stop complainin...start hunting

[Lanse couche couche]

Fellas has just described a large demographic of public land deer hunters (or pretty much deer hunters in general) who, quite naturally, are going to voice dis-satisfaction with any managment stategy that decreases the liklihood of filling ones tag. But, such dis-satisfaction does not necessarily mean that the management plan is, overall, bad.

[Cornelius08]

When most predictions were proven false with the deer plan.

When hunter satisfaction is so low it demands nationwide attention.

When it get so bad it prevents funding for management.

When it gets so bad it caused legislative intervention & demanding of audits.

When it gets so bad deer management team leaders had to wear bullet proof vests...

When it gets so bad sportsmen are suing the commission.

Those are all subtle hints that alls not well with the management.

But as long as all that equates to unnatural unnecessary levels of biodiversity, some environmentalist types would probably call that proper "modern" management.

[Cornelius08]

"Thanks for straightening me out Cornie. Note to self, comparisions across states are only legitimate if they serve to make a point for Cornie, but not if they are used by someone disputing Cornie's claims.

So we need to now accept that all these PA hunters are driving to other states to hunt on public land that is crawling with deer compared to PA public land. They aren't doing hunts with outfitters or private landowners where it would be expected that there should be more deer seen than on much of the public ground in PA. Gotcha"

Having fun playing by yourself lanse? None of that irrational drivel has anything even remotely to do with my position, or anyone else ive seen post here. Only thing i can think of is, must be lonely in sw ohio.. You are a funny guy though. lol. Pretty hard to get under anyones skin, as you attempt to do, when your avatars and intentional distortion posts are so humorous and impossible to take seriously. lol.

[bluebird2]

Sure a significantly higher kill will reduce the herd even more.That won't happen because the PGC knows that it takes more does tags to kill more deer in 2G.If people more people actually started putting in a little more effort and the success rate increased,they'd have to lower the allocations.That's never happened and it never will.Far too many hunters like yourself expect and demand an easy hunt.I don't.

Thanks for admitting if more hunters followed yours and BTB's solution to reduced deer numbers it would result in even lower future harvests. Therefore , your solution would not solve the problem ,it will make it worse.

The PGC did in fact reduce doe allocations in 2G and several other WMUs because more hunters hunted hard enough to harvest enough deer to reduce the herd in 2G from 15 DPSM to 8 DPSM.

[Lanse couche couche]

I don't seem to be playing by myself Cornie, since just about everything i post here draws a lengthy reponse from you. In fact, on various occasions you post a response to me, then follow that up with yet another post. Hell, you did that the other day despite calling me a troll and saying you were going to ignore me. Sounds like you are the lonely lad....

Well, if death threats are being made to the point that officials have to wear bullet proof vests then is a pretty telling perspective on the attitudes and intelligence of the folks that don't like the management plan.....
Guess the only way to solve the problem is to manage the state-wide deer population at levels that allow 900K hunters to have fantastic success rates. Of course, that would result in folks practically having deer living in their garages, but hunter satisfaction would be high and there won't be death threats, so I guess it would be a perfect management plan

Based on the attitudes of many deer hunters that come across to many as selfish and narrow, a very low satisfaction level probably isnt really all that bad...

[Cornelius08]

Donno bout all that lanse. I can only go by what history has shown us. Hunter satisfaction was never as low as it is currently.

Just about anything would be an improvement. Having more than unnecessary rock bottom deer densities doesnt equate to having deer living in garages. Though in some areas of ohio, that might be closer to the case?

[Cornelius08]

"I don't seem to be playing by myself Cornie,"

In at least one post you were. You ignored my post and made up some obtuse position of your own to argue against.

Why should i ignore you? Youre not gonna get the response you want. So no harm in debunking your "stuff". May as well get a few laughs from your comedy routine.lol.

I post passionately (current line of posting aside) on the topic because these issues effect my state and my lifestyle. You dont live or hunt here, yet you are the one who said they like to post on this stuff merely for the controversy. So whos the lonely lad? lmao.

[NY Bowhunter]

Does anyone else find the guys post looking for a cooking job in this thread a bit odd? Or am I missing something?

[Cornelius08]

Doug says: "Sure a significantly higher kill will reduce the herd even more."

Actually thats not true. ANY higher will reduce the herd further when stabilization or reduction is already occurring. You yourself even stated previously when discussing pa game lands management vs. stateforest how even small increases in harvest (in that case with dmap) would have real effect on deer density when they are low to begin with. Hope we arent gonna waffle on that now?
..........

He he, yeah, i caught that NY. But then not much i read here these days surprises me.

Maybe he knows some of these guys from Pa use alot of out of state guides & outfitters for their deer hunting?

[germain]

Originally Posted by NY Bowhunter

Does anyone else find the guys post looking for a cooking job in this thread a bit odd? Or am I missing something?

Yesterday on another thread some dude was selling handbags.