Are you that narrow-minded that you don't recognize ... others may have different thoughts on what good deer hunting may be ?

"Are you that narrow-minded that you don't recognize ... others may have different thoughts on what good deer hunting may be ? "

When judged on any and all criteria possible to make that judgement, the statement was a falsehood period. He didnt say in his little isolated area, where that may or may not have been the case due to his area being spared the effects that most others have realized... he spoke of the state overall. And thats simply not true. The majority dont think the last couple years have been better, the stats dont show it in any way as "better" therefore it isnt better. All time high levels of hunter dissent. several decades low reported buck harvests, decades low overall harvests...and bigger buck were harvested at a much better rate prior to all the rediculous reductions.

When there is that much evidence to the contrary, its not longer a matter of being "opinion".

So even if far less than half are successful at harvesting a deer, any deer herd size that doesnt cater to the environmentalists desires for excessive unnatural levels of hobblebush & trillium growth is equal to a "deer shoot"?

LAUGH right back atcha!

"Is that true, or does the minority speak the loudest ?"

Oh its true.

" Care to provide proof of your majority claim ?"

Most dont need proof. I suspect you dont either. Only seek to cloud the issue with a shred of doubt. Go anywhere not pgc or audubon affiliated and ask. Ask if people prefer to harvest 140-200,000 bucks or if theyd prefer 108k. lmao. Ask them if theyd prefer to harvest More or less 2.5 year olds. As them if theyd prefer to hunter 20 dpsm or 10. Ask them if they care about trillium in excessive amount at the cost of around 10 additional deer per square mile. lmao. Prove it to yourself. Ive lived and talked to enough hunters for the last decade to know whats blatantly obvious. Your denial is about like pointing at a red car and telling everyone its not red, and asking me to prove that its not. lol.

I could easily point to the internet polls on several sites that dont support the amount of hr by a long shot 70-80% against. I could point to the surveys done by several state representatives that show 70% DO NOT SUPPORT a license fee increase for pgc. Or we could look at Alt needing a bullet proof vest just to speak in public previously.... We could point out the legislators preventing a fee increase on our behalf....or the fact pgc is actually being sued for their mismanagement.

Nope, everyones happy. lmao.

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

ORIGINAL: deerfly

Hunting Deer in PA. has never been better.

Why do you think hunting is better than ever when we are harvesting 47% fewer buck than we did in 2001?Is harvesting 213K antlerless better hunting than harvesting 302K antlerless like we did in 2001?

What years are you comparing to get yer % and #'s ? The best to the worst ?

I am comparing the results of the previous DMP with the most recent results produced by the current DMP. I will leave it up to you to decide if I am comparing the best to the worst!!

ORIGINAL: wayne c

So even if far less than half are successful at harvesting a deer

Were far less than half "successful" before ar/hr ?

ORIGINAL: MuskyMastr

My numbers come from actual sportsmens club meetings here in 1A (not social clubs, but actual hunters) I repeatedly see 80% opposition to HR and about 70% against AR.

When managing deer, the pgc should not consider the 90% of the pa population that does NOT hunt ? If they did, what does that say about them and hunters ? Does public perception of what hunters are viewed as, matter ?

ORIGINAL: wayne c


I could easily point to the internet polls on several sites that dont support the amount of hr by a long shot 70-80% against. I could point to the surveys done by several state representatives that show 70% DO NOT SUPPORT a license fee increase for pgc. Or we could look at Alt needing a bullet proof vest just to speak in public previously.... We could point out the legislators preventing a fee increase on our behalf....or the fact pgc is actually being sued for their mismanagement.

Internet polls like on hunting pa, where 950,000 pa hunters of the 970,000 are not a member of ?


A state rep poll ... who ? A "no deer" rep ?

"Were far less than half "successful" before ar/hr ? "

Not sure why you ask, because Im not a proponent of going back to pre-ar pre-hr conditions. .



"The majority want older bucks but shoot young bucks. Can't have yer cake and eat it too."

Compared to now, sure you can.... More bucks born means more buck both young and old.


"When managing deer, the pgc should not consider the 90% of the pa population that does NOT hunt ?"

Of course not. But about 90% of that 90% couldnt care less and dont even bother to voice an opinion. So Pgc & environmentalist groups like to lump them all into the "kill the deer" clan.

"If they did, what does that say about them and hunters ? Does public perception of what hunters are viewed as, matter ? "

Maybe the nonvocal, noncaring general public would be more interested and vocal if we werent doing our job and allowed 2 bazillion deer or killed them off all together.... Anything short of those extremes, no, i dont see the soccer moms, the nonhunting city dwellers or in general, the majority of the public as giving a crap....and no, they dont default to-- I support pgc, kill the deer!

"Internet polls like on hunting pa, where 950,000 pa hunters of the 970,000 are not a member of ? "

Ive seen polls on TONS of sites. I also dont see them as indicative of "hunters" opinions because pgc & dcnr employees voted on them at a far higher rate than they represent in reality statewide. SO if anything, they are very conservative.

Ive seen them on Hpa, On huntingnet, on Grizzly Gary, on Pa-outdoors.com, just about anywhere deer management is discussed.

