Not all will.Some of the one day warriors won't adapt as we have already seen. The sport of hunting, and the future role of hunters as wildilfe managers will be better off for the loss of that small percentage of one day hunters who won't adapt.

I would say we'd be better off if we lost the percentage of rack hunters who pass on doe, waiting for that big buck ,and don't do their part in managing the herd. The average one day a year hunter is usually satisfied with any legal deer and is willing to help manage the herd ,while the rack hunter tries to benefit from the efforts of the average Joe.

I don't see #'s changing dramatically neither hunters, deer or doe tags.As the PGC deals with money woes the cash cow is doe tags,no way are they going to lose that cash,even if a license increase is passed tags will not be decreased by any meaningful number.I can see the first week delay in antler less deer season being spread across more WMU before tag #'s are decreased.
As hunters we have little to no say in how day to day expenditures are used.Studies on wood rats and bird counts are for more important than hunter satisfaction.Even supporters of HR are now beginning to see lower numbers than are perceived necessary for habitat improvements.
The heads of the PGC are perceived to be out of touch and beyond question when it comes to the deer wars in PA.And with the likes of Dead Dear arm chair quarter backing them, no decision will ever be the right one.

Larry's philosophy is to manage the herd in a fashion similar to beef or poultry farming. The goal is production FOREMOST and thereis never any mature stock.
A manner that also mirrors the trout stocking program except the farming of the stock is done at large. Other than that, there are few differences. Whitetail deer did not live at numbers like that in pre-colonial days. I like to see a wide age class in the deer herd. To hunt them in a natural state. That is why I gavitated to bowhunting. Until I bowhunted, I never realized how whitetails actually acted. Until that time, I thought they ran cross-country with their tongues hanging out at all times.

If you really wanted to hunt them in the natural state you would be against ARs. Nature does not harvest the best buck in each age class while protecting inferior buck. What you want is a herd where it is easier to harvest a buck with a big rack,at the expenses of proper deer management and the future of hunting in PA.

Well my way is closer than harvesting every buck deer at 1.5. and unnaturally protecting does.
That is called "farming", what you like.

And proper managment in your mind is killing 80% of the 1 1/2 year old bucks every year.[:@]Just what was the % of every year class of bucks shot when you take into thepicture the number that were killed the year before as BB"s?

Without a doubt that is proper deer management when you have 1M deer hunters. It worked for over 70 years with no adverse effect on the health of our herd. but since ARs were implemented have decreased breeding rates, decreased productivity and decreased recruitment which results in much lower sustainable buck and doe harvests.

The answer to your problem is right before your eyes Larry! Organize that "vast majority" of hunters whom you claim agree with you. It should be easy if there are as many as you claim. Form a club and buy up a big piece of your own property, fence it with a high fence and "farm" the deer under your MSY plan. Then you can shoot em as you see fit! Don't like that idea? It's the only way you're gonna get what you want. The free ride you had for way too long is over. get over it and move on.

Wrong again sport. We can still harvest all the doe and BB we want if we choose to do so. As yet we are seeing no benefit from ARs so there is really no reason why we shouldn't go back to harvesting every legal deer we see.Those that are willing to harvest antlerless deer still control the fate of the rack hunters ,whether you like it or not.