# Still enjoying PA AR's!!



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Here is the link to HPA.com if you want to know how PA hunters feel about AR's.

http://www.huntingpa.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB69&Number=510180&page=0&fpart=1

I won't be surprised if AR's are repealed in 3 or 4 years.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> Here is the link to HPA.com if you want to know how PA hunters feel about AR's.
> 
> http://www.huntingpa.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB69&Number=510180&page=0&fpart=1
> 
> I won't be surprised if AR's are repealed in 3 or 4 years.


maybe it's just me, but every post I read (before it went off topic) sounded like they they were ok with AR's - including the guy that started the thead -   


ferg....


----------



## PAbuck (Jun 24, 2005)

I will try this again, as something went haywire on yesterdays post.... I do not understand why the people are so upset about the AR/doe permits. We as hunters are the ones that are carrying out the management of the deer herd. If we do not agree with how the doe permits are issued and think the herds numbers have been reduced to numbers that are to low why are the doe tags filled.

Seems blame is being put on the states about the management policies but we are the ones taking it forward to the woods/field. I had guys complaining in PA to me about the numbers being down- as they are pulling a doe out of the woods.... Does not make sense to me. We as hunters need to think how our actions effect things and realize the power we have....

Marshall


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

PABuck,

Great to hear you enjoy PA as well, of course many from MI have their opinions, but I wish they could actually experience if for themselves to know to actually demand more back here at home. 

I hunt in McKean County about 20 miles through the woods from Bradford...basically all rolling hardwoods with hemlock bottoms in parts.

I do hear of guys complaining...but it's about the deer numbers, not typically the AR. I think PA guys are educated enough now that they seem to seperate the two...antlerless harvest and AR's and people need to be careful that they don't lump the two together when observing from the outside because it is not an accurate interpretation.

I especially appreciate responses from guys that have experienced hunting public land in both states. I've said it before but if guys from PA could travel to MI they would appreciate what they have much more...and if guys from MI would travel to hunt PA public lands they coulds see for themselves what they are missing and it's why, Lord willing, I will be back for a 14th season in a row next year just to hunt 1 day.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"I do hear of guys complaining...but it's about the deer numbers, not typically the AR. I think PA guys are educated enough now that they seem to seperate the two...antlerless harvest and AR's and people need to be careful that they don't lump the two together when observing from the outside because it is not an accurate interpretation."


I am hearing the exact opposite from all the hunters I talk to. Not one is satisfied with the results antler restrictions have produced since it didn't come close to doubling the number of 2.5 buck ,nor did it double the number of 8 pt. buck as Dr. Alt claimed it would. Some hunters are reporting seeing more older scrub racked buck and fewer older bucks with bigger racks. It appears that we are experiencing the negative impact of high grading ,just as they did in Miss.

In the 4 pt. area some hunters are seeing more big 6 pt. buck that lack brow tines are are therefore illegal. Many hunters are not happy with passing on these buck when they would consider them to be a trophy worth mounting. Even some of the younger hunters that were gong ho for AR's are now having seecond thoughts.

One interesting point is that although the PGC has been measuring the bucks produced by AR's in 2003 and 2004, no data has been released showing an increase in the size of the racks of 2.5 buck. Since the PGC is desperate to restore their credibility and are loooking for increase in the license fees,one would think they would be eager to publish any good news about AR's.


----------



## Gilbey (Oct 26, 2005)

My friend in North Central PA didn't get anything. He hunts next to the Allegheny area. He owns over 5000 acres and says that the deer levels weren't even worth me driving out for a hunt.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Not one is satisfied with the results antler restrictions have produced since it didn't come close to doubling the number of 2.5 buck"

"nor did it double the number of 8 pt. buck as Dr. Alt claimed it would."

HH...thanks for confirming what I am saying...those points have to do with the drastic herd reductions, not the AR.

"Some hunters are reporting seeing more older scrub racked buck and fewer older bucks with bigger racks."

