NRA weighs in on AR
 

Page 56 & 57, March Issue of American Hunter, written by Justin McDaniel Assitant Editor. NRA article titled 'A Point of Contention in Western Pennsylvania'. Basically says WPA hunters are being penalized by the 4 point rule and the PGC should make it 3 point rule statewide,that would be fair. Also states that from a buck harvest in 2001-2002 the last season before AR the kill was 203,247 the 2008-2009 buck harvest 122,410 a 40% decline.
Also states that in a recent www.nrahuntersrights.org poll, 55% of more than 2,200 respondents did not support AR.

Penalized? No. The 4 point rule is based on science.

The first year there were 3 and 4 point Ar's Greene County in SW PA was only a 3 point county. It made zero difference in the harvest. That year was with in 50 buck of the year before when there was no 3 point rule. The next season Greene became part of WMU 2A and fell under a 4 point rule. The buck harvest dropped by 50%.

If Western PA were to change to a 3 point rule you might as well drop AR there altogether since we would be back to having a buck harvest of 80% + yearlings.

WV Gino

Yep. Science.

There was absolutely no science that supported a need for ARs anywhere in the state. ARs did not improve breeding rates or recruitment or decrease the breeding window.

Ars were only implemented in order to get hunters to shoot more doe!!!

WVGino,i've been hunting in Greene County for the last 25 years and I can't ever remember a 3 point AR there.As far as it being science,please show me the scientific evidence where it says SW Pa should have a 4 point restriction and the neighboring WMU's be only 3.

PGC admitted that their reasoning was that with the higher trophy potential in western PA, the 4 point rule would protect more of the yearling bucks than the statewide 3 point rule. They claim they based this on antler data collected over time that demonstrated superior yearling growth rates in the region in comparison to the statewide averages. But that is where the science ends. BB is right. There was no scientific benefit realized in any way, shape or form since AR was instituted. AR were designed to increase hunter satisfaction and offest the negativity surrounding institution of HR. Imagine if the PFBC had announced a drastic cut in trout numbers overall, without "offsetting " it with increased average size? These are one and the same. "Fewer but bigger" seems to be the mantra in PA these days. Only problem is I've seen zero increase in average trout size and I fish a TON in the spring- catching and releasing hundreds of trout/ year. And as far as the deer go, the "quality" just doesn't seem to be offsetting the decrease in quantity from what I've seen, and from what the majority of hunters are reporting. Yeah, we killed a very high percentage of yearlings in the past, but that doesn't mean that there weren't always bigger bucks around for those who chose to pass and wait. AR was based on science only as far as the higher potential in the western region, but instituted solely for social purposes. That said, I guess I'm growing accustomed to them, as I've become more selective over the years anyway. AR doesn't bother me nearly as much as extensive statewide HR. I'd gladly keep the AR and flush HR, if given the opportunity. Yet the fact remains that AR not producing any scientific benefits is just another example of PGC not managing the herd based on science.

I...(choke...throat clear, throat clear)... agree with Gino.

This aint the mountains and this aint the north country. A much larger portion of our yearlings are small 6 to 8 pointers. If you were gonna go with 3 a side here, you may as well do away with it altogether.

I also do support ar. And 4 point ar, not 3. But even if i didnt in general, with hr in place I would anyway. Without ar and with the cutting of the herd in half the buck herd would be a pitiful joke here in the areas I hunt with the hunting pressure they recieve, in both number & quality.

Most in this unit that i speak with support ar but not the extent of hr or the continuing hr trend.

I also agree that biologically it wasnt necessary at all, and has been proven, but was implemented for social reasons as Jake said. Thats reason enough for me though.


Just giving my two cents fellas. Don't kick and beat me, I wont mention it again for awhile I promise.:poke:

"Hes right...2002..first year. And trust me, I dont go out of my way to agree with wvgino. I think we mighta agreed on about 3 things total in the last few years on a few diff. message boards. lol

I live and hunt in 3 pt AR and surely can't see where they are saving many young deer...pass on a spike or a forkhorn and it gets killed by thenext youth hunter down the ridge...not much saved that way