RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

If we were intentionally harvesting BB we would have made sure the deer was a BB and we would have passed on the doe. But, we didn't do that so you're wrong again.
Since our neighbors were all complaining about crop damage ,we didn't need Alt or the OWDD goals to tell us we had too many deer. The area we hunt is at 19 DPSM and the goal is 6 DPSM. With all the safety zones and posted ground we will be lucky to get the herd down to 15 DPSM and AR are counterproductive to reducing the herd in SRA counties ,but Alt implemented them with no regard for the negative impact of additional overwintering deer.


If we ever reached the goal of 6 DPSM, the resource you refer to would be non-existent as far as hunting is concerned. With 6 OWD you would have 9 PS DPSM and would only harvest 1 buck PSM if that buck wasn't on posted ground. It is Alt that wants to wipe out the resource in 5c and 5 B ,not me.


Prior to AR the average hunter harvested a buck once every 5 years and in an area like 5 C with the high OWDD it was more like 1 every 3 years.


Yes ,I am an older hunter just like a whole lot of hunters in PA. However, I spend a lot of time in the woods and expend a lot of time and energy helping others get deer. It is the trophy hunters that are more interested in their own personal success rather than the average Joe who is satisfied with any buck.

Alt implemented AR's because he thought it would result in a dramatic increase in the anterless harvest ,just like it did in ARK. But since we had already been harvesting a large percentage of our anterless deer prior to AR, he didn't get the increase he expected. Now , he has made the over population problem even worse and he has no idea how he is going to reduce the herd.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

BT, this is a little over the top, don't you think? Just because the guy doesn't hunt for the same reason as you do, you think he should take up golf? It is clear from reading this posting of your thoughts, that you believe that people who don't want to work as hard as you, apply the same standard as you to what they harvest, and agree with your deer management philosophy, shouldn't be hunting.

And this quote right here of yours.... could just as easily apply to you, because it's obvious that you only care about what you want, how you want to hunt and those who agree with you. How are you going to feel if when you age, and you still enjoy hunting, but can't put forth the time or effort you could in your prime, some punk half your age tells you to give it up and play golf, basically saying...stay out of his wood and out of his way. Isn't that what you are telling this guy?

It's attitudes just like the one you've expressed here that give AR proponents the elitist label. You owe that man, and every other senior hunter, an apology. It's a fact that as hunters age, they don't carry that same fire that we do as younger hunters. People can still enjoy hunting, and love to hunt, without putting in the tremendous amount of time involved in trophy hunting. You also might be surprised to find out that many people hunt just to get a deer, not necessarily a trophy.

People hunt for many different reasons, but you obviously think people who don't subscribe to your definiton of why they should be hunting should just play golf. Seems alot like the elitist Liberal attitude in Politics, and I guess it's easy to see why Pa, with such a huge population of outdoors men and women, still votes Democrat. :D;)

Your response is one of the most ignorant posts I've read here in a while.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

I don't want to get into the middle of something, but I will say this. I have a 2 year old, a 7 month old, 2 dogs and my wife and I both work. I don't have nearly the time to do tons of scouting or spend the time hunting that I spent in my teens and 20s. Not that I'm getting too old (sometimes it feels that way:D) but I just don't have a lot of time. I still love to hunt and like to get a deer. I can't take up golf because I don't have the time for that either. A doe will do and makes fine venison sausage but I know a lot of guys would rather take a buck. I won't fault them for being satisfied with a small buck, either. It's their preference.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

NJ_B

If I had made these statements to someone else they would definitely have been over the top. But I made em to a guy who has repeatedly pointed to the higher BB kill as a problem but then he readily admits that those standards weren't convenient to him so he went ahead and shot the BB's.

Not quite but I guess I ought to paint a more complete picture of where I'm coming from. First of all I'm way closer to his age than you obviously think. This'll be my 36th hunting season this year. Second, you have made incorrect assumptions as to what I want or care about. You have mistakenly assumed that my personal preferences have not also been adversely affected by the changes that have occured in our sport. It is a sad fact that my traditional hunting areas, the ones I will always hold dear, just aint gonna be like they were again in my lifetime. I have an investment in a hunting camp that I still use far less than I used to but not for the quality or quantity of deer there. I have had to accept change and forgo some of my favorite spots and learn to adapt my hunting locations and style to todays world.

I dont necessarily like everything that's happening here either but I do believe it is good for our sport and the resource in the long run.

If you want to insult me you just did. ;)I couldnt possibly be any farther from a liberal demcrat without moving into a bunker in Montana.

Sorry you feel that way. I'll try to make the point one more time. It was that I find it hypocritical for anyone to rant on about something being so bad (the increased BB kill incidental to the increased doe tags) and then openly admitting that it was OK for HIS group to shoot 6 BB's out of 7 deer. IE: It's bad for everyone else to shoot BB's but these 6 won't hurt anything. THAT sounds just like liberal elitism to me.

