2008 Big Game records
 

The big game scoring results are featured in this months PA game news.

Here are some of the results

206 bowhunters and 91 rifle hunters entered typical deer. While there are a handful of entries killed in the 80's and 90's, the vast majority have been killed since 1999.Interestingly, 9 of the Top 10 bowkills and 8 of the top 10 rifle kills were killed in 2004 and later (post AR)

While 206 bowkills vs 91 rifle entries seems to indicate that archers are killing more big bucks, the majority of big bucks still fall to rifle hunters.
the minimum for a rifle deeris 140" while the bow minimum is 115" If the 140" minimum standard were applied to bowkills there would only be 59 entries

Three new all time deer records fell. The new number one bucks of all time forarchery both typical and nontypical were taken in 2004 and 2007 respectively. This was of course, after AR had time to work.The all time best nontypical gun buck was taken in in 2007.Also after AR had a chance to work.


I guess this aint Mississippi after all;)

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Those record buck bucks were also product of the largest herd in the history of the state. Unless you can prove those record buck bucks weren't AR legal as 1.5 buck you can't proved they were produced by ARs. All you can say is that were harvested while ARs were in effect.

You are right PA is not Miss. The breeding rates in Miss. didn't decreased by 5% and their buck harvest didn't decrease by 46%. furthermore , unlike PA ,miss . didn't without the data on the average rack sizes of 2.5+ buck like PA.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

I think I'll just let the results speak for themselves

Here's a little graphic depicting how those who voted in the AR poll feel


Uh thats three to one aint it?

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

That is your only choice since you obviously don't have the knowledge to defend them.

And Obama is president, which means we have millions of people who want the government to pass laws that make it easier them to reach their goals, just like trophy hunters who support ARs
In PA only 26% of our buck harvest is 3.5+ buck. Once again , PA isn't like Miss.,we aren't half as good at protecting buck, yet Miss. suffers from reduced rack sizes.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

I don't think it's fair to compare these protected deer to those that were harvested in prior years, when AR wasn't in effect. raise the minimum points again and all these current record bucks will fall.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

One thing that is missing from these reports is the location where those buck were harvested. If the were harvested in the WMUs where HR had minimal effect they do not represent what has happened in areas like 2G where the buck harvest is less than 2 buck/SM.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

It probably isn't quite fair. A big buck shot before AR was probably the result of a much longer odds situation. That fact also proves that AR has been a success.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Wrong. the locationwhere each buck was taken islisted. Maybe you should read things before you try to spin things and tell us whats wrong with them.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

hehehehehehehe bb is like a stripped bolt just keeps on twisting

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

I was referring to reports on this MB ,not the reports in the PGNs article. So where were all these big buck harvested.? How many were from 2G which is the best managed WMU in the state? did 2G lead all other DMUs in the number of record book buck?
that sentence is basically meaningless. please provide a translation.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

2G is well represented on the lists. Give the PGC $3.99 and you can see for yourself Bluejob

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

do you really want to engage in an exchange of cheap shots and insults? If you do ,my response would be that you are still in the stone age and haven't advanced to the point where your threads could be stripped. Personally , you might qualify as a rotten spoke in Freddy Flinstones wagon ,but not much more than that!!:)

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

The fact that Pa has a 115" archery minimum says it all. Itonly highlights the pathetic quality that we have here.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

rock on with your big bad self bb2 lmao

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

No matter what nicknames I may give you,Richard Cranium, you still hit the all time low in the other thread.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Well , anybody but a brain dead moron would recognize that those names are not intended as nicknames. They are intended to belittle and degrade a fellow hunter. And i can say you reached an all time low for calling my example a lie. mature adults should be able to discuss the issues of deer management without resorting to your false accusations and name calling. but you can't compete on those terms so you have to resort to the lowest level possible.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Here's one wildlifebiologist's reply to the Newsweek article touted by the antis (and some that might not actually be antis, but might as well be),as proof that hunting trophy animals is bad for the herd:



http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/2009/01/19/rebuttal-dr-valerius-geist-responds-to-newsweek-article-on-trophy-hunting/

