RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

I’d compare hunter satisfaction in this state as about the same as it has been for the past fifty years and pretty much on par with hunter opinions and comments in most of the other major deer hunting states of the intermediate northern tier.

I have been listening to a segment of the Pennsylvania hunters complaining about no deer and poor deer management every single year for the past fifty years, since I was old enough to be interested in conversations of hunters. It appears to me that there are fewer hunters complaining now then what frequently occurring in the past. It is just that now we have the internet so a few vocal complainers can make it sound like they are a lot more in numbers then they really are.

I have been talking to large numbers of hunters during field checks, sportsmen meeting and many other general contacts as a repetitive of the Game Commission for over thirty years and it is perfectly obvious in those contacts that more hunters have both a better understanding and acceptance of the deer management principle and practices today then ever in the past. Though there are still some that don’t get it and never will because they simply reject any information that could make them more knowledgeable of the total deer management subject.

And, if you think hunters in other states don’t complain about the deer management in their states you are mistaken. The lack of hunter knowledge and resulting complaining about deer management isn’t unique to Pennsylvania, there are people in every state that reject the knowledge of the professionals and even the evidence the deer themselves prove.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

You obviously haven’t been paying much attention to where the most deer per square mile are being harvested around this state. The areas around those cities are some of the highest deer harvest areas in the state. That is why many of them have to hire sharp shooters to the kill the deer the hunters can’t get enough of.

And, I certainly can’t help it that Ohio doesn’t have as many hunters as Pennsylvania. I suspect even if we only had half as many hunters as we have in this state (about the same number as Ohio presently has) our deer harvests would still be about the same amount higher then Ohio’s harvest. The only difference is we would have to allow hunters all over the state to harvest more deer then they can presently get permits to harvest. In all states the total number of hunters in the state are provided with the seasons and bag limits to harvest the desired number of deer.

Pennsylvania deer season and methods are structured to get the desired number of deer harvested with 900,000 plus hunters just as the Ohio season and regulations are structured to get their desired harvest with only half that many hunters. If either state fails to get the desired harvest they will add seasons, bag limits or other options to the hunting tools to get that desired harvest, no matter how many or how few hunters they have. That same thing is true for every state, they will work with the number of hunters they have and provide them with the tools to reach their harvest objectives. States with fewer hunters just allow their hunters to take more deer per hunter, just as we do here in the special regulations areas.

Therefore, your arguments about the number of hunters in one state verses another is just a no point argument. Deer harvests and deer management is all based on getting the correct number of deer harvested regardless of how many hunters are participating in that harvest objective.

R.S. Bodenhorn

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

Just to clarify here gino is right. You can take 12.... plus some with other special permits and special hunts. it'd take a lot of time/travel/land and stuff to get 12, but if you hunt around the state you can get that many. Only 1 can be antlered.
-Jake

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

"I’d compare hunter satisfaction in this state as about the same as it has been for the past fifty years and pretty much on par with hunter opinions and comments in most of the other major deer hunting states of the intermediate northern tier. "

Youre nuts and flat out lying. been hanging with a few others here I guess. You know damn well the hunter satisfaction is the worse in the nation and its definately at an all time low HERE. LMAO. Thats one of the biggest whoppers Ive seen come out of your keyboard. And thats not "difference of opinion" that is a blatant lie on your part. Damage control as usual. Desparation tactics.


"I have been listening to a segment of the Pennsylvania hunters complaining about no deer and poor deer management every single year for the past fifty years,"

You're full of it. Compared to the last 3 decades that Im very aware of, nothing could be further from the truth. Hunter satisfaction used to be right on par with most other states. That is, most other states that arent being sued, legislative intervention preventing fee increase, having hunter numbers drop at double national average, an having petitioning nonstop for a decade, pgc personell needing bullet proof vests, nationally well known "deer wars"....Did I mention you are full of beans?

Trying to paint a pretty picture youve tried to do unsuccessfully on internet message boards for nearly a decade now nonstop. So his ecoextreme views can be fulfilled and we "stay the course' with the deer slaughter for audubon & timber. Just like bagdad bob who claimed all was great on camera to keep his homeland troops morale up. Saying they were doing fine and going to win the war as the bombs hit all around him and buildings crumbled. What you are doing and have been rsb, is just as rediculous. LMAO.

