#1 NO # 2 yes

yes

no

1. Yes
 
2. Yes

1. Yes
2. No

Thanks for breaking the ice doc. I guess now its discussion time??

Ive seen several other polls taken on these topics, and they generally run 60-65% for ar, and about 30% or less for hr (as implemented).

As for this poll, I think the confusing nature of the "hr" question has some not sure how to vote. This was discussed on another thread here. Some voted yes, and others voted no, even though both felt exactly the same after discussion! That the hr was necessary but, not everywhere, and that it was overdone in many areas and support it in theory but not as was implented.

That fact, along with having pgc employees (and others) voting within these small number of voters, and its easy to see how results become skewed. At least if one wants to know what we as HUNTERS think, and if that were the intent of the poll.

Here are the results of an ongoing more specific, less confusing poll on another site:

80% think too much hr in their unit.
6.6% support current herd level with stipulation of no further hr
13.3% support things exactly as they are

HR POLL


On the same site, "AR" was supported by 58% of the voters. At least one pgc employee, possibly more voted on the poll as well.

On huntingnet, a similar poll was taken and similar results were had. And that was even with a couple well known pgc personell voting there as well.

Ask around here among hunters on a day to day in person basis, and you'll get similar 'ar' results among hunters. But as for hr, unless you ask some pgc employee or audubon joker, or someone else holding differing interest in deer management (other than hunter specific) you wont find 20% for the level of hr. Maybe 5 if your lucky, and those few, coming from leased or otherwise off limits land hunters who havent even experienced "the plan".

Around here, discussions on "Game Commission" is usually coupled with a sarcastic laugh and some censorable adjectives these days unfortunately.

"But the bigger question would be, would you be in favor of both majorities getting their way?"

Thats just it, Pgc even basically acknowledges a huge amount of hunters are not happy with level of hr in their areas, but they conclude that it just doesnt matter. Gotta have excessive amounts of the all too precious trillium & hobble-bush i guess. lol According to the documented findings of Pa biologist/ecologist John Eveland about who has been found to be running the show all this time, it comes as no surprise. (tiny handful of enviromentalist extremists). And they couldnt care less whether 100%...or ONE percent of hunters support it..

1. Yes
2. Depends on what part of the state. I don't think the doe tag allocation in places like 2B needs reduced, but in some places it certainly does.

I live in 2B, but went up to hunt for a couple days in 2E (its a tradition for my fiance's dad, hes been hunting there for 40+ years now, and goes up for the memories, doesn't even load his gun). Every member of our party saw multiple deer. I and another guy harvested deer. Even on Saturday, opening day of Doe, we only saw a couple of other hunters. Keep in mind, we were on public land 500 yards from the parking area at the farthest. I don't know how people expect to shoot deer if they don't go out and hunt. Did we see herds of 30 deer? No. But we all saw at least a dozen, and on Saturday I saw 2 shooter bucks and 4 doe by 8am. Thats not too bad in my book.

Yes, theres probably still 18000 or so unsold I would imagine. The problem is access. Finding somewhere to hunt, unless you own the property or know the people well, is difficult. Theres 14 deer up in the field about 300 yards out my front door as I type this. They go across the field into the neighboring property between 4 and 5 am to property I do not have permission to hunt, and probably won't come out unless pushed. I still have a decent ammount of acres to hunt, but compared to a SGL or the ANF its painfully small.

We were taught and we continue to teach our youth that "Hunters" are Conservationist. Pretty contradicting if you ask me. We harvest deer to protect them from "over populating" not because there are only two left on 5,000 acres. We harvest them to prevent them dying a slow suffering death from starvation and from disease's. In a lot of areas we have definately "Over Harvested". The AR makes no sense... An area that has alot of scrubs that can not be shot will then have to compete for available food how's that being a conservationist? Ever notice the Red Splats on the Highways in the fall? I would estimate 90% are buck in search of sparsely exsistng doe's. Now let's see, I can't shoot a nice 4 or 5 pt with my bow and put the meat in my freezer to provide healthy meals for my family but it's ok to let them get splattered on the highways causing damage and sometimes deaths. "DUH" !!! I think all these big rack hunters watch to much Outdoor Channel or some other show. People are putting way too much emphasis on having to shoot a deer with a big rack and acting like it's the macho thing to do. AR & HR are nothing more than "MAN LAWS" created by and for greed. Hunters are no longer Conservationist but have become obsessed with Idolizing a useless set of bones !


1.  NO
2.  no longer (big supporter before the goal was reached.  enuffs enuff)


nice rant CM.  I agree and have spouted off similarly.  I've become a trophy buck hunter ONLY because the regs mandate it.  I was a meat hunter who just happened to tag a trophy years before AR.  I've seen the sacred 4 pointers cut doe and breed them during the rut, and I've had to pass on massive-bodied 6 pointers simply because some jack-hole convinced other jack-holes that PA should become a big-buck state, errrr I mean the herds are unbalanced.  They were.  No longer. 

We're protecting the very animals that wouldn't get much of a chance at breeding.  Kill only the dominant bucks in a herd, you get nothing but scrubs breeding the next year.  THAT'S NOT NATURAL BALANCE!  I truly wonder if those in charge just got fed up with getting wedgies at national gatherings and simply hired Alt as the whipping-boy to bring PA some bragging rights when standing at the urinal next to commissioners from mid-west states.

The moment we put more value on the bones on the wall over the meat in the freezer we put our entire "sport" in question. 

I hate 2 weeks of buck & doe, and would rather see the 1st week buck only statewide.  I also wouldn't mind a cycled-AR if it meant something like once every 4 or 5 years AR are in effect.  To only kill the best leaves, literally, the rest.

Welp, there goes this thread....

Ironhed

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

Deer hunting in Penna, like Steelhead fishing, will come to an end in five years. Of course I've been hearing that for at least TEN years.

My how time flys.

 
Go water your Obama Chia Pet.

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Interesting so far ===

72% favor ARs while only 58% are against HR...

Pretty evenly contrasting numbers,
for those who'd like to know how the tally's going so far;
(as best I could tell, there were those pesky directions to muddy the waters)

AR:
Y = 23
N = 15
= 65% for AR

HR:
Y = 15
N = 24
= 63% against HR

Didn't get my answer in soon enough, doesn't matter anyway. I will say that I think both programs have hurt hunter participation. When the news is making a big deal out of 750,000 hunters hitting the woods and I can remember when they were saying 1.5 million hunters (and I'm not THAT old).

Oh, and

No and No

I really think AR is smoke and mirrors, and HR is ultimately resulting in Hunter Reduction

Well, since the thread is fubar'd already:
 
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt
If the search comes up, it is the 4th article down.
 
Can't get a link to post directly but, there is an article by Chris Rosenberry on the PGC site titled "Fewer Deer and Fewer Hunters: Are they Related?".  Graphs and charts mapping the decline in license sales from 1982 to present (at least 2008) shows pretty clearly that the AR/HR program has had no net effect on the historic loss of hunters in this state.  This trend is similar in other states nationally.  Hunting, whether we like it or not, is on the decline across the nation. 
 
Even when success rates were their highest in the late 90's, early 00's, license sales were still declining and the trend has continued.  AR/HR is something tangible and easy to blame but, not the real reason for the decline in hunters.
 
It's up to us to get the youth involved and increase our own ranks.  Another thing that IMO would increase license sales and more hunters is legalizing Sunday hunting across the board, but that is another subject.
 
 

Just goes to show the anti PGC guys can't stand that there are in fact people who support AR or HR. They also can't stand people who are still succesfull under AR and HR. They ruin every thread with their BS.