RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But your not smart enough to realize the age factor I mentioned had nothing to do with yearling bucks. But, it had everything to do with how many bucks survived to become record buck bucks at 4.5+. Hunting pressure is a huge determining factor controlling buck survival and we have over 350K fewer hunters than we had in the 1980s.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Indeed, the very few I know personally who still make the trek to Potter and Tioga are getting some decent bucks now and again. And they should be. They are the only ones in the woods! One friend was fortunate enough to have off the entire first week of rifle....saw only two other hunters and they were in a truck on opening day. He killed a respectable eight point on thursday afternoon. However the entire week of hunting sun up till sun down, he saw one doe and two fawns other than the buck he shot. And he still hunts covering alot of ground. Fresh snow cannot lie. No tracks means no deer in the area. Folks from here in SE PA rarely travel as far north these days. In fact many are calling Perry the "new Potter." Only an hour's drive and more deer...(though the word is getting out.) Lack of hunting pressure is why you are seeing bigger bucks up north. many are disgusted and quit hunting as well. And why is this acceptable...larger bucks or not? For those that remain there is the reward of lower pressure, but only at the expense of your comrades. If the PFBC started stocking 5% of the trout statewide (shhh...don't give them any ideas!), no doubt many would hang it up in disgust...and those that remain would have what fish there are left to themselves. But the truth is that there would be too few fish to go around, and their success would only be realized because someone else bowed out. I don't relish personal success due at the expense of another. So if you find yourself all alone on a mountain in Potter co next fall, and happen to tag a good buck....think for a moment what it really cost when you drive past all the empty camps on your way back home. Ans ask yourself if that measured personal success was worth the cost.Unpressured deer ain't that hard to hunt anyhow.;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Good post. I see that in Pike county where I hunt on SGL's and DSF. WAY!!!! less hunting presure and BIGGER BUCKS. Not a bad thing for me but I do see your point. I also do most of my hunting in SE-5c,5d but head to the Big Woods for the tradition! Allways did allways will!!! Have a nice day!!!

Hatchet Jack

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

""I only know a couple of guys who really hunt2A and they hunt southwest Greene but I gotta tell you that they absolutely rave about it. They have a small chunk of private ground next to a SGL and they wind up on the SGL most of the time because that's where they've been getting the deer. They have taken some darn fine bucks 125-140ish in recent seasons.""

I dont doubt that highly possible,espcially if the private land is managed well. Thing is though, thats certainly the long exception. After SIX long years with no scoring session, the largest typical bowkillthis pastscoring session for the greene county areawas in 130's.You can also see several hundred entries in the various categories on the pgc website andI dont think you need more than one hand to count thosefrom Greene.

What that tells me, is I dont care who it is, they arent gonna regularly knock down 125 - 140 class bucks here, now or previously. This isnt Ohio. A helluva long ways from it qualitywise. Course the foodplots and highly managed lands arent real widespread here yet, and imagine that could change things....If you can then find somewhere to hunt.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

This is not a declaration of fact, merely an opinion based on some anecdotal non scientific facts. I know several guys who have shot scorable bucks since the last scoring session including myself and I don't know one who took his deer in. You gotta wonder how many guys just don't bother. Back even 10 years ago, a 125" buck drew a lot more attention than it does today. It could very well be that the scoring sessions weren't off the chartswith pure numbers simply because we've raised the bar.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Sorry RSB,but your last post shows nothing to support any of your so called "professional" AR programs.The only thing that list show is if you wanted to kill a record book buck,you should have been hunting the SWpart of the state all along.A 4 point increase in average score compared to 1991-2000 don't amount to a hill of beans and it still doesn't match up to the 1981-90 average score.Maybe a few more in total #'s,but sure not the giant increase you'd have us believe.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

the ne area 3c,3b still see high hunting presure and there are still nice buck as before but i just happen to
see more nice buck than ever beforethe down side is hr more nice buck less doe

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

When AR's where astablished, when was the garuntee handed outthat anybodys name was going in the record book? Why thetwistonAR's data and the foundation of why it was instituted.The proof is out their, but for some reason,people wish not to accept it.Even though AR's where not established to put your name in the record books,many hunters have been enjoying the benefits of letting that buck go one more year.For "some", they did get their name in the record books.Regardless if the numbersdo not seem significant to some.The fact is: we have been killing bigger buck,both body weight and antlers,since the introduction of AR's.This season alone, I've seen more deer pushing the 200lb mark than I ever have. This is another added bonus to letting the buck'slive another year.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

well said blkpowder what does it hurt letting them grow a year

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

The farm deer, here in Lehigh County, are starting to move as are the turkey. Yesterday afternoon I counted at least 35 turkey inmy corn field behind the house,too bad I don't hunt turkey.

Received and e-mail from my son, he checked the cameras today. From Jan. 1, 2009 he had 10 pictures of deer, as of yesterday. From 5:55 PM yesterday until 3:30 AM this morning, he had 34 pictures of deer from three cameras, but none from the base camera which is beside the house.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Oh I agree completely. But the exact same thing could be said of every other area of Pa, of every other state etc, in fact even MORESO in states where the"bar" is set much higher like the true "trophy" states...... So I believe the comparisons reasonblyaccurate. I also have never entered any, nor has anyone else I know that have definate qualifiers from years back, some WELL above the minimums of their respective categories. Alot of guys just arent interested, but again, thats no different anywhere else. Im suresome might reconsider with a real monster of top end proportions...But then your talking a real freakish occurence.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But the reason for AR was supposed to be scientific, which hasn't been proven yet. If you like AR based on seeing a nice rack on a buck, you should have no problem with cross bows either. I have no problem with AR, just think it works better on private land where the hunter can be controlled from shooting legal young bucks.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Quote:

---

When AR's where astablished, when was the garuntee handed outthat anybodys name was going in the record book? Why thetwistonAR's data and the foundation of why it was instituted.

