand the Miss study but Bluejob does!!! |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
If you would have taken the few minutes it takes to read the report from Miss., instead of making up lies, you would know that the 4 pt. rule in Miss. saves around 70% of their 1.5 buck while our ARs save around 50% of our 1.5 buck. What is really funny is that kroll's research confirmed the results from Miss. and he wasn't smart enough to realize that fact. Furthermore, Dr. Rosenberry is claiming Miss. implemented the 4 pt. rule even though they knew it would decrease the average rack size of 2.5+ buck, which is simply ridiculous.  Whats simply ridiculous is your claim that you understand the study results better than the most one of the repected deer biologists in the world today. Are you past the time for your daily medication??? |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
ORIGINAL: explorer_Jack ORIGINAL: R.S.B. ORIGINAL: the outsider So, how accurate are the polls? And I wouldn't be bragging about 60% customer satisfaction. If 40% of my customers were dissatisfied with my performance, I'd be fired. No one said only 60% of the people in Pennsylvania were satisfied with the Game Commission. You would have to poll a cross section of all of the Commonwealth citizen to find out what the customers, as you call them, think. Hunters are NOT the only ones that have an interest in wildlife issues. Such polls have been done and the ratings show that the vast majority do support the management provided by the Game Commission. When I get time I will try to look that up and provide a link for since you. The Game Commission isn’t in existence to satisfy customers though. The mission is to manage all of the state’s wildlife resources and their habitat for all of the citizens including future generations. If 63% are happy with the antler restrictions that is a positive not a negative, except perhaps for those that simply don’t like them or have some agenda besides sound wildlife management they wish to promote. R.S. Bodenhorn How would your commision function without hunters? How would you be able to continue your wildlife programs of non hunting species if hunters wouldn't buy a license? I think you forgot who you work for. You work for the people who pay your salary. You people in PA. need to call them on who they work for. Who has priority over who. Hunters have the largest say so over any other group out there. Why, Because they pay the PGC bills. No hunters shouldn’t be the only ones the Game Commission listens to. In fact the Pennsylvania Constitutions specifically requires the management of our resources FOR ALL of the Commonwealth citizens. And, I don’t work for you. I work for the resources and all of the Citizens of this Commonwealth. Hunters have in the past chosen to be the ones paying for wildlife management. I can assure you that don’t care if hunters fund the agency or not, in fact I am becoming more and more convinced that wildlife management would be better off if we worked from the general fund and told hunter to take a flying leap with their money. If hunters don’t want to pay for wildlife management there are many others that do care about wildlife that will be very willing to demand that wildlife management be funded through general tax dollars. Personally I think that would work a whole lot better then this hunter and political blackmail. Mission Statement: 1. The Game Commission is responsible for managing all wild birds, mammals and their habitats for current and future generations. This mission statement provides initial guidance to the deer management program. Based on this mission statement, the Game Commission is to manage for all wildlife and their habitats, not just deer, and to manage wildlife for future generations, not just today or next hunting season. In essence, the Game Commission manages deer within the context of benefits for deer, other wildlife and habitat in both the short and long term. Here is a link to the some other information that you might be able to learn from if you are capable of opening your mind enough to accept any new information, ideas or concepts. http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/digestpdfs/2007/annual/annual_deer_management.pdf R.S. Bodenhorn |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
Yep, All the more reason to conclude that the Miss study has little to no relevance in PA. [quote][Whats simply ridiculous is your claim that you understand the study results better than the most one of the repected deer biologists in the world today. /quote] Kroll said the results from Miss. was based on the theory of once a spike always a spike. the report RSB posted from Miss. showed there was no reason for culling spikes , which directly refutes the claims of kroll. here is a quote from the Miss. report. General Guidelines for Selective Harvest (Culling) of Yearling Bucks. Culling yearling spikes is a viable management option. Culling yearling spikes is not a viable management option. Culling yearling spikes is not a viable management option. Culling yearling spikes is not a viable management option. Culling yearling spikes is not a viable management option. Culling yearling spikes is not a viable management option. Culling yearling spikes is not a viable management option. NO NO NO NO NO NO |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
And, I don’t work for you. I work for the resources and all of the Citizens of this Commonwealth. Yes you do. We are citizens of the commonwealth.
If hunters don’t want to pay for wildlife management there are many others that do care about wildlife that will be very willing to demand that wildlife management be funded through general tax dollars. Yes, I'm sure the general public would support the tax increase. I am becoming more and more convinced that wildlife management would be better off if we worked from the general fund and told hunter to take a flying leap with their money.Or you could eliminate the hunters completely, then try to control the herd. |
RE: 2008 Big Game records
I am becoming more and more convinced that wildlife management would be better off if we worked from the general fund and told hunter to take a flying leap with their money. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:12 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.