Maybe you misunderstood my post. I said the antlered buck study showed only 20% of the 2.5+ buck survive hunting season. That is the same survival rate as for 1.5 buck before ARs were implemented.
The PGC has the data ,but they won't release because they don't want to admit that ARs failed to produce the predicted results.

Simply not true. The link I provided is titled 2001 annual wildlife report

BTW, the 2002 report says nothing to support your claim either.

[quote]ORIGINAL: bluebird2

You and I agree there has to be more done than not kill younger buck and kill off more does in order for the program to be truly effective. We have too many doe allocations. The most basic premise of Antler restrictions has merit- let the buck live long enough to grow impressive racks. Most never get that chance if they are being killed off as button buck. I believe this is the major flaw in their program. We have a large amount of hunters and not enough buck in the 2.5 yr old plus bracket. We never will and most areas will not unless the land is managed by private owners. So, as far as public lands go... sure there will be a higher percentage of 6 pointers and above than there was 12 years ago. But the population is continually be killed off in too high of numbers. If doe allocations were reduced or the season went back to the way it was we would see more deer and more of these larger bucks.This population fluctuation will have to be periodically reduced, but not consistently year after year after year.I understand "controlling" the population. Trying to control the population and trying to increase the age structure of the population are conflicting agendas. At least one side is going to lose out...

Here is the link for the uneducated and misinformed.

http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/tm.a...age=6&#3127527

Check out Table #1 &2 and you might be able to figure it out.

A link back to this thread. Thats original.

I'm surprised you noticed.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/p.../21001-01z.pdf

OK the table does indicate that 18 % of the states 2.5 bucks were not AR legal before AR's.

And the significance of this is?

BTW, are you going to provide a link or documentation for your claim that Alt claimed that PA hunters are inept?

It means that the majority of the dominant 3.5 breeding buck will be inferior buck that weren't AR legal as 2.5+ buck. This is the exact opposite of natural selection and has the potential to negatively effect the gene pool.

Alt said at the Audubon Conference that if there were x number of doe in the conference room PA hunters would shoot out the windows and doors and the doe would escape alive ,or something to that effect. Alt certainly didn't appreciate the ability of PA hunters to control the herd since we reduced the herd much faster than he expected.

No offense guys,but you're beating this horse to death by quoting reports issued by the PCG or any organization associated with them.
It's all propoganda used to manipulate and justify the programs they have implemented and are failing miserably.Reports like those or any other ones they put out aren't worth the cost of the paper they're printed on.You'd be better off using them for T.P. rather than put any stock in the info they contain!

You're right Rodger,
I don't agree that the reports are bum fodder but there is valid reason to question some of the data fed to us.

I apologize for straying from the topic. WillCZ started this thread by listing his real life results. Real life personal results should be the subject of this thread whether they are good or bad.

Personally, I've seen no difference on my private 2B honey hole. We were managing it well before AR and we were already killing good bucks over 2.5 years old. Where I've noticed the difference is in 2B and 2F on public ground and on private ground that is open to the public. On those areas, my gang has seen less deer but still good numbers. The average bucks have been substantially better.