I dont see bb asking for that. Its only common sense that this audit exists in the first placebecause ofhunter satisfaction beingsolow, and it should address that aspect thoroughly. As for what WE want and what is scientifically sound, the two arent necessary on opposing ends. I am confident that there are things that can be done that would fit both descriptions. It is just that currently, Pgc doesnt care about one of them. If the plan doesnt address hunter satisfaction along with the science its 100% useless. I believe that is what bb was saying and i agree 100%. I dont think you'd find any of the "disgruntled masses" that would disagree.
Of course there should be AND WILL BE will be common ground between the science and what most hunters want.( WE
KNOW WE DISAGREE ON WHERE MOST STAND, LOL) But that has not been BB's message all along. He has disputedvirtually all the science and now is backing up on theeve of the audit.
You need to remember, we shouldnt give a rats crotch over someone "tolerating" us. To NOT tolerateus is to be antihunter. And antihunters can kiss our ass as far as Im concerned.
Perhaps it should be looked at as mutual tolerance, and not as one sided as you depict. We are under no obligation to take it completely in the backside any more than they are, but that is exactly what is happening...we are. Also id hardly call it "tolerating us" ....When the herd was reduced SOME and we had to accept it and tolerate it, they tolerated reasonable deer numbers and the reasonable consequences of having them. Currently they arent tolerating us. Deer in many areas that effect forest industry are at rock bottom. We are getting screwed. Plain and simple.
To deny that other interests have a say is to bury your head in the sand and to play right into the hands of the anti's. Except for those of us who own big chunks of ground, we get to hunt because the landowners need us or because they are neutral toward us. Continuing to support more deer than the owners of the ground we hunt want to have will eventually bite us in the ass. That includes timber interests, farmers and even suburban homeowners and the driving public.
No they dont.As for state forest,land belongs to the people of Pennsylvania. Also, the deer plan effects everywhere else as well, private land not associated with forestry as well as our gamelands.
Yep, state forest belongs to every taxpayer. Hunters make up 10% of those taxpayers. As long as those 90% support us we're fine. If we fight the science we'll eventually lose much of that 90% and we'll be on the outside lookin in[:@]
I dont buy it. And we are more than willing to keep the deer herd at DECENT LEVELS. And beyond that, we already have the herd at levels where they are stating stabilization is the goal. Even though the goals are extreme, we did the job. I see no reason for hollow scare tactics to be spoken of, that being the case. Society is more the hunter than it is the timberman. 900,000 plus hunters plus every friend and family member that doesnt hunt, yet supports us. Id call that a MAJORITY.
At 900,000 we can be a formidable force but we are nowhere near a majority. We still need to be viewed as an asset to John Q Nonhunter or we will find ourselves on the way down a slippery slope. We're already seeing the first signs with the talk of outside funding. Once that starts, nonhunters and antis will have a far louder voice than they now have. Your menatlity is like barricading the door and holing up with your deer rifle while a whole SWAT team waits outside! The actions will be noticed for a few days but ultimately that mindset will lose both the battle and the war.