DougE

The audit has nothing to do with counting deer or determining how many deer we have.The Auit was to find out if the science the PGC is using is sound.

I don't see how anyone can say any increase in antklerless lisences is an excuse to get more money.You need to understand the facts instead of jumping to conclusions.The antlerless tags cost 6 bucks a piece.It costs money to print and process them.The county treasurers also get $1 for each of them.So now you have the PGC making just a little more than 4 bucks a piece.That's still not the whole story either.$2.25 FROM EACH TAG IS MANDATED BY THE LEGISLATURE TO BE USED FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT.tHAT BENEFITS US AND THE GAME,NOT THE pgc.The reality is the PGC gets to put just a little more than 2 bucks in their general fund from each lisence sold.That's a small drop in the bucket.

I live in 2G myself.I'm not saying it doesn't exist but I've yet to find any place that has good habitat to have unhuntable numbers of deer.

Potterco

$2.00 x an average over 10 years of 900,000 per year = $18 million now that's a sizeable amount of cash in anyones cofers. Especially when one thinks "if" the PGC got what they wanted, a the $5 per tag rate hike, it equals almost 1/2 of that...and that was their pie in the sky beyond their wildest hopes request.
and the audit was indeed to see if their science was valid or not...duh if #'s need to be lowered to the extent they were to maintain/rebuild habitat.
Sonny go back to skool an impress your playmates cause the men who've been around the game alot longer than you know just what it is the PGC is doing..the Gov't did it back in FDR's day to...errr they tried for awhile til he was booted out at election time...problem is we don't have a say in the bufoons on the Board anymore...hence PROBLEM

DougE

First of all,I don't care if you're older than dirt or not.Don't talk down to me like I'm in high school.Furthermore,if you're going to tell me to go back to school,you should learn how to spell first.I've treated you with respect up to this point.I can't help it if you don't like the facts I've posted.

For someone to say that any increase in antlerless allocations is a way for the PGC to make money would have to factor in the amount of lisences that were increased.Since,the usual allocations prior to herd reduction were between 500000-600000,the amount of money they make on any increase is small.

Lanse couche couche

Doubtful it will happen, and probably not on any large scale.

You can get poll data that demonstrates that even hunters in states with near record deer harvests aren't completely satisfied with the states' management policies. In fact, I recall a poll here on HNI that was asking deer hunters in different states to rate their satisfaction with deer management in that area. The last time i looked at the poll, satisfaction in Pennsylvania was low, but rated higher than states like Indiana, Illinois, and Tennessee where quality of deer hunting is pretty much at an alltime high.

Deer hunters just tend to want to complain about anything and everything. So, it is one thing to check the box on some computer poll saying that you are dis-satisfied with deer hunting; it is another thing entirely to actually put significant effort into going out and trying to do something about it, especially when you have a freezer full of venison.

Cornelius08

Theres not a single state in the nation with as much dissent as pas hunters currently. Not one.

All time low satisfaction for the state as well.

Every poll shows it. The lawsuit shows it. The deer plan leader needing to wear a bullet proof vest & bodyguards showed it. The legislators all pulling their own hair out because of all the negative correpsondence shows it. The legislators preventing the fee increase & forcing an audit shows it. The nationally known "deer wars" shows it.


I also recall a poll on here rating the worst state in the nation and pa won hands down.

Not sure what more the level of disgust could be proven other than if maybe Jesus himself came down on a cloud and said so on worldwide Tv.

Cornelius08

Mighty funny how only about 1/100th as many were doing so in Pennsylvania prior to this "plan". lol. Just a coincidence i guess.

germain

LOL Might be the first time I saw Doug get pizzed.

Cornelius08

You mean like the previous pgc executive director being the chairman of the company? Or the ex duputy executive director & others being on staff of the auditor? Or the fact pgc has had a healthy working relationship with the company including in regards to the current deer management plan? Seems those who picked the company thought they were geniuses and everyone else would be too dumb to do even the most basic research on the company. Anything stated by this audit will be taken with "a grain of salt" by hunters who are aware of the situation & legislators have been informed and are not blind to it now either.

DougE

I'm not sure how much stock one should put into this audit.I'll wait until the results are published before reserving any opinions.It definately appeared to be a stacked deck in the PGC's favor but lets not forget that the PGC didn't pick what company would be doing the audit.

Cornelius08

I agree pgc didnt pick the auditor doug. But they might as well have. The legislators who have been trying to get pgc to change the deer plan arent the ones who researched and picked them. The pgc friendly ones set the groundwork for the audit. Enviromentalists Levdansky & co. They have supported the deer plan all along and continue to at all costs. There is some pretty good video of him at a speaking engagement, speaking out in favor of alternate funding via the marcellus tax with representatives from some rabidly antideer groups from Pa. They also have been trying to get them that license fee increase despite not enough support from the others, and he also has been pushing for years for that alternate funding pgc is begging for.

Though Levdansky did have a funny meltdown the other day going into a tirade about the system being screwed up, because noone supports the fee increase, and he hadnt been able to find alternate funding.