RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Not what I said at all. I said our average buck is better than it was. I never said that any age class including 2.5 has increased and I challenge you to produce even one quote where I said what you claim.

I also know of no such claim by RSB either and challenge you to produce anything form either of us where we said the rack size of any age class has increased

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

BTB, I understand that you believe the average buck is larger now compared to previously, but do you believe that there are more 2.5+ buck now than there was when we had a much larger herd but no ar?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I have noticed better antlers on bucks at camp, and believe it is due to recent logging activity and less Dpsm.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

If you are saying that the 2.5+ buck produced by ARs are no bigger than the 2.5+ buck prior to ARs then we agree. But would you please explain how you know how the average buck is better, when the smaller 2.5+ buck are protected by AR?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

That is exactly what I said and have said all along. No age classes have improved. That would be impossible or highly unlikely.

As for the answer to your second question, the evidence is everywhere. All you need to do to find it is toreread this thread. All will be answered. The reports from all over are simply undeniable. A methodolgy ws not instituted for proving exactly what the averge harvested buck rack is now vs then, but the overwhelming evidence from taxidermists, contests and yes, anectdotal evidence is too big to be ignored.

You really ought to stick to pounding on HR. At least you have some shredsto go on there;)

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

liv
in my area 3c mountains we never had a abundence of large buck
I think i see more nice buck alive and at camps i think it is due to the first year buckbeing very smallspikes to 3 pts but after another year or so of growing they become nice without ar most people thought its a buck
kill it a basket 5pt or 3pt or a 4 inch spike
maybe its all in the hr i dislike and the deer having better food now
i dunno

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

On that we can agree.
There is no doubt that the average buck harvested is bigger now than the average buck harvested prior to ARs , but that is only because the smaller bucks aren't AR legal. What i have been saying all along is that there is no evidence that ARs increased the rack size of the average 2.5+ buck and the PGC hasn't provided any data that shows rack sizes have increased or decreased.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

We agree on that as well. So... you goin trout fishin this year?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

finnaly we agree on that we may be gaining ground

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Has there been any logging in your area recently?
When density is reduced, there is more browse for the remaining deer and antler development is influenced by nutrition. I do think logging helps more than HR ever could, however.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I couldn't agree more Greg. The most productive areas we hunt in 2F are in and around active or recent logging areas.

I know far too many guys up there that cling to the same old favorite stretch of woods even though the habitat has changed drasticallyand wonder why it doesn't produce like it did 30 or 40 years ago.

My dad was one of those guys. I love him to death, but when I was a very young hunter, he kept insisting we hunt the favorite spots of his youth because "it was always good here". It wasn't till I started finding my own hunting turfthat I startedharvesting deer consistently. I had to figure out what to look for by trial and error and did Ok but many of my old favorite spots have been abandoned for greener pastures wit good results.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But the methodology exists and is being implemented to compare the rack size of 8 pt. buck or 10 pt. buck in each age class to pre-AR buck with the same number of points. There is no doubt that the PGC has this data but will not release it. But,if they don't have the data then they aren't doing their job.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

LOL!In a mere two sentences you managed to contradict yourself again. Come back and post when youactually know what you're trying to say.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

There is no doubt in my mind that they have the data since they have teams checking deer every year. But if they failed to collect ,compile and compare the data then they are incompetent.

BTW, there is no contradiction in what I said ,since I said , "if they don't have the data." I did not say they don't have the data , because there is no reason to believe that they don't have the data. If they aren't collecting the data than they are intentionally avoiding the issue because they know it is likely to show that average rack sizes decreased just like in Miss.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

liv
Till last year not really but a neighboring land owner had a company in doing a good stoke of cutting last year
My land typically is logged every 7 to 10 years i have a state forrester comes in and she marks what
needs to come down then its bid out throu them has good terms logging roads graded off when there
done and such been 9 years since they have been here. Right now i am holding off waiting for prices to go
up some thou

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But , there are always two sides to every story. Even the areas with the poorest habitat would have more deer than they have now that the herd has been reduced by 40-50%. if a hunter was hunting a stand of saw timber 30 years ago with good success and now that same stand of saw timber isn't producing similar results, the reason is that HR reduced the herd even though the habitat could support a lot more deer.

The average carrying capacity of a northern hardwood stand is over 40 OWD PSM. But 2G is being managed at 8 DPSM, 2f is under 20 DPSM and no northern tier county is being managed at over 20 OWD PSM.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

We're not runnin' beef, we're hunting deer.
That density OW is outrageous.
Again, you are looking for massive herds to chase from one stumpsitter to the next. Bangity...bang,bang. boom......booom......whomp...woop..BANGBANG.....Bl am.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

40DPSM over winter in Northernhardwoods? That is simply delusional!

I agree that there are two sides to a story but your side to the story is so far out in left field it's beyond ridiculous. And in Northern hardwoods yet? WTF density are you suggesting for oak forest? For forest mixed with agricultural ground?

