Pretty Good Article

Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
wayne c
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3473
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
2010/12/30 12:22:56 (permalink)

Pretty Good Article

I'm not a biologist.

I'm not an ecologist.

I'm not a forester.

I'm a deer hunter.

When I think about what I want to experience in the woods each fall, I think about it from a deer hunter's perspective.

If that makes me a bad person, or unenlightened, then so be it.

This year, I filled my Pennsylvania buck tag when I shot a nice nine-pointer with my bow Nov. 1.

And yet — from a deer-hunter's perspective — I would have to rate this season as one of the worst I've experienced in the past 20 years.

There are years that I hold in much higher regard when I didn't kill a buck. Those years were more enjoyable because I had more encounters with deer.

So it's not just filling a tag that makes a season successful.

I hunt private property in Chester County.

That means I should be swimming in deer, right?

From early muzzleloader season, through archery season until I shot my buck and on through the recently ended firearms season, I hunted 10 days on two properties in Chester County.

Over that span, I saw two deer. And I shot one of them.

I hunted seven days in a row without seeing a single deer before I shot my buck.

I hunted opening day and the first Saturday of the gun season — statistically the two best deer-hunting days in the woods — and I saw just one deer, which was a one-antlered buck that I wouldn't have shot even if I had an open buck tag.

I don't need to see 50 deer a day to be happy.

More than two in 10 days would be nice.

On several occasions when I went out to hunt this fall, I felt something that I never would have thought was possible to feel during a Pennsylvania deer season.

Hopelessness.

My expectations for encounters with deer couldn't have been any lower.

From the letters and calls I've received at the newspaper from other deer hunters, apparently I wasn't the only one who had a tough season.

As I've talked to and corresponded with friends, readers and acquaintances about the 2010 deer season, several folks told me I should write about how the Pennsylvania Game Commission is "mismanaging" the state's deer herd.

I'm not qualified to make that call. I disagree with many parts of the program, but I can't say the agency is mismanaging the herd.

The deer-management program could be working exactly how the biologists want, for all I know.

I've talked many times over the years with Cal DuBrock, head of the Game Commission's Bureau of Wildlife Management, and with Chris Rosenberry, the chief deer biologist.

These, and the other members of the deer team, are good people.

Their goal is not to kill every last deer in the woods.

I know that.

What I don't know is if providing a quality deer-hunting experience is part of Pennsylvania's deer-management program.

Now that would be a tall task that is likely to be quantified differently by every hunter in the state.

But I've never heard our wildlife-management folks say they even considered the quality of the deer-hunting experience in the state as they've developed their deer program.

I've heard them talk countless times about the need to kill deer to help with forest regeneration.

I've heard them say deer need to be killed because the Game Commission has to consider the well-being of all species of wildlife in the state.

But I've never heard them say, "We want to strive toward providing a quality deer-hunting experience in Pennsylvania."

Is it wrong for me to want to hear that?

I've heard deer managers in other states say it.

In North Dakota, firearms tags are like gold, issued only through lottery drawings every year.

Residents hope to draw a tag every three years. Nonresidents often wait five years or longer.

When I asked the North Dakota Game and Fish Department's deer-management program leader why the state is so stingy with its whitetail tags, he said it's because the state wants to provide a quality hunting experience for those who do get to go hunting each year, no matter where they hunt.

If licenses were simply sold without limitation, he said, it's likely deer herds would be overshot in some parts of the state.

I heard a similar explanation from the deer-management folks in Kansas.

Issuing licenses via lottery might be considered a bit extreme for Pennsylvania, but it's clear deer managers in other parts of the country factor the deer-hunting experience into their management programs.

I don't think the Game Commission's Bureau of Wildlife Management purposely set out to degrade the quality of Pennsylvania's deer hunting.

But I absolutely believe that's a byproduct of our deer-management program.

And either some agency officials don't believe that or they don't want to believe it.

I read an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer a week or two ago in which a Game Commission official said there are fewer deer hunters these days because land across the state that used to be open now has been developed, and because people have many more obligations today than they used to, which forces hunting to the back burner.

No doubt those statements are true, but he sure wasn't quoted also saying, "The deer hunting is pretty lousy in many places where it used to be great, and that's keeping some folks home, too."

In 2001, one in 4.8 hunters bagged a buck. Last year, one in 7.6 hunters tagged one.

Many camps in the Big Woods country that once were full during deer season sat empty for much or all of this past season.

Local rural properties that used to look like pumpkin patches during the firearms season had faint flashes of orange in them.

I'm one guy.

I personally know four once-avid Pennsylvania deer hunters who don't hunt here any longer because they believe the hunting stinks.

They have the time and the money to go, but they figure, "What's the use?"

How many others have quit for the same reason?

