Nope, makes sense to me Muzzyman. Not sure why Atlas has his panties in such a wad over this, I'm all for the AR's. However, i'm guessing Atlas might share my disgruntlement over not being able to hunt my own private land on Sundays in PA.
Does anyone know what the purpose of ARs is? It seems everyone believes and focuses on the larger racks. In actuality, were ARs not implemented to bring a better age structure to the herd? In reality, the only way to pass ARs was to campaign that there would be bigger bucks, because most hunters couldn't care less about the age structure of the deer herd. Which, IMO, is much more important than rack size.
My dad and I attended a few of Gary Alt's presentations back when AR/HR was still a plan yet you be implemented. He spent a lot of time explaining the need for HR, and the benefits of AR's. He showed a lot of fenced habitat studies done on state game lands throughout the state to illustrate the perceived over browsing as well as areas that had very little in terms of sustainable browse for the herd size in the area. In reality, much of the presentation focused around age structure AND lowering/managing deer densities. Sure, he mentioned the results of such a plan would result in larger racked bucks, but he was really selling the habitat management and herd health aspect the most. That specific ideology got lost in translation to the general public and most of the hunters in the state as the plan went into effect. The idea of increased antler size, to the average hunter, is more important than balancing the herd, therefore, it's my opinion that's why you hear so much emphasis placed on AR's alone. Antler size is measurable to the average hunter (I even get caught up in it). It's easier to sell a management plan like Alt's as a rack size increase plan, when in fact, at least initially, it was setup to manage population. Whether it was effectively implemented is open to debate. I can say for certainty that seeing 30-40 deer in a field at night up at our cabin was NOT a good thing beyond sheer instant gratification.
May 31, 2012 Some Numbers Behind Whitetail Antler Restrictions - 10 Tweet by Marc Alberto Quality deer management is a practice that has grown considerably amongst the deer hunting community over the last decade. As more landowners and hunters improve habitat, maintain a herd within the carrying capacity of the land and pass up yearlings, the number of mature buck sightings increases. Michigan is the latest state to propose an expansion of antler restrictions in an effort to decrease the percentage of yearling bucks taken and provide a more balanced age structure to the herd. The proposal would require bucks to have at least three points on one side following the same guidelines that are currently in place in Leelanau County. Based on Michigan Natural Resources Commission guidelines, support among 66 percent of hunters in the proposed area would be needed to implement the change. The Northwest Michigan Quality Deer Management Association proposed the expansion of the antler restrictions and is hosting the meeting on Thursday, May 31st. If a majority of hunters support the restrictions, they would be considered for implementation in 2013. With antler restrictions in place since 2003, Leelanau County has seen its 1.5-year-old buck harvest rate drop to 32 percent compared to 61 percent in surrounding areas without antler restrictions. Northwest Michigan Quality Deer Management Association President Ryan Ratajczak told Michigan Live: “While the hunter success rate has remained constant, the age and antler development of harvested bucks has increased dramatically.” This not only creates a more balanced age structure within the deer herd, but also balances the buck-to-doe ratio. A lower buck to do ratio means more competition amongst bucks during the breeding season and, ideally, increased buck sightings by hunters. It’s not just Michigan hunters that are looking to introduce antler restrictions in additional hunting units. In 2005, New York introduced a pilot antler restriction program in two management units. The program was expanded into an additional two units in 2006 and is continuing to expand. The results of the antler restrictions in New York have been mixed. A substantially reduced number of 1.5-year-old bucks have been killed while an increase in the buck harvest of 2.5-year-old and older bucks has been realized. There also hasn’t been any noticeable decrease in hunter participation because of the antler restrictions either. Additionally, junior hunters (17 and younger) are exempt from the three points on one side rule. Antler restrictions are becoming a more popular management tool for state wildlife agencies as they look for a more balanced age structure for their deer herds. Hunters, on the other hand, continue to look for ways to increase their chances at mature whitetails and antler restrictions are one way to get there. Although there are many factors at play, there’s no arguing that antler restrictions help younger deer survive and put bigger bucks on the ground. Sorry Atlas ..... I think you are way off on this one...
