RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You very well may be correct about the habitat is the southern areas not being a problem with the quality of the bucks yet but I don’t think anyone can be sure one way or the other just yet. I think is most certainly something that needs to be watched though based on some of the evidence.

In any event I did take look up and compute all of the record book archery harvest for Allegheny, Greene, Washington and Westmoreland County just to see how they came out over the years. If I had the time I would like to do the same for all of the gun seasons, maybe sometime later I will get the time.

Here are those results of the archery bucks for those four counties:

Time period……………………..number entered……………………….average antler score
< - 1981.……………………………12.……… ……………………..............134.4
1981-1990.…………………………55.………… …………………..............130.2
1991-2000.………………………..120.………… …………………..............133.4
2001 - >…………………………….32.……… ……………………..............145.0

As you can see the number of record book bucks was very high through the nineties and has really declined in the more recent years. Since buck harvests have remained high in the units that include those four counties it would seem logical that either hunters are no longer entering the smaller archery bucks that would make the book, they simply didn’t get them scored and entered yet or there is also the slight possibility that there are fewer book bucks available.

Since the quality of the bucks being entered is so much higher in the past decade I have to suspect the biggest difference within those counties is that hunters aren’t entering the low end record book bucks.

One other thing that I need to caution people on is that they shouldn’t compare these archery antler scores to those previously posted that included mostly the top end rifle bucks. There were no rifle bucks, which have a higher antler score requirement, included in this sampling. If there had been these scores would have been higher.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Here's a newsflash . After the statewide buck harvest dropped from 203K in 2001 to 109 K in 2007, it finally dawned on RSB that there is "A SLIGHT POSSIBILITY" there are fewer book buck available.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The goal of AR was not to make "book" bucks available, but to increase the age structure and buck/doe ratio.
Funny that BB is the one who keeps trying to make it about the "book".

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You and BTB were the ones that claimed there were very few big racked bucks before ARs so I posted the list of record book buck to show you were wrong.

Furthermore , the claim that in the past, over 80%of the bucks harvested were 1.5 buck,is wrong. Here is a link that shows 33% of the buck that were checked during the 60s were 2.5+ buck and 2% were 5.5+ buck.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No...we said it was increasingly rare to see a decent buck during a specific time period.
During the years when we were shattering buck harvest records, it was common for a basket rack to win the big buck contests.
There was a guy whowon a contest up North, with a 1.5 year old six point!

We never said there weren't the occasional nice buck taken, but it was a big deal when it happened.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You are still quite wrong. There were lots of big buck killed before ARs were implemented. Citing a few examples of 8 pts. winning a buck pool means nothing. With 33% of the harvest being 2.5+ buck in the 60's , it is obvious that a significant percentage of those buck would have nice racks , just like the bucks we have now with ARs. The biggest difference between then and now , is now you don't see all the smaller buck being harvested so guys like you thing the bucks that are harvested are a lot bigger and we no longer have small bucks.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

BlueBird I have a simple question, have you ever let a legal deer pass you buck or doe with no intention of shooting it?
Or are youout there to kill the first legal deer that gives you an opportunity?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Wrong!

Citing the prercentage of 2.5 bucks 40 years before AR was even instituted means nothing. Why would you not cite the percentage as it was immediately before AR's? We all know why, to distort the point in your favor. Intentional distortion is just a more clever way to lie. Lying is your MO as proven with astraightforwrd, black and white example in the two preceding pages of this thread. You simply changed the subject when it was proven without doubt that you are capable of 100% boldface lies.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Did, you miss the post where I said passed on a total of 12 buck in 2 years. last year I saw 6 buck in two days and I wasn't even carrying the bow since I was making drives for my wife.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

That was exactly the idea. The scienctific goal was to reduce the herd and let a higher percentage of bucks enter the next age class. Both goals have been accomplished.

The first goal may have been overacheived in some areas andshould at least be open for review and debate. Strong evidence exists that the areas cited as being overharvested the worst may have compelling other factors in play.

The second has been acheived but not quite as well as was expected. Our average buck has gotten older and rack sixe better but I personally believe we could even do better by eventually shifting to a minimum spread. Whether that could be accomplished socially right now is probably doubtful but I learned a long time ago to never say never.