And how are we supposed to replace those hunters with new ones given the deer-hunting product that's available today?

What would a new hunter tagging along with me this season have thought about Pennsylvania deer hunting after two deerless days in a row? Or three? Or four?

Would they have called it quits before they got to that eighth hunt when I finally saw a buck and shot it?

Don't dare mention to the foresters, ecologists, etc. who support the Game Commission's deer-management program that you'd like to see more deer in the woods in order to improve the quality of the deer hunting.

You'll be labeled a "disgruntled hunter" who's no different than a kid asking to eat candy for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

"Science" is all that matters.

Heck, even when Carl Roe, the Game Commission's executive director, pitched the idea in 2008 of reducing the firearms doe hunting in four wildlife management units to just the second week of the season at the request of some hunters, the agency's biologists and their supporters bristled.

That's not what the "science" dictated.

The majority game commissioners were accused of throwing science out the window last year when they expanded the area with only one week of firearms doe hunting to an additional four WMUs.

I've listened to the "scientists" long enough to seriously wonder if they view deer in Pennsylvania as pests or as the majestic animal that has captured the minds and hearts of so many hunters like me.

Deer get blamed by the scientists for causing all kinds of problems in the forest.

I can't say that I recall those scientists talking about the joy and excitement deer bring to the forest.

I've tried to embrace the new face of deer management in Pennsylvania.

You'll never hear me argue that the current program is bad for the forest.

I just think it's ruining the sport and storied tradition of deer hunting here.

And I'm not a biologist, ecologist or forester.

I'm a deer hunter.

P.J. Reilly is the Sunday News' outdoors writer. E-mail him at preilly@lnpnews.com.Read more: http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/328120#ixzz19bwhCSYn
#1

43 Replies Related Threads
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 13:16:17 (permalink)
    "Over that span, I saw two deer. And I shot one of them.

    I hunted seven days in a row without seeing a single deer before I shot my buck."

    The lack of deer sightings troubled him so much, that he shot the first one he saw. He neglected to name the PGC official that forced him to pull the trigger.


    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #2
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 13:27:00 (permalink)
    He was hunting bucks. He saw a legal buck and shot a legal buck. It was the PGC that was created to enact and enforce laws to prevent overhunting. Quit trying to blame the hunter for doing what hunters do. The PGC issues the tags, and sets the seasons and bag limits.
    #3
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 13:41:21 (permalink)
    Hunters have a choice in where they "do what they do". And if one is truly concerned about low numbers in an area. He could choose to hunt another, rather than add to the "devestation" there.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #4
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 13:50:21 (permalink)
    200,000 took your advice and quit hunting, Many still believe the PGC and keep shooting the doe, some refuse to quit doing what they love. If the herd is reduced too low it is the fault of those who are paid to see that it doesn't happen. Is your spoon big enough for the pot?
    #5
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 13:58:13 (permalink)
    So hunters have no responsibilty at all? If you believe the numbers in an area are too low. Yoyu can not then harvest from that area, and deny culpabilty in the "problem".

    If the speed limit on a highway is 55, but you feel it only safe to drive 45. Do you drive 55 anyway, because the state is responsible for determining swhat speed is safe?

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #6
    psu_fish
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3242
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
    • Location: PA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:03:25 (permalink)
    figures obama-chia pet starts this thread off
     
     
     
    not everybody has the luxury to hunt different areas for a variety of reasons. I'm lucky enough to hunt different areas, but I see how some dont have that chance. I thought it was well thought article, but some like to protect the PGC at all costs
    #7
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:07:34 (permalink)
    Don't work that way with deer. The PGC just issues more tags until they find someone in state or out that will pick up the slack. You know that. It's the PGC's responsibility, that's why they were established-- to prevent over harvest of the states wildlife, that's what they are paid to do. Get a bigger spoon.
    #8
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:10:07 (permalink)
    figures obama-chia pet starts this thread off


    It's been my experience that most Liberal Democrats are non hunters or anti hunters.
    #9
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:23:43 (permalink)
    "It's the PGC's responsibility, that's why they were established-- to prevent over harvest of the states wildlife,"

    They believe they are doing so. YOU disagree. So you have three options. Continue as you have, and trust the PGC's management policies. Complain about those policies, while continuing to ADD to the "problem". OR take matters into your own hand as best you can, by harvesting elsewhere, or not at all. While I disagree with the need to do so. Many do this with Steelhead on the tribs. Limiting their harvest to well below legal limits, or not harvesting at all. They at least make an effort, to exercize some level of control.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #10
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:26:37 (permalink)
    "It's been my experience that most Liberal Democrats are non hunters or anti hunters."