How did they ever notice?....they shot 75% of those bucks when they sported their first rack and those bucks never got a chance to grow. Add in the high winter losses and little to no acorn crops from 02,03, 04 and that will tell you not only will you have smaller racks, but fewer fawns per doe just due to the winter..if there is any truth or validy to the "reports" anyways. True, my friend saw a 2.5 year old 3pt this year(we have a no-brow tine gene in our area)...but who cares. With the good acorn crop of this year we are looking forward to maybe getting a crack at that buck next year at the age of 3.5. His body was large this year, and the rack was 15" wide and he will be a very good buck next year! 

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of those "scrub" bucks that are reported to have been seen are actually good yearling bucks. 

And that brings up another point, some of the hunters in PA we run into are still hunting the same way...they walk around on some trails and are in the woods a hour after first light, and back at their car an hour before dark. Some guys are actually going back in and hunting by either still-hunting all day or sitting all day. The first group used to be able to run into a buck here and there, with no consideration to size or age purely because of the excessive deer numbers. Take those deer numbers away, and that type of hunting method suffers...and it has nothing to do with the AR.

Again, you brought up some good points about numbers of older bucks...and that is the point, NUMBERS. Numbers have to do with the agressive antlerless harvest and would have happened regardless of the AR or not. The AR is just structuring the herd to included an increase of older bucks within the herd...NOT AN INCREASE over harvest numbers of 5 or 10 years ago, but as a percentage of the harvest and representation of bucks within the herd. Your density goals will be the same with an AR...or not. The differance with the AR is that there are more bucks by percentage of that density goal...and more older bucks. I guess the other option would be the same density goal, but shoot all the young bucks so you could have less bucks, shoot the younger bucks, and off-set the decrease in the number of bucks in the herd with more does. The way I see it while working within the same denisty goal I'd rather have more bucks, and more older bucks, as a percentage of that density goal, as opposed to more does and a smaller and younger buck herd. Because the density goals will be the same either way...wouldn't you rather have more and older bucks in the herd, with less does, than more does and younger and fewer bucks while working within the same numbers? Again, same density goal either way and I won't argue that it may seem very low in some areas, but the AR is just changing the structure of that density goal...it's all the same total NUMBERS of deer to work with!

That was always the same in MI with an AR proposal. Same density goal...just a change in the numbers of bucks and does. We are working with the same goals! I just can't see how someone would choose the same number of deer...but more does and less older and total bucks in the herd, than having more bucks in the herd, and more older bucks, but less does. Again...SAME DENSITY GOALS EITHER WAY. 

Regardless, it would be nice to have a "hunter-share" program so that hunters from PA could travel to MI so they could appreciate what they have back home, and MI hunters could travel to PA public lands to demand and excpect the same management goals they have in PA. The differances are drastic and significant and it's the reason I choose to travel to PA every year, and have for the past 13 years. I won't leave my house unless I can expect a good hunt and someday maybe things will change in PA...but for now it's only getting better and I've enjoyed taking my 2 best bucks out of 10...in the past 2 years. Not to mention my friend that comes out with me taking his 3 best bucks in PA during the past 5 years...NOT his 3 best in PA, but his best when compared to the last 12 years of hunting on MI public lands and PA as well.

It's a very enjoyable hunt and unlike the U.P. of MI where I'm about 20 years too late, it's great to actually hunt and experience the "golden years" in PA.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"He owns over 5000 acres and says that the deer levels weren't even worth me driving out for a hunt."

Tells you a few things. For one, when you own 5000 acres, YOU control the deer herd and numbers, not your neighbors. I have 120 acres starting with less deer than I've ever seen in PA and have good hunting, and If I had 5000 acres I'd be taking some of the best bucks in PA off the property and would have as quality of a deer herd as you could find in the Northeast on that property...not just PA. The guy must do absolutey nothing with his property and if he truly has that low of deer numbers he shot too many does the past few years or his story doesn't make much sense. The only thing that makes sense with that story is that he didn't want you to come out, because with 5000 acres, shoot, 500 acres....your level of control is extremely high and if his statement is indeed true, it has nothing to do with the state or neighbors.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Gilbey said:


> My friend in North Central PA didn't get anything. He hunts next to the Allegheny area. He owns over 5000 acres and says that the deer levels weren't even worth me driving out for a hunt.


