dougl

You seriously have no idea what you're talking about about any of this.Insurance companies do not lose money because of deer claims.Deer claims are a very,very small part of their loss ratios.On top of that,they're predictable from year to year so that allows them to adjust premiums accordingly.They simply pass the cost on to the policy holders.I may not be a ceo but I'm constantly aware of and involved with managing risk at both an agency and a corporate level.When you run an insurance business that's what you do.Never once in the past 25 years have I ever heard deer being being brought up.Are deer claims an issue?Absolutely.They're an issue to every person who drives.Not only is their a safety risk but it costs people money when they hit them in terms of higher premiums and deductibles.Obviously the state wants less deer claims but it's not because they want to help out the insurance companies.I'm not sure how to make any of that any more clear to you.

I generally don't read Pa outdoor news so I can't comment on the article.However,we can talk about the habitat if you like.It's a complicated issue but anyone who claims that there's been no improvement is off their rocker.I live on the edge of Moshannon state forest which is several hundred thousand acres.Prior to HR,the habitat was a disaster and it still is in places because there were way too many deer for way too long.Ten years ago,they could get any regeneration without fencing the deer out.They haven't fenced a timber sale in this entire district in over six years.They also took everyone of their units out of dmap three years ago.

TWOWITHONE

Doug that last little thing I posted about insurance companies was I believe from the state of Indiana Not Pennsylvania

dougl

I have no idea what you're talking about.What I do know is that insurance companies are not a stakeholder in Pa's deer management plan and never have been.That's a fact and I've given you enough reasons over the years that you should have all the information to understand.I also tried to search PON about the article you mentioned and I couldn't find it.A link or copy and paste would be good as I don't want to speculate.The habitat is absolutely recovering in the northern tier and you'd be very hard pressed to find a forester up here that would disagree.

Oldtimr

Twowithone, you do not have a clue, As I and Doug have stated, insurance companies have never lobbied the PA Game Commission to reduce the deer populations. Because you think they did doesn't make it so. How many commission meetings have you attended? Bar room tales, conspiracy theories and inuendo are rampant and generally wrong but that doesn't stop people from spreading them around. The board of commissioners have along history of not doing what the biologists recommend, that is what got PA overpopulated with deer to begin with so I have no idea what you think that proves. I defy you to provide on shred of evidence that insurance companies were in any way responsible for deer population reduction in PA, evidence, not what you think about phantom back room deals or what a friend of a friend says, just evidence. The insurance companies nonsense ranks right up there in the catagory of rural legends in PA with the PGC stocking coyotes to reduce deer numbers and ratlenakes to reduce turkey numbers. There are always people wlling to lie, and always those who would rather believe the lies than the truth because the lies fit their agenda better than the truth.

TWOWITHONE

Olman we can go and on about this. I like your avatar pic just trying to place who you are on HPA. We all have agendas, heres 1 for you are you a biologist for the GC. cause HR. was not and I repeat not needed across this whole state but we got it like, I said on HPA yrs ago 1 size fits all so the whole state got herd reduction. Everone has their lil agendas do you know why the early muzzy season was started not in-line I mean Flintlock ask Vern Ross if he still attends your meetings in Harrisburg. Really a porcupine season.

Oldtimr

I am not nor was I a biologist for the PGC and I have no agenda but the truth, something that seems to elude you. I also know exactly why PA has a flintlock season and who was respnsible for working for years inorder to get it after all the other deer seasons were over, and there never was an early flintlock season, it always has been after Christmas. PA has a Flintlock season and had a flintlock season long before there was a general muzzleloader season, season where inlines, percussion and flintlocks may be used. Why, because anything other than a flintlock is not a flintlock. I know the people (knew some who have passed) who lobbied for years to have a primitive flintlock season and they asked to have it at the worst time of the year when the other deer seasons were closed where they could go out in authentic dress and hunt deer with a flintlock. I have forgotten more about the ins and outs of PA's seasons and bag limits and what was needed and why they happened than you will ever know. Not because you are incapable of knowing, but because you don't want to know, the truth doesn't fit your agenda. I have dealt with those who would rather believe nonsense than the truth for a long long time, it is nothing new. As far as HR being needed, I doubt like most people, you even know what a browse line is or looks like so a discussion on why it was needed and how over populated PA's deer herd was would be futile. As far as porcupine seasons go, they like most other animals that are allowed to continue to grow in population cause damage. Damage to the forests and damage to property. Allowing porkies to be killed as opposed to total protection allows the population to be reduced. Vern Ross had not a thing to do with a Porcupine season. Vern Ross is now working for "Wildlife for Everyone", an organization that gives monetary grants to wildlife management effforts state wide. Now, all these red herrings that you just threw out to try to hide the origional discussion where you claim that Insurance companies lobbied the PGC to kill more deer have been addressed, the truth remains the same. I do appreciate that you like the pic of my setter pup.

TWOWITHONE

Slow time oltimer your train left the tracks.I asked why the early flintlock season came about. It came in the 2nd week of archery I believe and it was 2-3 days long in its inception. But getting back to that question on the season of the early Flintlock season why was it created.That was why V. Ross name got mentioned. Did this 3 day season come before HR/AR yes it did I could be wrong on this you,ll have to look it up.No red herrings here Im just not a raw-raw guy like you are. I told you what I believe and you told me what you believe period. You want evidence from me on the insurance companies and I want it off of you or Dce that it didn't happen actual proof not Dce saying I own my insurance Co. and I Know it didn't happen. I could throw out more stuff but Im just not a raw- raw guy like yourself and others.

Topgun 3006

Your raw-raw should be rah-rah, LOL! Raw means uncooked! I'm the tie breaker and since you're already outvoted 2-1 I declare you the loser in the debate, as well as in spelling, LOL!

TWOWITHONE

Excuse em wah didn't see you hanging from the cross.

dougl

It's a lot easier to prove that something did happen.When something didn't happen how do you prove it other than giving logical reason and facts,which I did?

I believe the first early muzzy season was flintlock only for the first year.It wasn't pushed by biologists,foresters or anyone else that weanted less deer.It was pushed by hunters that wanted additional opportunity to hunt during warmer weather.