DPMS---I have to quit trying to give figures from memory and start looking them up.  It was worse than I remembered.  888,187 deer hunters is the number they used in the report given to the Legislature. The 700,000 is  the number used when they were telling us how nothing changed with the success rate.

Doc,

I live smack in the middle of the CWD area and the word here is "I got two doe tags and two CWD tags (for WMU versatility) and is only saw three deer last year, so why buy more?"

"My numbers are supplied by PGC license sales, harvest stats, and Chris Rosenberry"
 
Same guy that has kept the deer plan in place for years. Same guy who used/uses the rifle hunting harvest rate across the board to "fudge" the numbers overall.    Same guy who regularly stretched the truth at many pgc meetings and legislative hearings.   Same guy that said deer numbers have nothing...and I repeat NOTHING to do with hunter numbers. lol
 
 
Credi
       b
         il
           i
           
 
 
Funny, aint it how the story changes.   Whatever numbers they claim to meet the purpose at a given moment, in general, they'll harp on the hunter decline when convenient and to gain support for fee increases, alternate funding sources, and need to keep deer hunting opportunities plentiful.. etc...
 
Yet when hunter decline is pointed to as one of the maleffects of the deer program, all of a sudden hunter numbers are stable, likely to increase via their efforts at improving recruitment etc. with the mentor programs ad and commercial campaign etc...
 
All part of the never ending Elmerton Avenue circus.

In my line of work I depend on the data to produce facts, perception is just an opinion and we all know that opinions are like butt holes -- everybody has one.

Do the facts are 50.1% is a majority. Gun only hunters comprise more than 50.1%, so they are in the majority whether that is by 0.1%, the 15% or so your numbers (sorry I didn't oh back to check them ), or 90%, a majority is a majority. Next fact, the statistic majority, gun hunters, get 2nd dibs to the archers, which because, fact, they do not represent 50.1% and therefore are statistically in the minority. Next fact, gun hunters are third to early muzzleloader hunters because, again, they are a statistical minority. I'll stay away from the juniors and seniors because they are probably a subset of gun hunters, although an exclusionary subset.

This is akin to one party holding the majority, percentage gap notwithstanding, in the House and Senate, plus the Presidency and the 2nd party, clearly in the minority getting everything on their platform enacted. It doesn't work that way, except with the PGC.

That all written, I am still for Sunday hunting from a purely greedy point if view that I would like to double my time afield for pheasants.

Actually it's not off base at all -- the minority gets first crack at the bucks, doesn't matter if the kill 10% or 1 buck -- first is first because every buck killed by the minority before the majority even gets to hunt makes it unavailable to the majority.

And what about the antlerless deer? How many if those are killed by one minority group or another before the majority even steps into the game?

But again, while I don't like it, there isn't anything that can or will be done about it, except possibly add some more minority group opportunities before the majority group gets a chance.

In any instance, deer hunting for me has been reduced from the biggest holiday of the year to something I do for a day two. I liken it to the first day if trout that had some level of significance before one could fish basically year round somewhere, somehow within a short drive.

Your sure taking a lot of liberty and spinning the hell out of that one DPMS. 32% of the total buck kill is by archers.  The 10% is BS since over half our buck herd is off limits to both gun and bow hunters.
 
Adding Sunday bow hunting will increase the buck kill during archery to approx. 40% of the total kill. Adding rifle season will greatly increase the buck kill the first couple years. After that the deer herd and the rest of game animals and birds will be drastically further reduced and either the PGC will shorten the season, reduce the bag limit, or the hunters will drop out in larger numbers.
 
Sunday hunting for Pa at this moment  with the shrinking of our wildlife population, is the best thing the anti-hunters could have to thin the hunters ranks.

