RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Only in your wildest dreams. It is simply impossible for you to know if I am lying about what I saw or what bucks I passed.

You can't even explain what RRD means or how it applies to our current deer management plan. you rally don't have a clue.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

First off, the reason your honesty is continuallyquestioned is because you are a multiple time proven liar. Second, as for the deer, I dont doubt them. And its no surprise the biggest few arent from Pa.

As for believability,You're the one who makes it sound as if noone can kill a deer. I dont believe it to be a huge undertaking myself. You showed 4 bucks ranging from slightly better than average to decent one or two possibly "good" bucks by Pa standards. And its only 4 deer, and even blind squirrels stumple across nuts once in awhile, so Why wouldnt I believe that?? You hunt in the wmu with the most record book entries in the state, and you act like you're trying to get us to believe you just shot the state record! (LOL)...Take a breath....Its ok, monkey boy believes you! (LOL) What a dil-hole.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Half right this time! Yes it would be impossible to know what you passed because we were not in the woods with you. We wouldn'tknow a thing about your hunts and your lying if not for the conflicting statements you've posted here. First, you claimed to have only seen three deer this past seasom. Then, months later, you suddenly remember seeing6 bucks in two days, then a few weeks later, the number jumps to 12! You are correct when you say that we cant know what you really saw. However we can know what you claimed to have seen. Which twoof the three conflicting statements were the lies or was it all three?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Based on how you characterize those bucks, (average to decent) it's obvious that you secretly realize that hunting in PA must be pretty good after all. Whoops, did I let your secret out?:D

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I was asked to add BB's braggin' pic to the thread:

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Now I see why he passed all those bucks

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

As Bluebird suggested, I actually considered that archery kills might be a factor so I did them too.

Here are the results from the top 60 typical and top 40 non typical archery kills:

Period……………………number entered……………………..average antler score
1951-1960.…………………..1.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............151.4
1961-1970.…………………..2.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............158.2
1971-1980.…………………..2.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............151.0
1981-1990.………………….16.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............162.2
1981-2000.………………….43.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............159.2
2001 >………………………36.……………⠀¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............163.3

Now remember we have only had seven years of entries in the 2001 to present period and ten years in all the other periods. It is also very likely that there will be entries coming in that were harvested the more recent years for a good while yet.

I think it is also obvious that the deer numbers significantly increasing in the southeast and southwest areas of the state had an affect on the number of bucks both available for harvest and of the the quality that would make the record book.

Then I thought that perhaps just using those 39 entries that Bluebird posted might not be a large enough sample size to have validity. So, I took the top hundred non-typical rifle and the top hundred typical rifle harvests and tallied all of them to see how that stacked up.
Here are the results from the top hundred typical and top hundred non-typical rifle harvests.

Period……………………number entered……………………..average antler score
> - 1931.…………………….16.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............170.0
1931-1940.………………….22.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............170.3
1941-1950.………………….43.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............175.4
1951-1960.………………….18.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............173.7
1961-1970.………………….14.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............170.5
1971-1980.…………………..9.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..............169.0
1981-1990.………………….26.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............172.3
1991-2000.………………….34.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............170.6
2001- >……………………..18.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..............178.3

Since deer number in much of the southern tier were scarce until into the mid to late 1980’s I think this presents a pretty clear picture of when the deer numbers and the quality of the bucks in the northern tier peeked and then started the downward trend in both numbers and quality. You can actually see how the increasing deer populations of the southern tier influenced the record book entries stating in the 1980s.

This does also show a high probably of Bluebird being at least partly correct about the archery harvests affecting the more recent rifle entries. So, I took the total of the three hundred entries (200 rifle and 100 archery) combined their total inches of entry and then came up an average for all of the top three hundred entries.

Here are the results of the top two hundred rifle being combined with the top hundred bow entries:

Period……………………number entered……………………..average antler score
> - 1931.…………………….16.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦............170.0
1931-1940.………………….22.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............170.3
1941-1950.………………….43.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............175.4
1951-1960.………………….19.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............172.6
1961-1970.………………….16.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............169.1
1971-1980.………………….11.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............165.6
1981-1990.………………….42.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............168.4
1991-2000.………………….77.………………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............164.3
2001 - >……………………..54.……………†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦.............168.3

A couple of things that are interesting is that you can still see how the number or quality bucks were steadily declining right up the point the deer populations increased in the southern tier. I am confident that is just more proof of how the habitat of the northern tier affected both the number and quality of the deer and especially the bucks.

Then you can see how the number of record book bucks increased again as the southern tier deer numbers grew. What might be a bit of a concern is how the quality of those bucks in even the southern tier was on the decline during the period between 1991 and 2000. Could that be the early warning signs of more deer then the habitat wants?

It is also more then just a bit noteworthy that the yearly average for book entries since 2001 has already exceeded the average for all other years. Since we only have a maximum possibility of seven years of harvests being entered since 2001 that yearly average is already higher then the 7.7 per year of the previous ten year period. Those bucks are also averaging out to be bigger then before antler restrictions, according to facts from the record book entries.

Now isn’t that something? I seem to remember someone predicting that would happen back before antler restrictions were implemented. I also have been hearing people saying it couldn’t happen that way and calling that guy a liar. I guess maybe we are starting to see that the professionals really do know more about what is likely to happen then the naysayer’s are.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

"Whoops, did I let your secret out?"

Actually Pgc has been "letting it out" every year for the last decade inviting all the nonresidents who can fit in a car and people from all across the state to come to kill all the giant bucks. (LOL)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

So you agree that our bucks are getting better after all?

Welcome to the crowd!:D:D:D

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Rsb, for god sake man!! The south having too many deer during the ALL TIME HIGH number of entries??? How in the hell did ya come up with that? (LOL) Look at that list!! Look at how many times counties for 2b are on there and what years!! It 100% contradicts what you said, and that wasin one of the highest deer density areas of the state! Heck they shouldve just titled that the 2b list! (LOL) Look how many times allegheny and surrounding counties are listed!!! And that doesnt even account for the other "odd" occurrences of other sw counties.