deaddeer

I didn't address that factor because no one knows the answer to that question. What we do know is that it did not significantly impact the harvest of 2.5 buck since he harvest rate increased from the pre-AR rate of around 75% ,to 86% in 2003. If the harvest rate for 2.5+ buck wasn't effected ,why would you think it might negatively effect the harvest rate for legal 1.5 buck?

livbucks

Your point is pointless. The percentage of 2.5 bucks per the total harvest has nothing to do with my question. The percentage of a certain age class of bucks harvested has nothing to do with the fact that untold numbers of guys saw a doe, shot it and did not come back. Not to mention the untold numbers that saw an AR legal buck, but couldn't ascertain the legality of it in time to make a shot and then maybe saw a doe and shot it.

More than AR, combined seasons are your groups nemesis. That is something that should be changed in areas with low density, namely yours.
I think you are misplacing your frustration on AR when combined seasons, (which I will pen CS), is the enemy.

deaddeer

I have no idea why you would make that statement. If the concurrent season didn't decrease the harvest rate of 2.5+ buck, why would it decrease the harvest rate for 1.5 buck? Prior to AR , the fact that many hunters harvested the first legal buck that walked by, limited the harvest rate of 2.5. The fact that hunters can now harvest either a buck or a doe did not result in a further decrease in the harvest rate for 2.5+ buck, instead with AR and the concurrent the harvest rate for 2.5+ buck increased.

I don't hunt in an area with low deer density. I hunt 5 C where the herd is at 19 DPSM and the goal is 6 DPSM. Safety zones, posted ground, high hunting pressure , an unlimited food supply and AR limit our success. The concurrent season has not presented the problems I thought it might, but ,at the same time it didn't produce the desired herd reduction that Alt thought it would produce. So, both of us were wrong.!

livbucks

Because the percentage of an age class and the numerical total of the buck harvest are totally different issues when CS influence is scrutinized. If a hunter sees a doe first and shoots it, he has removed himself from the equation. It does not matter if he would have seen a 2.5 or 1.5 or any other buck after that if he is at home with a cup of coffee in his hand.
I personally DISLIKE CS!
Therefore, it appears that I am NOT a TRUE ALTIE!
I just love AR it seems.

deaddeer

That is an unsubstantiated assumption on your part. If you check how many anterless tags were sold on the first round , you will realize that many hunters bought more than one anterless tag. You are simply assuming that many hunters quit after harvesting a doe, but you have no facts to support that claim.

I could make the argument that the additional bonus tags kept more hunters in the woods longer ,which in turn resulted in the higher harvest rate for 2.5 buck. In 2000, when anterless season was opened on the last Sat. of buck , the PGC said it increased the buck harvest by 10k. So .it is logical to believe that more anterless hunters in the woods would increase the buck harvest and more anterless tags mean more hunters in the woods for a longer period of time.

BTW, may I compliment you for keeping our discussion civil. You are one of only a few that has been able to engage in an extended debate without engaging in personal attacks. I appreciate that and wish more of the supporters of Ar could do what you have done.

Also, if i were seeing the improvement you are apparently seeing, I might have a different perspective on the issue of AR, just as you do. But, then again I may still rely on the state wide stats to form my opinion.

Furthermore, I hope you get a second chance at the buck you missed or better yet get a shot at the monster buck. Good luck.

livbucks

Thanks, When I started bowhunting in my teens I killed two bucks in the first four years with a bow, now I'm making a habit of missing them completely. On the bright side it is better than making a bad hit on one. The monster is getting to be a legend in my family. My older brother missed him two years ago, My younger brother saw him last year, I missed him last year and my Dad saw him the first week of March this year and he still had his rack! We haven't seen him since then so I hope he is still around.

I still don't like CS, by the way. The GC is afraid to institute Sunday hunting out of fear of too much pressure and they go and do that! I think it gives the masses too many opportunities all at once and really takes advantage of the pressured deer movement. It is obvious what the objective of CS is when they are doing it with bears in bear dense areas.
Send an army in the woods with a tag for everything and clean them out.
Just the way I see that.
Good luck to you too this year. Maybe check out a new area, you just might find an overlooked honeyhole.

livbucks

You are comparing the peak harvest before CS and AR to the first year of results from CS, AR and HR. You cannot conclude anything comparing apples and ernges (oranges). I would personally trade a 1:5 chance of success at a forkhorn or spike for a 1:7 chance at an 8 or 10 point any day week or year. I stand by my assertion that 61k hunters did NOT go without because we didn't sustain that number over history but peaked for a few years (2) at that level. If the herd is too big and produces that astronomical figure, we cannot reasonably expect it to continue status quo. We had our fun those few years and now we must get back to the business of herd management.

deaddeer

As I recall we had a concurrent season in 2001 and since we now know that the2001 anterless did not decrease the herd ,but instead the herd increased so the 2002 and 2003 buck harvests should have increased . Instead, due to AR ,not the concurrent season or HR, the buck harvest decreased by 38K and it decreased by 61K in 2003. Therefore my comparison is valid and not apples to oranges as you claim.

But that is not how it works. We traded a 1:5 chance to harvest any buck with 3" spikes or bigger for a 1:7 chance harvest 61K fewer buck with at least 3 points one side. AR only increased the number of 2.5 8+ buck harvested in 2003 by 4,000. So your odds of taking that 8 or ten point did not improve significantly and only 55% of the 2.5+ buck harvested were 8+ point buck.

What you apparently can't accept is that the decreases in the buck harvest were solely the result of AR, since the PGC said we still have an all time record 1.6 M PS deer. Therefore, if and when herd reduction is successful, the buck harvest will decline even more

livbucks

On the contrary, I DO accept it and don't see it as such a negative as you.
I still like my chances and have no problem with it. I see the stats for what they are and not a forebearance of doom as you do. That says alot coming from me, foremost a buck hunter. To get something worthwhile a price has to be paid, in this case an easy kill on an immature buck is given up for improved opportunity to pursue mature animals, even though no guarantee is given that you will succeed. It is still called hunting and hunting mature animals is a different game by different rules as compared to having many uneducated and immature animals as easy targets.

deaddeer

That statement shows you still really don't get it. If Alt's plan is successful you won't have a better chance to pursue a mature animal. There will be fewer 2.5+ buck in the future, even with AR, than we had in 2002 ,before any buck were saved by AR.

If we reduce the OW herd by 50% ,we will reduce buck harvest by 50% the total buck harest will be under 75K. If 45% of the harvest are 2.5+ buck, there would be 34K ,2.5+ buck harveste dcompared to the 56 K we harvested in 2002.