Disagree to Agree........??????

Deer902 · 12-23-2004, 05:55 AM

We all seem to be coming to the same point. Some of us want to hang the PGC for waht they have done and the rest of us have confidence that they will make the neccesary and needed changes to make this program better.

We all agree that AR is a good thing.
We all agree that HR needs to be modified.
We all agree that smaller WMU's would help in the overall scheme of this plan.

So why all the arguing? Difference of opinion on the method to get us there.

I have confidence in the PGC to balance the herd , please the hunters and the forestry business. Just remember no one is going to be 100% satisfied. We all have to give a little for the good of the deer population and the forest that sustains them.

Have a nice Holiday season.

doughboysigep · 12-23-2004, 06:02 AM

you forgot one line of thought....

those who don't want to here anything more about the damn PGC or Gary Alt!!!!!

BTBowhunter · 12-23-2004, 06:17 AM

Well said 902!

Is your resume in order? I hear the PGC has an opening

deaddeer · 12-23-2004, 06:23 AM

Quote:

We all agree that AR is a good thing.

We do not all agree that AR is a good thing in a state with 1M hunters where the goal is to reduce the herd by 50%. It might be tolerable if the herd was increasing, but it is unacceptable when we are reducing the herd by 50%.

ulysses · 12-23-2004, 06:34 AM

AR is a good thing BUT not at the expense of HR!
I for one will continue to voice my opinion of the inept PGC regardless of whom is tired of reading it!
The day thet go to: smaller WMUs, buck tag lotteries, actually manage each WMU's herd rather than throw a blanket over the entire state, spend the $ on what it is meant for rather than pensions,etc. IS THE DAY I WILL STOP.....at the current rate the PGC is going I doubt that will be in our life time

BT still no call? what you don't like the taste of crow?

MikeE51848 · 12-23-2004, 06:43 AM

Quote:

ORIGINAL: Deer902

We all agree that AR is a good thing.
We all agree that HR needs to be modified.
We all agree that smaller WMU's would help in the overall scheme of this plan.

I don't agree that AR is a good thing.
I do agree HR should be modified, it should be stopped anywhere east of Pittsburgh.
I agree with smaller WMU's. Why not just rename the WMU by the county? Is that so hard for the PGC to figure out? Remember how they allocated tags by county? Some got more, some got less. How hard is that to implement?

ulysses · 12-23-2004, 07:10 AM

Mike one of the reasons the PGC went from county to WMU was to be able to better adjust, manage the WMU (doe tags). The problem is the current WMUs are too large and the PGC hasn't the resources to manage them, let alone smaller one. The original thought for WMU were to make them much smaller, but the PGC knew then they couldn't do those justice so they made them bigger. That's a pretty good description of the typical mentality of the PGC.
The only concerns they are interested in working to keep happy are those that throw $$$$$$ at them, sadly the timber industry and the flower sniffers are throwing more than us hunters right now so....well you see the result.

The place to get your voice heard is at the state legislative level...their the group with the hands on the throat of the PGC, they are also the very same people that want to get elected again to their cushy jobs.