Fulton County checking in. Ive seen some progress with the AR. A majority will still shoot the basket 6 or 8, but it does seem to be slowly getting better. This year Ive gotten a lot of texts of nice bucks taken in PA, public and private. AR can only do so much. The hunter will always have the final say when it comes to the size of the buck being taken. Will we every compete with the Midwest? Probably not. Will the AR continue to improve the age and antler size? Absolutely.
Dan, you are absolutely correct. The underlying reason for letting the young bucks walk was to get them to that 3.5 year old level before killing him. As I said, that jump from 2.5 to 3.5 is typically pretty large in many areas. So in affect, its a win win. You're letting the bucks get to 3.5 more often and with that, usually a better rack. Of course you're always going to see that freak 2.5 year old 10 pointer that gets killed. HR in PA, in my opinion wasn't done correctly. The game commission here blanketed the state in a way that there were areas that got pounded when they didn't have that many dear to begin with while other areas with large deer numbers really did need thinned out. The biggest long standing issue here is that hunter numbers are down and far worse, new hunter recruitment is down. If you're taking a kid to the woods and only seeing squirrels, they'll opt to stay home and play video games instead. I think most of the argument you hear is from the meat hunters in this state. They want to see 50+ deer a day because they're treating hunting season like a trip to the grocery store to buy meat. Heaven forbid if they don't get "their" quota for the year. Whats most interesting to me is that we heard the most complaining the first couple of years after it was implemented. The GC has since adjusted the number of antlerless allocations for most units (down) and many areas seem to be stabilizing with decent numbers. Of course, you're still hearing about the guys who sit all day and don't see a thing. Yet they go back to the same spot over and over expecting a different result (isn't that the definition of insanity?).
Nice post Muzzy. Those are some true slammers for any state, even the midwest. I will give my view of the antler restrictions, not to argue with Atlas, because that's about as useful as using a hammer on your thumb only more painful, but because I think as some have said the point is being missed. Overall, I believe the ARs are a good thing. As Dan, Muzzy, and Preach pointed out they improve the age structure of the herd which is a good thing. The way PA has implemented them has been a little half-hearted in my opinion, though I certainly understand why. By imposing a 3 point per side AR which most of the state is you are actually putting some of your genetically superior 1.5 year olds at risk. Studies have shown that depending on when a deer is dropped as a fawn will have a lot of impact on its first rack, but if you take 2 deer dropped within days of each other as fawns and one is a basket 6 as a 1.5 year old and one is a spike the 6 point has better potential. The chances of that 6 point surviving its first season with a 3 point per side AR is not very good given that it has not been hunted much and has very impetuous behavior still. I think to truly have an impact that would have been more noticeable PA should have gone to 4 points per side across the state. I also think they should move to that model now to take what progress they have made and take it to the next level. That would increase the number of 3.5 year old deer and further improve the age structure. The other mistake that I feel was made was to implement a management model that was essentially the same across the entire state. PA, unlike most other states is very dynamic in its habitat. There are pockets of large amounts of agriculture with very broken timber and narrow travel corridors similar to the midwest in some parts of the state, there are vast expanses of uninterrupted timber and mountainous terrain similar to the northwest, there are large timber blocks on land with fairly flat topography like some areas of the northeast, there are suburban zones with very small pockets of cover, and there are a lot of river systems in Pennsylvania. Each of these deer habitats requires different and specific management to maximize herd success and potential. Trying to make a one-size-fits-all management plan is nearly impossible at a state-wide level. Creating, implementing, and enforcing separate strategies for each varying habitat is not reasonable either. The end result of this was an effort that had the very best intentions, but due to the constraints listed above, political pressure, and an attempt to consider the anticipated backlash from hunters was a watered down version of what would have been ideal. To say the results have been glacial would be an overstatement, but they have been slower than if the plan had been more aggressive. The results are however positive, and more steps are now required to continue that progress. I hope that they are made if the goal of a balanced and healthy herd is to be realized.
Yes that's the point I was trying to make earlier, the average age of the harvested bucks has gone up, allowing antler size to go up. It's a realistic goal today, even on public land, to come to PA and say I want a 100"+, 2.5 year old or older buck and wont shoot less. 15 years ago, you would be the hero at your camp if you shot a 75"-90" 8pt. Guys would talk about that deer for years. It has changed, for the better as far as ARs go. HR, that's a whole other story. This post was started to talk about bucks, so well leave it at that lol.
