HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Pa Game Comm. Overhaul
View Single Post
Old 10-29-2008, 11:26 AM
  #411  
Big Country
Nontypical Buck
 
Big Country's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Stanton PA USA
Posts: 2,213
Default RE: Pa Game Comm. Overhaul

ORIGINAL: Cornelius08

"I am glad that you know more about my land and the land surrounding it than I do. "

Dont know about your little 600 acre honeyhole, but Ive hunted every single corner of Greene county for the last 30 years. Family did long before that.

"You seem to want high densities at any cost, and I want a balanced, mature herd. "

Oh no no no. Dont try and paint me with the ol' irresponsible deer behind every tree brush!! I have repeated stated I want the deer inline with habitat. But on the other end, I think if it is well below that point, it should be increased, and anytime thats mentioned doesnt make one wrong, it should be common sense, but currently with pgc, sadly,it isnt.They care about taking us below what is acceptable habitatwise, but dont care HOW MUCH lower. Huntings well beingis not even a consideration. THAT is why we are losing hunters at over double the national average. It also not about "my opinions" as Ive shown you, we are within pgc pre-set guidelines as far as herd size goes.

"I make no apologies for wanting to hunt big, mature bucks."

Nor doI. And I understand you have no way ofknowing who you are talking to, but if you did, you'd realize you are preaching to thechoir. I havent shot dink bucks in years. Long before ar. As for ar, If it can be shown non-detrimental. Great I support it. if it cant, Id like to see some other way of protect more bucks. But at any rate, My problem is with EXCESSIVE UNNECESSARY reductions. There is ZERO way we, who hunt in Greene county can have MORE BIG BUCKS than we did pre-deer plan, when currently our deer density is less than half the previous overwinterdensity!!! ITSI-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E. And I have a big problem with that as well. The herd had not damaged the habitat, and its debatable if they would have. But this aint the northwoods, and this area can support far more deer than currently IN BALANCE WITH THE HABITAT. And if you also support ar, it will save more bucks that get to actually be born in the first place.

"I will go as far to say that I have always questioned why an adult hunter, with a few bucks under his/her belt, would EVER shoot another small buck? If you want meat, shoot a doe."

I shootwhat I consider a decent buck, or none at all. Currently if I want meat, I dont need to shoot a doe. Dad killed a ten point. And hunting bud, killed a decent 8 - 17" inside spread. That I passed on and let him shoot.

Id also give myself about 70% odds on the last two weeks of archery coming. I will probably lower standards a littleat the end, but still well above the barely legal minimum. I dont rifle hunt andusually take a bow then too, if necessary.

Alpha and proud of it chief.
OK, so you want basically the same things I want regarding our deer herd. This is a good start......

That said, do you have a better plan than the PGC has implemented?

I realize that the current plan is too broad in scope, and that we have gone too far in reducing numbers in many area`s.......

How can ANY plan work in this state with the sheer volume of hunters, and the majority mindset of said hunters?

A question.........why would the PGC want to carry less than is easily sustainable in regardess to the deer herd?

Less deer equals less hunters equals less money?

The old wives tale about auto insurance companies simply does not wash?

Although I would be willing to entertain the notion that the PGC is being stubborn at this juncture, what possible motive would they have for carrying well under the capacity in whitetails?

There simply is no legitimate motive that comes to mind.....
Big Country is offline