900 is an adequate sampling if done randomly and properly. It's done everyday.


Statistics 101


This one was done by an impartail, outside firm. The PGC is not their only customer and It would be bad business for responsive management to not use a truly random sampling.

of the 900 that were polled what % were even deer hunters vs small game vs turkey? Why wasn't that disclosed/ Where were the results of this poll posted?? Oh yes on the PGC's own website, hmmmmmmmmmmm

Actually ulysses, despite your accusations, that information is disclosed in great detail and those results are posted on the Responsive Management site for all to see, as well as their sampling methodology, confidence levels, etc., etc., etc.

Must come as quite a blow to our vocal minority to see a statistically valid survey, taken less than a year ago, reveals only 10% of PA's hunters were "dissatisfied with your hunting experiences in Pennsylvania over the past 2 years" and the majority of them were merely "somewhat dissatisfied".

Must come as an even bigger shock that of those 10% who were dissatisfied, "work obligations" was the major reason given for their dissatisfaction.

ruffed- not to hold a running argument with you BUT, I've read that report same as you have when it was posted. Still no one can dispute in excess of 999,100 back tag buyers were not polled...and of that 900 that were not all were primarily deer hunters...who comissioned that report to begin with??????
I for one hope the PGC gets themselves straighten out. It is afterall why the "poll" was done to begin with. Even you must admit the PGC knows there is a problem with their image. To the point that the head of the House Game and Fisheries Mr. Smith won't even consider a raise to general back tag fees stating " a large number of complaints by deer hunters on the heels of last year's poor deer season" ( he said that not me!) as the reason. I for one doubt strongly that the result of a 900 person poll can hold much water to the complaints Mr. Smith speaks of even considering 747 ( 83% )of the poll primarily hunt deer.
Part of any problem is admitting there is a problem. The hunters mainly deer hunters in Pa have lost faith in the PGC to the point of having withheld needed revenue increases. To me that is a BIG problem and sticking their heads in the sand isn't going to make it go away. The release of Dr. Alt helped unfortunately it was offset by allowing the "controlled" useage of Gamelands by non hunters to a degree that they NOW are trying to dictate to the PGC and the hunters themselves just what may be done on hunter owned land.
So some may try to point towards "polls" to try an justify current trends in the PGC operations. But others will and continue to support orgs such as USP to demand action rather than more bureacracy!

ulysses, I have no interest in a running argument either BUT, if you had read the report as you claim and already knew that information and it's statistical validity as a representation of all hunters in PA, what possible reason other than spite or a desire to misinform the hunters of PA could you have for making those unfounded accusations?

Once again, even in your most recent post, you completely misrepresent what has happened. The PGC did not start "allowing the controlled useage of Gamelands by non hunters". They instituted very strict control measures where none previously existed, instituting a whole series of new regulations such as mandating Fl. orange for everyone on SGL's during some seasons as well as strictly limiting where horses and non motorized vehicles can now go.

Is this sort of misinformation typical of USP supporters or the USP themselves?

and why did those regs need to be put in place to begin with on property that belongs to hunters, purchased by hunte, maintained by hunters?
answer: because non hunters have abused the privledge of useage. Useage that was condoned by non less than the PGC...not hunters...to the point of now trying to tell hunters just what an when we may do on our own property within legal limits to raise much needed revenue, ie., timbering....case an point: last fall I sat in on meetings where a panel of PGC memberes tried to convince "JQ Public" (whom were doing their best to stop any logging efforts by the PGC on Gamelands at the Hawk Mtn. Bird Santuary/Berks Co). Why has it gotten this far? Because the PGC allowed it to. It happened on Vern Ross' watch, ultimately he is responsible.
I mention this as just 1 example of how hunters have lost faith in the PGC. Now toss in deer management and the equazion explodes!
Regardless of how you an others try to spin it the fact is: The PGC did a pretty darn poor job of manageing the deer herd thruout the state or there would be no problem to begin with! YES there you have it undisputeble fact. What they did was over react and lowered some WMUs BELOW DD goals 2G goal 15/sqm goal what do we have by the PGC's own addmission maybe 12/sqm, an this is only 1 WMU being counted. what about the others?
sorry but I an others( Bruce Smith to name one) will not support lisc. increases 'til the PGC begins a systematic deer managemnt that brings lowered WMU goals back up to 20/sqm
THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT THE USP AND URGE OTHERS TO DO THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!

Dang Ruff, I think you hit him with both barrels on that last post, and he deserved it too. Very well said.

Just how did they condone it? I would think the vast majority of hunters really dont have a problem with non hunters using SGLs, as long as they didnt damage the habitat and interfere with hunting.

Seems to me that they were trying to head off a potential lawsuit, nothing wrong with that.

Face it Ulysses, the game commission could have the woods packed with deer and youd shoot a monster buck every year and then bitch because you had to drag it. Some people are never happy.

Bruce Smith has never said that and you know it. Bruce is my Rep. I keep close tabs on him. He asked that answers be provided about the current deer management, not 20deer/square mile.

When are you going to start posting facts? [:'(]

Smith told the commission it wouldn't be appropriate to pursue a license increase until officials figure out what's going on with the deer management program.