RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Neither is likely since the average antler measurement for those counties scored 11.5 inches higher since antler restrictions then before the restriction years began.

You’re having trouble getting these facts to spin in favor of your nonsense aren’t you?

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

but you said the increase was due to guys not submitting smaller bucks to be scored . Did you change your mind?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No, I didn’t change my mind at all. The facts still support exactly what I said from the very beginning.

The record book data, for those four counties, indicates a sharp decline in the number of smaller bucks being entered since 2001, or didn’t you notice that the number declined from 120 in the ten years before antler restrictions down to 32 in the seven years since 2001.

That is a major decline in the number of entries but there was also an increase in the average size of the bucks being entered, (from 133.4 to 145.0). Since those counties still lead the state in the number of bucks being harvested it is therefore most likely that the difference is just in a very high probability that the smaller archery bucks aren’t being scored for entry into the book.

It used to be that a hunter with a 115 - 125 buck was looked on as having a real trophy, but now with so many nicer bucks being harvested a 115 to 125 inch buck is a lot closer to average and it appears many guys just aren’t getting them scored unless they are larger then the minimum book requirements.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

RSB, that supports what Bob and I have stated.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I agree. 20 years ago, I'd have run like heck right to the next session if I had a scorable buck. Since 99, I have been blessed with5 such PA bucks but never considered taking the time to submit them. Now a 150+ PA buck, he's going in the records!

Of course, It would take a booner if it comes from the midwest:D

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No, the facts do not support what you said all along. What the facts show is there are too many variables involved with the production and harvest of record book buck to draw any meaningful conclusions about the effects of ARs. The only way to determine if ARs improved rack sizes is compare buck in the same age class before and after ARs were implemented. As yet the PGC has refused to release that data, even though Miss. released their data after 5 years and that data showed the average rack decreased across the entire state. Could that be the reason the PGC refuses to release the data after 7 years of ARs?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

X2 on that one. I killed four that are around 140 and I have none of them entered.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Looks like a consensus. Thelark is dull and void.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

So the three of you agree on something that tells us nothing about whether ARs increased the average rack sizes of buck or not. That isn't anything to brag about.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

AR's were never supposed to increase the size of the average buck.They were simply designed to save a higher percentage of 1.5 year old bucks.