    There is absolutely NOTHING "anti hunting" about my positions.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #11
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:36:55 (permalink)
    So you claim. Your post history suggests either a anti hunting bias OR a tendency towards keeping the pot stirred. Either way the sandbox is yours, I'am out for awhile. Have fun
    #12
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:42:29 (permalink)
    "Your post history suggests either a anti hunting bias OR a tendency towards keeping the pot stirred"

    Not anti-hunting in any way, shape or form. And the "the pot" is in a full boil, with a high speed mixer inserted at all times. Nothing I post can stir it any futher than it already is.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #13
    psu_fish
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3242
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
    • Location: PA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 14:50:02 (permalink)
    ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

    "It's the PGC's responsibility, that's why they were established-- to prevent over harvest of the states wildlife,"

    They believe they are doing so. YOU disagree. So you have three options. Continue as you have, and trust the PGC's management policies. Complain about those policies, while continuing to ADD to the "problem". OR take matters into your own hand as best you can, by harvesting elsewhere, or not at all. While I disagree with the need to do so. Many do this with Steelhead on the tribs. Limiting their harvest to well below legal limits, or not harvesting at all. They at least make an effort, to exercize some level of control.

     
     
     
    to paraphrase LeBron James, some PA hunters have taken their talents to OH/WV/NY/MD
     
     
    #14
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 15:02:45 (permalink)
    How many others have said the state allows ( not mandates ) me X number of doe tags, but I'll only apply for Y.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #15
    World Famous
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2213
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
    • Location: Johnstown
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 15:09:22 (permalink)
    A lot of hunters do restrict where or when they take an animal. Ain't fair to jump on anyone when they shoot a deer legally; he was hunting.....WF
    #16
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 15:45:16 (permalink)
    Alot do but this guy didn't yet complained of low numbers in that area. I wasn't "jumping on him" as much as I was pointing out the irony. I couldn't care less how many he harvests within the law. He was successful ( good for him ), yet oddly he is not satisfied with that success.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #17
    psu_fish
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3242
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2008/08/28 22:37:11
    • Location: PA
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 16:05:32 (permalink)
    part of the problem with the PGC is public relations. They come across as very cocky, arrogant, insert any adjective you want. All too often these people dismiss hunters and act like they are smarter/holier than thou.
     
    I see it here with RSB and a bunch of retired WCO's on HuntPA (Fisherie is much better, btw, least here we can have a 2 sided debate). It comes off as very unprofessional at times to spout off and belittle the very people funding their employer. I may be wrong but I dont see PFBC WCO's getting on forums and doing this.
    #18
    World Famous
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 2213
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
    • Location: Johnstown
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 16:21:33 (permalink)
    I missed the point, sorry Spoon, mea culpa...WF
    #19
    spoonchucker
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 8561
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 16:32:59 (permalink)
    No need WF. Things are not always clear from a single post. Which is why conversations, and dialog result.

    Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

    Step Up, or Step Aside


    The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

    GL
    #20
    deerfly
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1271
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 16:57:19 (permalink)

    ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

    Alot do but this guy didn't yet complained of low numbers in that area. I wasn't "jumping on him" as much as I was pointing out the irony. I couldn't care less how many he harvests within the law. He was successful ( good for him ), yet oddly he is not satisfied with that success.
    This year, I filled my Pennsylvania buck tag when I shot a nice nine-pointer with my bow Nov. 1.

    And yet — from a deer-hunter's perspective — I would have to rate this season as one of the worst I've experienced in the past 20 years.



    No where in that article did PJ say he was not satisfied his success. What he said was he was not satisfied with the quality of the overall hunting experience this season. I experienced the same thing last year when I shot an 8 pt. I enjoyed harvesting that buck and was quite satisfied with my success. But, the quality of the overall hunting last season was worse than I have ever experienced in the last 55 years of deer hunting.
    #21
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 17:45:20 (permalink)
    Alot do but this guy didn't yet complained of low numbers in that area.


    Sure, he most certainly did. He restricted his harvest. He didnt shoot a doe or doe(s).
    post edited by wayne c - 2010/12/30 17:46:40
    #22
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 18:32:22 (permalink)
    He restricted his harvest. He didnt shoot a doe or doe(s).



    I sure DID NOT see that in his article... what I saw/read was he saw 2 deer
    (2 bucks) and shot one on November 1st ...but continued to hunt thru rifle season....

    what was he hunting if not antlerless ??????

    NO WHERE did he say he was not hunting or would not have shot a doe.....

    took out a buck even before it had time to do much mating and maybe add a few deer to the area is he complaining about not having any deer....

    love the way you guys make stuff up from what you read !!!!

    DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


    #23
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 18:34:07 (permalink)
    from the article==

    What I don't know is if providing a quality deer-hunting experience is part of Pennsylvania's deer-management program.