 
FIVE THOUSAND ACRES!!!!! Wow!! With that much land it would seem that he isn't doing much to improve the hunting and perhaps, as Jeff mentions, he and/or others took WAY too many does on property in question.

How do we spelll "Trigger Management"????

It's called deer hunting/management and not "I think I'll drive out to the property and shoot a deer today!"


----------



## Guest (Dec 21, 2005)

It's quite plain when one has an agenda and will push it even to the point of tales of obvious obsudity.

5000 acres indeed, All one needs to control their destiny in manageing deer is around one square mile, (640 acres) and that is with a minimum of land and deer management practices.

When one gets serious about manageing their deer a 160 acre piece will do fine, no matter what the neighborhood consists of. I will admit, you need to get real serious in both land and deer management, with acreages of 160 or less.


----------



## Gilbey (Oct 26, 2005)

I'll be it that he doesn't manage it at all. He does not go out to control doe population, or buck ages. He owns a sawmill, sells logs, buys land, select cuts, and keeps the land. Then he turns around and buys more land. In fact, I tease him for being a land junkie. 

In fact, he didn't hunt a whole lot this year. He started a deer farm to manage that portion of it lol.

Well....maybe I need to take a drive out and spend the week out there in one of his camps and help him 

Anyone else like to help?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Well....maybe I need to take a drive out and spend the week out there in one of his camps and help him"

I bet you'd have a good time if it has the timber and terrain I'm used to hunting out there. Very beautiful in a different way than around here...real enjoyable. Makes sense with what you are saying...probably buys the land not for deer management so maybe he doesn't really know what's out there?!? I hunt on low-density federal land and have a great time with lots of other hunters and antlerless permits around...he's got to have it better where he is at and if it was equal it would still be worth the drive.

That sounds like an exceptional opportunity for a lease in PA...even just leasing a 1000 acres of his land would be fantastic if you could have a little control with habitat improvements. Even if it were 5% you could control in wildlife openings and food plots you could make a huge impact.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

""Some hunters are reporting seeing more older scrub racked buck and fewer older bucks with bigger racks."

"How did they ever notice?....they shot 75% of those bucks when they sported their first rack and those bucks never got a chance to grow. Add in the high winter losses and little to no acorn crops from 02,03, 04 and that will tell you not only will you have smaller racks, but fewer fawns per doe just due to the winter"

Before any 1.5 buck were saved by AR's PA hunters harvested 52,600 ,2.5+ buck compared to 62,000 in the second year ,so many PA hunters knew what a 2.5+ buck looked like before AR's. Most of the states deer range is not dependent on the mast crop and was not subject to severe winters the past 3 years. But, buck harvests still dropped in the majority of the WMU's 

While you and i both realize that in a stable herd Ar's do not produce a significant reduction in the sustainable buck harvest ,the average PA hunter believes what the PGC and outdoor writers tell them. When Ar's were proposed hunters were told that AR's would double the number of 8 pt. buck,double the number of 2.5 + buck,we would have mre and bigger buck than ever before and the buck harvest would return to normal (203,000) after the first year of AR's. At the same time the PGC said the herd was increasing by 1.6% / yr. from 2000 to 2004. That is the reason the average PA hunter can not separate the effects of AR's from the effects of herd reduction and that is why AR's will be repealed .

"And that brings up another point, some of the hunters in PA we run into are still hunting the same way...they walk around on some trails and are in the woods a hour after first light, and back at their car an hour before dark. Some guys are actually going back in and hunting by either still-hunting all day or sitting all day. The first group used to be able to run into a buck here and there, with no consideration to size or age purely because of the excessive deer numbers. Take those deer numbers away, and that type of hunting method suffers...and it has nothing to do with the AR"

That point is not valid because PA hunters are still harvesting at least 80% of the 2.5+ buck just as they did before AR's.

For the last two or three years I have been trying to convince a Wildlife Conservation officer from Elk Co. that AR's do not significantly reduce the sustainable buck harvest , yet he continues to insist that AR's do in fact reduce the buck harvest. If a PGC trained person doesn't understand the effects of AR's why should we expect the average hunter to be able to separate the effects of herd reduction from the ffects of AR's.


----------

