Four point minimum 117&121

[Sitka_Blacktail]

What ever anyone says Muleyguys has an anwser and he knows everything even if the proff is coming from back east.

Muley guy is correct. I already posted the proof in this thread. Since antler restrictions went in in PA, harvest numbers have steadily shrunk for both does and bucks.

Bill Miller, chairman of the board of trustees of Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania, described the 2010 season in Pennsylvania as  “the worst deer hunting season in memory.”

In 2002 when APR's went in and doe hunts increased Pennsylvania hunters took 165,416 bucks and 352,113 does for a total of 517,529 deer,

In 2010 hunters in Pennsylvania took 122,932 bucks and 193,310 does for a total of 316,240 deer.

That's 25% less bucks, and 45% less does, and 39% less deer overall.

So this is the proof coming from back east that you are so hyped about? Tell me how APRs were a success in Pennsylvania again? Tell me how it has helped hunting?

I can see why Mr Miller is so upset.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

Eastman's did a survey of hunter satisfaction with western big game management, Idaho came in a distant last place.

I guess they didn't survey anybody on this site, cuz all I hear here is Washington management is the worst. 

I can tell you this, Idaho might have come in last in the survey, but other than paying non res fees, I'd rather hunt Idaho than any other state with maybe the exception of Montana. And if Washington keeps raising fees and adding new costs for residents, I might just start hunting Idaho. It's getting to be a closer proposition all the time between what it costs to hunt here as a res and there as a non res.

[C-Money]

Most PA hunters draw a doe tag or two, depending on how many GMU's they want to hunt.  My family has a doe tag and a buck tag in their pockets when they hit the woods.  The Buck tag is good state wide, so when they are out hunting in an area where the have a doe tag, its legal to shoot bucks( in accordance with the APR's) or fill their doe tags. Most of the time, does are killed when a good shot is presented, be it the first day or not, then bucks are hunted the rest of the season.

[Archeryoutfitters]

It is not possible to compare apples to apples? two years  with a 39% drop in harvest picking the best and the worst to help your cause? what was 09 kill or 08? or 01 or 2000? when mother nature plays a role in the game there is no way there was that dramatic of a decrease in the deer numbers because a few young bucks, got to live for a extra year? the number of hunters in the woods? the number of days hunted by each hunter? drought? flood?

[Sitka_Blacktail]

I said it steadily dropped Archeryoutfitters. I didn't cherry pick. Here's the link so you can look at the harvest yourself.  http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2

Here's the bucks harvested numbers off this page starting in 2000

2000 - 203,221 bucks harvested
2001 - 203,247 bucks harvested
2002 - 165,416 bucks harvested  (First year of antler restrictions. To be expected drop)
2003 - 142,270 bucks harvested  (still dropping
2004 - 124,410 bucks harvested  (still dropping)
2005 - 120,500 bucks harvested  (still dropping)
2006 - 135,290 bucks harvested  (a bump up)
2007 - 109,200 bucks harvested  (26,000 bucks drop)
2008 - 122,410 bucks harvested  (another bump up)
2009 - 108,330 bucks harvested  (just over half the bucks harvested in 2001 before APR)
2010 - 122,930 bucks harvested  (another bump)

So as you can see, the trend is downward. And this is the system that was touted to grow the buck population in 117 and 121.  And my percentages in the last post were actually better than what really happened because I started them the first year of APR after the expected drop caused by APR. If I had compared 2010 to the last year of no APR (2001) instead of a 25% drop in buck harvest, it was actually a 40% drop. (203,247 bucks harvested to 122,930 in 2010)  If I was cherry picking, I would have picked 2001 and compared it to 2009.  That drop was 47%.

[huntnnw]

ONCE again none of this pertains to here

[jdurham]

Eastman's did a survey of hunter satisfaction with western big game management, Idaho came in a distant last place.

I guess they didn't survey anybody on this site, cuz all I hear here is Washington management is the worst. 

I can tell you this, Idaho might have come in last in the survey, but other than paying non res fees, I'd rather hunt Idaho than any other state with maybe the exception of Montana. And if Washington keeps raising fees and adding new costs for residents, I might just start hunting Idaho. It's getting to be a closer proposition all the time between what it costs to hunt here as a res and there as a non res.

