Confucius Says

So when he died ,did he think that was bad or good ? Are fewer deer and lower harvests good or bad?

I think what confuscious is saying, is that while Pa hunting is poor each year, it could be considered good when compared to each coming year. Meaning when in the future, we look back after 10 years of decline, on this past year, it will look less putrid than it does now by comparison.


However, I dont really see that as a "good" thing. LOL.

I certainly hope things dont go downhill for 10 years .
Hopefully the audit includes as necessary info and they do a good job.

The audit will not require that the PGC change anything. It will just review the existing plan and determine if the PGC estimates are . Since there are no mandates that the PGC follow any changes that may be recommended by the audit, they is no reason to believe the audit will change anything except getting the license fee increase.

Bowtruck, it really doesnt need to go downhill for 10 years to be bad. There are few if any places in the state that have as many deer as could be or should be had, and some areas, many of the worst, are about as bottomed out as they can get deer density wise.

I dont suspect that the very worst areas of this state will get any worse...not sure if its currently possible. But everywhere else has room for further unneccessary degradation to the deer herd, and its happening at a steady pace in many if not most areas according to pgc annual reports.

I do know way to many hunters who have that attituide and they do take offense to that comment. I just tell them , You were not complaining when you bought every doe tag you could get your hands on and was stuffing your freezers full of meat. what did you think was going to happen when you were killing off the child bearers. I do realize peoples legitconcerns about the deer population, thats why I don't shoot does, they should follow suit. I went six years with out killing a deer until the nice buck last year, and I enjoyed every minute I was out there for those six years. I guess I just have a different attutide towards hunting than most hunters.

"I do know way to many hunters who have that attituide and they do take offense to that comment. I just tell them , You were not complaining when you bought every doe tag you could get your hands on and was stuffing your freezers full of meat. what did you think was going to happen when you were killing off the child bearers. I do realize peoples legit concerns about the deer population, thats why I don't shoot does, they should follow suit. I went six years with out killing a deer until the nice buck last year, and I enjoyed every minute I was out there for those six years. I guess I just have a different attutide towards hunting than most hunters."

I agree with many being "hypocrites". But many of us are not. I have had no intention of killing a doe for years, nor do I expect to soon. I kill my buck every year with my bow and wait until some time in the future when the herd may be more conducive in my opinion to more doe harvest before I will once again take up the flinter and shoot a doe or two late season, as Id always enjoyed doing with family members years past. Aside from a couple of buds young kids, none of my family or hunting partners shoot doe.

Also worthy of consideration is the fact that even if half of us had no intention of buying or using a doe tag, with 900,000 hunters, if less than half intended to shoot doe, or kill as many doe as they have tags for, that is still more than many other states total hunter numbers at 450,000.

Just as pgc understood everyone wasnt going to voluntarily refrain from shooting 75%+ of our yearling buck so they implemented antler restrictions...so it is with the doe harvest. If its legal to kill doe indiscriminantly guys will do it until it is responsibly and legally curtailed.

I am not a big fan of the PGCs deer program. Hunting aside, back in the late 90s with the deer population explosion, it was hell driving at night dodging deer. We did need some kind of herd reduction.

Agreed. But I and many others believe its been taken to extremes.

And also, despite claims of reduction having been accomplished and the new goal supposedly "stabilization" , that goal is not a truthful claim. Where "reduction" is no longer the goal (supposedly pretty much everywhere but the sras for last 4 years) the annual reports show a much different story, with much continued reduction through the majority of wmus within those last 4 years. Ive also often pointed out particular wmus having more tags now even with goal of supposed stabilization than they did when they had a larger herd and reduction was the goal. Also, having higher stated harvest goals than the antlerless harvests used to REDUCE the LARGER herd. Thats bs. If thats not pointed out in an audit, then its a sham. This is rediculous, its blatant, its insulting to our intelligence and its a slap in the face to the hunters of this state for this to be going on. Will an audit point this out or solve our problems? I really sincerely doubt it. Especially given the powerful players involved and the circumstances and ties between the auditor and auditee.