Cornelius08

"If there were 900,000 hunting licenses sold in PA (guesstimate) how manyare for inclusion, how many are against inclusion, how many undecided. "

Outsider, All you can do is ask for input. Pgc did. The majority said they didnt want it. Seeing as none of us are mind readers, those who didnt speak....didnt speak. And I sure as hell wouldnt automatically throw them into the "for" category automatically!Those who really wanted them spoke. Those that didnt spoke. The huge majority of the total speaking outdidnt want them.

Gino, your support is no surprise. you've supported that horses ass schleiden and Pallones antideer crusade and as an Audubon member, its no wonder you support anything that may kill more deer.

You evidently dont know many bowhunters, because I dont know ONE that is for crossbows. The majority of rifle hunters who dont archery hunt dont support them either. They complain about too many deer being taken in archery already.

Only ones Ive seen support them at all are manufacturers (big surprise), Lazy slobs looking for a shortcut (another big surprise), and now the antideer ecoflakes (again, earth shaking surprise! LMAO)

Im sure there will be some decent folk pickin' up the devils banjo, but they most likely werent the ones begging for the shortcut.

Screamin Steel

Cornelius, I second everything you just said. Gino obvioulsy doesn't know many bowhunters, or he is blowing more antideer smoke at us.. I could personally introduce him to over fifty bowhunters who are very upset at the xbow approval.

Lanse couche couche

I would assume that one reason why there is a tendency toward inclusion despite vocal opposition is that the antis cannot come up with any more of a logicalargument besidesthrowingout wacky stuff likethose who want crossbows are lazy slobs. When people at the top hear stuff like that, it is likely no surprise that they may tend to roll their eyes and vote the opposite of what the mob is screaming.

Cornelius08

There were VERY GOOD arguments for keeping them out.....Didnt really matter though, since there was no "biological need" to have them, it was a popular opinion issue. Therefore no great "reason" was needed. We either wanted them or we didnt. We didnt. Antideer Pallone & crew did.


"they may tend to roll their eyes and vote the opposite of what the mob is screaming"

Not mob. HUNTERS. And yes, our fine boc has a long record of voting against screaming hunters....Or any hunters for that matter. Thankfully 3 of the very worst are TOAST. A little late, considering all the damage theyve managed to accomplish, but better late than never.

the outsider

Wow, 50 bowhunters. I could introduce you to 50 hunters who are happy about it. And let's face it, if the PGC would embrace the electronic age, have e-mail addresses for hunters, they could poll all hunters regarding this and other issues, and understand how the general huntingpopulation feels about it, not just bowhunters trying to protect their "domain". Fact is, most of the hunting population doesn't even know about issues like this, or perhaps feel that their voice won't be listened to anyways.

BTBowhunter

Gino,

It appears you werent around when this was being discussed here before.

I am basicallyneutral on the inclusion of the actual weapon and what you say may indeed prove correct.

My issue is twofold. 1:that there was no caution or "test the waters" strategy. I hunt quite a bit in 2B which is a virtual unlimted doe kill zone due primarily to to access issues. The crossbow impact has been significant there. If the impact is simliar statewide, it is conceivable that rifle only hunters will be clamoring for a shorter bow season. My position on that would be that the vertical bow was here first and if the crossbow proves to have a big enough impact that shortening the bow season becomes a possibility, then crossbows should go bye bye before a long estabilshed season gets hacked up more than it already has been. With Weaners proposal, the impact of the crossbow can be watched and the weapon eased in if, as you suggest, it proves not to be too efficient for the length of the current archery season

The second issue is the social one. The PGC asked for comment on the issue. The response to that request ran somewhere close to 90% against.
Outsider and BH1 claim that may not represent all hunters. It DOES represent all hunters who cared enough to voice an opinion and that opinion was 90% AGAINST.

I might well wind up favoring inclusion but notuntil the potential impact on PA with 900,000 hunters has been assessed before inclusion. And not in the face of a 90% disapproval by hunters who care enough to opine about it.

WV Gino

>You evidently dont know many bowhunters, because I dont know ONE that is for crossbows.

Cornholio

I never said that all the bow hunters I know are FOR x-bows just that all but one are AGAINST x-bows. Most don't care one way or the other which is what I think most other hunters lean.

You may have 20% strongly for and 20% strongly against and a 60% apathetic middle. Not much different than any other issue.


>and as an Audubon member, its no wonder you support anything that may kill more deer.

Not an Audubon member but hey any organization you are so opposed to must be allright. I should get a check in the mail just so you can get somehting right for once. You know who is an Audubon member? he organized our local chapter here and was a past president of it? former professor of mine and Gary Alt?

