. and the owner of the property told me that he {b}hadn't seen an antlered deer, let alone a legal antlered deer {/b]during the day light, except during the rut (which as a gun hunter I am excluded from hunting) since September.

And you STILL went there to hunt bucks, which is what you are complaining about not harvesting since AR.... ???


Even in your second example the owner said not many bucks...

do you think just because you went 28 for 28 by just being there the bucks are going to come running by???

If the owner told me no bucks .. I sure would not hunt there then complain when I do not get one there....

A perfect example of how some guys just have to complain no matter what the "true story" is.

deciding to hunt an area that he was told did not have daytime bucks then complaining about not getting one when he did hunt there .. UNBELIEVABLE !!!!

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

. and the owner of the property told me that he {b}hadn't seen an antlered deer, let alone a legal antlered deer {/b]during the day light, except during the rut (which as a gun hunter I am excluded from hunting) since September.

And you STILL went there to hunt bucks, which is what you are complaining about not harvesting since AR.... ???


Even in your second example the owner said not many bucks...

do you think just because you went 28 for 28 by just being there the bucks are going to come running by???

If the owner told me no bucks .. I sure would not hunt there then complain when I do not get one there....

A perfect example of how some guys just have to complain no matter what the "true story" is.

deciding to hunt an area that he was told did not have daytime bucks then complaining about not getting one when he did hunt there .. UNBELIEVABLE !!!!

 
You really should try to pay attention. 
 
I was not there to hunt bucks.  I stated that pretty clearly.  I was there to kill does for the property owners. I would only take a buck off one of these properties if it were truely large -- for me that would be a 10 point or bigger with an inside of 20" or bigger (since I don't watch the outdoor show porn, I have no idea what something like that would score) because that would be bigger than what I harvested pre-AR/HR and be acceptable to them.
 
 But one would think that if there were enough does in both of those spots that they needed killing in order to minimize crop damage (in the four hunts I spent on these properties, I saw a minimum of 15 deer and a max of 40), that there would be some bucks around.  Last time I looked deer were not hermaphrodidic -- something bred them.
 
Also, they were not seen since September, except during the rut.  There were some seen before September and during the rut -- and not all of those were killed.  Since I, like 70% of PA deer hunters, do not hunt archery, they are not available to me during the rut.
 
The point was, even under ideal conditions, in ideal spots, there were no where near the bucks to be seen or shot after AR/HR as there were before.
 
Since you have not killed a buck since AR/HR and it is unknown how successful you were before then, it would seem that you fall into the catagory outlined in the magazine survey that I put up -- one of those that supports AR because they averaged one buck every 10 years, so the changes didn't effect them.  As you can see, it drastically effected me.
 
Its pretty simple Doc.  Deer hunting, unless you hunt next to the swing set or swimming pool in an urban area; have private ground with food plots and supplements surrounded by private ground with food plots and supplements; or turn deer hunting into a second job; sucks now for those that were successful before AR/HR (which obviously you weren't or you wouldn't like it either) and are not now because Alt, in an effort to pad his resume, was the puppet of the environmental movement (which he has become a part of) and the timber industry that caused the PGC to place the primary stakeholder (and only paying one, by the way [timber is harvested form game lands hunters paid for]), hunter, far down the list of who they should cater to.

No === by having those 200,000 hunters in the woods chasing deer some of the other 700,000 that did not get one may have got one.. so the extra 200,000 would not have to have a 48% success rate.. sometinmes you make me laugh at your "grasping for straws" ...

Once again , you don't understand the issue. It doesn't matter which 200K hunters harvested the deer, the effective harvest rate for those 200K hunters would still be 48%.

If we had 20+% success for one year we could easily have one again...

But that would only be possible because we lost those 200K hunters since 2000. With the current size of our herd and 923K a 20% success rate is impossible.

