quiksilver

I'm from Pennsylvania, and we're three years into an antler restriction program that encourages the increased doe harvest, while limiting us to taking bucks with 3 points on a side (4 in some areas).

At any rate, I have taken 3 really good bucks over the past 3 years, and I don't think it's a coincidence.

A lot of the locals are really crying the blues, and the buck harvest seems to be way down. (isn't that the point???)

I'm just looking for some comments from fellow PA guys and others who have hunted under such conditions elsewhere.

I see one negative, and that seems to be greed. Every piece of ground in tarnation is now posted or leased - this never was the case before.

Handles

Seeing big bucks really does change peoples mindset. Greed is happening in PA. The only good thing is that the greed is because there ARE a lot of good bucks. When does your PA gun season start? I'm guessing there will be a lot of happy hunters this year, and after harvesting something bigger than a fork horn, they will be more likely to let those little guys walk each year hereafter.

rybohunter

they are good, very good in my areas I hunt. I am hoping after a while, people will even pass on legal, but small 8 pts that will be really nice the following years.

Tbyrnzy82

From everything I have gathered there is nothing better for bigger deer


tim

oneshot/one kill

Restrictions are a good thing. In MD we dont have them but at a farm I hunt at the rules are any buck shot must have antlers beyond the ears and 8pts or more. Some of the hunters who rent out the farm are from PA and they dont like the rule but bigger bucks are noticeable. You have to let the smaller ones pass inorder to have them grow bigger in the following years. If everyone follows the rule and does are killed more then bucks then the heard quality will increase.

slugman

This a good thing. I'm sorry to say that in Jesery I have seen many an orange army member checking button bucks. This program , given time , will produce "quality" bucks. If your hunting for meat , shoot the does. It wouldnt be unlimited antlerless deer for no reason.

cardeer

I like AR's, but not the slaughter of all the does with a BLANKET method.Not all places need a big doe reduction.what happens is The private land and posted land has the big deer pop and never get hunted so the most the 1.2 million doe tags are being used where the herd of doe is already low.So we have the HAVE nots and the HAVES..If you own private land ,which is your right you have deer.If you rely on public lands you are the HAVE nots.Them are the people screaming.The doe reduction begun because the timber industry was complaing .So the PGC decided to make the timber companies happy and ignore the hunter.The timber industry pays better I quess.Again No problem with AR's

slugman

I hunt on all public land , and its unlimited antlerless deer and 3pts( one side ) for bucks. Did i misread you post as saying most does are taken from private/posted ?

deaddeer

No , that isn't the point of AR. The purpose of AR is to decrease the number of 1.5 harvested while increasing the number of 2.5 buck and improving the age structure of the herd. IF AR worked as intended the buck saved the first year of AR would make up for the bucks saved te second year of AR and buck harvest would return to normal as Alt predicted they would. but, the buck harvest didn't return to normal in 2003, it decreased by another 23K and the buck harvest was 61K lower than the pre-AR harvest of 203K in 2001.


Here are a few facts about AR that the PGC will never tell you.

1. In 2002 we saved 38K , 1.5 buck, but the harvest of 2.5+ 8 pts. only increased by 4 ,000 in 2003.

2. The harvest rate for 2.5 bucks prior to AR was around 75% ,but with AR it increased to 85%. That means fewer 2.5+ buck are surviving with AR than before AR was implemented.

3. We are harvesting a higher percentage of our male deer as anterless than ever before ,due to the increased harvest of BB and more adult males being harvested as anterless deer.

4. AR does not increase the number of legal preseason buck,compared to a non-AR herd. Due to normal adult male mortality , the more 1.5 buck that are saved , the more that are lost to non-hunting mortality and the lower the sustainable harvest will be.

5. Since we are harvesting our best buck as 1.5's, the 2.5 bucks produced by AR will likely ,on average, be smaller than the 2.5 + buck prior to AR. Furthermore, there is no reason why the 2.5+ bucks saved by AR would weigh more than the 2.5+ buck pre-AR.

6. Although we saved 38K buck in 2002 , the harvest of 2.5 + buck only increased by 9.4K compared to the 2.5 + harvest of 2002.

7. There has never been one study that showed that the 2.5+ buck produced by AR have bigger racks or bigger bodies than 2.5 buck produced by a non-AR herd.

8. AR has been tried and dropped in at least 6 western states and after 5 years of AR in DMU 118 in MI , AR did not receive enough votes from the hunters to continue the program.

9. In Miss. the rack sizes actually decreased in the areas with the best habitat due to high grading.

10. In Ark. the harvest declined by 40% in 5 years and the eliminated rifle anterless season in some areas due to the reduced harvests.

White-tail-deer

I am in favor of larger numbers of larger rack buck available to harvest each year. How does one accomplish this without passing on younger buck and allowing buck to grow older and given a chance to reach their antler potential?

I am also of the opinion that doe need to be harvested and kept at a reasonable level. Where I disagree is what is a reasonable level. I know the PGC wants to lower our area from 20 DPM to 5 DPM and is issuing doe permits to try and reach these numbers. If this is accomplished there will be many less buck being born each year and the overall harvest number will naturally go down.