Just so we're all clear, I have no problem with us all having varying degrees of time and commitment to deer hunting, golfing, or whatever. My
intended point is that no one has the right to demand that the deer continue to be managed for pure numbers just so it's easier to get an immature buck. Nothing is wrong with being satisfied with a young buck till, collectively, doing it has a negative impact on the herd. In Pennsylvania with roughly a million hunters we have two choices. Limit the number of hunters who can pursue bucks or impose some age restriction so that some bucks get to live to a more natural breeding age.
AR is a less than perfect way to do that but it is the best practical idea I've seen so far.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

I never ranted about the increased BB harvest ! I have pointed out on numerous occassions that harvesting BB was never a problem before AR was implemented and that previous PGC biologists never had to worry about BB harvests and didn't discourage hunters from harvesting BB. The increased harvest of BB due to the increased anterless harvest is only a problem for AR supporters and trphy hunters. I am neither an AR or Alt supporter so as far as I am concerned the increased harvest of buck as anterless deer is not a problem for me or the group I hunt with.


The latest PGC PR shows that Alt's claims regarding the need for AR were fabricated and that AR was totally unnecessary. The latest studies show that AR will not shorten the breeding period and reduce fawn predation. It will not increase breeding rates or improve the breeding ecology. Alt simply fabricated a problem so he could solve it with AR ,in the hope that hunters would harvest more doe . It was all a scam and you fell for it.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

The only way to really utilize AR is to make it 4pts. on a side minimum/statewide. NO EXCEPTIONS! Lets really do it and stop *****footing around. If you would shoot an immature buck then you really should just hunt does. There are a mess of them out there, go to it.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

You obvioulsy have no idea what you are talking about. A statewide 4 pt. rule would protect 86% of 1.5 buck and 56% of the 2.5 buck. In order to protect the habitat ,the anterless herd would have to reduced by the number of buck saved by AR. Since Alt was appointed the herd has increased ,not decreased and Alt has no better solution for reducing the herd than previous biologists . Therefore , your plan is totally illogcal and irresponsible.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

Self appointed expert I'm not. Many of the game districts already have 4pt. minimum don't they? Shoot Does! Many people complain about the BB that are killed in high numbers. Give every license an automatic doe tag and the opportunity to buy bonus tags depending on area. The BB kill will thin the bucks. Set the penalty for shooting a lesser buck with antlers at loss of buck tag for two years. Sell non-resident doe tags cheap for areas that have high numbers. When the does begin to thin there will be a ripple effect in the number of bucks walking around. Eventually the high number (according to you) of bucks will dwindle through attrition. It takes many years for drastic change to happen. And attacking me personally or anyone else who has a different idea than you by belittling my thoughts will solve nothing. What I gather from the gist of your other posts is that you are dead set against Alt and nothing he implements will please you.... Happy Hunting in PA friend!

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

If you penalize hunters for shooting BB ,HR will never be successful since everyone will start passing on all small deer and fawns make up 44% of the anterless harvest and they are the easiest to kill. Implementing penalties would result in a significant increase in the OWDD and that is why Alt ask hunters to pass on BB voluntarily.


The PGC already issues enough tags to control the herd, but limited hunter access in many areas prevent hunters from reducing the herd in populated areas. It only takes one or two patches of posted land /SM with good cover to protect enough deer maintain the herd at double the OWDD goal. Neither Alt nor the previous biologists have found a solution to this problem and it is unlikely that the recent changes will make much difference.

The bottomline is AR was implemented to get hunters to shoot more doe and they did that. But, according to Alt we didn't shoot enough doe and the herd is still increasing. Now there are more deer than ever and about all he can do to address the problem is have a week of rifle doe during archery and that probably won't work because it is often too warm and there are too many leaves on the trees.


Managing both the deer and the hunters is a difficult problem and Alt made it worse by implementing AR before he reduced the herd. Now hunters have more incentive than ever to pass on doe in hopes that the next deer will be that big 8 pt. that Alt promised AR would produce.

RE: Smaller 2.5 Buucks
 

I'm not advocating that a BB kill should be penalized. It is one of those things that has no easy solution and has to be accepted. I'm only proposing that a lesser buck of the 4pt. minimum WITH antlers would carry a stiff penalty. I say that the BB kill be factored into the overall buck harvest goals. Make the reporting of BB kills more controlled. One way to do this is give amnesty to anyone who shoots a BB as long as they report it on a separate report card. There are a huge number of people who really like hunting does and we need to cater to these folks.
The deer herd has grown the way it has because of the fractured terrain with it's unhuntable pockets of cover. We need to somehow bring the two together. I know that has already been said a million times.