"I feel that the majority of hunters would like to see some changes made. Not all are dissatisfied, but would still like to see more deer."

Which basically boils down to....They ARENT satisfied. Id say most arent happy to accept whats been dealt, but have absolutely no choice in the matter as far as management is concerned.

"In past poles AR's were very popular and HR has brought about mixed responses."

There has never been a legitimate poll supporting the level of hr. And mixed response is a very poor description. That could be said of any poll where 1 person or more were for it no matter how many were against. Hunters dont support it, and in fact probably support it even far less than this poll shows. At least thats been my experience and that of most whom i trust to give an unbiased legitimate opinion from other areas as well. Ive seen most support ar on polls, but hr doesnt bring "mixed results". Its simply not accepted in the levels we are experiencing. Also keep in mind even though the majority says their areas have been overly effected, Id bet many whos havent would still like to see the many areas that HAVE be addressed. Therefore the acceptance of current levels of hr would be even less accepted. Id say about 90% disapproval around these parts.

"I would like to see more deer, and I feel most of PA can sustain more deer, yet all I hear is the same ole same ole, get over it we will never go back to a 3 day doe season, its not gonna happen."

Havent heard that from me. All ive asked for is reasonable and only responsible across the board allocation reduction. All other things may be debatable, but to me, that move shouldve only been expected and common sense.

"After this years deer kill numbers come in I feel there will be enough evidence to reduce antler less allocations almost across the board. that coupled with a shorter doe season could be the stepping stone in the right direction."

Im afraid your stepping stones only lead to the path of "stay the course" "kill more deer". Perhaps you werent aware but the "study" of those few wmus was in large part to decieve hunters and even moreso, the legislators into supporting a fee increase. Any loss in doe harvest WILL be made up with increased allocation. PGC has stated such, and i have little doubt they will follow through. In fact I believe it was Pgc insider/gopher galthatfishes on the other board who stated she'd heard that currently at least 3 of the 4 wmus the harvest was down somewhat and the tags were gonna be up to make up the diff. Not that I needed anyone to tell me what was painfully obvious and stated by pgc from day one anyway. Gained from that 4 wmu pr stunt? Absolutely nothing.

"The deer were not killed off in a year and it will take more than a few years to get them back."

Not true. Its all a matter of harvest not exceeding recruitment. The more recruitment and less the harvest the faster the increase. But in case you missed it, pgc is not proposing "increase" as the goal for most of the state. And as we've come to see, when they say no increase, they mean no increase. P.R. stunts like the 4 wmu deal or no Pr stunts. And by the way, its gonna take a HELLUVA LOT longer than a few years when most of the wmus on the annual reports have show a continued DECLINING trend due to inappropriate allocations. The increases havent even been a consideration, nor will they be anytime soon if pgc is left to do as they please for the next 10 years.