Article On NY AR
09-16-2009, 08:51 AM
#11
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orange county, NY
Posts: 2,949
Im in total agreement w/ the last 3 posts. The rack and weapon elitists, wont be happy until theyve turned enough people away from participating in future hunting seasons, to validate any of us having one. As far as PA goes, no offense to the residents ,but I can think of no NE state, Id rather hunt less.
09-16-2009, 09:54 AM
#12
Typical Buck
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 654
Those surely ain't Whitetail deer on that picture! In my opinion the DEC made the absolute correct decision not to expand AR's to other areas. They are in the business to set hunting seasons to control the deer population, and have NO business managing the herd to produce larger racks for trophy hunters. There is no other credible reason why AR's need to be implemented. A dead deer is a dead deer, and in the scheme of population control it don't matter if the buck that gets shot is a spike or 10 pointer. These here are the honest facts, whether one wants to believe them or not is a different story.
What he said ^^^^
09-16-2009, 01:06 PM
#13
Typical Buck
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 549
Im in total agreement w/ the last 3 posts. The rack and weapon elitists, wont be happy until theyve turned enough people away from participating in future hunting seasons, to validate any of us having one. As far as PA goes, no offense to the residents ,but I can think of no NE state, Id rather hunt less.
09-16-2009, 01:23 PM
#15
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Whether one likes or opposes ARs may be a matter of opinion, but it is a fact that in PA, breeding rate and productivity decreased after ARs and the breeding window remained the same. Those facts show conclusively that there is not biological reason to implement ARs.
09-16-2009, 02:13 PM
#16
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Whatever your position on AR's the PA information quoted above is a nominal decline at best due to a shift in the sampling emphasis that resulted in a higher sampling of pregnant does in porrer areas. The jury is still out on this one guys.
09-16-2009, 02:21 PM
#17
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,879
Whatever your position on AR's the PA information quoted above is a nominal decline at best due to a shift in the sampling emphasis that resulted in a higher sampling of pregnant does in porrer areas. The jury is still out on this one guys.
__________________
__________________
Furthermore, even though 2G was rated poor for forest health , it was rated the second highest for the number of embryos/doe.
09-16-2009, 03:15 PM
#18
Fork Horn
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 366
Im in total agreement w/ the last 3 posts. The rack and weapon elitists, wont be happy until theyve turned enough people away from participating in future hunting seasons, to validate any of us having one. As far as PA goes, no offense to the residents ,but I can think of no NE state, Id rather hunt less.
09-16-2009, 04:25 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
"Whatever your position on AR's the PA information quoted above is a nominal decline at best"
There wasnt supposed to be a "nominal decline" it also wasnt supposed to "stay the same", it was supposed to INCREASE. It didnt.
There wasnt supposed to be a "nominal decline" it also wasnt supposed to "stay the same", it was supposed to INCREASE. It didnt.