Maybe , as hunters, we can do a better job, like we used to do. Thats why we only get 16%, ask the PGC.....WF

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

Dars..


it boils down to what makes a deer hunter happy... some like you have decided to be a deer hunter that you have to shoot something big to feel good about... you know ... something to BRAG about..


many and I feel the majority of Pa deer hunters could care less about all those TV shows and trophy bucks... they enjoy the thrill of going out into the woods and trying to harvest a deer.. any deer... most were happy shooting spikes and forks for decades.... others.. the same ego guys passed on small bucks back then and some were successful... they did not get as much bragging back then because most deer hunters just wanted to have a buck harvest and they were the majority...

now with all the TV trophy bucks, boone and crockett. pope an young ... deer preserves etc etc.. deer hunting success has changed for many.. if not a trophy you have done nothing...



I hunt deer to enjoy it.. successful ????... 25 straight years ??? I do not know alot of guys around here or that I "pal" with that have done that.. but do I brag.. I hope not.. I'm the first to admit that thank God I live where I do, not alot of guys have thousands of acres of SGL as adjourning property... that helps me more than anything to keep that streak going and I'm going to keep it going.. It's just not going to be in rifle season this year ...

I'm happy shooting a whitetail deer each year.. male or female.. I could care less....
if that makes me some thing less of a dedicated deer hunter in your book.. so be it...
I do not hunt to make anyone else happy or look for their approval ...

I do it because I LOVE IT !!!!!

well time to get dressed and head out to get my 2010 whitetail deer...........

 
Again, you aren't paying attention.  Or your reading comprehension skills aren't very good.  Maybe if I type slower you can get it.
 
I don't need a big buck to make me happy.  Over my hunting career I have NEVER, let me repeat that for you because if you read it twice it just might register, NEVER, passed on ANY legal buck.  If I saw a legal buck and I could cleanly kill it, I did.  Is that clear enough for you?  To me antlers don't make the deer, they make the deer legal.  I made mention that I have only shot one spike and no forkhorns to preempt the "but all those bucks you killed were spikes and forkhorns" argument because that isn't true.  I mentioned the size of the 8 points only to illustrate that there were "nice" bucks well in advance of AR/HR and in my experience, I have yet to harvest a deer since AR/HR that compared to those I did before.
 
As for not shooting anything smaller on the two aforementioned properties, if you had read, paid attention, and comprehended instead of spouted, you would clearly understand that the property owners, those who granted permission for me to hunt those two areas, have a very clear stipulation that it is "earn a buck," which means that you must harvest two does from their property before being permitted to harvest a buck of any type.  The exception that both of those give is that a buck may be harvested first if, and only if, it is bigger than anything that you have taken before.  You see, as the property owners, they get to manage the deer herd that they feed and have crop damage from all year, in the manner that they see fit.  If I want to hunt those properties, and I do because just like you, I don't care if it has antlers or not, and if it does, as long as it is legal (and the land owner permits them to be taken off their property), what size they are.  Hence I described what it would take for me to harvest a buck from those properties and that would be a buck that was larger than a pre-AR/HR buck.
 
I also wrote that I didn't watch deer hunting shows because I don't care to, so I have no idea what deer score.  My father is 86 and grew up during the depression.  Back then deer hunting was for subsitance.  To him, it still is.  He is a real grump until I put some venison in his freezer.  He, and I, don't care if that deer is antlered or not.  If I were so antler driven, why would I spend any time, let alone 2/3's of my deer hunting time, on properties that the only plausible opportunity to harvest a deer almost necessarily means that it is a doe?
 
As for success, I posted by buck success in order to prove a point, that prior to AR/HR it was 100% and post AR/HR it is 10% -- even with relocating to other areas as seems to be the panacea that the "experts" recommend.  And even if I were able to harvest ANY legal buck from those two properites instead of having to go the "earn a buck" route, I could not have done it because I have not SEEN a legal buck since the first year of AR/HR -- during the hunting season -- any where.
 
Traipsing through the woods, taking your gun for a walk, might squirt your pickle, but I for one could go for a walk in the woods and not harvest anything or have the chance to harvest anything without buying thousands of dollars worth of equipment, using valuable vacation time, and do it in much nicer weather than is typically found during deer season.  Unfortunately, I go hunting to shoot things and fishing to catch things.  If I just want to go for a walk, I don't burden myself with carrying a gun or rod.
 