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

That's an interesting article. The same Dr. Valeruis Geist back in 1988 wrote an article in D&DH magazine listing threats to modern hunting and wildlife conservationand at the top of his list was privatization of wildlife...coincidentally the holy grail of QDM. Nature's motto is survival of the fittest. Trophy hunting preaches survival of the weakest, as we target the largest specimens for the trophy room fireplace. How can this practice which ispolar opposite of mother nature's intention, be good for wildlife? If man still hunted in the true role of a predator, for substance, it would be the weak that we would prey on, just as the wolves, coyotes, lions, and other top predators. Granted, in a state with hunting pressure as great as ours, and such a broad range of desires among hunters concerning what they kill, the effect may be slight, but in some situations regarding ceratin species and locales, it stands that the effect could be severe.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

SS I agree that privatizing any wildlife would most often not be good for it. I think whats happening around here in terms of privatization is more the result of landowners privatizing the rights to hunt more than anything else but sometimes, i agree, the latter causes the former.

But that's not what QDM is all about. QDM also preaches taking out antlerless deer and inferior bucks. We are the most efficient predators on earth. I'm sure we can all agree that limits must be placed on hunting any animal. The issues arises with the nature of those limits

QDM is all about keeping a healthy herd. Big bucks are the brass ring on that ride but a healthy herd is truly the QDM goal. QDM is also about managing the habiat for food, cover and sanctuary. AS far as the hunting part, True QDM, which isn't possible in most of PA, involves culling inferior animals and letting the best age. In a true QDM situation, a buck isnt harvested till 5 1/2. By that time, the best animals will have passed their genes on before being killed.

The big problem with PA is that the state is trying to manage on a wholesale level. It'll never be anywhere near perfect on that level.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Here is a quote from the article by Geist..

Geist clearly states that hunting can result in the loss of hereditary potential, but that it can be reversed by reintroducing the missing genes.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

I believe that when you read the entire Geist piece along with much of his other work, (see related stories at bottom of linked to page), you see that Geist believes that provided there is proper management of game animals, which includes controls on the number of animals harvested, that trophy hunting as most think, does not ruin the gene pool.

Trophy hunting, as described in the Newsweek article and more accurately written about in the Nature piece, describe trophy hunting as a hunter seeking the biggest rack of horns and/or body mass of the animal he is pursuing. Geist clearly points out that his studies and observation prove that to be wrong.

His own observations as show that in fact the "trophy" animal may in fact be non representative of the strongest of the gene pool and for that reason that's why it is bigger than the others, especially those taken during the rut.

The following link further reveals Geist's discoveries. "Trophy Males as Individuals of Low Fitness" Please scroll down through the article to find this piece as it was posted by permission from Geist.

The key to all this is that Geist first believes in proper game management. He also believes that overkill to any degree pertaining to any gender or size can cause damage but that it is reversible. Along with that proper management, what most of us enjoy at "trophy hunting" is not dumbing down the gene pool.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

I agree but ARs are not the equivalent of trophy hunting and are not considered to be proper wildlife management by most professional deer managers. The negative effects of ARs will be much worse than the effects of true trophy hunting ,because ARs remove the best buck in each age class while protecting inferior buck. Trophy hunting does not create that problem.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Simply not true. The majority of deer managers support letting deer graduate to the older age classes and most agree that antler restrictions, while not relly trophy management, represent the best compromise when managing large areas like a whole state.

You cant support the claim that most deer managers don't consider AR's a proper management tool.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Only 6 states currently have statewide ARs, so it is obvious the majorit of deer mangers do not feel that statewide ARs are the proper way to manage the herd.
If ARs are a proper deer management tool why did rack sizes decrease across the entire state of MIss. and why did our breeding rates decrease by 5% and our buck harvest decreased by 46%?