You said yourself Tony that the reason you shot such a small buck this year was because you wanted to get a deer that day to honor a family member who passed away. Thank god some idiot was not allowed to legislate your ability to do that from you. You also said you saw many larger deer later so you had good chances with bigger bucks as well. With AR's you have could have stood there this year and wanted to honor your family...........but not been allowed to.
I agree with this. If you're going to implement ARs there should also be a spread minimum too. 3pts + a 11 or 12" spread. That would eliminate nearly all 1 year olds from being shot.
Why argue the viewpoints/experiences with the PA hunters themselves? They know their deer herd as they should, they live and hunt there. The P&Y record books clearly show an Increase In entries In PA the last few years. I have that Info somewhere too to back that up. Not sure where It Is right now though.
I could have honored him with a bigger buck I seriously think that old mentality is falling by the wayside .... any buck would give you bragging rights ... and let's not forget the ARs would help to bring ratios in line ans allow the whitetails to act as they should ..... Everything in hunting is legislated, Atlas ....
Dan is 100%, with spread minimums your protecting the best the yearling class has. Lets not also underestimate that fact that yearling being pass up gives them a hall pass to semi maturity... Its no secret that yearly bucks tend to be on the dumb side due to lack of experience...put a hunting season under their belts and they gain maturity and time for their survival instincts to fully develop. An older age class of bucks in an area also gives hunters a chance to experience the full rut, those of us that are fortunate to hunt in areas that have a sizable percentage of older bucks see much more rutting activity...rubs, scrapes, competitive behavior for early estrus does. Areas that lack a significant amount of mature bucks can be almost devoid of buck sign despite having a good number of yearling bucks in an area. Its a fact that most sign is made but bucks 2 1/2 and over.
If your goal is more mature bucks then you are doing the equivalent of filling your pool with a Dixie cup. You guys are running about a decade now and you STILL have half a million hunters who don't think the program has done squat?? Why is that?? Because they probably hunt the crappier end of your land spectrum and all they see is 6's and small 8's in every truck.........which was not the goal. The supporters always seem to be guys with a nice hunk of private land with low pressure and they throw up some trail cam pics or a story of a slammer killed nearby. So the dudes beating the state forests get told to shut up by the guys hunting grandpas farm. Nice of them all to not give a damn about anything outside your posted signs. You are MUCH better off playing the numbers game muzzy.............say you have 100 hunters and 500 bucks on an island. There's only one option for the deer to survive AND reach maturity. If you let the hunters kill 2 each every year based on antler size they will be crushed to near extinction within 3 years. Limit them to 50 buck tags a year and let them shoot whatever size they want and it will be slammer heaven in the same 3 year span. You, and many others here think AR's mean less bucks getting killed...........what it really does is just stay the same with different bucks (still small) making up the vast majority. You want more mature bucks in the woods???......the numbers game is your fastest, least invasive and most natural approach.
So you are pissed when someone legislates when you can hunt but you are all for sticking it to others by legislating how they hunt?
Yup.......that's what AR's do........they make the bottom of the harvest a tad bigger. Spikes and 4's are now 6's and basket 8's. We can do so much better then that tony. Sorry bro, I think you are looking for someone else to make it easier for you to kill a bigger deer. Play the numbers tony........do the math. A reduction in the number of bucks killed will have slammers roaming NY within 3 years........then you don't need AR's because guys will hold off knowing they only get one buck and that a big boy is actually an attainable goal. Both goals accomplished without forcing other people to hunt your way by crying to the govt. for help. Explain to me the 7% rise in mature bucks killed OUTSIDE NY's AR zones...............how did that happen?? It's been happening for years now in case you haven't noticed
Same here in NY.........only we got there without AR and HR. Amazing. We have plenty of good bucks with great potential here..........just need to ease up on the slaughter.
I'm not trying to argue with them. If they are happy settling for such poor results and glacial progress then I really couldn't care less, not my backyard. The PA survey says it all. The guys you hear from here are all hunting land better then the avg joe down there gets to. Look at the survey and you will see how PA feels as a whole. I am not willing to break it off in every other ny hunters arse just to get things my way. NY will be doing something soon enough to "improve" our hunting. I applaud PA for doing something, they just did the wrong thing and hopefully NY will learn from their failure and realize their are better ways to accomplish our goals.
