ORIGINAL: DarDys

"DarDys- I read about that. Technically, the woman was breaking the law posessing wildlife as a pet. But the PGC reaction was extremely harsh, given the circumstances. They definitely went overboard."

Yes, it was breaking the law.  Just like if someone hits a deer on the road and instead of letting it suffer for hours until a PGC officer can show up to dispatch it, you put it out of its misery with a pistol behind the ear.

My point in posting it was that the PGC took the time and effort to do what they did because why?  There is no poaching of game animals in their area?  There weren't road killed deer to pick up?  There weren't any youth groups to meet with and talk about hunter safety?  They often lean on the excuse that they can only work 40 a week and there isn't enough time to do this or do that, yet they were able to take a full day or more (to coordinate with the police) to come to this lady's house over a tweety bird that would have died had she not provided some care for it.  Does anyone think that the local WCO saw the article in the paper and said "Whoa, we have a major game law violator here and I must spring into action" or do you think that some from from, oh, I don't know, a bird affliated club, called and told them about it and demanded action?

I agree with you. Their actions were ridiculous and a waste of time and resources.

The drop in deer hunters is not one sided, which is the point.

Do you have any data to back up that claim? I have provided the actual data on the decrease in the number of deer hunters compared to the decline in the general license sales and so far all you provided is your opinion.

I got that. But I dont think how they ended it is "up for interpretation". They screwed up.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

The drop in deer hunters is not one sided, which is the point.

Do you have any data to back up that claim? I have provided the actual data on the decrease in the number of deer hunters compared to the decline in the general license sales and so far all you provided is your opinion.

Actually - there is data that backs that up. You can search for it. PA has one of the oldest hunting populations. Our average hunter is mid-40's to 50 I believe while other states are younger. I never said some people don't quit because of lack of deer, but to assume this issue is one sided shows your bias towards the PGC. The nation is losing hunters because of age and their numbers are not being replaced because of changes in lifesytles. Now, you show me data that proves a 23% drop in hunters is one sided (lack of game).

Also, now that your back on your rant for the future of hunting (and say that is your big picture concern)...tell me, what have YOU done for the future of hunting ? We can yap all day with no solutions, so educate me that you walk the walk.

So now AR is a reason for a decrease in deer hunters. I can see lack of game discouraging some, but that statement is a little much. You telling me not being able to shoot half of yearling bucks in the woods is attributed to a decline in hunters ? I'm glad (and impressed) that someone who complains as much as you is doing something for the future. I can assure you those who talk the loudest typically do the least.

See if I have this right...

for some reason 11% just stopped buying general licenses completely.. quit hunting completely...
some maybe mad at the PGC, some too old to do any hunting, poor health, moved to another state (big thing around here) etc etc.

12% stopped deer hunting...

some because of health they could not hunt deer because it takes a little more effort in dragging (for example) than stuffing a bunny in your bag...

more folks working longer hours and needing money can't afford to take the opener or Saturdays off to hunt deer but still buy a general because of longer small game seasons...


then comes the "baby boomers" you know that same group that when they all retire there will be more on SS than people working and paying into it... Pa has TONS of them and as mentioned above many are not hunting deer and many are moving to spend those golden years in another state...

5 in my own family fall into that this year alone and I already have 3 in Fla, that use to hunt here in Pa...

and finally I guess their are those that quit because of lack of deer or being anti-PGC.....
the thing I do not understand is then they become someone who has no right to complain,.
they are no longer a member of the deer hunting community....

WHO CARES WHAT THEY THINK .. THEY DO NOT HUNT DEER !!!!!

holly crap..... I can't believe it... I actually agree with this ???????

I don't think their are many who will deny that ARs make it harder to harvest a buck and for hunters with decreasing vision it makes it significantly more difficult ARs for the first time created a class of deer that was totally protected from harvest except by juniors and military. Therefore, if ARS made 60,000 buck illegal, they effectively removed 60,000 deer from the normal preseason huntable population.

Along with the vision thing about IDing the number of points....

AR also effected those that in the past who saw antlers on a running deer or one at a distance.. did not hesitate in pulling the trigger.. now they have to be even more sure of their target. that too adds to less bucks getting harvested..