     I am planning on doing just what you are saying and not even bother with a Washington license.  My east property line is the Idaho border so I just have to walk about 400 yards and I am hunting.  Idaho has ample deer that comes with being able to hunt all weapons, the peak of the rut and also 30 days of either sex hunting.  I have to say there has been some interesting points brought out in this discussion.  States with successful deer management programs have generous doe harvests.  I read one article by Dr. Deer that said a 1 to 3 ratio.  That way, one rut and less stress on the breeding bucks.

[Archeryoutfitters]

I said it steadily dropped Archeryoutfitters. I didn't cherry pick. Here's the link so you can look at the harvest yourself.  http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=625882&mode=2

Here's the bucks harvested numbers off this page starting in 2000

2000 - 203,221 bucks harvested
2001 - 203,247 bucks harvested
2002 - 165,416 bucks harvested  (First year of antler restrictions. To be expected drop)
2003 - 142,270 bucks harvested  (still dropping
2004 - 124,410 bucks harvested  (still dropping)
2005 - 120,500 bucks harvested  (still dropping)
2006 - 135,290 bucks harvested  (a bump up)
2007 - 109,200 bucks harvested  (26,000 bucks drop)
2008 - 122,410 bucks harvested  (another bump up)
2009 - 108,330 bucks harvested  (just over half the bucks harvested in 2001 before APR)
2010 - 122,930 bucks harvested  (another bump)

So as you can see, the trend is downward. And this is the system that was touted to grow the buck population in 117 and 121.  And my percentages in the last post were actually better than what really happened because I started them the first year of APR after the expected drop caused by APR. If I had compared 2010 to the last year of no APR (2001) instead of a 25% drop in buck harvest, it was actually a 40% drop. (203,247 bucks harvested to 122,930 in 2010)  If I was cherry picking, I would have picked 2001 and compared it to 2009.  That drop was 47%.

this is showing harvest not buck #'s the older deer will be a little wiser and a little harder to harverst so you would see a drop in the harvest numbers it only stands to reason, 

[yelp]

We don't have the hunting pressure PA has.  I don't think its accurate to compare to WA.  IMO - you will only see quality if you are looking for it.  Many WA hunters take what they can get they are not that selective.  These units hold giants.  The only negative issues in any of these units that restrict harvest would be poaching, increased trespassing, blue tongue, predators and bad winters.  I would rather see deer go to sportsman than mother nature or thieves. 

You also could make the argument that when properties start growing bigger bucks that accessibility to these deer became harder and deer leases probably increased.  Meaning harvest became more managed? They started associating deer hunting quality with $?. Could this happen?  Also I know deer hunting in PA is very traditional.  Is there a strong influx of new hunters into PA via youth for example?  It seems to be a downward trend in other states and this could also have an effect on harvest numbers over time.   

[Archeryoutfitters]

I also read that the PA hunters were 62% in favor of it before it started, and after 3 years it was up to 80%. that was from the hunters, need any thing more be said about it. the hunters are always the biggest critics of THEIR DEER.

[bearpaw]

I used to be opposed to APR in our area, but due to our continual decline of deer numbers I was totally in favor of it at the current time to prevent further decline in the herd.

I am still not sold on the long term use of APR and think we all should keep an open mind and judge the use of APR based on the results we see in 117/121 over the next 4 years.

For this last season we reduced the buck harvest, that was the goal. But we may learn that APR has negative results in the long run, for this reason, we all need to keep and an open mind and wait to see the results before we condemn all use of APR or recommend continual use of APR. 

[Miles]

If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.

Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

We don't have the hunting pressure PA has.  I don't think its accurate to compare to WA.

Ahhhh but compare they did. They used PA as an example when they pushed this change here.  So if they used it as an example of how it's done, isn't it fair to really look at the results in PA and what people in PA really think of it?

And those results and how hunters feel about it are sure different than what we were fed to believe. That is the real comparison.

[bearpaw]

If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.

Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.

Miles, there must be 3 or 4 others just like it too....

[bobcat]

If I could blow this thread up into 1 million tiny little pieces floating throughout cyberspace...I would.

Unfortunately for the rest of you, I can't.

Ah what would be the fun in that? What's a message board without any messages?