Down ..what 1 or 2 %? Is that the decline in sales? That's nothing.You can't blame that on low deer numbers. Kid's just don't find hunting their kind of fun anymore and I blame the disgruntaled parent.
Actually it's anybody's guess w/o age stats to find where sales dropped. Was it younger people or older? I don't know where to get that info> DO YOU ??

And What group??

You'd probably like to think I made it up out of whole cloth--sorry to disappoint you. It is not anybody's guess to find out where sales dropped--the PGC makes the data public. For example: -3% adult, -7% junior, -9% senior, -6% nr adult, -12% nr junior, etc.
The loss in revenue came to $ 1,049,169--chump change by your reckoning.

That is from the PGC's year to date (12-31-06) 2005/2006 to 2006/2007 sales comparison. You can get it from their license division.

BTW, that is a decline in sales that is on top of last year's extraordinary loss. As we all know, next year's gain or loss has already been accrued by this year's successor lack thereof by potential license buyers.
Anybody want to bet that we will increase?

Send me the link to this info. I only see up to 2005/5006.

Nope,didn't intentionally call the man slinky.It was a typo and if he want's to call me,my number is in the book.he can even drive out this way and see me for all I care.

I never contacted one person to come on here and support me.

Inever said elk don't browse.in fact,I stated many times that they did.What I said was that they'reprimarily grazers and they don't do the damage to the habitat that the deer do.That is documented by biologists so I stand behind it.Rich,they'll eat red maple but that isn't hurting a thing.The red maple is taking over the entire east coast and it competes directly with the oak.If they're browsing on the red maple,they're not hurting the deer.

Archer 58,The first years we did pellet count and browse impact surveys in Treasure lake,it averaged out to 69.4 dpsm.Last year it went down to an average of 38 dpsm.We use the same transects every year so a good mast crop in one areaor a poor mast crop will concentrate deer in different areas,changing the results significantly.the transect that dave Jackson and I did last year was a good example.I see dozens of deer in that area every day on my way to work but we came up with only 18 dpsm on that transect.A couple flocks of turkeys worked that hillside over last year and it through our numbers way off.the browse impact study told usa different story though.We found no regeneration at all except beech and it was all severly hedged.That area was logged two years ago and there should have been significant growth.I won't say that the population has been cut in half but all the experts involved agree that TREASURE LAKEhad much less deer lastspring than it did four years.Even without hunting,the population crashed because fawn recruitment took a dive after 2004.I have hundreds of trail cam pictures to prove that.Last year we had a mild winter and a great mast crop and fawn recruitment went wayup,putting us in the position that we need to kill alot more deer than we did this year.

Hunter numbers are going to continue to decline.There's alot of factors that contribute to that and less deer is one of them.I see way less deer than I did 10 years ago but I still more than enough to satisfy me.

I also stand behind my statement that our state game lands have much better habitat than the private land around here.You see,they're constantly doing habitat improvements there and it shows.The state foresthave very poor habitat in most cases and alot less deer as a result.The habitat is so poor in most of these areas thatI couldn't imagine someone wasting their time hunting there.The private land I seeisn't any better than the public land and most of it gets hunted much harder than the public land around here.

Well,I guess you have to ask yourself what the other 60%,in other words,the majority have to say.I'm really sorry that you haven't killed a deer in years or at least send a harvest report card in.Since you're an honest guy and don't want to be part of the problem,I'm sure if you killed a deer,you'd have complied with a simple request.Is that right John?In any event,It's been years since you've sentin a report card so I'll assume it's been a long,long time since you've killed a deer.I guess that's reason enough to be upset but you should really look in the mirror instead of blaming the PGC for your lack of hunting skills.I'm sure it upsets you knowing that I consistantly kill deer and fill multiple tags in the area of the state with the lowest deer density and on public land to boot.It's easy to find out if I'm telling the truth.Just contact one of your close friends at the PGC and have them pull up my harvest report cards.My experienceisn't unique either.i know alot of guys that are more than happy with the current situation.Most people,including myself would like to see more deer but we realize the importance of balancing the herd with the habitat.

It's about a 3.5 hour drive for me to hear Slinsky speak in Bradford county.I'm busy this weekend putting in a kitchen floor but I wouldn't waste gas or time to hear his dribble anyway.If he comes closer,I'll try and his his pony show.i could always use a good laugh.Maybe you cab get him to speak at one of the save the deer meeting that will most likely occur this winter around here.I certainly don't fear the man so he can come out and see me anytime his busy schedule allows.

I saw it on an outdoor show. It was a guided hunt. The guide was a female. Well theres deer in this one spot and BINGO here come some elk those deer moved right along and the guide said the two dont get along whatever. I did read somewhere that the R.M.E.F. was buying land in Pa. because these elk are moving pretty good. So are they grazers or did they eat all the food in their areas for the R.M.E.F. to be purchasing land in Pa.

They simply wanted to expand their range.No animal should ever exceed it's carrying capacity.It's common sense that when any animal starts to reach the carrying capacity,you remove the excess animals.Where did they state they ruined the habitat?

"They simply wanted to expand their range."

Not quite correct DougE (dce). The agency extended the range to cut down on Elk damaging farms. That's what the PGC said.

Now, as far as those Game Land tours, I'd rather they were given by an independent source. Remember, even Penn State has contracts with the PGC. That does not leave them feer to being unbiased. And who would ever believe a Game warden giving a tour? Do you really think a Game Warden is going to say "The agency is doing this all wrong, or The agency made a mistake doing this?

Remember when the agency promoted Multi Flora Rose? Remember whan they endorsed the planting of Autum/Russian Olive???

Yes elk eat crops because they're grazers.They don't browse on corn or alfalfa.They graze in those fields and yes they do damage but their damage is not significant to whitetail habitat.By the way,I could careless if the elk program goes away just like the pheasant stocking program.

The habitat tours are not all done on game lands and by game wardens.It doesn't matter though.You can see the impact they have on the habitat.It doesn't take a game warden or a forester to point that out.Come to one out here and point out exactly what they're doing wrong.