And you are presuming that to equal a "crack in the rock". I take a 30-40% dissatisfaction to be a minority. You're grasping at straws. Come back when dissatisfaction is 60-70%. Until then your point is weak.

I didn't mean to upset you or hurt your feelings. I was just repeating what the President of Penn Fed said.

So why is your success or lack there off a big secret?Tell me when the last time was that you killed a deer in pa.I know for a fact it's been a long,long time since you sent in a report card.My sources are really none of your business.

And others spend alot of time spouting off about the political side of this subject.
Let me type this again,deer were reduced for overbrowsing on trees such as the oak.And the article stated that elk browse oak.What's to disagree with?
Not all of the areas elk were moved into had habitat improvements.Some of those places have few if any fields so of coarse like the article stated elk will browse the oak maples,etc.The DCNR and a few on here have constantly said the state forest habitat stinks.So why move elk into that area?
There's a place near my cabin that has a very small field where you always see deer.Not enough winter grasses to feed them though so eventually they move on.Now there's a nice size her of elk sharing that field with the deer.And they're not competing for that food?What will they eat next?
Don't get me wrong,I enjoy watching the elk also.I think they are a magnificent animal.But for the DCNR to claim the habitat stinks in places like sproul and then suggest putting elk there with elk veiwing areas is pure politics at it's best.
The only spouting off I see here is somebody playing the political game of the whole issue.

Doug we've been down this road before.There's alot more to the state then the NC.There's places in the SE,SW,and SC that have been overharvested where the habitat isn't an issue.Easy access and too many anterless tags are the problem with some areas of the state.And hunters here do have valid concerns.I know places in the NC have crappy habitat but that's not the issue everywhere in the state.And to say a hunter in the SC doesn't understand habitat because he voiced concern with deer numbers isn't right.

Anyone that wants to spend the time perusing report cards, can do so. They are public records.Spent a fair amount of time doing that at their Deer Harvest Calculation open house at PGC/HQin September, when the 2005 cards were all out on the stage. Don't know if Woody Shields, USP's avocational deer management expert, bothered to go up and look at them or not? While I was there, he was fartoo busy annoying the deer management team with the same accusations, over and over again....through two succeeding presentations in a row, no less.

Repetitive accusations and statementsseem to be a commontheme with these people, for some reason. Maybe they just can't grasp the answers the first, second or third time they hear them? Dr. Rosenberry, Wallingford and the rest of the teameven seemed to be speaking more slowly during the second session, althoughthat might've been 'cause I was there and am known to be a slow learner.



Spent some time looking at thatreport carddatabasewhich was available at one of the Eastern Sports and Outdoors shows some years ago, on computer "terminals". They should offer them for viewingat that and other shows, everyyear.

My feeling are not hurt nor I am upset. Just don't think you are being honestly representative of what 30-40%means.

oops

Germain,

check me if I'm wrong but I don't think the Fed lost 30-40% of it's membership, but rather 30-40%may disagree with the organization's stance on deer management.

Rich,I've never tried to disagree with your stance on deer managementin the southern part of the state.