The problem is the PGC is not managing the herd based on the best science available. The science says the habitat can support 1.6 M PS deer on a sustainable basis. The fact that breeding rates and productivity decreased as the herd was reduced proves that to be true beyond a doubt.

Whether you realize it or not you insult all PA hunters who are unhappy with the current deer management plan who don't own or lease their hunting land and don't plant food plots so they can have higher DDs than the PGC will allow.

No, I do not insult all PA hunters. I do insult those LIKE YOU who have adopted the mindset that their hunting successes or failures are more the PGC's responsibility than their own.

Quite frankly, you routinely insult the intelligence of the readers here by constantly posting half truths, twisted facts and information taken out of context to further your agenda. The sooner you realize that the PGC is not here to serve your warped interests, the sooner you can get back out there and improve your own situation. No one is going to do it for you and no amount of internet whining will change that.

There will be some here that will say the PGC serves the warped intrests of enviromental wackos. In reality they have to serve the intrests of all Pennsylvanians, because one way or another we are all effected by deer populations. Be it crop damage, collisions with autos or motorcycles, or just sneaking in your yard and eating your flowers and rubbing your new red maple trees, deer can be a real costly problem. hunters want more deer in the woods, motorcyclists want to be able go a mile without having a deer jump out in front of them. How do you make everyone happy.

Exactly Pats! We as hunters are in the minority. We get to hunt deer mostly because society benefits from our activities. For now the nonhunting public is on our side but if the majority nonhunting public ever changes their mind about us, it's game over quicker than we could ever imagine. Thank goodness most hunters have woken up to the fact that we can't expect to keep up unrelistic deer numbers and still be considered valuable to the NH public.

That is a flat out lie. How the PGC manages the herd has little to do with the success of any individual hunter. The debate is if the PGC is managing the herd based on the carrying capacity of the habitat or if they are managing the herd for the benefit of DCNR and the timber industry. The simple fact is that reducing the herd has not improved breeding rates or productivity and there hasn't been a significant increase in forest health,so based on the PGC's own data the plan has failed.

That also is a lie and you have yet to prove your false and misleading claims about the data I post. If you want to prove tha I am wrong , post the PGC data that shows reducing the herd has improved breeding rates and productivity and decreased the breeding window. You can't do it because it didn't happen ,which proves I am right and you are a liar.

What does this have to do with scouting?

That's especially amusing when one considers the hundreds of times you've posted your tales of woe about not seeing deer while trying to convince us that the PGC is doing it all wrong with all your warped "facts"

Your distortions and twisting has been pointed out again and again and your only response is to continue to cling to that minscule decrease in breeding rates which was also explained to the satisfaction of the vast majority of members here.

You absolutely had a cow when it was pointed out that less than 15% of the does killed in the mortality study and you refused to accept the reality of those figures. Yes the question of whether or not hunters avoided tagged deer remains unanswered but that small percentage of hunter mortality tells a tale far more complex tale than "hunters may have avoided shooting tagged deer"

On the other hand, when RSB acknowledged the slight decrease in breeding rates and explained that there had also been a shift in the sampling emphasis to areas with traditionally lower breeding rates, you dismissed that and even tried to present an example using made up numbers.

As always, you dismiss hard facts and research results when they don't suit you and try to make mountains out of statistical mole hills when it suits your warped agenda.


Hoo Boy! I can see it coming..... The bird will respond with a deluge of misquotes and partial facts and end with the L word again

You are absolutely right paarrow!

Sorry, sometimes I cant help getting sucked in

I've been hearing about two good bucks in one of my 2D spots and I put a trailcam over one of my small clearings I planted thats been getting hammered. Checking it tomorrow and hopefully can post some pics

Now there is a classic example of your lies and distortions. A 5% decrease in statewide breeding rates is a huge change when you consider that breeding rates were supposed to increase as the herd was reduced. When you combine the effect of Hr, reduced breeding rates the result is a huge decrease in the number of fawns recruited.

The study was conducted after the herd in 2G had been reduced from 5 DPSM to 8 or 9 DPSM and the doe tag allocation was reduced from 52,000 to 26,000 and the undeniable fact is that ,according to the PGC experts, the harvest kept the herd stable. That fact proves beyond a doubt that the harvest rate for does in the study did not accurately reflect the harvest rate for for all doe in 2G.
I clearly stated that the example I provided was to demonstrate that a shift in sample size and location could not account for a 5% decline in breeding rates and my example proved it beyond a doubt and your example with exaggerated numbers failed miserably in your attempt to refute my example.

The weather today looks a bit more pleasant than the past several days have been.

Who else will be spending some time scouting today?

I'm gonna switch cards on one trailcam and hope to get another placed today. Maybe even hang a stand.

only 6 weeks to go