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

"A county like Greene was under the 3 point rule where you got automatic credit for a brow tine. The 2002 harvest only dropped 140 deer from 2001. Starting in 2003 Greene fell under the 4 point rule and a brow tine had to really exist. The 2003 buck harvest was little more than half of what it was in 2002. That did not mean there suddenly was half as many deer in Greene County. The new AR's were the reason."

Ar was not the reason why we are harvesting fewer bucks. After the first year or so after being saved the majority of the bucks would then be legal. So the harvest wouldve returned to NEAR normal levels if all else were equal (no reduction) because the only way we would lose harvest would be an additional year of mortality, and the tiny percent of bucks that would never become legal.

The rediculous reason we are harvesting 109-125k buck is because of grossly extreme unnecessary levels of reduction having effected recruitment.

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

Not really. Both states have plenty of urban areas. Ohio has Cleveland, Columbus, Cinncinnatti, Toledo,Youngstown, Dayton, Zanesville, Akron, Stuebenville etc etc etc.

BTW, in PA and probably Ohio as well, those urban areas are actually producing agood number ofdeer and they alsoget included in those numbers.

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

There it is again!. Everyone who has a different viewpoint from the Cornboy is, according to him, lying!
A persons opinion based on life experiences can be different from another and it is merely a difference of opinion. It is a lie, however, to declare the opinion and experiences of another to be a lie without providing proof.

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

My only issue with that part of your response is, all else could never be equal. It does not give the animal we're after its due respect. I believe it is a given { if not, we're kidding ourselves } that antlered deer become increasingly wary the older they're allowed to become. After the first year, I believe, through instinctive reasoning,{ Before all the experts chime in with " deer can't reason " I'm talking about the instinct to reason that the thing walking on two legs is out to kill 'em, I'm safer in the thicket rather than in the field where the " pumpkins" are} they become harder to harvest; second to third year I've seen written nearly 5x harder than the first, and third year and beyond, it is off the charts.

Just my opinion, but it seems that this HAS to be included in the equation, even if all the facts being brought forward by those opposing the AR's or in favor of the AR's is accurate. By the way, I'm not challenging those facts as I don't know enough about the figures being presented. But, I do know about the scenario I presented above. Not a professional opinion, but a student of the game.

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

"Not really. Both states have plenty of urban areas. Ohio has Cleveland, Columbus, Cinncinnatti, Toledo,Youngstown, Dayton, Zanesville, Akron, Stuebenville etc etc etc.
BTW, in PA and probably Ohio as well, those urban areas are actually producing a good number of deer and they also get included in those numbers. "

And add to that the fact the entire north western region of Ohio is nothing but cropland, etc. And after harvest, very little wooded area. The deer density and harvest is very low there as a result.

"There it is again!. Everyone who has a different viewpoint from the Cornboy is, according to him, lying! "

NO. When someone lies they are lying. I dont care if you like it or not. It is what it is. To say you think Pa hunting is great is "different viewpoint than cornboy" and I wouldnt say liar for it. Though if you say 1+1=9, or the vast majority of Pennsylvanias hunters are happy with current situation, and are no more dissatisfied than theyve been in 50 years as rsb stated, its simply a complete mistruth. Its that simple. And we all know how familiar YOU are with lying dont we? LMAO.:eek:

RE: WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE DUNG.
 

"My only issue with that part of your response is, all else could never be equal."

Sure it could. Because what was meant was if the herd were held "stable" from year to year, but we were not, we were reducing at the time which is why harvests declined. And still are.

"Just my opinion, but it seems that this HAS to be included in the equation, even if all the facts being brought forward by those opposing the AR's or in favor of the AR's is accurate. By the way, I'm not challenging those facts as I don't know enough about the figures being presented. But, I do know about the scenario I presented above. Not a professional opinion, but a student of the game."

On an individual basis...hunter against mature buck, youre correct it would be "harder" to harvest them. But we arent we are talking about 900,000 hunters hunting those bucks and the huge majority are killed. And the majority of those are not old mature animals but simply half of the yearlings and a huge percentage that are 2.5. The numbers of 2.5+ buck are LOWER now then they were in early 2000's and that goes for 3.5 and older as well according to pgc harvest data, and also is only common sense with so much lower recruitment do to so many fewer doe, plus a decline in fawning rate.

Btw, just in case youre not aware I am FOR ar. But NOT for the extreme amount of reduction we have gotten and continue to get.