---

PGC promised more and bigger buck to sell the program. If thatdid indeed occur, Id say it wouldve been worth the trade-off. Also, it didnt improve the breeding rates, timingor embryo counts. Right now, with the extent of hr highly limiting the ar effects, and in the last couple of years more than ever, it only points out pgc lies. The "recordbook" is a gauge of buck quality. Thats why its being spoken of. The odds of killing a really good buck are MUCH greater in other states like Ohio and Illinois etc... Yet noone is "guaranteed" a place in the book even there. So I see no reason to speak of "the bottom of the barrel" here in Pa as even being in the same sentence with "guaranteeing" a place in any record book! (LOL)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

[quoteHere 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
][/quote]

Here is another way of looking at the data RSB posted. The biggest buck were produced from 1931 to 1970 , which was the period with the highest DD and the worst over browsing in the NC counties. As the herd was reduced from 1980 to the 1998 the average antler score decreased. Then from 1998 to the present the herd, the combined effects of a record deer population still didn't produce the quality of buck that were harvested in 1941 to 1950.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

When was a record book ever used to base the quality of any deer in any state? Record books are just that, to record animals that have been harvested that met minimumPope and Young or Boone and Crocket scores. Sorry Corn,but it's hockey night! Gotta go.:)[/align]

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You betcha!!:D

My personal goal would be a booner. Got several that would make P&Y but if I ever poke aBooner, it's getting entered for sure whether it comes fromIllinois, Iowa, Missouri or the ANF!!

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Quote:

---

When was a record book ever used to base the quality of any deer in any state? Record books are just that, to record animals that have been harvested that met minimumPope and Young or Boone and Crocket scores. Sorry Corn,but it's hockey night! Gotta go

---

The records are kept for every state. If states have relatively few, there are reasons for it. Either age, nutrition or genetics. And of course, if those factors are a nonissue, sheer numbers are a consideration. If a state has more record book entries than it used to, one of those or more have improved. If there are less, then some have declined. Therefore, like it or not, the record book has some business being in the conversation of deer management, although for the managers its not the direct goal by far.

BTB, I agree. A booner anywhere is a class of its own. Although in Pa the odds even in the best area are quite long, and everywhere else in the state are about as good as getting struck by lightning.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Here is another way of looking at the data RSB posted. The biggest buck were produced from 1931 to 1970 , which was the period with the highest DD and the worst over browsing in the NC counties. As the herd was reduced from 1980 to the 1998 the average antler score decreased. Then from 1998 to the present the herd, the combined effects of a record deer population still didn't produce the quality of buck that were harvested in 1941 to 1950.
[/quote]

If we averaged those scores over the entire 90 year period, The total variation over that entire timeof the average was plus or minus 1% making your claim that average scores dropped a reach at best.

What IS significant is that the immediate past two decades (and this one is not over yet) produced the two highest numbersof high quality bucks from (as you so adamantly claim) a smallertotal populationof deer.

Thanks for pointing that out, even if you did it unintentionally:D

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

And that also means you think RSB is full of horse puckey when he claimed the quality of bucks were decreasing due to the poor habitat.
You never cease to amaze me with your total ignorance. the past 2 decades included the all time record population of at least 1.6M deer. Never before in the history of our herd had the population came close to 1.6m PS deer.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Wrong! Pure spin and you know it! It means that the very top end bucks didn't vary much as measured by antler score. The average quality was decreasing, however because the average came form far fewer bucks in the high end category. that would have meant far more small bucks percentage wise at those times.

LOL!! I used your words. cant have it both ways sport!

SPIN SPIN SPIN LOL!!!

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I know the digital pics are so much better, but I have only been using a digital for a couple of years.
These are pics of pics andI was having a heck of a time photographing glossy photos.
I surely hope you don't mind me cropping out my Dad's and Son's faces??

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

This one was a true HOG!

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. the record book buck have nothing to do with the average buck in the herd. They are the exception to the rule and do not represent the avergae buck in the herd.

That is pure unadulterated crap and you know it. once again you are a proven liar.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Take a chill pill, take a deep breath and go back and read it. You said yourself the the herd had been reduced in your spin on RSB's post.
Maybe you wouldn't confuse yourself if you stuck to one story. Telling the truth is the easiest way to do that. When recalling what you said, it;s easy if there was only one version to remember.

Try it. It may be tough at first but I think you'll find it will reduce your stress level;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Very nice bucks Greg!

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

That is what you posted and it was a flat out lie. During the past two decades the herd was an at all time high and i never claimed the highest number of high quality buck came from a smaller population. the simple fact is you lie to cover up your ignorance.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Not to take away anything from your buck, but the rack on the left isawsome! Any other pictures of it?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Uh it was in response to your post containing these words....

Want a little salt and pepper to help em go down?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No , you are lying once again. you took a quote of RSB and attributed to me or you took a comment of mine about the population in 2g and attributed to the state wide herd. Which lie are you guilty of this time?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Here it is LIAR The entire post as it apppears on the preceding page. I took the liberty of copying the whole thing including the header in case you decide to pull a the corny stunt of editing after the fact.

Oh, and here's the link to the page

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=3343130&mpage=26&key==

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.