Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.
View Poll Results: Has herd reduction gone too far in your area of Pa?
YES
67.05%
NO
32.95%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

Pa Hunters Poll

Old 12-15-2009, 05:58 AM
  #21  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,236
Default

Glad to know that I am not imagining things. A concurrent bear/deer archery season would be great as well. I would still like a one-time, concurrent bear/deer rifle season to get them knocked down a bit. I truthfully think that there wasn't even a dent put in the bear numbers in my area. Except for that one that got smacked on the road of course. I am still trying to get verification of that. RSB??
livbucks is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 07:23 AM
  #22  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"Buckin I think that there is almost universal agreement between hunters that we really need smaller WMU's and that differentiating between public and private land would help a tremendous amount too."

Absolutely we ALL would like to see smaller wmus. All, that is except pgc and their merry men at audubon and dcnr. Widescale herd reduction is far easier when you just keep the wmus huge and throw a ton of tags into each. May be a few deer less killed in some areas with smaller wmus. Pgc wont stand for that. Unfortunately for your logic, pgc DOES NOT WANT smaller wmus. They say so on a continuous basis. Need I post the deer chronicle from pgc AGAIN? They cite the data collection process and need to pool data anyway... and also use excuses such as "it wont solve all our problems anyway' blah blah blah. ...And how some obscure individual years ago made a few comments about more wmus in Wisconsin. (even though they still have the same number now, years later)

Truth is, and you know it because its been shown time and again... Pgc does not want smaller wmus. Rosenberry has made that more than clear. Money...or no money... Theyve practically been begged to give a showing of goodwill to recieve that fee increase and they make none, and in fact just slap us in the face at each opportunity.

Therefore I say NO MONEY. We've been screwed enough over the ecoweeney agenda. To be eager to pay more to help it work even better is proposterous.

"Sadly that approach would be more expensive and the PGC can't even get a reasonable license increase as it is thanks to the likes of the USP and a few other vocal minority hunters. "

Usp and the majority of hunters. Think you made a typo. You read the damage control lies on hpa too often me thinks. Pgc shouldnt get one red dime, in fact they should be paying us for damages and giving our money back that we've been paying them to mismanage. Let the nuts at audubon pay them if they feel this is how it must be. If there were any justice, what they should get is prosecuted for fraud.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-15-2009 at 07:36 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 07:40 AM
  #23  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

BTW btb, i think you may have missed the Pa rep. poll thread. Think it will clear up some of your confusion. I bumped it to the top just for you buddy.

Or if you'd prefer we have this here fine link for your convenience: http://www.huntingnet.com/forum/nort...-issues-2.html
.


see my last 2 posts on the page if using the link. Or simply go to the first page in the thread.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-15-2009 at 08:02 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 08:35 AM
  #24  
Fork Horn
 
Maverick 1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 297
Default

Originally Posted by Cornelius08
"Sadly that approach would be more expensive and the PGC can't even get a reasonable license increase as it is thanks to the likes of the USP and a few other vocal minority hunters. "

Usp and the majority of hunters. Think you made a typo. You read the damage control lies on hpa too often me thinks. Pgc shouldnt get one red dime, in fact they should be paying us for damages and giving our money back that we've been paying them to mismanage. Let the nuts at audubon pay them if they feel this is how it must be. If there were any justice, what they should get is prosecuted for fraud.
Cornelius,

Maybe he thinks if he repeats that over and over again it will become true or maybe he is just trying to convince himself it's true.

At any rate, I have always wondered how we know who the silent majority are if they silent.
Maverick 1 is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 08:43 AM
  #25  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

Yes Mav. Id say that "argument" by btb is null and void. Wonder what the excuse will be now? All the people in that legislative district are usp members maybe??? Maybe the "stocked mountain lions" pgc supporters always talk about ate all the pgc supporters there? lmao!

The people whom were the majority and who said NO! loud and clear to the license fee increase on the legitimate legislator survey werent so silent though, were they Mav? lmao.

Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-15-2009 at 08:49 AM.
Cornelius08 is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 09:45 AM
  #26  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: 5a
Posts: 183
Default

I voted yes due to my experience in 5A public land. Hunted hard first week with 3 does sited between two guys. Are they around? Yep. Are they plentiful? Heck no. Talked to alot of hunters in the area that just are not seeing the deer either. Something has to be done to separate private land tags from public land tags. The farm I hunt in 5A is infested with deer.
Camosteel is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 01:15 PM
  #27  
Spike
 
Pahick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Central, PA
Posts: 44
Default

Originally Posted by BTBowhunter
Welcome aboard PAhick.

Always good to see a new member!!

Appreciate it. Think ill read some before I join in. You know, to see who's got the forked tongue and who dont
Pahick is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 01:49 PM
  #28  
Spike
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SW Penn.
Posts: 78
Default

Just out of curiosity, do you guys think it would or could be better managed if they went back to the old ways? You know by counties. I know it won't happen, but seems to me like they can manage better that way. But as was said in a previous post they don't want smaller WMU's but just to see others thoughts... I'm curious...
buckinbowhunter is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 02:08 PM
  #29  
Spike
 
Pahick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Central, PA
Posts: 44
Default

buckinbowhunter, doesnt matter how we split up the units until they get their heads outta their backsides.
Pahick is offline  
Old 12-15-2009, 02:14 PM
  #30  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,978
Default

"You know, to see who's got the forked tongue and who dont"

Lmao. When reading that post, I just about spit ice-tea into the keyboard. You sir, are a quick study. I think you and i are gonna get along just fine. Welcome to the board!

Last edited by Cornelius08; 12-15-2009 at 02:35 PM.
Cornelius08 is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.