"When I go out hunting,I can only kill one deer.Why do I need to see fifty?I suppose if I hunted for weeks without seeing any in dozens of different places,I'd be upset.That isn't the case though.I hunt where I expect to find them and generally do.Not always but most of the time.I want and expecthunting to be a challenge. "

Lets keep things in proper perspective Doug, noone taking part in this conversation said they need or want to see fifty.Fact is, more deer equal more successful hunters.Then too, I dont see why "quality of hunt" should be solely determined by how easy you can go out and shoot adoe!More buck born as well. More existing = more saved with ar. More and bigger buck doug. And its also far more enjoyable while hunting for that 1 buck to harvest to actually see "decent" numbers of deer as should only be expected. As for doe, its a damn shame when many of the states hunters wont even shoot one due to the herd level not being where it should be. I for one and family used to like hunting for doe during flinter season. No more. Now most years we dont even go unless someone hasnt filled their buck tag. would you say that has effected my satisfaction level as well as others???[:'(] Doesnt have to be that way. But it is. Im also an archer first and foremost.... Watching a few deer make long hours and many days on stand alot more bearable. Even those I have no intention at all of shooting.

Also More and bigger buck + more successful hunters overallis far better than less and smaller buck along with far lower than need be deer densities . I cannot believe I even have to defend this viewpoint to another "hunter". LOL

"I still believe in the basic goals of the plan.We got hit the hardest with reductions around hereand adjustments have definately been made.I agree that some areas most certainly have been overharvested.That was always the case though."

No, it doesnt have to be the case. There is no reason entire wmus should be reduced to such ridiculous average densities...NONE. The best areas of the state can and should have more than 25 owdpsm NOT LESS as we are doing. And most areas far lower than that and even half that? BULL***!

"It tough to control pressure,even when tags are lowered."

There is no need to "control pressure" when many wmus are far below cc. They should have allocations dropped period. We arent supposed to be "micromanaging" remember? That means the allocation shouldnt be set because 1/100th of a wmu might have a few too many deer and the rest averages out to sub-par numbers...

"Still,I have confidence that the necessary adjustments will be made everywhere when needed."

Thats the difference between us. I believe strongly they wont be. Especially when we are being blatantly lied to (as is only obvious with the 2A fiasco of changing regen. assessment and many other things last few years)and the goal is continue to reduce at all cost. There is not one single snippet of an indication we will ever have "reasonable" deer numbers in line with what should be had ANYWHERE in this state in the future. Throw in the fact they are tryin' to replace Pallone and Schleiden with the exact same anti-deer treehugger type and you have our sport swirling around the bowl of the toilet about an inch away from the outflow pipe.

"Is it perfect?Nope but it was far from perfect before"

Agree with both. But its even worse now in many if not most areas. Farther from "perfect" unless one is an environmental extremist. The maddening part is, despite what you seemingly believe, imho this wreck has a VERY EASY fix, that could makie it much better than either imho. It is not in the cards because of the econut agenda and thats where we are at..... It becomes more and more obvious by the year.

Wether you like it or not pizz poor deer numbers DO effect hunter satisfaction. And hunter satisfaction is effecting hunter numbers as well as funding for pgc because they have brought it upon themselves.