Dr. Dave, Dave Samuel.
http://www.knowhunting.com/knowhunting/about.tpl

He was just inducted in the Archery Hall of Fame. Guy is a major anti-hunter.

I support anything that provides additional hunter oppertunites if the resource
is up to the additional pressure.


>Lazy slobs looking for a shortcut (another big surprise)

Got to laugh on this one. You are the guy crying the blues at the prospect of losing the crutch that having deer out the wazoo provides. You want your 100 per per square mile of forest and the pay lake like hunting it provides.

I call it the stocked syndrome. The situation where a lake gets loaded up with trout to the point that no matter where a guy parks his folding chair he will catch as many trout as will make him happy. No need to read the water, and fish where fish should be depending on conditions.

That was Greene and Washington Counties at 100 per square mile of forest.

Booo Hooooo.

WV Gino

Cornelius08

Audubon are econuts. Plain and simple. Most without head up butt already know this. Are there ANY decent people who are members? Id imagine perhaps some stupid unknowing lout that doesnt realize the political implications involved with membership... Just as there were in the nazi party, the ku klux klan and peta.[:'(] THIS is the real/nutjob organization:http://pa.audubon.org/docs/deer_report/lanc_sunday_news_jon_rutter.pdf

"I support anything that provides additional hunter oppertunites if the resource
is up to the additional pressure. "

And its not, as Ive proven over and over and over and.... And the only reason you are for added opportunity is for added slaughter. God knows you arent concerned with hunter satisfaction by any stretch of the imagination. I have yet to see you say anything good about hunters. EVER. Your views are extreme and the hunters do not share them.


"That was Greene and Washington Counties at 100 per square mile of forest. "

There are currently less than 25 owdpsm in unit 2A. Im not crying for the past. Im pizzed about you ecoflakes dictating our future. No reason for having deer numbers maine has. Not one reason.

"Booo Hooooo."

Im sorry to make you cry, i know you are sensitive as are most eco-folk, I'll quit beating up on you debatewise as soon as you get smart enough to quit throwing your hat in the ring. Continue to do so, and I'll have no choice but to continue making you say "booo Hooo".

Cornelius08

"You want your 100 per per square mile of forest and the pay lake like hunting it provides."

Nope. Just the number of deer that should exist. As dictated by the habitat cc, and "normalcy". Nothing more.Nothing less. Normalcy is not 10 dpsm in northern Pa and its not near as low as we are and heading lower in the best areas of the state. The plan is a sham joke, and crossbow inclusion was just another piece of that arsehole puzzle.

"I call it the stocked syndrome. The situation where a lake gets loaded up with trout to the point that no matter where a guy parks his folding chair he will catch as many trout as will make him happy. No need to read the water, and fish where fish should be depending on conditions. "

Guess thats why I don't care to trout fish, and prefer fishing for flathead cats and musky. Plenty of challenge and greater reward. I wouldnt however support the fish commission killing off 50% of both, and dont think Id be a whiner for not supporting it, when it was done for no reason other than some ecoflakes don't want ducklings and their prized"allegheny wood rats" swallowed whole when making the mistake of taking a swim. (LOL)

I also don't shoot doe, I only archery hunt....rarely flintlock...and dont take the first legal buck I see. I make my own challenge. I dont need pgc to decimate the deer herd, just so I can hunt my arse off for a skinhead,just tomeet your ridiculous notion of what hunting should be to save the trillium. LMAO! Since you love challenge as well, You shouldnt complain when this ship gets "righted" and there are appropriate numbers of deer. You can just go deeper in the forest and hunt longer for your trillium and hobblebush. (LMAO!)

Now, this IS a crossbow thread, not arsehole deer plan thread...If youd like to discuss that issue and have me tear you a new one, as usual, feel free to revive one of the appropriate threads. Thanks to the pgc nonsense, there is never a shortage of those threads.

WV Gino

>I hunt quite a bit in 2B which is a virtual unlimted doe kill zone due primarily to to access issues. The crossbow impact has been significant there.

Significant how?

What impact?

I have an uncle that has been killing a pile of doe with his x-bow but he was killing a pile of doe with his v-bow before x-bow inclusion in 2B.

GC has stated that x-bows have made little impact in 2B and the other two WMU's.

It would be interesting to see how many guys dropped their bows and switched to x-bows and how many new archery hunters were added with x-bow inclusion.

Could be done fairly easily.

The GC has the report cards and x-bow is a box to check. Randomly select cards of guys who sent in a report card with the x-bow box checked. Send them a survey with a few questions and bingo bango

WV Gino