I used to love deer hunting.  I don't any more.  Heck, I guided for pheasants during the morning on the preserve I have permission to hunt on the Monday of the second week and the owner wanted to know why I didn't bring a rifle to hunt deer in the afternoon.  I told him that I had a great day and I didn't want to ruin it.  I guess that almost makes me like the 23% of PA hunters that still buy a license, but no longer hunt deer. The only difference is, to appease my Dad, I still get one for him.  When he passes, I will probably hang it up.
 
There was a timein PA where the only reason to buy a license was to hunt deer -- all the other game was just an add-on bonus.  Now, for almost a quarter of PA hunters, it is something other than deer that they are primarily after.

my comnprhension is fine...

Only in your not so humble opinion. You proved beyond a doubt that you can't begin to comprehend the effects of losing 200K buck hunter on the buck harvest.

From 2000 to 2008 general license sales decreased by 119.954 while buck hunters decreased by 203,673. So did only the buck hunters increase in age durring that period or did more buck hunters quit because the quality of deer hunting has decreased dramatically?

ORIGINAL: S-10

Two things Doc really shouldn't involve himself in IMO are issues relating to reading comprehension and issues where math is involved. He seems to have a lot of difficulty with both. By the way Doc, we have only averaged losing approx 1530 senior hunters per year from 2000 thru 2008 . We have lost more junior hunters per year than that during the same time frame. We are the only state to lose deer hunters at a faster rate than regular hunters. It started when AR/HR started. We are losing deer hunters over twice as fast as hunters in general and deer hunting is easier than many of the others..

Exactly. Kids would rather stay home and play Xbox Live and Playstation 3 instead of sitting in the woods and see 8 deer over the course of a 2 week season.

By the way Doc, we have only averaged losing approx 1530 senior hunters per year from 2000 thru 2008

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 ....

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

there will not be enough hunters to support the PGC nor will there be enough workers to pay the SS for all the baby boomers... folks will have to wait to 70 or even 75 to retire...get the tin foil hats ready !!!!

just about every state is losing hunters... we just had so many to start with it looks bad "on paper"...

You saw 16 deer in a few hours on stand and I saw a total of 3 deer during archery and the combined season. Therfore, you have no idea what the average hunter in PA is experiencing.

IMO...

You saw a total of 3 deer during archery and the combined season and I saw 16 in 3 hours. Therefore, you have no idea what the average hunter in PA is experiencing.

see the same goes for both sides

I guarantee ya the average Pa deer hunter saw more than 3 deer in archery and combined season...

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.

Guys are quitting over the lack of deer in PA since AR/HR came in. I've seen in my family firsthand. I have a cousin who his in his 40's and quit due to lack of deer. I also have younger 2nd cousins who dont hunt b/c of deer #'s

Junior hunters and mentored youth just want to see deer, shooting is somewhat secondary. My heart still beats like crazy when I see a deer, so a 10-12 year will be brimming with excitement. I'm 24 and when I started at age 12 I would easily see 15-20 deer per day, now I see 8-10 a season and I'm older, more deer hunting savy and hunt more.



Resident Adult, Non-Resident Adult, Resident Junior, Resident Senior, Resident Landowner sales all down



change your nic to Dr.Spin

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.

 
What are you talking about? It is the baby-boomers that were conceived and born after WWII that are now turning 65 and starting to drop out of hunting.
 
WWII ended in 1945 with the servicemen returning home and an increasing number of babies being born starting in 1946. That means the baby-boom era kids will start turning 65 in 2011, which is just around the corner.
 
Of course not all servicemen were married and producing kids the year they got home from the war so some of those baby-boomers still have a few years to go to reach their 65th birthday and some of us plan to keep hunting well after we turn 65 too.
 
But, the bottom line really is that we are going to continue seeing the largest group of hunters ever to join the ranks of the hunting fraternity dropping out of the sport as they continue to age and die.
 
I don’t know what you are even talking about relative to Korea or Viet Nam, but it was a lot of those baby-boomers born in the late 1940s and early 50s that served in Viet Nam in the mid 60s through early 70s.
 
R.S. Bodenhorn

Thanks RSB .. these guys are just so excited to jump on what I post they do not take time to think !!


it's the kids as a result of the soldiers coming home=== not the soldiers that are turning 65... gheezzz,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

and just FYI.. the 10,000 a day turning 65 continues until 2015.......

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....