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

If you'd stop doing that you'd probably feel better.:)

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

The number of states that do or do not have antler restrictions has nothing to do with proper or improper deer management. Most state never had the problem of annually over harvesting their bucks so they never had to establish a season structure designed to protect any of their bucks. In states where the buck harvests have been excessive though the professional deer managers all agree that antler restrictions of some form are the most logical method of obtaining a more natural buck/doe ratio.

There are also some states where the professionals do see a need for antler restrictions or some method of protecting more of their younger bucks even though they haven’t been able to implement them because of a lack of public and/or political support. That actually means that those states are being mismanaged. That same problem occurred in this state for many decades. Fortunately we have improved in public education enough to have increasing support for both antler restrictions and more people better understanding the need for both professional and scientific deer management goals and objectives.



There are a number of professionals that question the results of the Mississippi study do to the methods used. But, even if their buck antlers did decline there are many possible causes. Perhaps the fact that they harvest their bucks before the rut could enter into the reason? Perhaps variables in the environmental conditions, such as more drought years, could enter into the reason? I am sure there are many more but I haven’t concerned myself with the problems in Mississippi to know what problems they might or might not have. The bottom line is that no one really knows if they really declined let alone what the reason might have been.

The same can be said about the 5% statewide decline in the breeding rates. It hasn’t been established yet that there really was a decline but even if there really was there are a number of issues that could very possibly lead to a decline besides the affects of antler restrictions.

As for the 46% decline in the Pennsylvania buck harvest there are also many things besides antler restrictions that could cause that. For one thing we know the deer population is lower so of course there will be fewer bucks in the population. It is also a fact that we had lower fawn survival rates following the harsh winters of 2003 and 2004 and that also means fewer bucks in existence for hunters to harvest.

The fact that hunter can only legally harvest and since hunter numbers have declined it is only logical that the number of bucks harvested would also decline. The percentage of hunters that harvest bucks hasn’t declined much over the years though.


Below is a chart of Pennsylvania buck hunter success rates:

Years………………….Buck hunter success rate
1985-1987.………………..15 %
1995-1997.………………..18 %
2005-2007.………………..16 %

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 %

Here are also some comments from the “Ask the Biologist” section of the Game Commission’s Web site.
************************************************** ******


Antler restrictions are killing our best genetics by harvesting 6 & 8 pointers 1.5 year olds. What do you think?


Antler restrictions have been a positive for Pennsylvania’s deer management program. Since antler restrictions started in 2002, yearling buck survival has increased (from 15% to 52%), harvest of adult bucks has increased (from ~20% to ~50% of total buck harvest), and hunter support has increased (from 57% to 63%). However, there are still criticisms, many of which center around genetics. The argument that we are removing our “best” yearling bucks from the population, which in turn is affecting population genetics, is common. However, when we take a closer look, with the help of new technology and research, the genetics concern is unfounded.

First, deer are wild animals in an uncontrolled environment. Unlike a bull in a pasture full of cows that can’t run away, a buck’s world is full of competition. Bucks compete with each other and must compete for receptive does. Genetics research has shown that yearling males are participating in breeding even in populations with 50% of males being 3.5 years old and older. Since most of Pennsylvania’s bucks are harvested during the gun season and AFTER the breeding season, a yearling buck that is removed has likely already had the opportunity to breed and pass on his genes.


Second, recent research has shown that the amount of growth in the first set of antlers in white-tailed males is a poor predictor of antler growth at maturity. A study conducted over 10 years which followed hundreds of wild, free-ranging white-tailed bucks from their first set of antlers found that by the time bucks reached maturity (4.5 years old), there was no difference in antler measurements between those that had spikes or 3 points as yearlings compared to those that had 4 or more points as yearlings. This suggests that spike and 3-point yearlings can grow the same size antlers as yearling bucks with 4 or more points. All have the capability to produce large antlers at maturity.

Third, let us not forget that all deer receive genes from both their parents. To date, no one has classified the genetic contribution of a doe to her male fawn’s antler growth. And in Pennsylvania, there is no harvest selection on adult does. Their removal is “genetically” random.