Your expectations are about as realistic as Bobby Rush's recent gun control bill[:'(]

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

If I am delusional than Dr. David decalesta and the deer are also delusional because I am quoting that figure from his report. The herd in the NC counties peaked in 1939 at over 40 DPSM and then peaked again at around 45 DPSM in 1975. Studies in NY showed the MSY carrying capacity for mixed farms and forests was around 90 DPSM.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

And there you have it folks! Bluebird has revealed his underlying philosophy and agenda.

Sorry, BB! Pennsylvania's forests are not one big deer farm designed to produce ridiculous numbers ofunderfed stunted deer so that every member of the one day punkin army can once again see 50-100 dinky deer bounce around the woods like pinballs.

The only solution forsomeone with such a ridiulous deer density goal is to band together with like minded hunters and buy upand fence a bunch of property and start their own deer farm. I wish them luck in their endeavor.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

With densities that high they would need fenced. I would be afraid to drive a car over 25 mph.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

I participated in a suburban controlled bowhunt where the deer density, as determined by FLIR, was almost 100 DPSM in an 8 square mile township. They had over 200+ deer collisions per year.

Expecting those kind of deer densities will not only wreck our forests and ruin our farmers financiallyit will turn the entire non hunting public against hunters for wanting it.

Make no misatke about it, the only reason hunting has survived this far in our politically correct urbanized society, is that the VAST non hunting majorityviews us as a necessary evil. If we lose that position in their minds, our sport is toast! Demanding deer densities beyond a natural balance will do just that eventually.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Right...we can't lose the "necessary" part.
The evil part is BS, but....

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

You will not find one post by me where I said the herd should be managed at 40 DPSM. I just referenced that report to show that the herd is managed based on the RDDt, which is the density to promote max. sustainable timber production. It also shows why breeding rates didn't increase as the herd was reduced in the NC counties.

When you misrepresent what I post it just shows that you can't support the current plan based on facts and you can't explain why 2F is being managed at a much higher density than 2G even though it has poorer regeneration.

The MSY carrying capacity is the natural balance and RDDt is a subjective and unnatural goal.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Usually always sometimes.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Was that suppose to mean something or were you just doing finger exercises?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

So, just what OWDD do you prescribe?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

If cougars, wolves and grizzly bears were present.
You need to think a little before you post.
There is no "natural" balance.
We changed all of that, so a new balance is needed to best serve the interests of all people.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

It is you that needs to think before you post. The natural balance today is based on todays conditions, not the conditions that existed 200 years ago.
The quality of the habitat determines the natural balance and some areas may only be able to support 20 DPSM while other areas may be able to carry 40 DPSM.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

And you feel the goal shall be based on what serves you.
MSY is subjective in any case. MSY at the expense of others.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

No, the MSY goal is not subjective. It is established by the habitat and the deer. Whether to manage at that goal may be consider as a subjective decision, but the MSY density is based on science rather than just the personal preference of a individual group of stake holders.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

To continue to follow a MSY strategy is to fail to consider the long term consequences on the habiatat, other species and ultimately the long term effects on the deer herd. It's a management style that made sense decades ago when we were trying to rebuild a herd that had been decimated but it is obsolete now that the herd has long sinc been restored.

Suggesting a deer density of 40+ over winter is simply irresponsible for the long term.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

There is no long term negative effect on the deer herd at the MSY CC and that is why it is referred to as the max. sustainable yield, because it is sustainable for the long term. Furthermore , our herd has not been managed at the MSY density since 1980.

If you don't want the herd to be managed at the MSY carrying capacity, do you want it to be managed at the diversity carrying capacity. If so ,do you have any idea what that would do to the buck harvest?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

some serious talk going on here today

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Wrong!

MSY fails to consider the long term impact on habitat. By letting the deer herd max out, over time the habitat is degraded by deer overbrowsing the best forage leaving less desirable forage to regenerate.

Maybe if you try and think of it as "high grading" the habitat you could begin to understand it.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

But, the less desirable forage is still more than adequate, to maintain max. breeding rates and recruitment. That is why it is called the MSY CC.

Why did you avoid answering my question regarding what RDD you would like the PGC to use to managing the herd.

BTW, the vast majority of timber harvests in PA result in high grading. The best trees are removed and the less desirable species like beech bass and gum are left standing.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

MSY is most certainly subjective. It is up to speculation as what is considered long term. When the habitat begins to decline the MSY is actually being exceeded, even though density continues to increase. That can set up for a crash.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

It wouldn't be called the max. sustainable yield if it resulted in a decline in the habitat which resulted in lower breeding rates and recruitment., The MSY CC of 40 DPSM is based on an over browsed habitat of beech, birch and striped maple.

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Thanks for proving my point that you are concerned about nothing but producing deer no matter what the impact on thehabitat or other wildlife.


I asked you "











window.google_render_ad();

So, just what OWDD do you prescribe?" so why did you avoid my question?


That may well be happening on some properties. Some landowners and timber interests are short sighted just like the USP and co is short sighted about deer management.That is the decision of the property owners and not yours or mine. Second, what does that have to do with how the PGC manages deer numbers?

RE: Some nice bucks (pic)
 

Are those not non-preferred?