You're right pointers.My mistake.This thread is all over the place and I'm trying to follow everything from PA orgs,to deer,elk,report cards,etc.
I'm glad they didn't lose the members but I think they should listen to what they have to say.If they say they want 50 deer a day in the NC then ignore them.If they say they hunt in the SC on land open to the public without the habitat problems of the NC and the deer numbers are alarmingly low then they should pay attention.There are some problems that need fixed.

But it seems Doug that you think the hunters who question any side of the deer management policies are ignorant of the habitat problems which I'm finding isn't true in all cases.Down here the allocations have become very liberal and public land is getting hammered with the easy access.Trust me the place I'm talking about doesn't have a habitat and/or regeneration problem.The deer numbers are so low because of overharvesting.And maybe the percentage of org members we're discussing are concerned about such places where they hunt.

Who is offering the possibility that30 or 40% of an org might quit over their presumed impressions ofthat org'sposition on supporting PGC deer management?

Some are insisting that the PFSC's membership who aren't happy with current deer management, amounts to 30 or 40% of that membership, based on an exchange between Comm. Boop and the PFSC president.

Shouldn't be necessary to repeat the nature of that exchange again...but will anyway:Boop asked for a clarification of the word many,in the PFSC president's presentation. Boop offered several percentagescenarios of his own and demanded an answer: "is many 20 to 30%, 30 to 40%"?

The org's president, after several minutes of explaining to Boop thathe did not havea figure and wouldn't have until their March delegate convention, finally said itcould be 30 to 40%. Had he not yielded to Boop's demand for a figure, they might still be there quibblin' about it. But then all but a few of us have already sorted that out.

The answer to your first question is nobody.
As for your last sentence,whatever that percentage may be it must be substancial enough for them to have that discussion.

Nope,I'm pretty much questioning the guys that say the deer haven't effected the habitat.All the worthless PGC has to do is cut all the trees.

Mr. Boop and Mr. Ali onlyhad that discussion, because Mr. Ali used the word many in the context of his presentation and Mr. Boop demanded to know how many membersconstituted many.

Had Mr. Ali said "some or a few", Mr. Boop, being an attorney and being fond of such discussion,likelywould've asked how many "some or a few" amounted to. Is it any clearer now?

So it could be 60 or 70% I know of one member they lost!

So then your saying the president of the Penn Fed didn't know what he was talking about and came to the meeting unprepared?

That explains why 30 t0 40 % of the membership is displeased with the deer management plan and how Penn Fed is representing them.

And we should all be aware that, Dick Boddenhorn is a Game warden, and not a Game Biologist. His observations of elk are simpley that, observations by a Law Enforcement Officer and not scientific observations by a degreed professional.

I would venture to say that Mr Bodenhorns credentials make him far more qualified than you to comment on the issue at hand.

nope,He asked what percentage and the man gave it to him.So I'm wondering what all the hub bub is?