HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Northeast (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast-26/)
-   -   Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX) (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/northeast/285722-antler-restrictions-what-they-found-tx.html)

bluebird2 02-11-2009 02:33 PM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 

The Bluebird is a colorful yet quite fellow,
Quiet is not spelled ,"quite".

bawanajim 02-12-2009 04:14 AM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 

ORIGINAL: bluebird2


The Bluebird is a colorful yet quite fellow,
Quiet is not spelled ,"quite".
If kat doesn't spell cat what does it spell?

BTBowhunter 02-12-2009 04:26 AM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 

I would certainly like the PGC to atleast CONSIDER making a change similar to TX. Allow harvest of spikes, while incorporating a general spread restriction. Try it for about five years and then evaluate. i just feel that if you are trying to create ahigher quality herd, you have got to consider all options and be willing to try some other methods, esp when SOME research ahs proven point based systems to be less effective. PA chose the point based system due to it simplicity alone, despite the fact that other states that had tried them werer already abandoning the practice due to poor results. The TX system has a very easy to comprehend visual guide. Hunters in PA would catch on quickly.
I agree that the TX system of AR in their study sounds realistic and is relatively simple and it could be a good fit for PA. I do believe the evidence that spikes are not genetically inferior seems solid but the case could be made that very few PA bucks get to the4.5 class where spikes seem to catch up. That fact would seem to support trying the Texas strategy here. If the preliminary Texas results hold up, I'd think most PA hunters would support it. I know I would.

Whether it would fly politically and socially remains to be seen.

BTW, SS I think you mixed up some quotes in that post where I got this from;)

Screamin Steel 02-12-2009 07:02 AM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter


I would certainly like the PGC to atleast CONSIDER making a change similar to TX. Allow harvest of spikes, while incorporating a general spread restriction. Try it for about five years and then evaluate. i just feel that if you are trying to create ahigher quality herd, you have got to consider all options and be willing to try some other methods, esp when SOME research ahs proven point based systems to be less effective. PA chose the point based system due to it simplicity alone, despite the fact that other states that had tried them werer already abandoning the practice due to poor results. The TX system has a very easy to comprehend visual guide. Hunters in PA would catch on quickly.
I agree that the TX system of AR in their study sounds realistic and is relatively simple and it could be a good fit for PA. I do believe the evidence that spikes are not genetically inferior seems solid but the case could be made that very few PA bucks get to the4.5 class where spikes seem to catch up. That fact would seem to support trying the Texas strategy here. If the preliminary Texas results hold up, I'd think most PA hunters would support it. I know I would.

Whether it would fly politically and socially remains to be seen.

BTW, SS I think you mixed up some quotes in that post where I got this from;)
My bad. So we agree on AR's. Now all we need to do is get a bunch of guys and lease half the state and see what kind of results we can get. ;)I'm definitely not against the PGC for trying new strategies if it seemed they were keeping a open mind, and even the current system has atleast improved age structure within the harvest, and no one could argue that. But man, I'd surely like to see what Texas style AR's could accomplish here, and like I said, give 'em 5 years and then reevaluate. It is just very concerning how unwilling to listen they seem these days, and I'm still reeling over that crossbow vote. I've asked two shops in my area, and xbow sales are at all time highs.

BTBowhunter 02-12-2009 09:51 AM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 
Just going with my gut instincts, the Texas idea sounds pretty good.

I think you're right. We are pretty much on the same page when it comes to AR. I have always beieved we could make it better than we did it from day one but I think that the way we started was the only way it would have ever flew here. Now that the positive results and acceptance (for AR) seems to be pretty widespread, it probably is time to expand upon what we have.I tend to think that the BOC isn't going to do much though till HR is truly stabilized and the lawsuit is over.

bluebird2 02-12-2009 10:53 AM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 
Apparently you are forgetting that the TX plan allows for the harvest of 2 buck /hunter . Due the number of hunters in PA and the effects of HR, the PGC can not allow 2 buck /year so IMHO the TX plan will not work in PA.

Cornelius08 02-12-2009 12:20 PM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 

I tend to think that the BOC isn't going to do much though till HR is truly stabilized and the lawsuit is over.
Btb, there is no reason at all to believe that the change you speak of, or for that matter any other significant change is going to happen. I also dont see anything that relates to change and the lawsuit going on.

I would be optimistic, if I didnt know better, that changes would be made thanks to an influx of fresh ideas with 3 boc seats to be filled soon. Unfortunately, odd are, the fillers of those seats will be hand picked to "stay the exact course" of the last several years. Not saying there arent some reasonable thoughts being kicked around here.

As far as "stabilization", first they are going to need to TRULY end hr in some of the areas of CLAIMED stabilization. Again, depending on who ends up as our new commissioners, that has little chance of happening imho. Many areas would benefit from herd INCREASE, at least somewhat to make up for all thereduction that has occurred SINCE the time we've supposedly been "stabilizing" the last few years.


BTBowhunter 02-12-2009 01:53 PM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 

ORIGINAL: bluebird2

Apparently you are forgetting that the TX plan allows for the harvest of 2 buck /hunter . Due the number of hunters in PA and the effects of HR, the PGC can not allow 2 buck /year so IMHO the TX plan will not work in PA.
Two bucks per hunter would not work in PA. I neglected to say that when saying that the Texas plan sounded plausible here. I should have said that the Texas AR's sound plausible without the second buck part of the package.

BTBowhunter 02-12-2009 01:56 PM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08


I tend to think that the BOC isn't going to do much though till HR is truly stabilized and the lawsuit is over.
Btb, there is no reason at all to believe that the change you speak of, or for that matter any other significant change is going to happen. I also dont see anything that relates to change and the lawsuit going on.

I would be optimistic, if I didnt know better, that changes would be made thanks to an influx of fresh ideas with 3 boc seats to be filled soon. Unfortunately, odd are, the fillers of those seats will be hand picked to "stay the exact course" of the last several years. Not saying there arent some reasonable thoughts being kicked around here.

As far as "stabilization", first they are going to need to TRULY end hr in some of the areas of CLAIMED stabilization. Again, depending on who ends up as our new commissioners, that has little chance of happening imho. Many areas would benefit from herd INCREASE, at least somewhat to make up for all thereduction that has occurred SINCE the time we've supposedly been "stabilizing" the last few years.
What areas would you propose should be increased?

Cornelius08 02-12-2009 02:30 PM

RE: Antler Restrictions (What they found in TX)
 
Most of them. Urban areas being the possible exception......

Mostareas have been proven to be able to support more than currently, and some areas MANY more, soa few more here and there wouldnt hurt a thing,and we'd still be under max cc. Id say straight from go, 10% possibly 20 in some areasincrease throughout most wmuswould be a more than reasonable goal for starters.

The ideal, of course, wouldinclude the use of smaller wmus and really tailoring the allocation to the areas.


Doesnt really matter though, as NEITHER is likely to occur.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:08 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.