    Here's the answer.. and I see nothing about provding enough deer to make every deer hunter happy or succssful .. nor enough so everyone gets to see enough to make them happy ====

    THE PENNSYLVANIA Game Commission
    is legally mandated and dedicated to
    managing wildlife, including deer, for the benefit
    of all Pennsylvanians, as well as all wildlife
    and the habitat that supports their existence. The
    Game Commission’s mission statement is “to
    manage all wild birds, mammals, and their habitats
    for current and future generations.”
    While managing white-tailed deer falls under
    the jurisdiction of the Game Commission as provided
    by Pennsylvania’s Constitution and Game
    and Wildlife Code, it also is a necessity. Deer
    can impact other species, their habitat and
    people negatively. Management decisions cannot
    be made to satisfy today’s desires at the expense
    of tomorrow’s resources.
    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/12/30 18:41:56

    DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


    #24
    deerfly
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1271
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 19:04:33 (permalink)
    Does the PGC stock pheasants to keep the pheasant hunters happy? Do they mange the waterfowl areas to keep waterfowl hunters happy?
    Or, is the primary mission of the PGC to manage the land and animals for the benefit of protected species of wildlife?
    #25
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 20:17:49 (permalink)
    I am sure that there are as many pheasant hunters UNHAPPY with the number of pheasant stocked as deer hunters unhappy with the number of deer they see...

    I know the PFBC is not making all the trout anglers happy with the numbers they stock either..

    I guess they both try to live up to managing wildlife birds, fish, etc to the best they can and especially to the best they can afford to do...

    as for waterfowl.. I must admit I have little interest... so know very little .. I do know some that hunt waterfowl around here are NOT complaining... we have TONS of Canada Geese.. I know that
    post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/12/30 20:19:05

    DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


    #26
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 20:17:54 (permalink)
    "I sure DID NOT see that in his article... what I saw/read was he saw 2 deer
    (2 bucks) and shot one on November 1st ...but continued to hunt thru rifle season...."


    Donno Doc. All i can see is he didnt shoot a doe. As for continuing to hunt, I continued to hunt even though i was tagged out on a buck and had no intention of shooting a doe. Was driving for others. Even carried a rifle one of the days hoping to see one of the coyotes we'd been seeing. Good reason to have a doe tag on hand.

    "NO WHERE did he say he was not hunting or would not have shot a doe....."


    Nowhere did he say he wouldve. And im not the one who stated flat out that he didnt restrict his harvest. In his unit, tags are basically unlimited. It could even be argued that he restricted his harest if he harvested "a" doe instead of multiples such as some who hunt the unit take several if they hunt where pockets of deer are higher in density.

    "love the way you guys make stuff up from what you read !!!!"


    Easy doc. You're about the last guy on here that wants to try to attack credibility.
    #27
    Dr. Trout
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 4417
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2002/03/03 03:12:33
    • Location: Jefferson County (2F)
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 20:22:30 (permalink)
    I'm just saying I agree with what someone else posted and many think..,

    if you going to complain about the deer numbers in your area in newspaper article or on the Internet... don't turn around and kill deer there..

    some of us think that's a little hypocritical...

    DR. TROUT'S OUTDOORWORLD MESSAGE BOARD


    #28
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 20:22:48 (permalink)
    "THE PENNSYLVANIA Game Commission
    is legally mandated and dedicated to
    managing wildlife, including deer, for the benefit
    of all Pennsylvanians"

    Yep there it is. Hunters are included in " all Pennsylvanians". Also 'managing deer' is done via HUNTING. Common sense dictates that that includes looking out for the managemnt tool itself, keeping it efficient. That doesnt mean hackin' off the hunters of the state with obtuse goals & meager deer populations. I wouldve never believe that anyone other than a 100% anti-hunter would infer that hunters should be of no concern whatsoever where deer management is concerned. It is in most other states, and its completely asnine not to EXPECT it here as well.
    post edited by wayne c - 2010/12/30 20:34:56
    #29
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: Pretty Good Article 2010/12/30 20:33:32 (permalink)
    "if you going to complain about the deer numbers in your area in newspaper article or on the Internet... don't turn around and kill deer there.."

    So now its "deer"? Or is it Doe? He didnt kill a doe. And i find nothing at all hypocritical in the least about killing a buck. I hunt many properties. But If i were only willing to kill a BUCK on a property where more deer needed to be killed, Id NEVER kill one nor would anyone else who thinks hr has gone too far in there areas. Though the doe harvest needs knocked back some without doubt.

    I agree some are hypocritical when it comes to that, but dont see how that makes it any less of pgcs fault. Why should those of us who DO refrain and arent hypocritical have to put up with the results of other hunters poor decision making when pgc is not just enabling it, but actually encouraging it.
    #30
    Page: 12 > Showing page 1 of 2
    Jump to: