blueeyesqq

I agree with letting us archers get doe tags.
That was my problem last year I messed up and didnt get my tag in time to get a doe tag. So all I could shoot was a buck had many oppritunities to sHoot a doe this past year but couldnt.
They are saying its up to us bow hunters to kill all the doe well I know alot of guys around here took most of the doe tags and only hunt rile.
If that the case around here how can we kill all the doe. im one that would be up to paying for a doe tag or even just gettting a doe tag.

Daisy Bates

Really fantastic post. Thanks for sharing. very useful information!

Valentine

It always had an enormous amount of hunters. That always meant fairly short seasons, and one antlered deer per season. Have they changed that, lately ?
In my opinion, too many hunters want personal control, for whatever reason. But if you want control or want an opinion to count, how many acres of land are really familiar to you. Do you know a square mile; five square miles; a hundred square miles? Is the square mile you hunt, really representative of the whole 100 sq. miles surrounding it? Do you even hunt five different locations?

Years ago, I used to work or travel in every county of PA. I remember driving the highways, noting the number of dead deer on the roads, in the various counties. I even had a spotter or two, who traveled where I hunted.

Even with all that travel, I knew it was only a "quick snapshot" and totally incomplete. It helped me pick out four counties one year. And I never restricted myself to the same ten acres.

But I'm sure there are those who hunt the same 100 acres every year, and are positive that they know the deer in the whole, wide, state. One drive from Uniontown to Stroudsburg, was enough to prove to me, how little I knew.

bluebird2

I enjoyed reading the posts from way back in 2002. I had no idea they were still available.

It was interesting to compare what was said about the plan back then compared to what we know now. Back then we were told that there weren't enough buck to breed the doe, there was a problem with late born fawns and we needed to improve the buck age structure. Now we know none of that was true and that the plan did nothing to improve breeding rates. productivity or the general health of the herd.

We also were told that reducing the herd would increase regeneration and improve forest health. But ,after 9 years of herd reduction, the WMU with the lowest deer density ,2G ,is still rated as poor and 13 of 22 WMU's still have regeneration rates of under 50%.

While there is no doubt that APRS increased the percentage of 2.5+ buck in the harvest, it didn't produce ,"more and larger buck than ever before" as Alt predicted. In 2001, the year before APRs were implemented we harvested 44K 2.5+ buck and 159K 1.5 buck. Now compare that to the harvest of 55K 2.5+ buck and only 53K 1.5 buck in 2009. so while the 2.5+ buck harvest increased by 11k the 1.5 buck harvest decreased by 106K. So while a small percentage of our hunters are benefiting by harvesting a 2.5+ buck ,a much higher percentage of the hunters aren't seeing or harvesting a legal buck.

PAThwacker

Prior to 2003 immature bucks AKA spikes, and 4 pointers were slaughtered. Nowadays, spikes and 4 points are everywhere (stupid), and legal mature bucks are nocturnal (smarter).

bluebird2

If spikes and 4 pts. are everywhere in your area ,consider yourself as lucky. I haven't seen a buck since Sept. and i live where I hunt and spot light my area 5 or 6 nights a week. My only hope is that my 13 yr. old niece gets a shot at a deer the first day. That will make my season a success.

MeatHunter2

That's only because, as you've told people many times over the years under various names Larry, you hunt the hill behind your house. Now it's my understanding that your wheelchair bound so don't take this the wrong way, but you have to move around to other locations. So many hunters hunt the same couple acres year after year and then complain when they don't see anything, comparing it to times when they were spoiled by an overabundance of deer.

"Back then we were told that there weren't enough buck to breed the doe,"
He never said that, he said there weren't enough older buck doing the breeding. Yearlings were, and while they can complete the task, they loose lots of energy and fat stores while doing a job the older bucks should be doing, as in a healthy herd.

"there was a problem with late born fawns"
There was and the fawn study showed this.

"we needed to improve the buck age structure."
And we did so by the success of antler restrictions protecting some of those yearlings which dominated the harvest; and producing a large 2.5 class as evidenced in the harvest where they once made up around 18% of the harvest and now are about 50% of it.

Now I know your favorite pastime is to put a spin on reality to suit your ego and to save face, and your free to do that. But don't assume all hunters are ignorant of the facts and will believe your every word. Hunters on Pa. websites didn't buy into it and I don't think the nations hunters are any more gullible either. It's undeniable that PA is now producing more of these bigger buck, just as they said it would. Even the president of the taxidermists assoc. said they have.

bluebird2

No, that is not what he said. He said their weren't enough bucks to breed all the doe in a timely fashion and that is why we had late born fawns. But, the studies showed that most late born fawns were due to yearling doe reaching their first estrus after the peak of the rut which resulted in late born fawns. Furthermore ,increasing the percentage of older bucks had no effect on breeding rates ,productivity or the breeding period,so Alt was flat out wrong.

The first year of ARs was 2002 and even though none of the 2.5+ buck harvested that year were due to ARs, 2.5+ buck were 32 % of the buck harvest. In 2003, the first year there were 2.5+ buck as a result of ARs it increased to 44% ,which is only a 12 % increase from 2002.

You claim ARs produced a large 2.5+ class , but in 2002 we harvested 52,602 2.5+ buck and in 2007 we only harvested 48,048 2.5+ buck and after 8 years of ARs we harvested less than 3000 more 2.5 buck in 2009 than in the very first year of ARs. Those are the facts that refute the PGC propaganda that you are parroting.


In 2002 we harvested 112,814 1.5 buck and 52,602 2.5+ buck while in 2009 we harvested 53,082 1.5 buck and 55,248 2.5+ buck. So,were more buck hunters happy in 2002 or in 2009?