ORIGINAL: S-10


Care to point out any state where that has happened over the long haul. As participation decreases support for the activity (any activity)decreases, funding decreases, other groups concerns take presidence,etc.

Sounds like a good arguement for Sunday hunting.  Seriously, less hunters equals larger limits and longer seasons.  Fip side is hunters can have less influence as you point out.  

 

Sounds like a good arguement for Sunday hunting. Seriously, less hunters equals larger limits and longer seasons

That's only true if the herd was not being reduced as it has been in Pa. Remember the PGC claims even after losing over 200,000 deer hunters our success ratio from 1982 through the start of AR/HR was 17% and now it is 16%. Doesn't sound like better hunting to me unless you consider more days afield trying to find something to shoot more opportunties.

If you measure the decade before AR/HR instead of cherry picking the numbers as they did you would find the success rate much worse now than then even with losing the 200,000 plus hunters. It don't matter how many tags you have if the deer aren't there.

ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz

From my personal experience, the number 1 factor limiting my hunting time is MY WIFE!

I'm the opposite, I can hunt/fish anytime because ov the Old Ladie

crappy 

ORIGINAL: SilverKype

There are alot of reasons people quit hunting, one being lack of game. But I know for sure, the lack of game is sometimes used as a scapegoat too. I know hunters that quit that say lack of deer yet they don't turkey or squirrel hunt anymore either. Lack of places to hunt is true but also used as a scapegoat too. Saw the neighbor's climber in the "fall cleanup" garbage pile the other day. He quit about 15 years ago. He is not healthy anymore but at the time he quit he was. The private property he used to hunt got posted. It was one of those places back in the day where everybody hunted.. nobody asked, and the landowner was okay with that. Thing is, there is gamelands just down the road about 300 yards and at the time my neighbor quit, the private property got more pressure and the gamelands had the same amount of deer. The truth is, he quit because he just didn't care to hunt, not from lack of places as he stated. There are alot of things competing for everyone's time nowadays, it's just a matter of where you want to spend it.

How true.

I know i am jumping in this late, but I looked at the survey and like most stats they are decieving

Yes 23% of laps hunter (resident and nonresident) rated a 5 for lack of game.
They recived only 1968 surveys back, making that 23% = 453 people who did not like the amount of game

But when looked at in the BIG picture (assuming that the stat of 23% that did not like the amount of game, holds true across the board, It might not, we dont know) from that assumption the amount of hunters that bought in 10-11 years that 39,000 (that number is 23% of the 169,000 that lapsed the last year) makes up only a hair over 4% of the total number of hunters.

Also I feel the data would be flawed since they had several questions that all had on the 1-5 scale, so a person could have put #5 for every question. The best way to see how people truely feel would not give them an oppertunity to max out every answer to all the questions, that will skew the numbers when it is time to look at the results.

A better way would have been to have them not be able to use the same number twice, example have 10 questions, and they respondent would have to use the a number to indicate how they feel with 1, and 10 being on the oposite extreme's. that will garentee the person to use everynumber once, that will show more accuractly how the person truely feels.

Say if that person put many high numbers in the lack of game questions and lower numbers on the questions that pretained to time constrants this will show the person was truely dissatified with the amount of game.

First off that 17% is over a span of 20 years and the 16% is for 10 years

The reason for that is the PGC playing games with the numbers to get the answer they are looking for. They had to go way back in time in order to dilute the high harvest rate of the nineties. I agree, they should use the 10 years prior to AR/HR to compare apples to apples. Lets do that and THEN tell me how it looks.

The Biologist that discussed it at the BOC meeting seemed to accept the poll as fact.

"With the results posted clearly and simple math the number of people who responded to the survey 453 people ranked "lack of game" a number 5 (meaning a major influence) as a reason of not purchasing a tag. Those are the direct numbers from the survey,"

And again, it was ranked higher than any other issue. As for the rating system, as I see it, it was either a factor in their decision or it wasnt. Apparently it was for more people than any other factor listed.

"anyother speculation of what the general population of hunters that did or didnot buy tags is just a guess as they were not surveyed."

Sure speculation. And whenever I become important part of the process I will be sure to get scientific evidence that doesnt currently exist to back my common sense obvious easy to see theories. Until then, i see what I see just the same as I see the sun rise in the morning and so do most others out there. Doesnt seem to be any initiative by anyone that says we will change anything if this is proven, so its basically a meaningless analysis anyway even if my assessment wouldve been "scientific". And pgc sure as hell isnt wanting that type of poll to be done, when they know as well as everyone else what the result would be, and their pr is bad enough as it is.