Just so happens they all agree with exactly what i see from hunters around here, so i have no reason to doubt the results.


A state rep poll ... who ? A "no deer" rep ?

Nope. More than one rep.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"Internet polls like on hunting pa, where 950,000 pa hunters of the 970,000 are not a member of ? "

Ive seen polls on TONS of sites. I also dont see them as indicative of "hunters" opinions because pgc & dcnr employees voted on them at a far higher rate than they represent in reality statewide. SO if anything, they are very conservative.

Ive seen them on Hpa, On huntingnet, on Grizzly Gary, on Pa-outdoors.com, just about anywhere deer management is discussed.


A state rep poll ... who ? A "no deer" rep ?

Nope. More than one rep.

So if a poll result disagrees with your beliefs, do you say it's fake ?


Who's the reps ? Godshall & Haluska ?

ROTFL ~!~~~~!!!!

"If you don't go back to then, what is so bad now ? That's all you've been doing the whole time.

My point proven....you use what you want when you want. LAUGH."

...And my point proven, you dont make sense, and will say anything not to look like youve just come out on the short end of the stick debate-wise. lol.

Not sure what you are talking about but theres a helluva lot of room between where we are and where we were. As i said i support ar. I dont support the ridiculous widescale statewide slaughter. Some areas needed some reduction and got far more than needed. Others needed none at all but got it anyway. The units are far too large and hunters are ignored. The underlying goals are extreme to say the least. And thats just some of the obvious problems directly related to hunting. Not speaking of the very nonhunterfriendly staff at pgc, the screwed up funding system, the utterly ridiculous politcal commissioner selection process and many other problems we could discuss that will keep the same b.s. deer management ongoing, where we dont know every 10 years whether we will have extremely high or extremely low deer densities...when will contraception be sprung on us, what other little surprises do the greenies have in store? Or will we get those on the board who really dont care at all about habitat and just want far too many deer??.


Because i dont support whats ongoing in no way means I want a deer behind every tree, that I dont respect "science"...I dont support extreme goals that the science is being used to achieve. ITs a matter of values. It also doesnt mean that dont give any concern at all to other interests.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"If they did, what does that say about them and hunters ? Does public perception of what hunters are viewed as, matter ? "

Maybe the nonvocal, noncaring general public would be more interested and vocal if we werent doing our job and allowed 2 bazillion deer or killed them off all together.... Anything short of those extremes, no, i dont see the soccer moms, the nonhunting city dwellers or in general, the majority of the public as giving a crap....and no, they dont default to-- I support pgc, kill the deer!

I got some news for ya wayne. About 10% of PA population are hunters and 10% are anti-hunters. That 80% in the middle will be the ones who decide the future of hunting in the long run. Certainly your progative to be viewed as a blood-thirty, care about more deer & myself only deer hunter, but you're contributing to the demise. YOU are part of the problem.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"If you don't go back to then, what is so bad now ? That's all you've been doing the whole time.

My point proven....you use what you want when you want. LAUGH."

...And my point proven, you dont make sense, and will say anything not to look like youve just come out on the short end of the stick debate-wise. lol.

Not sure what you are talking about but theres a helluva lot of room between where we are and where we were. As i said i support ar. I dont support the ridiculous widescale statewide slaughter. Some areas needed some reduction and got far more than needed. Others needed none at all but got it anyway. The units are far too large and hunters are ignored. The underlying goals are extreme to say the least. And thats just some of the obvious problems directly related to hunting. Not speaking of the very nonhunterfriendly staff at pgc, the screwed up funding system, the utterly ridiculous politcal commissioner selection process and many other problems we could discuss that will keep the same b.s. deer management ongoing, where we dont know every 10 years whether we will have extremely high or extremely low deer densities...when will contraception be sprung on us, what other little surprises do the greenies have in store? Or will we get those on the board who really dont care at all about habitat and just want far too many deer??.


Because i dont support whats ongoing in no way means I want a deer behind every tree, that I dont respect "science"...I dont support extreme goals that the science is being used to achieve. ITs a matter of values. It also doesnt mean that dont give any concern at all to other interests.

Do you seriously just type .. to ahh.. type ? LAUGH !

"I got some news for ya wayne. About 10% of PA population are hunters"

More like a little less....

" and 10% are anti-hunters."

More like, alot less.

" That 80% in the middle will be the ones who decide the future of hunting in the long run."

Silverkype verse 3 chapter 9; And the soccer moms shall spew fire and brimstone called down from the heavens. And hunters shall wail for mercy as they gnash their teeth and beg forgivenes... lmao.[8D] C'mon Kype. Lets deal in reality here. The only thing we have to fear is the pgc itself.

"Certainly your progative to be viewed as a blood-thirty, care about more deer & myself only deer hunter, but you're contributing to the demise. YOU are part of the problem."

And you are a part of the problem as i see it. And as i see it, the only one that currently exists. You come off as being of the same mindset ast the environmentalist extremists on a power grab, over-riding hunters as PGC's #1 partnership in conservation & game management issues. That can easily be seen with a quick browsing through the pgc website. Not that anyone should need to given what has transpired over the last decade.