OK lets look at you "rock solid" data. I'll try and make this as simple as possible. So you are telling me that concurrent seasons have changed the hunters success rates. Now what I want you to do is put your finger on the antler harvest for 2000 and note that number (write it down if you have to) Now move your finger to 2001 in the same column (that would be down) and note the drastic change you were talking about in success rate...oh...wait a second it didn't really change at all. Now put you finger on the doe harvest for 2000 (once again write the number down ) now move your finger down once again and note the drastic increase in hunters success for concurent seasons. Holy $#@! I can't believe it. The doe harvest actually FELL by a whopping 18,000 which in the overall picture isn't that much of a change in success rate. And if it did come into play it would only harm you previous argument of tag allocations because more doe in the woods (Due to the drastic decrease in success from 2000 to 2001) would mean MORE buck the next year (as you stated earlier) when in fact there was less. So maybe you should be the one learning how to move you finger around the chart.

That is not what Alt said would happen. He said AR would double the number of 2.5+ buck and double the number of 8 pt+ buck, but it only increased the number of 8+ buck by 20% , not 100%.

You have one major problem and that is all the experts in the PGC disagree with you. The 2003 annual report states that the herd has been steadily increasing since 1999 and last years harvest only kept the herd stable. Therefore , according to the experts there has been no herd reduction and buck harvests should be over 203K , if AR worked the way Alt said it would. Remember ,he said buck harvests would return to normal after the first year.

Is there anyone out there that got the impression that Old DD here was NOT objecting to: herd reduction, increased BB kill, and the recent lower buck harvests.

FLIP-FLOP!!

I guess John Kerry is your choice for Prez to!

It is too bad you can't discuss more than one topic at a time without getting them throughly confused. I have constantly said I was in favor of herd reduction where needed. I said we shot those BB to insure we had some herd reduction in our area and I have stated we would have preferred to shoot adult doe . There has been no flip flopping on my part , but Alt has been changing his tune repeatedly.

So it only increased the number by 20% and not 100%. he//, it's only been in effect for two years, you've got to give it a chance. That's the problem with some hunters, they think monster deer grow on trees and they want to see full results in 1 year or they think everythings a failure. These are usually the same ones who think "hunting" consists of walking 10 feet of the road, sitting for an hour and heading back to camp before breakfast is cold. So what if Alt was off on the time frame. The numbers are still pointed in the right direction. You said yourself mature buck harvest is up 20%, it just may take longer to get as high as you see fit. As far as the herd growing I can't see how that's possible seeing as how we are harvesting more deer than before with the majority of those deer being does (meaning less offspring). On this I have to disagree with the pgc. I let the numbers and what I see in the woods dictate my opinions and not an annual report. All in all I think there are less deer with a better ratio and more bucks. This is the first time in years I have seen more buck than doe on my property with the smallest buck being a 120-130 class 8 point and the largest being a 170+ class 14 point. Without AR half of these would have been shot 3 years ago when they were 60 lb fork horns.

AR will not have a significant cummulative effect since we harvested around 86% of the buck that we carried over fron 2002. If HR progresses we will continue harvest a higher percentage of our buck as BB, which means fewer buck will be available to be protected by AR, so the number of 2.5+ buck will decrease as will the number of 8+ pt. buck.

If you are only seeing AR legal 2.5 buck, how many 1.5 buck will AR save on your property this year and how many of those big buck do you think willl survive to become 3.5's. If there actually are more buck than doe on your property, how will the doe be able to replace all those AR legal buck that will be harvested this year?

Since AR has gone into place there has been roughly 99,000 buck that haven't been taken that would normally have been taken. So where did these buck go? You can't just pretend they disappeared off the face of the planet. That's half of our yearly harvest. How can you say that since we are harvesting 50,000 less antlered deer a year that there are now less bucks in the woods. It's like wiping before you poop...it just don't make no sense. If you are given a standard population and you take a given consistent amount from that population then all of a sudden reduce the amount taken by 25% it's impossible for the population to be reduced. It's common statistics. Also the amount of BB taken a year has increased but not as great as you make it sound. Look at our highest antlerless harvest before AR, it was 301,379 deer, and last year we took 322,620 antlerless deer. That's only a difference of 21,000 deer of which less than half were BB's whick means that the increased amount of BB's taken only accounts for 2% of the entire antlerless harvest.


First of all I think that half of those AR legal deer will make it to next year. I say this because of past experience. You are assuming that all the deer are 2.5 and 1.5. I already told you that I have seen a 170+ 14 point and 3 other buck over 130. The 170 alone has to be at least 3.5 and I'm sure one of the others is already 3.5 as well which means that they have already been legal in past seasons and have made it through. Also you are assuming once again that just because I haven't seen that many doe means that they aren't there. Maybe you should take into consideration that I only had my trail camera out for 3 days and these were the deer I saw or my neighbors have seen. Of course they aren't gonna call me up and say "you won't believe it I just saw 5 doe in the yard". This means that yes, I have seen more buck than doe but it also means that I haven't had much time to scout. It also means that this is the first time in years that I have been able to scout so little and see so many mature bucks. So to reiterate, I can guarantee that there are planty of doe on my land to replace the few buck that are taken. Your statements jump to conclusions based on what i wrote in two sentences. You asume that when I say I have SEEN more then it must be written in stone that there ARE more which is your first mistake. There are many factors that need to be taken into consideration such as scout location, and scout time. What you are saying would be like me walking out the door and counting the first 3 cars that go by with 2 being Hyundai's and 1 being a Ford and saying well there are absolutely without a doubt more hyundai's on the road than ford's.

That is the most silly thing you've said yet. Shooting BB to achieve herd reduction. I'll think of that in my stand to keep me amused on slow days.
If you can't find a doe, go home empty handed. You will still feel good about yourself, trust me.


Flip-flop flip-flop

Alt = FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!

Me Too.....less heads, better ratio, more mature bucks in the herd, ummhmm. yep.

What is the infamous "reciprocity factor", Alex?