"Also I know this was hit on already but this survey was from hunting in general, it did not speciefy "deer" specifically. By talking only about deer hunting it is twisting the informantion that is presented."

And again, I presented the evidence of deer hunters declining at a rate far greater than hunter numbers in general according to pgc surveys. Not to mention the "deer wars" and all the known high levels of dissent that is not known to exist among small game hunter ranks, and also higher than national average hunter rate of decline from 2001 to 2006 most of which also happen to be key peak deer reduction years. There is also no huge outcry from other species hunter, FAR fewer of them to begin with, and no wide scale major "crashes" in populations of other game just within the last few years. I dont think i am pulling my position out of thin air here. lol.

"Also 46% of the people that replyed to the survey rated "lack of game" as a number 1, that means over 900 people from the study group. So in compairison to 23%, 48% as a ratio is 2:1 did not have an issue with the lack of game."

Thats not entirely accurate. There was no question on the poll that asked them how they felt about the lack of game. It asked if the lack of game was a consideration in them QUITTING. And like I said we could take that a step further by me saying that I myself have a big problem with the "plan" which equates to me roughly to "lack of game" but I am not quitting over it. So apparently even though I consider it a huge issue of dissatisfaction, its not big enough for me to 'quit" over. Then again, nothing short of them wiping every deer in the state out, would be.

An a side note, The huge majority of hunters as I see certainly do not support the deer plan. I guess that is a complex issue though. For some it might be the lack of game, for others it might be just the direction headed that will lead to more of a lack of game, and huge lack of trust in pgc. Until we are realistic about solving the real problems here and addressing the real issues, why should pgc bother wasting even more of our money on completely useless studies such as this when they wont act upon them if they dont like the results?

And again it is the one variable easiest to address. Most of the others are completely impossible.

So knowing that going in, that the results would include things not possible to address and others they refuse to address, why waste our money on this in the first place???

You have made it known very clearly you have a bais with your post. I feel of all the people that have replied to this thread you have been the person who has put the highest number of "spins" on the data."

It doesnt matter how I feel. I dont need to put any spin on the data. I can simply point to the numbers and leave it at that. But you didnt want that to stand so put a little of your own spin. The data shows us the #1 issue is the study is LACK OF GAME by the numbers. Thats not my spin, that is a bonafide fact. I also detect quite a bit of bias coming from your analysis of my postings. And this is not the first time I have seen it from you on the topic. But I dont have a problem with that. I can point out where I believe your logic is sound and where I believe it flawed, regardless of your personal views on a topic.

"The numbers are what they are, and trying to attach anyother document or nonsurveyed numbers, and opinion to them will take the material out of context and void any legitiment arguement you have as that isnt what the results of the survey has said."

It doesnt void any legitimate argument I have. Simply take it as a separate issue if you like. But the other statements stand as stated. If you want to be irrational and void my entire position because one unessential part you point to as me imparting my own take on it, I dont know what to tell you.

Please look at every time you have quoted me, you have replied with some form of angle to the numbers, trying to dig in your opinions while I just post what the numbers say.

As did I when I said it was rated as the number one issue. That is what the numbers told us. But that was not enough for you.

Also its impossible to give an assessment of the numbers by only stating the numbers. If the numbers where not meant to be analyzed and then acted upon, then the raw numbers themselves are 100% useless.

"It is clear you are vary passionate about your outlook on the state of the deer herd, but everything the PGC publishes isnt about killing all the deer."

Its the number one most controversial issue that effects hunters satisfaction today in our state. I didnt make it that way. And Im not misreprenting it as anything other than exactly what it is. Hunter satisfaction is also an issue tied to recruitment and retention. It is not as if I am trying to tie the deer situation to something where it does not apply.

"You might feel it was a waste of money, but I think other people will see the results and will see them as a valuable tool to help with many applications."

Again, if they knew they could not or would not address the issues spoken of in the survey before the survey was even done...then the survey is a waste from day one. I do not think that is an unreasonable assessment!

"The results of the survey are black and white because they are just numbers, it is when you assign personal beliefes to them is when they become subjective and the lines start to blur, leading to many shades of grey."

As they should. But this is not rocket science and a little common sense goes a long way here.

All I am going to say on this one is that NO REAL HUNTERS would or could quit for any reason other than because they can’t physically do it anymore.
 
There were and always will undoubtedly be some people that never really enjoyed hunting and only went out to kill something that quit when they can’t easily kill something. But, I guess I never figured those people as being real hunters anyway.
 R.S. Bodenhorn

It also means more funding, which in better times, Im sure all of us would support.