Well fellas, you use pgc data when you like it and discount it when you don't. So have fun with this one. Read the last link at the bottom. Fewer Deer & Fewer Hunters: Are They Related?


The notion that more deer will result in more licensessold sounds somewhat logical, but overstocked merchandiseracks don�t necessarily result in increased sales. From 1982to 1999, deer populations, deer harvests and hunter successrates all increased, but hunting license sales declined. Let�stake a closer look at what happened.From 1982 to 1999, with similar seasons, antlered harvestsincreased from 122,000 to 194,000. And, the percentof hunters harvesting bucks more than doubled, from 9 percentin 1982 to 19 percent in 1999. Without a doubt, deerpopulations increased and hunter success increased.During this same time period, however, hunting licensesales went in the opposite direction. In 1982, more than 1.3million hunters bought licenses. By 1999, about 1 milliondid �a loss of 300,000 hunters.So, did more deer lead to more hunters? No. Declines inhunting license sales occurred despite increased deer populationsand hunter success. SeeTable 1.

http://bowsite.com/bowsite/features/articles/2006survey/nat_survey2001_recruitment.pdf

Page 26. Look at the difference and % change from 1990 -2005 in all parts of the country. The mid-Atlantic (PA & NY) is not near as bad as the mountain and pacific and better than New England, South Atlantic, & East South Central. And better than the national average.

But general license sales only tells part of the story, but the actual number of deer hunters shows the negative impact of the new DMP. From 1986 to 2000 the number of deer hunters declined by 10%,while from 2000 to 2008 the number of deer hunters decrease by 23%
So in the 15 years prior to the plan the number of deer hunters decreased by 10% while in just the 9 years the number od deer hunters decreased by 23%, so it is obviously the rapid decline in deer hunters in the last 9 years can be attributed to the effects of the new DMP.

ORIGINAL: deerfly

so it is obviously the rapid decline in deer hunters in the last 9 years can be attributed to the effects of the new DMP.

You recently told me something was my opinion and asked for data. So now, I see your opinion and ask you for the data. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I want you to prove it.

No, I'm not spinning. I never said deer hunteres numbers weren't dropping faster. You made that up after your national average comment came to a halt. Infact, I did say I can see where lack of game is discouraging. You musta missed that.

ORIGINAL: S-10

Why are you posting the same misleading information the the PGC is using to try and prove we are better off than the nation while ignoring data from the same report that says we are losing deer hunters faster than the rest of the nation and over twice as fast as our regular hunter numbers. Remember it is DEER this thread is about.

At this point, the 23% is deerfly's numbers. I have not seen it. I posted general sales because we were talking about recruitment and so were you. Unless you have recruitment numbers of deer hunters, your point is moot.

Now, why don't you address the higher deer numbers in the 90's and the decline of hunters in the 90's. It's your logic, not mine.

At this point, the 23% is deerfly's numbers. I have not seen it. I posted general sales because we were talking about recruitment and so were you. Unless you have recruitment numbers of deer hunters, you're point is moot.

No , that is not true. Because general license sales decreased we know that recruitment of new hunters was less than the number of hunters that quit. Therefore, the recruitment data is irrelevant to the fact that the number of deer hunters decreased by 23% from 2000 to 2008 and BTW that is based on data provided by the PGC in the current DMP. So , they know there was a significant decrease in the number of deer hunters but choose to conceal that info by talking about hunter success rates and the decline in general license sales.

I never claimed that increased deer numbers would result in an increase in the number of hunters because I knew that didn't happen in the past 30 years, but it did happen from around 1930 until around 1980.

NOPE---That variable is already taken care of in the general decline nationwide and in Penna. The extra steep decline in Deer Hunters has to be something that happened recently in Pennsylvania and the only variable not accounted for is the implementation of AR/HR. Heck, even you proved that, look how your excitement ramped up for this year (bad heart and all) when you realized you may actually have a chance for a buck on the posted property you have permission to hunt. You started asking questions about how to hunt it and decided to ramp up your scouting. All the average hunter wants is a reasonable chance to kill a buck and they will be happy. If they don't feel they have that chance based on what they have seen no amount of data manuiuplation will convince them otherwise. As you say, we will still experience a gradual decline in general hunter numbers but the unprecendented decline in deer hunter numbers is caused by a different factor which the PGC seems not to want to discuss.