ORIGINAL: S-10

Thats' because years ago guys were off fighting a war... not alot of people being born back then ... so there have not been that many folks becoming seniors in the past 10 years

That's what I mean about you not getting involved in issues where math is involved. Check when WW2 was over, the age of the soldiers fighting it, and figure out when they started turning 65. Even if you try it with Korea which had many fewer soldiers it still doesn't compute. The length of the tour in Viet Nam doesn't support your contention either. Keep trying, Doc or else admit to the obvious.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

I'll do some math for Dr. Spin. Average age of WW2 solider was 26 and war ended in 1945...so in 1984 they hit started hitting age 65

what you smoking dude... no one was talking about the soldiers....

watch what the next 10-15 years does ....... hunter losses will AT LEAST DOUBLE every year... no matter how many deer there are...

Try to understand this, while deer hunting may be great for you, in your location, under your schedule, for the VAST MAJORITY of PA deer hunters, it sucks.

Picture Bill Gates or Warren Buffet during a recession (that would be you) and the guy that just got laid off (that would be the average PA deer hunter) -- both are affected negatively, but not equally. Under your thought process, the laid off guy can do something as simple as relocate and, walla, they become Bill or Warren. Not so in economics (or we wouldn't have almost 10% unemployment) and not so in deer hunting.

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

I don't need a big buck to make me happy.

Man, you sure fooled me.

Keep mowin' them button bucks!

Ironhed

Unfortunately, you have made it about the deer hunting being great for you. For some reason you don't see the side of the situation where it has gone from good to terrible for others -- for far more than it has gone from poor to good, stayed the same, or even good to fair. To expect hundreds of thousands of PA hunters to change their method of making a living in order to have a schedule that permits more deer hunting, as you did, is just absurd. For most PA deer hunters, it is a recreation and a sport, not a second job. However, while not wildly dedicated, they still want to have a reasonable expectation of similar success that they have had in the past.

By the way, six days is way more hunting than I did back in the 70's, 80's and 90's -- it was more like 6 hours. Time served only counts for prison. It was hunting then too, you had to see them to kill them. I never really had one come up and surrender.




10% succes rate sucks -- trying or not. Especially when that number used to be 100%. (On a side note, the antlerless rate is still 100%)

You see, as much as you and Doc want to use the term "moaning" or "complaining" I am not. I couldn't care less if I ever harvested another antlered deer.

I am meerly providing observations that present an opposing view. A view that unless you have a deer haven, no matter how you came upon it, or have the PGC ensignia tattooed on your behind (am I allowed to use that term) is one that more an more PA hunters are getting to see. And from yhe number of PA hunters that no longer identify themselves as deer hunters, they don't like it.

If you went to erie fishing and you were accustommed to catching walleye every trip and suddenly the PFBC decided to change something, I don't know, raise the limit to 100 per person per day because it was thought that the high walleye numbers were detrimental to the number of emeral shiners in the lake, and in a year or two you find that you are now catching a walleye one out of every 10 trips, would you find that disturbing?

As for "really,", yeah, really.

The average PA hunter is not able to relocate to some deer mecca. They are far too busy with life other than deer hunting. They are tied to a certain commute distance. They are tied to a certain schedule. The same is true with those that have a adundance of anything and loose a little, they are negatively affected (go from killing a deer every year or every other year to every other year or every third year), but don't really notice. Those that are just getting by (kill a deer every three or four years) are greatly affected (kill a deer every six or seven years).

As for working harder at it, yes, that is needed now. I'll admit that.

Does that mean that someone has to like it?

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

As for the BB comment, I explained that in nearly 40 years of hunting I have shot exactly 2 -- one that was severly injured by what appears to have being hit by a vehicle and the one that I mistook for a doe this season because of the size of the other deer that were with it. I believe that your comment is boardering on disparaing. Careful, you might lock the thread.

No explanation necessary.

There was absolutely belittlement meant concerning the bb comment. My apologies if it you took it that way.

It makes no sense to me to shoot a bb and complain about not seeing any bucks.

On a side note, I wish I was half as good as yourself at expressing my thoughts.  That's a compliment and no, no thread-locking.

Ironhed