<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Since everyone admits this is new territory, why not do it in selected area's and evaluate it's success there? Personally, I think it will show benefits, and it will give all hunters more time to warm up to the idea.
The primary reason I oppose the current proposal is one of choice, and hunters enjoying the hunting experience. I think that hunters should have a choice in their pursuit of deer. Not everyone hunts for big racks, some people get great satisfaction from taking a spike or four pointer, and since they pay the same amount of money as the trophy hunters of the state, they should be permitted to enjoy hunting as they please.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I never said I didn't like the idea of antler restrictions, in fact, I said just the opposite. This above was my objection, which no one seemed to pay attention to.
BBHPete, as far as doing research, I know they started two years ago. In a state as large, and diverse as Pa., two years of sampling data is just that, a start.
BTBowhunter
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I'm curious, how did it become clear to you that the health of the herd is not the issue here?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Dr. Alt has already admitted that the health of the herd varies from one area to the other, so how can one blanket proposal be a fix-all for such diverse conditions?
And BT, I don't know of any wildlife officials that disagree with Alt. They are just towing the company line, and many of them likely believe it's good for Pa., which I haven't disputed. Again, my objection is to the statewide aspect. Hunters who want to hunt for something other than a nice rack, should be able to do so.
BBHPete
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They also explored the possibility of check stations to gather info. but took into consideration that their already mandatory harvest report card system is only 46 percent accurate. Meaning that only 46% of the deer taken get reported. How did they come up with this? While they were visiting meat lockers they took down information such as back tag numbers and cross referenced them to harvest report cards. So when hunters arn't doing something thats mandatory what makes you think they will do somthing thats voluntary.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Pete, I never said check stations should be voluntary, they should be mandatory. I'm betting you would get better than 46 % compliance. Another point to ponder is this; if people are so reluctant to follow the procedure for checking a deer, what makes you think they will abide by a 3 or 4 point rule? I have more faith in all Pa hunters than that, I'm sure the compliance in check stations would be at or above 90 percent.