I am as avid an archery hunter as they come.  But I can understand those who feel too many deer are taken before rifle season.   I see more and more complaints since the crossbow inclusion which has increased the ability of everyone from 6 to 80 to be able to have ability to shoot a deer in archery season.   Considering our hunter numbers, deer herd, and already existing opportunities, Id say our level of "opportunity" is pretty much maxed out.    To add any more responsibly, it would be necessary to "take away" others to allow for it.  Otherwise we will have even further diminished deer herd and hunter satisfaction.   Only way that expanding opportunities to any significant degree would be responsible, would be if we had further significant reduction in hunter numbers and only then, if those numbers and existing season structure isn't enough to responsibly keep deer numbers under control.  OR increase the deer herd somewhat and manage for a somewhat higher sustained yield long term with harvests that wouldn't progressively and slowly "drain" the deer herd down the tubes.

wayne c
I am as avid an archery hunter as they come.  But I can understand those who feel too many deer are taken before rifle season.   I see more and more complaints since the crossbow inclusion which has increased the ability of everyone from 6 to 80 to be able to have ability to shoot a deer in archery season.   Considering our hunter numbers, deer herd, and already existing opportunities, Id say our level of "opportunity" is pretty much maxed out.    To add any more responsibly, it would be necessary to "take away" others to allow for it.  Otherwise we will have even further diminished deer herd and hunter satisfaction.   Only way that expanding opportunities to any significant degree would be responsible, would be if we had further significant reduction in hunter numbers and only then, if those numbers and existing season structure isn't enough to responsibly keep deer numbers under control.  OR increase the deer herd somewhat and manage for a somewhat higher sustained yield long term with harvests that wouldn't progressively and slowly "drain" the deer herd down the tubes.

 
While I understand the feelings that are out there among some rifle only hunters, most have little knowledge of the actual numbers that we are all discussing. 
 
I would agree with you that it is time to let things play out for awhile and stabilize a bit. Too many changes lately and I don't think the PGC even knows where they are going these days. 

So they are saying archers take less than 10% of the "available" bucks. Doing the rough math on killed bucks only that would mean we have approx. 416,000 AR legal bucks and approx. the same number of non legal bucks or approx. 832,000 bucks out of a total deer herd of approx 1.2 million. And that's if we killed ALL the available bucks each year.  I believe the PGC claims we harvest 60% of the available bucks so increase that by 40%. LOL

When quoting Rosenberry on anything, keep in mind that this is the same PhD that works for the PGC and not a university as a researcher and once used a study group (with no control group mind you) of only five bucks, all collared before they grew antlers (so it was unknown if they were even AR legal) in order to predict the number of bucks hunters would harvest statewide. If he said there were a dozen eggs in a box I would check to see if it were a half dozen , 18 count, or how many were cracked before I put the skillet on the stove.

Lets not forget the comical antlerless deer study of collared deer in 2g and 4b... It was found that 80% of collared deer (and surmised noncollared as well) survived the season avoiding death from all sources including hunting.     For 4b, it was 70%.      At the beginning of the study it was said it was unknown if hunters seeing collared deer might cause some bias towards not shooting that particular deer...for example, see 3 doe, would  they shoot the one with the highly visible collar, or automatically choose another.   This was a good assumption, since I think MANY would do that, not knowing the purpose of the collar, or just because the deer "looks odd" wearing the hardware.  Others might not want to "deal with" the equipment after the harvest...  No to mention its very easy to slant said data by collaring deer in areas known to receive more or less hunting pressure depending on your intent.
 
The theory of hunters being selective at least somewhat against shooting deer with hardware was mentioned early on in the initial stages of the study and then completely ignored thereafter from what Ive read and heard on the topic over the last several years.   As if it didn't matter or have any effect even though there is no data suggesting otherwise and its pretty obvious that with relatively low number of deer in the study, it wouldn't take a lot of bias to have a significant effect on the end result.   Yet the comedic results were discussed multiple times, even brought up at some fairly recent pgc meetings to try to make points (actually nonpoints) insinuating these results could be extrapolated to the entire units in question, and I saw at least one instance it was insinuated that it could be looked at as representative across the state, even though it would mean we had obscene numbers of deer that have never existed.. millions of deer (lmao) if indeed that were the case.
 
Yep.  The circus music never stops playing at Elmerton.