I liked that one Wayne... fanatasy land thinking not Pennsylvania thinking.

I am 66 and have NEVER EVER seen any form license increase or new "stamp" in either hunting or fishing that "all of us would support"....

there are always complainers...

We all know that mathemeticians can prove that an elephant can hang from a cliff by using its tail to grab a dandelion, if they want to. Bottom line we can all spin the data any direction we want.

That being said, I will never quit hunting. I will move, relocate or do whatever I have to do to stay in the woods. I have less quit in me than anyone I know. But, that does not change the fact that HR has ruined our hunting tradition in many parts of our state. If I was going to quit, it would be because deer populations were reduced below huntable numbers in certain areas.

I can spend a week in the woods without seeing a deer, I'm tough enough.

But that's not the point, I should not have to be.

And the fact that they are asking my kids to be that tough is what fuels my rage regarding the current deer management policies of the PGC.

Because I am sure you could find a corralation between the numbers of laps hunters an in increase the amount of bannana consumption.

Sorry you felt the need to hurl mud. But deer are game. And are relevant to the conversation. The only thing irrational is not me daring to bring up te "d" word in relevant discussion, its you pointing to it as being irrelevant and inferring all i want to do is start a deer war because some cannot control their emotions when discussing the issue, and resort to personal attacks. That is not my problem. I spoke of the fact in regard to deer, #1 game animal is a statistic based statement. Deer hunters declining at higher rate than general hunting ranks is a statistic based statement via surveys. And the high level of hunter dissent is well documented. Yes those are glaring facts, and yes they are relevant, but they never were all that I talked about. I spoke of the survey numbers, I spoke of the relevance and purpose of the poll... etc. Don't like what I have to say? Its quite simple....Put me on ignore.

I gave some consideration to your post by replying, but basically, I already addressed just about everything you restated. And am content to let my posts stand as is. Anything added to address your post which doesnt say anything at all different from the last 3, would be merely repetition and amount to just "bickering".

I posted the survey to be discussed. It is what it is.

Btw, do you have some problems with reading comprehension or is that purposeful deciet when you are speaking of ME questioning your "MATH"??? (and what complex math it was, I had a hard time keeping up) But when I read that comment, and not just once in your last post,I was left scratching my head.

I did not once say a word about anyones math. None of it in any way countered any of my positions or had anything to do with anything being said. The only problem I had with your deductions was you using the incorrect WORDING which did not mesh with the wording of the poll. Your slant isnt in the numbers, it is in your analysis of the numbers, which is exactly what you accused me of. As for the "math" comment- Go back and reread. If you disagree please point out exactly where. Otherwise you might wanna retract it. Thanx in advance.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

But its not even accurate, not my opinion either. Fact. That 453 does NOT represent how many people did not like the amount of game.

This line you wrote, is why I asked if my math was correct. That number is in deed fact. You can not say that isnt true. If you say it is false then you will need to look at the survey again and work out the math. You will need to remove all emotion you have place into telling me that number is incorrect, because as i worked in my other post the math and that number is correct.

I will be the first to apoligise, I am truely sorry I thought no one would take offence to the sarcastic bannana comment I made earlier. I acted in hast and let my emotions get the better of me. I hope you can forgive me.

That number is in deed fact.

And if you would re-analyze the quote you took from me, closer, you may see your error in misunderstanding:

But its not even accurate, not my opinion either. Fact. That 453 does NOT represent how many people did not like the amount of game.

I stated it more than once. The small issue was not with any numbers it was with what you said the numbers meant. Its not a huge deal. And shouldnt be an "emotional one" and certainly isnt for me. Whether 453 is accurate it not, it does not reflect, nor was it intended to reflect how many hunters liked or didnt like the game situation. Thechnically, what it did ask was if it did play a role in their decision to QUIT and to what degree did it play a role in that decision. It is entirely possible that some of the folks did not like the game situation but it was NOT the reason why they quit, and therefore they did not state it as such. I went on just for the purpose of clarity by speaking of the position of myself and others that dislike the situation, but not enough to quit over it. If I quit one of these days, it wont be because I dislike pgcs deer management. It will be because I am physically unable or pushing up daisies.

But i dont see where you would think i was questioning any number given in the survey or your math using the numbers. In fact, i didnt even really pay it much mind or even check it out for accuracy. It had no bearing on my positions that were stated one way or the other.

Not really worth dwelling on imho. Misunderstandings happen.