RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

I gotta' write that down.... "a reciprocity factor" hehehe... thats a good one.

Here is anoooother quote for ya' from the experts at the PGC.
"Plotted over time, buck harvests serve as a good deer population barometer because hunter pressure on the resource changes little from year to year. Antlerless harvests, conversely, are influenced by antlerless deer license sales."

and I will remind you that I believe what the PGC says.
"You better get used to seeing less deer" <= Dr. Alt January PGC meeting

Your reciprocity factor is humorous, its will provide me with a few giggles in my tree stand this year. but it won't provide you with more bucks for 2004. Sorry, but with less does in the herd you have less recruitment. Fecundity has not changed and now we do not have as many deer being recruited. 20% of that big 325,000 AL harvest were button bucks and thats 325,000 does that will not contibute to the recruitment of this years. :D

Take some time to look at the numbers and it will dawn on you why you will see no better buck numbers in 2004.

1994 157,030 238,051
1995 182,235 248,348
1996 153,432 197,565
1997 176,677 220,339 tags 797,000 used 745,000
1998 181,449 196,040 tags 797,000 used 745,000
1999 194,368 184,224 tags 890,000 used ?
2000 203,221 301,379 tags 830,650 used 828,000
2001 203,247 282,767 tags 780,250 concurrent season
2002 165,416 352,113 tags 1,029,350.
2003 142,270 322,620 tags 1,040,000


when you have low tag allocations you will have a high antlered harvest follow
when you have a high tag alloc. you will have a lower antlered harvest follow

this years harvest of buck will be <142,000

its all in the numbers.

Hey, maybe you better send out a memo on 'reciprocity', apparently the deer don't know about it. Giggle- giggle.

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

So let me get this straight. If the tag allocations are really low than the following year the anter harvest will be really high because there are more doe popping out deer and vice versa. That means with tag allocations being at an 8 year low in 2001 then we should have had a he// of a year in 2002. Oh wait...we didn't. Your proof positive explanation and data sure make your argument rock solid ;).

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

You are going to have to let go of the past, Chicory.
The new standard of buck harvest is going to be lower. Apparently you are still wanting to compare the old ways to the new. We are obviously not going to shoot the sheer numbers of bucks due to the new standard. I keep assuming that this is understood, but some people keep bringing back the same moot point, and trying to argue it. When I say we will see an increase in the buck kill, in no way am I saying that we will ever see the numbers of old. I thought we ALL understood this. HR means fewer. Fewer fawns, Fewer does. FEWER BUCKS. The hunters that take it serious, invest the time, do the preparation, be in the woods, will be rewarded with more mature bucks. Some will get "lucky", but as a rule, luck is made by work.

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

Your problem is that Alt, the head of the deer management team told hunters the exact opposite. He said we would see more and bigger buck than we have ever seen before in PA. He said AR would double the number of 8+ pt. buck. He said AR would double the number of 2.5 + buck. He said that hunting would be better than ever . And, he also said that buck harvests would return to normal after the first year of AR.

But the fact is that AR only increased the harvest of 2.5 + buck from 30 K in 2002 to 36K in 2003 , which is an increase of 20% compared to Alt's prediction of a 100% increase. Alt lied, you bought the lie,and are now defending the indefensible.

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

Exactly!:D

And here goes ol DD again.....

Defending the indefensible???? You mean like complaining about the increased button buck kill in one thread and then admitting to 5 of 6 of your kills being BB's
That sounds preetty indefensible to me![:'(]

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

Right on the money!
The guys that complain about not seeing bucks or not being able to shoot 1.5 bucks, can't resist shooting BB. They freely admit to whacking them on a consistant basis. seems to me that they want large numbers of bucks to shoot, but when it comes to crunch time, can't hold back on shooting BB. They will take their deer no matter the consequences. Kind of a "gotta have one now, to hell with later" mentality. I'm sure mistakes will happen, but an experienced hunter should be able to distinguish a BB, or at least a fawn of any kind, from a 1.5 or older animal. Lay off the BB and your probs will be over! If it is legal (or at least loophole legal) it dies, obviously.

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

You simply don't know what you are talking about. I never complained about harvesting too many BB. I didn't say it was a shame that hunters kill so many BB, I simply pointed out it was one reason for the lower buck harvests.

Anybody that knows anything about hunting in PA should know that in order to reduce the herd by 50%, as Alt wants to do, it will be necessary to harvest a significant number of fawns because fawns make up around 45% of the anterless deer. So, if you support herd reduction, you have to support shooting fawns and BB ,just as I do.

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

Unlike you , I accept the fact that we will not have a large number of bucks to shoot as the herd is being reduced and not shooting BB,won't change. BB that are never born will never develop into an AR legal buck,so you are reducing the number of future buck whether you shoot a amture doe or a BB.

You claim to support herd reduction and Alt's plan, but how much herd reduction has Alt's plan produced? The answer is the herd increased instead of decreasing as planned,because Alt was stupid enough to implement AR and tell hunters to pass on small deer . That was about a dumb a move as any deer manager has ever made.

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

yep, they sure do killer. :) because in 2001 we had some thing that changed the hunters success rate. Like concurrent seasons:D something like that or the converse like switching from rifle to shotgun affect success rate. But if you have no change to success rate then you have a pretty predictable outcome, just like the article from our friends at the PGC says.


Lets go down to the chart again and review the numbers. Put your finger on the first line....move it over and down some..... ype, thats it and it says.....less deer = less deer;)

RE: Alt on Penna. Outdoor Life
 

Yes, alt want's the herd reduced hence the extra 510,000 doe tags that were made available since AR's went into place. I don't know about you but common logic suggests that if there are an extra half million doe tags purchased over the past two years then there should be a reduction in herd size. Now if the main indicator of herd size is harvest records (as stated earlier in this thread) then lets look at it this way. In 2001 203,000 buck were harvested as compared to 165,000 in 2002 which means there is an increase of 38,000 deer that are still alive therefor the antlered deer population INCREASED which is what alt said would happen. Now also in 2001 there was 282,000 doe harvested as apposed to 353,000 in 2002 which by basic math means that there was an extra 62,000 doe harvested which reduces the amount of doe in the woods by that amount. Again, what Alt said he would do. Now by doing some simple adding and subtracting you can figure out that the deer harvest totals have increased (which means reducing herd size) while the ratio of bucks to doe has improved (Which is seen in my previous example). So you can try and turn the numbers any way you want to keep the dillusion alive that Alt is lying but some simple second grade math proves otherwise. Less buck killed = more bucks in the woods. More doe killed = less doe in the woods and as long as the increase in doe kill is greater than the reduction in antlered harvest then the herd will continue to be reduced and the amount of bucks will continue to increase. It's physically impossible to state otherwise unless aliens are taking them for experiments.