quote:

Most deer hunters hunted for bucks and took a doe as a last resort.


That in my opinion is a bunch of BS...

#1 = for many years in the past it was one and done for harvesting deer .... so many did not even have a chance or choice to hunt both

ORIGINAL: bluntman

Wayne, i was womering in what area you do most of your deer hunting, not trying to start anything, its just where i hunt there are plenty of deer, legal bucks and doe. There arent as many as years past, but here in Crawford county i never have a problem finding deer, and where I hunt in Greene county the population borders on ludicrus. The point Im making is some of us dont understand the situation in other parts of the state and maybe thats why we dont understand some of your concerns.

"Wayne said above that his opinion isn't based on what he's seeing in a post above. "

Guys like Wayne and S-10 are happy watching 50 does.

ORIGINAL: wayne c

"Like you I can’t understand anyone in Greene County complaining about a lack of deer."

Did I complain about lack of deer in Greene county? Please point out where? Things are far from as they should be, but that doesnt equate to "no deer" and the "trends" in population and harvest speak for itself. I also have a big problem with the fact the goal had been stabilization since 2004 and everyone knew it wasnt occurring as the decline in herd was noticeable. The allocations werent reduced. And now after all this time Rosenbrain finally admitted the units herd WAS indeed further reduced... And nothing was done all along, or since to counter it. You can paint me as some "deer behind every tree" wanting clown all you like, but those are the facts, not my opinions.

"As far a Hanna’s

Most credible and intelligent things youve said in months!

"As far a Hanna’s suggested legislation; I think it is a ridiculous idea that would eventually lead to places even the stupidest of hunters wouldn’t want things going. When it gets to where allocations are legally being determined by popular opinion, regardless of whose opinion, with hunters only make up 8% of the state’s population it isn’t going to end well for hunters once the courts have even the first round of discrimination suits being heard."

Courts wouldnt do a thing. Deer management as you know is NOT an exact science and its riddled with social issues and values laden decisions that are nothing more than judgement calls. If this were set up as it should be, there would be no standing whatsoever. As long as deer density goals were within proven deer densities per habitat type as had existed in many areas here previously as well as in other states, there is absolutely no standing whatseover for a lawsuit. There is not one state in the nation that has ever been successfully sued for having reasonable numbers of deer. Your usual scare tactics and nothing more.

Anyone in favor of this type of legislation ether don’t understand the state constitution or simply has rocks in their head.

Im in favor of it strongly, as should be most hunters. Since you have always been borderline anti with your sentiment and comments such as "hunters should be forced to take smart pills, you know wormed like dogs", and "hunters should take their money and take a flying leap", and the fringe type sentiment so strong your superiors told you to quit posting with your credentials. Given all that, I wouldnt expect you to understand things from a "pro-hunter" perspective. Didnt care to drag all that up again, but your rocks in the head comment was 100% out of line. Not that I care all that much about your opinion, but just wishing to set the record straight.

The State Constitution clearly give everyone in the state, hunter or not, equal ownership of every deer out there. It is the State Legislature that has given the management of those deer, to the benefit of every person in the state, exclusively to the Penna. Game Commission. The day the State Legislature takes any part of the exclusive management away from the Game Commission and gives it to any other entity they have opened Panda’s box and to all manner of court interpretations about who has how much say in whether we even hunt various species

Mike Hanna's Antlerless Deer Harvest Committee
Friday, November 4th, 2011

On Tuesday of this week, PA State Representative Mike Hanna, the minority whip who represents Clinton and a northern portion of Centre County, do what many legislators do who have too much time on their hands. He wrote a ridiculous memo to his fellow representatives asking them to co-sponsor a micro-managing bill that would amend the duties of the Pennsylvania Game Commission and provide for an Antlerless Deer Harvest Committee.

The line in the memo that is so goofy is this: Currently, the PGC determines antlerless deer allocations with minimal public involvement. Where has the good representative been for the past decade? Surely, he is just using that line as political rhetoric. He certainly can't really believe in such an absurd statement.

Here is just a partial list of the things the Game Commission does to garner public input into deer management, i.e., doe management:

1. A new Facebook page, twitter account, and YouTube pages relating to deer management and that accept comments
2.A human dimensions person who surveys hunters about their satisfaction with deer management
3.Past Citizens Advisory Committees on deer management
4.Deer open houses in each region
5.A revised deer management plan that solicits comments and ideas from the general public
6.Commissioners who answer emails, letters, and phone calls in their private residences regarding deer management
7.Public comment period for all who want to speak before each PGC meeting (expressly forbidden in the state legislature)
8.PGC website pages describing deer biology and management
9.A set of deer brochures that informs hunters and others on how the deer herd is managed
10.Articles in the PA Game News relating to deer management that are subject to hunter scrutiny
11.A press secretary who keeps the public informed and fields questions on the website
I'd tell Mike Hanna the same thing I told another representative from northern Pennsylvania, just because the Game Commission doesn't agree with you on every facet of deer management doesn't mean it isn't listening to you and hunters.

In order to try and get his way on doe allocations, Hanna wants to establish an Antlerless Deer Harvest Committee that would propose allocations and whatever number they decided would be binding on the PGC. The obvious question would be then why do we have deer biologists, or even a Game Commission? If they are not respected and listened to, the Game Commission just should abolish their deer biologist positions.

Hanna ends his memo by stating “it is imperative that we ensure that the PGC is serving the interests of our sportsmen . But it was Hanna himself who first led the charge to give virtually all of the Spring Creek/Rockview land, not to the Game or Fish Commission, but to Penn State University to build condos. When sportsmen are not looking, it is he who is not their friend.

It's the same old story in government. When one doesn't want to or know how to lead, the answer is always form another committee. If Hanna is incapable of leading, he needs to get out of the way so that the Game Commission and its biologists can continue to take the lead in managing not only deer and its habitat, but all the birds and mammals in Pennsylvania.

Roxane Palone

R.Palone was one of the worse enemies of sportsmen

What a joke... you could not find 100 people in the whole state that would agree with that statement...

not to the Game or Fish Commission, but to Penn State University to build condos.