Even if we wanted to alter the genetics of Pennsylvania’s deer herd, it would be extremely difficult to do.


************************************************** ****


How often do mature bucks mate in a season? How often do the largest "Monarch bucks mate in a season"?


New technology is revealing more about the white-tailed deer than biologists 50 years ago could even imagine. Animals can now be genetically identified. Research involving genetics has shown multiple paternity and yearling male breeding in all populations that have been studied. The long standing model of deer breeding ecology was that mature, dominant bucks monopolized all the breeding activity, excluding participation by younger males, especially yearlings. But genetics research has shown that yearling males are participating in breeding even in populations with 50% of males being 3.5 years old and older. And most males only sire one litter. With most females coming into estrous at the same time, it is impossible for one buck to dominate all breeding activity.

However, this does not mean that he has only mated with one doe.
Females play a role in breeding as well. Until the genetics spotlight was turned on, it was assumed that twin or triplet fawns were full siblings. However, there is about a 20-25% chance that litters with multiple fawns are sired by different bucks. This means females are mating with multiple bucks during her estrous cycle.

The bottom line is that mature bucks have a lot of competition and the biggest ones are no exception.

************************************************** **********************


And, the real bottom line is that BTBowhunter is probably correct when he posts his pictures of beating dead horses.

Antler restrictions are almost certainly here to stay in Pennsylvania and are probably going to be expanding into even more states where the professional deer managers have concerns about over harvesting the buck populations.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

The previous deer management plan was so bad that it produced record buck harvests in 2000 and 2001 and record breeding rates during the same period. The new and improved deer management reduced breeding rates by 5% and buck harvests by 46%.
Not a single deer management professional has provided a valid challenge to the 12 years of decreasing rack sizes in Miss. claiming that noone knows if rack sizes declined in Miss. is asinine when they have 1 years of data documenting that decline.
The PGC data has established there has been a 5% decline in breeding rates and you haven't provided a single fact to refute it and neither has the PGC.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Dr Kroll did just that and your response was to say that he's biased

explained, explained, andexplained again

But still you continue beating the dead horse

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Dr. Kroll expressed his total ignorance of what happened in Miss. after 12 years of ARs and simply expressed his QDM bias.
You and RSB didn't come close to explaining the 5% decline in breeding rates and neither did the PGC deer management professionals. Are you sure you are smart enough to recognize a dead horse if you saw one?

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Help me understand what this means. Are you turning speculation on your part into fact?

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Kroll provided absolutely nothing to challenge the harvest data results from Miss. that showed rack sizes decreased Even Kroll's own research supports the theory of high grading which Dr. Demarais stated was responsible for the decrease in size.
Lies , lies , lies and more lies. The sample size didn't drop by 50% in areas with high breeding rates or double in areas with low breeding rates. Both you and RSB have no clue what caused the 5% decrease in breeding rates.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

same ol same ol same as yesterday and will be more of the same tommrow

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

I was simply agreeing with coalcracker that bucks had a tougher time living long enough to be record book quality before AR. The fact that most of the big bucks in this scoring session were killed 2+ years after AR would seem to imply that it's having a positive effect on the average antler size

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

The measuring session tells us nothing about the average rack size of 2.5+ buck, since we are not harvesting the 2.5+ buck that aren't AR legal like we did before ARs. The scoring session also didn't provide any data on the 2.5+ buck that were AR legal but not big enough to be entered in the scoring session.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

Not what I said Blueboy. I think RSB was right. I think we gave you too much credit by assuming that you had some degree of intelligence when it cam to reading and understanding things. Go back and read slower and try again. After three tries I'll give you the answer.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

That is what you said and that is what I responded to. Are you now denying you said it? If so , I have no idea what you are talking about and neither do you.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

I didn't say that ARs were responsible for the decrease in breeding rates, I said ARs failed to improve breeding rates like you said they would. We didn't have a shortage of buck before ARs and I proved that before the PGC implemented ARs ,but you were in denial . Now the deer have proven I was right and you were dead wrong.

RE: 2008 Big Game records
 

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.